Friday, May 04, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
I don't have to accept socialism to reject abortion
The discussion with DEFishback continues:
DEFishback said...
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not. It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings, and (2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb. Your remarks avoid both of these points, leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda while complaining that I express my own ideas and not yours. (If I ever do make a video about abortion, I'll let you know so you can come back and criticize it for not being about tax policy or the price of cheese.)
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
Two minor points of language: (1) I said "War on women stuff," not "War on women's stuff," and (2) "wreaked" is, indeed, the past tense of "wreak," as you might have bothered to confirm before placing such undue emphasis on it.
I see that the link to the Facebook page is broken. Perhaps Rep. Billy was so ashamed of what she had wreaked that she deleted the post.
Rhology said...
All,
It would appear that the referenced Facebook thread has been deleted from Rep Billy's page.
The original post in that thread was by the aforementioned shallow Facebook commenter, so the one responsible for the deleting the thread could have been her or could have been Rep Billy's Facebook page admin; it's impossible to know which. I don't think Rep Billy's admin has been in the habit of deleting threads that contain controversy or debates, though, so my money's on the shallow commenter. And Rep Billy certainly has no reason to be ashamed of what was posted there, so DEFishback should be himself ashamed of that foolish and much-premature attribution.
Also, DEFishback is correct - "wrought" is apparently a more archaic English than "wreaked"; both are correct but I was wrong to criticise the usage of "wreaked", which I shall now indicate in an edit to the post.
Mike Westfall said...
> Although you pretend my video is
> about "baby murder," it is not.
So the video was NOT about abortion, then? But the term "pro-life" was repeatedly used throughout the video in association with a litany of unfortunate statistics that are frankly unrelated to abortion. If the unfortunate statistics are in fact the point of the video and are not irrelevant, then the use of "pro-life" is irrelevant.
In modern American usage, "pro-life" has everything to do with abortion and not much else, (as does the term, "pro-choice"). Everybody knows that. That's why it's easy to see through the demagoguery when the term is used to impugn a certain group of political opponents by switching its standard meaning to something else.
> you only prove my point that too
> many pro-lifers refuse to think > about life outside the uterus.
It proves nothing. Suppose I went on a rant about the same unfortunate statistics, but associated them with the term, "rural farming." You would rightly write that off as irrelevant, and the fact that you did would in no way prove to me or anyone else that rural farmers refuse to think about anything outside the farm.
> It is about (1) Oklahoma's
> legislative priorities in the
> face of widespread shortcomings
The video goes on to whine about a person-hood amendment. I guess that has nothing to do with abortion, because the video is apparently not really about abortion. I wonder what the person-hood amendment is really about then?
> and (2) the proposition that a
> "pro-life" position should
> account for the quality of life
> outside the womb.
Again, you redefined terms here. A "pro-life" position is concerned with whether or not abortion is allowed. But, beyond that, you beg the question. What makes you think that the "pro-life" position is, or ought to be accountable for life outside the womb? Life outside the womb is a different issue than whether or not life ought to be allowed to exit the womb alive, which is what the "pro-life" position is concerned with. You might as well claim that the "rural farming" position should account for the quality of life outside the farm.
Rhology said...
DEFishback,
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
You either read without much care or I didn't communicate well. I think I did, though, especially when I said:
"Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children."
But let me be more explicit.
Socialism is a foolish and evil system. It is only possible when built upon the foundation of heavy taxation of working people, and in the American case, it is accompanied by highly wasteful spending patterns and extremely inadequate accountability with respect to those expenditures.
If I am misinterpreting/misrepresenting what you were saying in your video about these statistics, let me know, but were not most of your complaints on the topic of the amounts the gov't spends in these various areas?
If so, it means that you built your entire objection based on the presupposition that socialism is basically good and that the gov't is the one responsible and the agent that should be putting forth the most money and effort to accomplish these goals you want to see accomplished - edjamakayshun of chilldrun, pre-/neo-natal care, etc. But you need to argue for this presupposition, not merely assume it as a given. The alternative and far more Constitution-friendly model is that individuals and families and churches are to be tasked with these things, not the gov't.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not
Then why did you keep saying "pro-life" and entitle the video "pro-life..."?
That's all on you, sir.
It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings
Again, what you see as a shortcoming, I laud as relatively commendable fiscal restraint. I don'twant the gov't to steal tons of money from me, waste most of it, and then spend a lot of the rest propping up inefficient and failing structures.
