Friday, October 24, 2008



OK to say anything about Palin's family but must not even speak the truth about Obama's

Less than 24 hours ago, I put up this post on a news site. It refers to the fact that there are nude pictures of Obama's mother on the net. I didn't put them there (Though I think I know who did). I just drew attention to the pictures and made them more accessible.

The hate-mail and outraged comments from Leftists you can imagine. When however I wrote back to one of the Leftists and said that I assumed that he also was outraged by the false claims about Sarah Palin's family (claims that Trig was really her daughter's baby etc., etc.) he didn't even know what I was talking about. But as a Leftist he was much more likely to hear of the Leftist attacks on Palin's family than he was to see my post. Clearly the scurrilous and totally false attacks on Palin were like water off a duck's back to him. It was only adverse mentions of Obama's family that provoked outrage.

Exactly what I expected, of course. You must not not even speak the truth about the anointed one if there is anything unpleasant about it. He is a second Mohammed.

Leftists can dish it out but they can't take it back. If the Leftist comments about Palin had been even half civilized, I might have felt it inapproriate to mention Obama's mother but, as it was, I simply applied their rule that anything goes these days.

So let me make some more "outrageous" comments on the matter:

Astute Blogger has just put up a comparison of a known picture of Obama's mother with one of the pictures that I drew attention to. There is no doubt that both are of the same woman, even though the nude photo was of her when she was much younger. The long chin is particularly notable. Women normally (but not always) have receding chins. Very broadly, a strong chin in a woman indicates more testosterone and a strong sexual appetite.

Another thing to note: Frank Marshall Davis wrote an autobiography and "One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne".

So who did put up the pictures originally? I think they got onto the net via a bulletin board, one of the predecessors of the internet. Bulletin boards had LOTS of pictures of nude women. The photographer is the logical one to have uploaded them and Frank Marshall Davis died in 1987 -- well inside the lifetime of bulletin boards.

Barack Obama senior, on the other hand, died in Africa in 1982 and we read of his latter years: "Obama Sr.'s life then took a tailspin into drinking and poverty, from which he never recovered." So it seems unlikely that Barack Obama senior was the uploader.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I have to agree with some of the comments on the other site - you can't control what your momma does; does it really matter who his father is?

His father wasn't a big part of his life, from what I understand he was mostly raised by his grandparents.

I am voting for McCain, but I have to agree, this stuff really doesn't matter. I want to know what a presidential candidate's view is on politics, economics, war, etc., not what his mother did as a teen or her sexual desires.

This is just lowering conservative values to those of liberals - digging up dirt that doesn't matter to an election.

Anonymous said...

Who cares? I do not care about right or left wing wackaloons going after irrelevent aspects of the candidates lives. I care about the economy, multiple ongoing wars, crappy education, lousy health care, etc. etc. etc.

Ed "What the" Heckman said...

First of all, it is appropriate to point out that Obama is not responsible for his mother's actions.

Second, this information directly reflects a portion of the character of his mother. Because Obama's mother raised him, her character had at least some impact on his character, though he would not be a carbon copy of her. (That's just the way it is between parents and their children.) Therefore, at the most these pictures have some minor relevance to Obama's character.

Furthermore, everyone tends to make stupid mistakes when they're younger which they later regret. These pictures represent a single incident of a dumb mistake, which is not sufficient to establish a pattern of behavior. Therefore, they could simply mean nothing at all about Obama's character.

On the other hand, trying to deny that those pictures are of Obama's mother is just plain stupid. After all, if the existence of the pictures is basically meaningless in relation to Obama's campaign, why do greater damage to your side's credibility by making obviously false claims?

Then again, when Obama and his campaign has repeatedly produced blatant, verifiable lies, why shouldn't his "true believers" follow the same pattern?

Anonymous said...

I find it amusing how some people don't seem to care about "stuff" like this. They care only about the economy, which is fine. But how then can you not care about the person who will be leading this country, and therefor, the economy? It seems we're turning into one huge Jim Jones group! Just wait until you have to pay the price for your decisions!

Anonymous said...

Obama = baby killing. Need we say more?

Anonymous said...

One look at the American people and you can clearly see what P.T. Barnum meant when he said, "there's a sucker born every minute"!.

Anonymous said...

Any what do you think McSame did when he dropped bombs in Vietnam? McSame - baby killing

Anonymous said...