(2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb
It does, but that is not equivalent to socialistic governmental spending.
And obviously, this is disingenuous. "Pro-life" is for all intents and purposes contrasted with "pro-choice" and inextricably tied to abortion in modern discourse. You know this as well as I.
leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda
You act like that's morally wrong or something. Why would that be?
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
How lame to make your point using a "#1 state in taser deaths" stat when achieving #1 requires seven deaths.
How irrelevant when pro-life people have nothing to do with taser policies of the OKCPD. What were you even thinking? What were you getting at?
DEFishback said...
Yes, I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life. (It's been surprising that this fact is immediately obvious to some viewers and almost incomprehensible to others.) Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care? Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born? Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.") "Life" is a huge concept, so I'm saying a truly "pro life" stance should incorporate a broad range of social commitments.
Now, if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth." Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth. Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here. Which is fine if that's their thing, but then they should at least be honest about it and stop pretending they're on some kind of holy crusade, because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the population. Pro birth.
Rho, I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good government. Suffice it to say we are on different ends of that spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism -- whether through government or through the workings of the private sector, churches, what have you -- Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
Rhology said...
I very much AM reframing "pro life" to indicate a comprehensive concern with the quality of life
Then you need to call it something else. Pro-socialist-utopia would probably fit your agenda better.
Someone's life can have low and high quality.
The legislation you referenced was a personhood bill whose obvious and stated agenda is to challenge the legality of abortion, and abortion is not a quality of life issue when it comes to children. It is a life/death issue. You're making a category error and bending the issue of abortion to try to pressure pro-life people, implying that a pro-life person is inconsistent if he is not also pro-socialistic-utopia.
You have yet to prove that this inconsistency exists beyond your own imagination, however.
Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care
Before I can answer that, I need you to be more specific. What does that ranking mean and refer to? Are you referring to #47 among all states in terms of gov't spending on early prenatal care?
Why is it necessary to spend loads of money on early prenatal care?
Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born?
1) People have lived in poverty since the dawn of humanity. I'm not all that happy about it, but I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work). can the gov't fix poverty?
It's been trying for decades and it hasn't been successful. Maybe we should try something else.
2) Again, why is it inconsistent for a pro-life person to think that even though 25% of children will grow up in poverty, it shouldn't be legal to murder children in the womb?
Where's the connection?
Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.")
Category error - a pro-life person is not in favor of premature deaths. Also, premature deaths are not intentional like abortion is.
Do you not realise the amazing irony of this? You're decrying premature deaths and yet you are complaining that the OK Legislature was considering outlawing abortions? Abortion is premature death caused by murder.
if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth.
Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. This is focusing in the wrong area. Rather, we are quite concerned that nobody be allowed to murder human beings with impunity just b/c of their age and level of development. That involves women since that's where very young humans live for their first 9 months.
And let me say this - duh. If you were really concerned with quality of life, you'd be concerned with the fundamental and necessary precondition for quality of life - LIFE.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to murdering their children.
Fixed it for you.
Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here
You have a long way to go before you substantiate this assertion. Just b/c I don't favor a socialistic utopia doesn't mean I don't care what happens to you once you're here.
Rhology said...
because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the populatio
Is it controlling men to say that it's not OK to violate women's human rights (by raping them)?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
Is it controlling drivers to say that it's illegal to drive 140 mph in a school zone?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
The question is not WHETHER behavior will be proscribed, but WHICH.
As for running up the population, what are you concerned about? Ever been to west Texas? How about Kansas?
I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good governmen
That's probably a good move; you might have to justify the massive amounts of wasteful spending that the federal and state governments perform. That would be difficult I think.
Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
You need to be more specific, then. When you say #47 in prenatal care, you need to tell us:
1) what that is measuring
2) in what terms
3) what that encompasses
4) why it's necessary.
Good luck!
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not. It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings, and (2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb. Your remarks avoid both of these points, leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda while complaining that I express my own ideas and not yours. (If I ever do make a video about abortion, I'll let you know so you can come back and criticize it for not being about tax policy or the price of cheese.)
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
Two minor points of language: (1) I said "War on women stuff," not "War on women's stuff," and (2) "wreaked" is, indeed, the past tense of "wreak," as you might have bothered to confirm before placing such undue emphasis on it.
I see that the link to the Facebook page is broken. Perhaps Rep. Billy was so ashamed of what she had wreaked that she deleted the post.
It would appear that the referenced Facebook thread has been deleted from Rep Billy's page.