McCain did not purposely target children whereas abortion does. Voting to withhold medical aid to a baby that has survived an attempted abortion is 'baby-killing'.

Anonymous said...

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? Abortion, dropping bombs to kill innocents, capital punishment - it's all the same.

InFides said...

Hello God Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

"What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't you understand? Abortion, dropping bombs to kill innocents, capital punishment - it's all the same."

Seriously flawed moral relativism at its best.

First, 'Thou shalt not kill' is a bad translation of 'Thou shalt not murder.'

Second, 'kill' and 'murder' are not synonyms.

Murdering has a moral component which killing does not necessarily possess.

For example, all murders are homicides but not all homicides are murder. If someone steps out from behind a parked car and I run him over and kill him I have committed a homicide but not a murder.

Murder requires mens rea, the requisite intent to illegally end an innocent life.

Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life not convicted of a capital crime meriting the death penalty. Abortion is clearly murder. It is as simple as that.

Bomber pilots in war (such as McCain) do not intend to target civilians and try their best to avoid them. There is no mens rea, hence no murder. In point of fact, if the record showed that Senator McCain intentionally targeted civilians in his boming runs contrary to his orders he would be guilty of a war crime and would be prosecuted.

Furthermore, soldiers do not select their targets nor make up their battle plans. They are directed by superiors who assume the responsibility for directing their soldiers within the laws of warfare as we understand them. So long as bomber pilots are not aware of any illegalities in their orders they commit no crime by following them. There is also no moral peril for soldiers as they are obligated to fight in defense of their country and society. This moral imperative of warfare is borne by their leadership. We send leaders to jail for war crimes not ordinary soldiers. The only soldiers that are tried for war crimes are those who follow clearly illegal orders or deliberately deviate from lawful ones. McCain's orders while he was a pilot do not appear to rise to this level.

If you wish to understand immoral warfare then study islam. Jihad specifically makes no distinction between unarmed civilians and troops and considers all of them equally valid targets for attack. Study how we fight and how islam fights and you will see the difference clearly enough.

Capital punishment is reserved only for the most heinous offenses, spefically murder combined with special circumstances such as torture.

To suggest that the execution of a convicted murderer is the moral equivalent of an abortion speaks to a profound inability to distiguish clearly different moral situations on your part.

I suggest you read some of the classic philosophical treatises on morality so that you might be better able to see the clear distinction that exists between a murder, a killing and an execution.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Then you should distinguish between a small cluster of cells and a more advanced fetus - as "abortion" covers both cases. Are both cases "murder"?

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Please excuse this long post but out of respect for Anonymous' question I must be verbose. Mea culpa.

Hello Anonymous!

"Then you should distinguish between a small cluster of cells and a more advanced fetus"

My argument does no such thing. I make no such distinction for the same reason I make no such distinction between race, gender, hair and eye color, age, mental capacity, social usefullness, religion, political affiliation or etc. It is not my place to decide from among the innocent who shall live and who shall die. You appear to be confusing morality with physicality.

Would you suggest that a man who has lost an arm is half a man? What physical or morphological characteristics does a person need to possess before you would see fit to let him live? I am very curious as to where you would draw the line. I would also like to know how you would justify your drawing the line where you do but yet deny to others the right to draw their lines somewhere else. If, as you seem to be asserting, there is a range of becomming human or of being and not being human (some arbitrary set of characteristics) along which the innocent lose their right to life how do you select your spot on that range and yet deny to others theirs? How do you support the argument that the people you say are not human are not but that the people others say are not human are? My position is that if you are alive, no matter what your circumstances, you are human. This position has the support of science, logic and morality.

My argument speaks to whether people who have done nothing wrong should die. The physical circumstances of those people do not enter into my thinking because they are not germane. A murderer is executed for what he does not how he looks. What could an unborn child do to merit the death penalty without even benefit of a trial? If we can appoint counsel to protect the rights of murderers then why are we killing our children summarily?

I know of no jurisdiction in this country where a judge can issue a death sentence from the bench, it requires a unanimous jury verdict. Yet we let women issue this death sentence on their children by the millions every year without even considering the implications. This is a true measure of how our collective moral mechanism is broken. We cannot even see the people we are killing.

P.J. O'Rourke opined that those who oppose both the death penalty and abortion are consistent. He even acknowledged the consistency, while denying the logic, of those who support both. He cannot (neither can I) understand the liberal position that is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. The liberal positions on abortion and capital punishment demonstrate an inability to make even the coarsest of moral distinctions properly. They are the positions arrived at through a flawed reasoning process which, no doubt, is the result of a defect in their moral and logical training.


'Are both cases "murder"?'

Yes.

Any time a person loses his life deliberately at the hands of another, be they a government or a parent, without a clear moral reason he has been murdered. The mens rea of abortion is clear, a guiltless life is going to end. If you are having trouble understanding why I chose not to make the distinction between which guiltless human beings should die and which guiltless human beings should live I refer you to the history of the NAZI regime and its treatment of peoples declared by the government as untermenschen and therefore unfit to live.

Allow me to pose a hypothetical argument using the NAZI regime. Consider that the NAZIs decided not to kill the Jews but instead issued the following edict:

'All pregnant women of Jewish descent will present themselves to a government run health care facility for abortion. There will be no exceptions to this order. Women who do not comply will be aprehended and the abortion performed under anesthesia.'

Has any crime been committed? The women are not harmed physically and they continue with their lives at best having only lost an hour or two of their time. If these unborn children are not human beings then there is no crime worse than physical assault.

Would the NAZIs be guiltless of genocide had they behaved this way? According to the abortion supporters no human beings have been harmed.

If the NAZIs would not be guiltless of genocide then from where does the guilt of genocide stem?

We can argue about the morality of executing murderers but are you actually suggesting that people who have done nothing wrong other than to be considered undesireable to other people (governments, their own mothers or etc.) should die?

There is a clear moral distinction between killing a baby (at any stage of his life) and killing a murderer (no matter how he looks.) As I have already said, we can debate the moral basis for executing the murderer but the baby should not be on trial for his life for having committed the unpardonable crime of being alive.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,

InFides

Anonymous said...

I have not suggested anything - I am asking you if you make no distinction between a clump of a few cells soon after conception and a more developed fetus of say 2 months. The latter might be considered "murder" but can the former? Well according to what you say they are both "murder", and if so I would now suggest you are stretching the definition of "murder" too far (tho' one could call it "killing" in a technical sense).
Your comparison with the Nazis is specious as the Jewish women in your scenario were all forced to have an abortion whether or not they wanted to give birth. It would of course be unethical to coerce a woman to have an abortion. But if she did want one, do you consider other people should decide that she should not have the right - it being her body in question and not theirs (or yours).

Anonymous said...

How do you equate a tiny collection of unfeeling cells to an actual baby about to be born or an infant, and call it "killing babies".
Maybe if the catholic church didn't prevent contraception there wouldn't be so much demand for abortion! But of course these so-called "moral absolutists" live in ivory-towers oblivious of the practical outcomes of their priggish opinions.

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

It has been shown that birth control actually increases the number of abortions because casual sex increases and since no birth control method (except abstinance) is perfect many women become pregnant who would not have done so had they kept their legs crossed.

Should people be held accountable for their actions? It must be very convenient to be able to kill any child that 'gets in the way.' Frankly, I have not been able to torture my moral philosophy sufficiently to get it to agree to this. I am assuming you have had better success.

I make decisions and I live with them. I am not prepared to kill anyone who gets in the way simply in order to ease my burden in life.

If I give you a kidney and then later want it back because it is inconvenient to be without it should you have to give it back?

What if I give you life and I later decide it is inconvenient to me for you to be alive; should I be allowed to kill you?

That is the crux of the abortion debate.


Hello Anonymous!

"I have not suggested anything - I am asking you if you make no distinction between a clump of a few cells soon after conception and a more developed fetus of say 2 months."

I answered this question and the answer is no. Human beings at each stage of life are human beings. I make no distinction between these stages because it is foolish and not scientifically or logically supportable to do so.

We all of us must pass through these stages of development in order to grow up. When did you become a human being? When did you obtain or develop your humanity? When did you join the species?

Two months, live human being with the right to life. One month 29 days, blob of tissue with no right to life. What distinguishes them? Nothing, they are both alive and growing and maturing and equally members of the human race. Subtract one additional day. What distinguishes them? Nothing? You seem to be suggesting if they look enough like yourself then you will let them live. Be careful, the ante-bellum slave holders had the same thoughts about black people. If they are white enough then they are not property. Arbitrary standards invite abuse.