The original post in that thread was by the aforementioned shallow Facebook commenter, so the one responsible for the deleting the thread could have been her or could have been Rep Billy's Facebook page admin; it's impossible to know which. I don't think Rep Billy's admin has been in the habit of deleting threads that contain controversy or debates, though, so my money's on the shallow commenter. And Rep Billy certainly has no reason to be ashamed of what was posted there, so DEFishback should be himself ashamed of that foolish and much-premature attribution.
Also, DEFishback is correct - "wrought" is apparently a more archaic English than "wreaked"; both are correct but I was wrong to criticise the usage of "wreaked", which I shall now indicate in an edit to the post.
> about "baby murder," it is not.
So the video was NOT about abortion, then? But the term "pro-life" was repeatedly used throughout the video in association with a litany of unfortunate statistics that are frankly unrelated to abortion. If the unfortunate statistics are in fact the point of the video and are not irrelevant, then the use of "pro-life" is irrelevant.
In modern American usage, "pro-life" has everything to do with abortion and not much else, (as does the term, "pro-choice"). Everybody knows that. That's why it's easy to see through the demagoguery when the term is used to impugn a certain group of political opponents by switching its standard meaning to something else.
> you only prove my point that too
> many pro-lifers refuse to think > about life outside the uterus.
It proves nothing. Suppose I went on a rant about the same unfortunate statistics, but associated them with the term, "rural farming." You would rightly write that off as irrelevant, and the fact that you did would in no way prove to me or anyone else that rural farmers refuse to think about anything outside the farm.
> It is about (1) Oklahoma's
> legislative priorities in the
> face of widespread shortcomings
The video goes on to whine about a person-hood amendment. I guess that has nothing to do with abortion, because the video is apparently not really about abortion. I wonder what the person-hood amendment is really about then?
> and (2) the proposition that a
> "pro-life" position should
> account for the quality of life
> outside the womb.
Again, you redefined terms here. A "pro-life" position is concerned with whether or not abortion is allowed. But, beyond that, you beg the question. What makes you think that the "pro-life" position is, or ought to be accountable for life outside the womb? Life outside the womb is a different issue than whether or not life ought to be allowed to exit the womb alive, which is what the "pro-life" position is concerned with. You might as well claim that the "rural farming" position should account for the quality of life outside the farm.
By dismissing as "irrelevant" an entire string of education, economic development, and public health statistics, you only prove my point that too many pro-lifers refuse to think about life outside the uterus.
You either read without much care or I didn't communicate well. I think I did, though, especially when I said:
"Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children."
But let me be more explicit.
Socialism is a foolish and evil system. It is only possible when built upon the foundation of heavy taxation of working people, and in the American case, it is accompanied by highly wasteful spending patterns and extremely inadequate accountability with respect to those expenditures.
If I am misinterpreting/misrepresenting what you were saying in your video about these statistics, let me know, but were not most of your complaints on the topic of the amounts the gov't spends in these various areas?
If so, it means that you built your entire objection based on the presupposition that socialism is basically good and that the gov't is the one responsible and the agent that should be putting forth the most money and effort to accomplish these goals you want to see accomplished - edjamakayshun of chilldrun, pre-/neo-natal care, etc. But you need to argue for this presupposition, not merely assume it as a given. The alternative and far more Constitution-friendly model is that individuals and families and churches are to be tasked with these things, not the gov't.
Although you pretend my video is about "baby murder," it is not
Then why did you keep saying "pro-life" and entitle the video "pro-life..."?
That's all on you, sir.
It is about (1) Oklahoma's legislative priorities in the face of widespread shortcomings
Again, what you see as a shortcoming, I laud as relatively commendable fiscal restraint. I don'twant the gov't to steal tons of money from me, waste most of it, and then spend a lot of the rest propping up inefficient and failing structures.
(2) the proposition that a "pro-life" position should account for the quality of life outside the womb
It does, but that is not equivalent to socialistic governmental spending.
And obviously, this is disingenuous. "Pro-life" is for all intents and purposes contrasted with "pro-choice" and inextricably tied to abortion in modern discourse. You know this as well as I.
leading me to conclude that you are interested only in using my video as an excuse to spout your own agenda
You act like that's morally wrong or something. Why would that be?
How disgraceful that you minimize the importance of seven taser deaths.
How lame to make your point using a "#1 state in taser deaths" stat when achieving #1 requires seven deaths.
How irrelevant when pro-life people have nothing to do with taser policies of the OKCPD. What were you even thinking? What were you getting at?
Now, if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth." Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth. Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here. Which is fine if that's their thing, but then they should at least be honest about it and stop pretending they're on some kind of holy crusade, because at that point, they're just interested in controlling women and running up the population. Pro birth.
Rho, I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good government. Suffice it to say we are on different ends of that spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism -- whether through government or through the workings of the private sector, churches, what have you -- Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
Then you need to call it something else. Pro-socialist-utopia would probably fit your agenda better.
Someone's life can have low and high quality.
The legislation you referenced was a personhood bill whose obvious and stated agenda is to challenge the legality of abortion, and abortion is not a quality of life issue when it comes to children. It is a life/death issue. You're making a category error and bending the issue of abortion to try to pressure pro-life people, implying that a pro-life person is inconsistent if he is not also pro-socialistic-utopia.
You have yet to prove that this inconsistency exists beyond your own imagination, however.
Why, for example, would it be "pro life" to oppose abortion, but not "pro life" to be concerned about Oklahoma's #47 place ranking in early prenatal care
Before I can answer that, I need you to be more specific. What does that ranking mean and refer to? Are you referring to #47 among all states in terms of gov't spending on early prenatal care?
Why is it necessary to spend loads of money on early prenatal care?
Or the poverty in which 25% of Oklahoma children live once they are born?
1) People have lived in poverty since the dawn of humanity. I'm not all that happy about it, but I do know that socialism makes more people poor and capitalism makes more people economically comfortable (if they're willing to work). can the gov't fix poverty?
It's been trying for decades and it hasn't been successful. Maybe we should try something else.
2) Again, why is it inconsistent for a pro-life person to think that even though 25% of children will grow up in poverty, it shouldn't be legal to murder children in the womb?
Where's the connection?
Or our #47 place ranking for premature deaths? (That's "death," as in the opposite of "life.")
Category error - a pro-life person is not in favor of premature deaths. Also, premature deaths are not intentional like abortion is.
Do you not realise the amazing irony of this? You're decrying premature deaths and yet you are complaining that the OK Legislature was considering outlawing abortions? Abortion is premature death caused by murder.
if we're talking about the specific obsession with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term, I call that "pro birth.
Nobody's obsessed with forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. This is focusing in the wrong area. Rather, we are quite concerned that nobody be allowed to murder human beings with impunity just b/c of their age and level of development. That involves women since that's where very young humans live for their first 9 months.
And let me say this - duh. If you were really concerned with quality of life, you'd be concerned with the fundamental and necessary precondition for quality of life - LIFE.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to not giving birth.
Because that's what it is: The desire to see pregnant women give birth, as opposed to murdering their children.
Fixed it for you.
Many who claim to be "pro life" are, in fact, merely "pro birth" and don't care about what happens to you once you're here
You have a long way to go before you substantiate this assertion. Just b/c I don't favor a socialistic utopia doesn't mean I don't care what happens to you once you're here.
Is it controlling men to say that it's not OK to violate women's human rights (by raping them)?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
Is it controlling drivers to say that it's illegal to drive 140 mph in a school zone?
I suppose you could say: Yes, it is.
The question is not WHETHER behavior will be proscribed, but WHICH.
As for running up the population, what are you concerned about? Ever been to west Texas? How about Kansas?
I'm not going to get into a debate about "socialism" with someone who believes Oklahoma's bottom-of-the-barrel rankings are evidence of good governmen
That's probably a good move; you might have to justify the massive amounts of wasteful spending that the federal and state governments perform. That would be difficult I think.
Oklahoma would still address these problems if it were truly "pro life" in the sense that I am using.
You need to be more specific, then. When you say #47 in prenatal care, you need to tell us:
1) what that is measuring
2) in what terms
3) what that encompasses
4) why it's necessary.
Good luck!
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
"Respect" Muslim-Christian Dialogue event - audio recording
This is an audio recording of me in a dialogue with the imam of the principal mosque of the OKC area, Imam Dr Imad Enchassi. Videos are later to come.
Just in case you are interested in hearing my mellifluous tones proclaiming the Gospel several times.
You will notice that parts 1 and 3 are uploaded to Soundcloud and part 2 is not; there was not enough capacity to put all 3 into Soundcloud.