I am still waiting to hear how you can justify your position and not allow others something more horrible. Is there a distinction between someone in a persistent vegitative state and someone who is not? How about end stage Alzheimers sufferers? How about the profoundly mentally disabled. Who are you prepared to kill and how do you justify it?

If we are going to consider what constitutes being human when they both possess the same genetics and both are alive according to the scientific definition then please explain. How is your argument any different than someone who says a baby of 8 months gestation is acceptable for abortion? Your standard is entirely arbitrary and without scientific, logical or moral foundation.


"Your comparison with the Nazis is specious as the Jewish women in your scenario were all forced to have an abortion whether or not they wanted to give birth."

Much the same way a baby is forced to die because the mother finds its continued existence inconvenient whether or not it wanted to be born. If we do not accept the humanity of our weakest members we naturally fall prey to tyranny and violence. I protect the weakest because it is the civilized thing to do.


"It would of course be unethical to coerce a woman to have an abortion."

How is it unethical? According to your own standard we have not harmed anyone because she is OK and the baby does not count.

Furthermore you have coerced the child to death. Things do not get any more final than death.


"But if she did want one, do you consider other people should decide that she should not have the right - it being her body in question and not theirs (or yours)."

She is deciding for the baby's body, specifically to dismember it and flush it down a drain. You seem to forget that there are two lives involved in the abortion and one is going to suffer death with no right of input into the decision and no right of appeal.


"But of course these so-called "moral absolutists" live in ivory-towers oblivious of the practical outcomes of their priggish opinions."

Indeed. Watch a few abortions and then speak to me about ivory towers. I have yet to see anyone observe the practical outcome of a D&E abortion and not agree that a murder was just committed.

The idea that people are merely discardable at the whim of another is obscene.

The difference is on what side a person chooses to err. I choose to err on the side of maximizing life and you are choosing to discount it to the point where its very existence is no longer even acknowledged.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are so focused on the woman that they forget or deliberately overlook the existence of an entirely separate living being who also wants to live just as much as any of us, perhaps more so. When was the last time you saw an unborn child commit suicide?

I fully appreciate your not directly addressing my arguments as they involve difficult reevaluations of fondly held beliefs. But try to spare a thought for those who are about to die, they do not salute you.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Sorry Pax - your long-winded replies suggest I have attitudes which I do not have. In short you wish to stop the woman doing what she wants with her own body and then probably going to a back-street abortionist who might do her permanent injury. You can also condemn that choice too but you are not in her position. You insist on calling a blob of unfeeling tissue a "baby" or a "child" to strengthen your argument or indeed misrepresent the argument. Obviously the earlier an abortion is performed the better and the law will not or should not allow it after a certain stage of embryonic development. It is simply a case of balancing the woman's rights and the potential baby's - so as a compromise, as it were, no abortion can or should be performed after a determined period of time in embryonic development, which is not such an "arbitary" limit.
Forgive me if I do not respond to any more of your comments. I realise you are an apologist for Catholic dogma, so really I shouldn't have bothered to reply to you at all.

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

I fully appreciate that I am long winded. I have apologized for this many times in previous posts and I will continue to do so. However, if I am long winded it is in order to fairly answer your points. As a matter of respect to your argument I give your thoughts the fair consideration they deserve.


"... suggest I have attitudes which I do not have."

That may be true. I am trying to understand based on your replies and I am sorry if I am in error.


"In short you wish to stop the woman doing what she wants with her own body ..."

Actually the other living being's body. I have yet to hear you explain how the being is not involved in his own abortion but the woman is. Please explain this.


"... and then probably going to a back-street abortionist who might do her permanent injury."

A poor argument. Do not pass a law because people might break it. Is there any law that is not broken? By this argument we should pass no laws because someone will deliberately break them.

Are our laws and ethical positions to be determined on the basis of whether they are right and true or merely whether people will adhere to them? Is 'right' right only when it is convenient or is 'right' right as a characteristic of itself?


"You can also condemn that choice too but you are not in her position."

I condemn anyone who harms another person simply to avoid the inconvenience of having him around. I do not need to have my life directly threatened in order to want to save others and I do not need to have personal difficulties to realize that the destruction of another life is wrong. The legal and moral bases for laws are independent of circumstance. A just law is just. Rather an odd argument on your part.


"You insist on calling a blob of unfeeling tissue a "baby" or a "child" to strengthen your argument or indeed misrepresent the argument."