Part 1/3 - http://soundcloud.com/rhology/respect-dialogue-1-3
Part 2/3 - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26153629/Respect%20Dialogue%202%20of%203.mp3
Part 3/3 - http://soundcloud.com/rhology/respect-dialogue-q-a-3-3
Monday, April 23, 2012
What we have 'wreaked'
This is my first post since Blogger significantly downgraded its blog interface (seriously, it is much worse), so hopefully I won't screw this up too badly.
A shallow Facebook commenter decided to post an equally shallow video at Oklahoma State Rep Lisa Billy's Facebook page today (meanwhile forgetting that the past tense of "wreaked" is "wrought" edit: Oops, it's either one) and I decided to give it a once-over.
This video is little more than a string of irrelevant data wherein the speaker complains about:
1) issues unrelated to whether it's OK to murder tiny babies in the womb
2) corruption or bad ideas put forward by the OK Legislature (which only the ignorant or seriously biased would deny happens all the time).
So... let me get this straight. Oklahoma educates its children badly (according to the speaker). Therefore it should be legal to murder children. Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children.
Help me understand this logic. It would seem there's a missing premise or two.
"War on women's stuff" - what an ignorant and stupid statement. Just a waste of space. So...saying that it's not OK to murder children is a war against women? In what universe?
"So much more for the legislators to work on" - right, because baby murder is just a teensy tiny side issue.
Also, you'd think that since the speaker is so concerned that the OK legislature legislates badly, he'd want the legislature to legislate LESS so that they'd mess less stuff up. He probably meant that they should agree with him more when they pass laws, but why didn't he SAY THAT?
Probably it's b/c he's a shallow thinker and is therefore imprecise in his communication. That should give us a reason not to take him seriously.
"hard work of advancing our state" - yes, let's definitely advance our state. And shall we murder our children to do so? Great!
"#1 in taser deaths... b/c we're such a pro-life state" - Again, just irrelevant! There's a huge difference between a policeman tasering a suspect and systematically murdering tiny babies in the womb. Why is this so hard to figure out?
And how many does it take to achieve a #1 ranking in taser deaths?
"Seven people have died at the hands of OKCPD Taser-wielding officers since 2001" (Source).
Wow! So... 0.63 people have died every single year from the wildly violent OKC Po-Pos and this guy is all upset about it? Does he know how many children have been butchered in the abortuaries of Oklahoma since 2001?
Sin makes you stupid.
It's a sad commentary on your intellect that the lady who posted this found it compelling enough to post. It's really poorly-reasoned and foolish.
A shallow Facebook commenter decided to post an equally shallow video at Oklahoma State Rep Lisa Billy's Facebook page today (
This video is little more than a string of irrelevant data wherein the speaker complains about:
1) issues unrelated to whether it's OK to murder tiny babies in the womb
2) corruption or bad ideas put forward by the OK Legislature (which only the ignorant or seriously biased would deny happens all the time).
So... let me get this straight. Oklahoma educates its children badly (according to the speaker). Therefore it should be legal to murder children. Oklahoma spends less money than most other states on various socialistic government school edjamakayshun programs. Therefore it should be legal to murder children.
Help me understand this logic. It would seem there's a missing premise or two.
"War on women's stuff" - what an ignorant and stupid statement. Just a waste of space. So...saying that it's not OK to murder children is a war against women? In what universe?
"So much more for the legislators to work on" - right, because baby murder is just a teensy tiny side issue.
Also, you'd think that since the speaker is so concerned that the OK legislature legislates badly, he'd want the legislature to legislate LESS so that they'd mess less stuff up. He probably meant that they should agree with him more when they pass laws, but why didn't he SAY THAT?
Probably it's b/c he's a shallow thinker and is therefore imprecise in his communication. That should give us a reason not to take him seriously.
"hard work of advancing our state" - yes, let's definitely advance our state. And shall we murder our children to do so? Great!
"#1 in taser deaths... b/c we're such a pro-life state" - Again, just irrelevant! There's a huge difference between a policeman tasering a suspect and systematically murdering tiny babies in the womb. Why is this so hard to figure out?
And how many does it take to achieve a #1 ranking in taser deaths?
"Seven people have died at the hands of OKCPD Taser-wielding officers since 2001" (Source).
Wow! So... 0.63 people have died every single year from the wildly violent OKC Po-Pos and this guy is all upset about it? Does he know how many children have been butchered in the abortuaries of Oklahoma since 2001?
Sin makes you stupid.
It's a sad commentary on your intellect that the lady who posted this found it compelling enough to post. It's really poorly-reasoned and foolish.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
“Pro-Life” = “Pro-Imprisonment”?
A regular pro-choice poster on our Facebook wall directed us to this article from the poorly-named RH Reality Check site, by authors Lynn Paltrow and Emma S. Ketteringham.
I would like to comment on the most relevant portions of the article here.
Like it or not, endangering a preborn human being is endangering a preborn human being. You may not like that fact, but there are plenty of distasteful facts out there. You may not like the responsibility, but adults have responsibilities. It's the way it is.
If a friend confides in me that he has an overwhelming compunction to fire off machine guns at playground equipment when kids are playing on it, I will tell him that he has no option - he is absolutely not permitted to do so. If he tells me he can't stop himself, I will take away his guns. If he persists, I will get him professional help. If he does it anyway, that's what laws against reckless endangerment are for. He is not an automaton, a 100%-unthinking slave to his desires to fire machine guns at occupied playground equipment. He made a choice. Neither is any person an automaton with zero choice in the matter of addiction. One has to want to be free of the addiction to become free. Putting laws on the books against behavior that often accompanies addiction is one way we deter people from becoming addicted, one way we help people realise they need to want to break the addiction more. No one can do it for them, but it must be done.
Had sex and got pregnant, but the baby would get in the way of your internship? No problem - just murder the baby and you'll be fine.
Unwilling to try hard enough to break free from a drug addiction and now you're facing charges of endangering your preborn baby? Just get the danger over with, murder the baby, and you're in the clear.
Incidentally, I'm no expert, but illegal drugs are often quite costly, and one of the pro-aborts' favorite hobbyhorses is "what about pregnancies that poor women undergo, who are in no financial shape to sustain a child?". I don't see how these two things can coexist. How do these poor women who are barely scraping by, barely paying for a studio apartment and Ramen noodles every night pay for illegal drugs? Maybe the pro-aborts don't really care as much as they claim about women, but rather have ulterior, unstated motivations.
Thanks to a decision by five highly-placed and ill-informed men 39 years ago, it is illegal to punish women for having abortions. Why would the authors of this article imply that they are unhappy with this arrangement?
Also, even if there were strong anti-abortion laws on the books (which there will be in the near future, God willing), the question of what penalties should be applied to abortive women is far from clear or easily answered. Here is our answer as it stands right now.
The motivation behind abolitionism is that human beings are created in the image of God, and we have a standing command, a heart, and a burden to preserve those lives, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to fight against suppression of the rights of the weakest and voiceless of our society. If it is possible to deter people from putting lives at risk by passing legislation and assigning criminal penalties to violators, that is, all other things being equal, what we would want to do. Why? Because of the effect of deterrence. Of course this is not one-size-fits-all, but where deterrence is a reasonably expected outcome, we want to put the deterrent in place, to save lives.
Taking illegal drugs during pregnancy is very dangerous for the preborn child. It can lead to death or serious birth defects and disabilities. Since the state is often saddled with much of the high costs of living for disabled people, the state also has a standing interest in protecting people from unnecessary debilitating conditions that would prevent them from being self-sufficient producers.
I am not an experienced legislator. From what I've seen of most legislators, that improves the probability that my judgment is reasonable and well thought out.
Nor am I an expert in law, however, and nothing comes immediately to mind with respect to how one could improve the sentencing structure. Obviously, the range of sentencing can't be so light as to remove all deterrent effects; on the other hand, we must avoid the extreme of cruel and unusual punishment.
But let me propose this to the authors and to you, the readers. The issue at hand is chemical endangerment. This means the pregnant woman is taking illegal drugs. Now, the authors may be pro-legalisation of drugs, so they may be consistent on this issue, but as it stands now, most usage of drugs that anyone cares about entails legal consequences as well. There is a really good chance that a woman addicted to drugs is not in a position to mother her children effectively anyway, since that's what happens with addiction - most everything else of value in one's life is thrown out the window in pursuit of the next hit or high. Even family relationships are torn apart because of this problem.
The authors apparently forgot to think that part through before they wrote their article.
Of course! Even if I frantically call 911 and get the ambulance there and provide full cooperation, if he dies, am I not up on manslaughter charges? Not 1st-degree murder, of course, but manslaughter, most certainly.
Pro-aborts like to talk like aborticians are modern heroes. They're not; they are the worst of the citizenry that is not currently in prison or under warrant for arrest.
What in the world are these authors even talking about? Women who "bring forth life"? Do the authors realise that the entire point of this article has been to discuss women who intentionally and repeatedly take dangerous drugs while pregnant? Are we supposed to laud such women?