I will happily use any term. I chose not to use 'blob of tissue' because it denies membership in the race of man. It asserts a non-living being. It suggests that somehow this blob will not become the noble human being he is destined to become if only his life is not violently and prematurely cut chort. Please remember that this being is trying to the best of his abilities to get on with his life. The fact that he may not possess the same characters as a fully mature human being changes nothing. We all live within our abilities.

BTW, you are blob of tissue, just a larger one. Is a person in a vegitative state who can feel and sense nothing just a blob of tissue? I asked this question ealier but you seem unwilling to address it, among others I have asked. You suggest I am playing loose with the language when it is you who are calling another creature, a fellow homo sapiens, a blob. Also, if you ask a woman at ANY stage of her pregnancy she will tell you that she is having a baby and not that she is having a fetus or that she is having a blob. I am on more solid linguistic ground than you are. I at least recognize there is something alive and growing.


"Obviously the earlier an abortion is performed the better and the law will not or should not allow it after a certain stage of embryonic development."

Please explain how you arrive at the arbitrary standard. I keep asking this but get no answer. Could it be because you have none? Could it be because you recognize that although you assert a standard is possible that actually none is?

I do agree though, killing people when they are smaller is easier.


" It is simply a case of balancing the woman's rights"

The right of inconvenience against the right to live. Inconvenience should give way.


".. and the potential baby's"

What potential? It is alive, growing and maturing constantly. If not killed it will be born and live the life that is rightfully his and not his mother's.


" - so as a compromise, as it were, no abortion can or should be performed after a determined period of time in embryonic development, which is not such an "arbitary" limit."

Not an arbitrary limit? Really? Please show me an objective process for determining this limit. To say it is not arbitrary does not make it so. Furthermore, I am not anxious to adopt a compromise which, in effect, says that although all of them are alive we can kill some of them without moral consequences.


"Forgive me if I do not respond to any more of your comments. I realise you are an apologist for Catholic dogma,"

This is twice that my Catholicism has been attacked and yet I have made no religious arguments and not even mentioned God or religion.

I was a firm supporter of abortion rights in my teens and 20's. I accepted many of the arguments you have offered as givens and at face value.

In my 30's I started to really analyze every moral position I held, including abortion. I spent over 3 years in study and logical and moral analysis of abortion alone. I accepted absolutely no religious arguments or considerations as they are in many respects matters of faith and logic is not about faith. Religion never entered into my analysis. The result was 29 pages of single spaced analysis, not including footnotes.

It is worth pointing out that I became a Catholic at the age of 40. I was a Lutheran when young but left the church in my mid 20's. I spent almost 15 years in no organized religion. I never lost my faith but I had no church.

Eventually, by the grace of God, I came to the Church. I am more thankful for that than anything else in my life. In God all things are possible. I am the worst of sinners. I am ashamed to admit that I have broken every commandment. I am not proud of what I have done and I know I will answer for all of it. But the truth is the truth and I am very guilty of many things. If God is only just and not forgiving I am afraid of what will happen to me when my time comes.

Since my opposition to abortion stems from a rigorous logical and moral analysis performed in my 30's and I became a Catholic at the age of 40 it can hardly be true that Catholic dogma informed my process.

I appreciate that it is a very easy, downright pat, response to simply dismiss my arguments as mere apologetics for the Church. I freely admit that my position aligns with the Church. That is one of several reasons why I converted. But my consideration of abortion is not from a Catholic or even religious perspective.

I have gone down a long and hard road of challenging every single moral and social belief I held from my early days. I had to abandon many positions because it was either that or try to live with the hypocracy. It was more logical and, frankly, easier to change my mind than to change the facts.

I appreciate that I am sharpish or indeed strident when I debate and I certainly did not want to offend you in any way.

But at least try to consider some of the logic of the arguments and do not simply assume that because you hold a position that it is fixed or prima facie irrefutable. Believe me when I say that I have been where you are. I will carry this debate as far as you wish. I will offer my arguments and address yours, all of them. The question is whether you wish to argue through the logic of your position or simply remain on auto-pilot. I will not say it is easy but it is very rewarding both spiritually and intellectually.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,

InFides

Anonymous said...

Thanx Pax - your "protesting too much" answered my questions. The fact is I wanted you to justify your position and you certainly went over the top. I do not disagree with all your points but you used alot of specious arguments and strawmans. But thanks for revealing how a neo-catholic thinks.