You know, there is a difference, a vast one, between being a father and being a daddy. One can become a father with as little as a few moments of extreme pleasure - it's not that hard.
Being a daddy requires a lifetime of some level of sacrifice, discipline, self-denial, and love for weak, helpless children who have no way to pay Daddy back except in hugs, squeals, and kisses. "Daddy" is an earned title.
In the same way, one can be the biological mother of a child, sure, but let's not lower our standards so far that we applaud women who "brought forth life" in spite of everything they did, lest we drain the meaning from the position of motherhood such that there is no room in term to praise legitimately great mothers.
The authors have been answered, and unfortunately for their strident tone and opinions, their thoughts are too simplistic where right, and flat wrong where they're wrong.
(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
I would like to comment on the most relevant portions of the article here.
if these prosecutions continue, pregnant women who are addicted to drugs and who cannot overcome that addiction in the short term of pregnancy will be pressured into having unwanted abortions to avoid criminal penaltiesOr they could work harder to overcome those addictions.
Like it or not, endangering a preborn human being is endangering a preborn human being. You may not like that fact, but there are plenty of distasteful facts out there. You may not like the responsibility, but adults have responsibilities. It's the way it is.
If a friend confides in me that he has an overwhelming compunction to fire off machine guns at playground equipment when kids are playing on it, I will tell him that he has no option - he is absolutely not permitted to do so. If he tells me he can't stop himself, I will take away his guns. If he persists, I will get him professional help. If he does it anyway, that's what laws against reckless endangerment are for. He is not an automaton, a 100%-unthinking slave to his desires to fire machine guns at occupied playground equipment. He made a choice. Neither is any person an automaton with zero choice in the matter of addiction. One has to want to be free of the addiction to become free. Putting laws on the books against behavior that often accompanies addiction is one way we deter people from becoming addicted, one way we help people realise they need to want to break the addiction more. No one can do it for them, but it must be done.
in which a pregnant woman had an abortion in order to get the state of North Dakota to drop “fetal endangerment” charges against her.This is a perfect illustration of why many abortions occur - to escape unsavory consequences of someone's actions.
Had sex and got pregnant, but the baby would get in the way of your internship? No problem - just murder the baby and you'll be fine.
Unwilling to try hard enough to break free from a drug addiction and now you're facing charges of endangering your preborn baby? Just get the danger over with, murder the baby, and you're in the clear.
Incidentally, I'm no expert, but illegal drugs are often quite costly, and one of the pro-aborts' favorite hobbyhorses is "what about pregnancies that poor women undergo, who are in no financial shape to sustain a child?". I don't see how these two things can coexist. How do these poor women who are barely scraping by, barely paying for a studio apartment and Ramen noodles every night pay for illegal drugs? Maybe the pro-aborts don't really care as much as they claim about women, but rather have ulterior, unstated motivations.
why would a group that claims to value life urge Alabama’s highest court to uphold an interpretation of the chemical endangerment law that coerces women into having abortions and punish the ones who don’t?I can think of a few reasons, actually.
Thanks to a decision by five highly-placed and ill-informed men 39 years ago, it is illegal to punish women for having abortions. Why would the authors of this article imply that they are unhappy with this arrangement?
Also, even if there were strong anti-abortion laws on the books (which there will be in the near future, God willing), the question of what penalties should be applied to abortive women is far from clear or easily answered. Here is our answer as it stands right now.
The motivation behind abolitionism is that human beings are created in the image of God, and we have a standing command, a heart, and a burden to preserve those lives, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to fight against suppression of the rights of the weakest and voiceless of our society. If it is possible to deter people from putting lives at risk by passing legislation and assigning criminal penalties to violators, that is, all other things being equal, what we would want to do. Why? Because of the effect of deterrence. Of course this is not one-size-fits-all, but where deterrence is a reasonably expected outcome, we want to put the deterrent in place, to save lives.
Taking illegal drugs during pregnancy is very dangerous for the preborn child. It can lead to death or serious birth defects and disabilities. Since the state is often saddled with much of the high costs of living for disabled people, the state also has a standing interest in protecting people from unnecessary debilitating conditions that would prevent them from being self-sufficient producers.
It is difficult, however, to see what is “life-affirming” about hauling off to jail new mothers who just gave birth and leaving their children motherless? Penalties under the Chemical Endangerment law range from not less than 1-year-and-1-day to up to 99 years (life) in prison.It is not often that pro-aborts come up with good arguments, but I have to hand it to the authors here. Despite pro-abortion's history of getting virtually everything wrong, the authors swam upstream and made a good point, albeit on a relatively minor matter.
I am not an experienced legislator. From what I've seen of most legislators, that improves the probability that my judgment is reasonable and well thought out.
Nor am I an expert in law, however, and nothing comes immediately to mind with respect to how one could improve the sentencing structure. Obviously, the range of sentencing can't be so light as to remove all deterrent effects; on the other hand, we must avoid the extreme of cruel and unusual punishment.
But let me propose this to the authors and to you, the readers. The issue at hand is chemical endangerment. This means the pregnant woman is taking illegal drugs. Now, the authors may be pro-legalisation of drugs, so they may be consistent on this issue, but as it stands now, most usage of drugs that anyone cares about entails legal consequences as well. There is a really good chance that a woman addicted to drugs is not in a position to mother her children effectively anyway, since that's what happens with addiction - most everything else of value in one's life is thrown out the window in pursuit of the next hit or high. Even family relationships are torn apart because of this problem.
The authors apparently forgot to think that part through before they wrote their article.
Since 2005, National Advocates for Pregnant Women has documented hundreds of cases in Alabama and elsewhere in which women have been arrested for allegedly endangering their pregnancies including: Christine Taylor in Iowa who was charged with attempted fetal homicide after she fell down a flight of stairs while pregnantI would not be in favor of having prosecuted Christine Taylor if the situation is as described in the article covering the topic, but it is irrelevant to this law regarding chemical endangerment of the preborn.
Bei Bei Shuai in Indiana who has been charged with murder for suffering a pregnancy loss after a suicide attempt.If I shoot myself in the head, miss, and the bullet also happens to travel through the cranium of my friend, killing him, am I culpable for that death, morally and in the eyes of the law?
Of course! Even if I frantically call 911 and get the ambulance there and provide full cooperation, if he dies, am I not up on manslaughter charges? Not 1st-degree murder, of course, but manslaughter, most certainly.
The Liberty Counsel has established that the “pro-life” position is “pro-punishment,” not just for doctors who perform abortionsThe authors of the article seem to think that's a bad thing. It is, rather, one of the best hopes for abolitionism in this nation. Aborticians are intentional liars who deliberately withhold full information from their clients, clients who often feel themselves in a desperate situation with only one way out. Thus they take advantage of these women, manipulate them into paying them to dismember their children, and then pat them on the head and say "don't worry, this will never come back to haunt you. Yeah, I know that thousands of other women are heartbroken years later and never get over it, but I'm sure you'll be just fine. Now, where's your $500?"
Pro-aborts like to talk like aborticians are modern heroes. They're not; they are the worst of the citizenry that is not currently in prison or under warrant for arrest.
If “pro-life” does not mean “pro-imprisonment,” now would be a good time to speak up and stop the growing assault on the dignity, sanctity, and liberty of the women who bring forth life. Where are they?Right here.
What in the world are these authors even talking about? Women who "bring forth life"? Do the authors realise that the entire point of this article has been to discuss women who intentionally and repeatedly take dangerous drugs while pregnant? Are we supposed to laud such women?
You know, there is a difference, a vast one, between being a father and being a daddy. One can become a father with as little as a few moments of extreme pleasure - it's not that hard.
Being a daddy requires a lifetime of some level of sacrifice, discipline, self-denial, and love for weak, helpless children who have no way to pay Daddy back except in hugs, squeals, and kisses. "Daddy" is an earned title.
In the same way, one can be the biological mother of a child, sure, but let's not lower our standards so far that we applaud women who "brought forth life" in spite of everything they did, lest we drain the meaning from the position of motherhood such that there is no room in term to praise legitimately great mothers.
The authors have been answered, and unfortunately for their strident tone and opinions, their thoughts are too simplistic where right, and flat wrong where they're wrong.
(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
PZ Myers is such a joke
Now, I wish that SyeTenB and Eric Hovind would say "gratuitous, vapid insult" when they say "ad hominem", but other than that, PZ Myers is clearly seen to be a total joke. What a ridiculous man, and on his own ground, at the Reason Rally, no less!
Nice hat, too.
Monday, April 09, 2012
"Respect" Muslim-Christian Dialogue
If you live near the Oklahoma City area, please consider attending!
http://www.facebook.com/events/241491839282459
http://www.facebook.com/events/241491839282459
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)