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Helo Anonymous!

"The fact is I wanted you to justify your position and you certainly went over the top."

I apologize again.


"I do not disagree with all your points but you used alot of specious arguments and strawmans."

Please point them out to me. I am a trained logician and a reasonable man. I am not deaf to persuasion. I am prepared and willing to be convinced my arguments are in error but I have to know to which arguments you are referring. Remember that is how my whole exploration of abortion started was by trying to reason out a position.

The only one I can recall you mentioning is whether the destruction of a fetus forced by the government had any different moral culpability than the same destruction committed by the mother. I was attempting to show how two different entities commit the same act but are yet held to different moral standards. You indicated it was immoral to force the mother to have the abortion but did not address the issue of the unborn's equal loss of life in both situations?

I have tried my best to answer your questions. That is why I cut and paste each so I am sure to miss nothing and be fair. I have asked many questions few of which were adressed. Perhaps you can answer some of mine?

Maybe you can answer just this one:

"How is your argument any different than someone who says a baby of 8 months gestation is acceptable for abortion?"

I started my journey with this basic question:

Is it alive?

From there the analysis followed without regard to where it might lead me.


"But thanks for revealing how a neo-catholic thinks."

I have used no religious or Catholic arguments. I never consulted Church doctrine in this matter. If tomorrow the Church held abortion to be acceptable I would still oppose it.

I make no claim to be an example of how a Catholic thinks about abortion and I certainly do not speak for the Church. I am a simple man who thought about abortion and made up his mind as best his reason told him.

Pax,

InFides

Anonymous said...

You are entitled to believe that human life begins at the very moment of conception, but I believe you cannot equate a few embryonic cells or even an early fetus with a fully grown baby much less a child or an adult, as you do - that it is the same to destroy a few embryonic cells as to murder your mother. Where it can be called "murder" is certainly after normal birth and maybe after a fetal nervous system has developed, but it is for governments and the medical establishment to decide how many weeks is too late for an abortion. It is also for the woman to decide if she really should have an abortion. In cases of rape, incest and coerced or manipulated sex by figures of authority, or where the woman would otherwise suffer socially for the pregnancy, she may have a good case for wanting an abortion, or if she is emotionally or medically unsuitable to try to bring a baby to term, or if the fetus shows a severe enough abnormality. You would probably suggest that despite any of these circumstances she should try to give birth, and maybe have the baby adopted, but it's the woman who must ultimately decide, not you or I.

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

"You are entitled to believe that human life begins at the very moment of conception,"

Hmm. If it is not alive at the moment of conception what is it? My belief is predicated on an indisputable scientific fact.

If it is not alive then how does a dead thing grow to be a live thing? The first thing is to understand if is it alive? When is it alive? There is a clear and unambiguous answer to this question.


" but I believe you cannot equate a few embryonic cells or even an early fetus with a fully grown baby much less a child or an adult, as you do"

I am not saying they are equal in the sense that they are the same. What concerns me is the arbitrary way in which people say that at this point human, at that point not with no apparent objective standard by which they make this judgement.

The two basic premises of the pro-abortion argument seem to be that if one is not developed enough or has not lived long enough his life can be forfeit at the discretion of another.

People have a process by which they come into being, grow and mature, and then cease to live. We change considerably over this process as it unfolds. Your argument simply says that at some arbitrary point in the individual's development he does not possess the right to his life that he will possess at some later period, perhaps even the very next day.

A just conceived human being is not the same as a late-term preborn who is not the same as a newborn who is not the same as a child who is not the same as a teen who is not the same as an adult. But they are all of them alive and members of the species homo sapiens. I am puzzled how you could assert otherwise. Please tell me when you became alive, became human and joined the species. I mean you specifically.

The Endangered Species act recognizes that the eaglet in its egg is an eagle just as a mature eagle is an eagle. The young become adults. I find it odd that eagle young in their eggs have more protection and recognition by our society and government of their lives than children in the womb.


" - that it is the same to destroy a few embryonic cells as to murder your mother."

If we speak to ending a life we are ending a life. The issue is at what point a person becomes a human being.

Are you a human being today?

If yes, then what about yesterday?

Continue this process subtracting one day from your life and asking yourself the question.

At what point did you become a human being?

At what point did you join the species?

At what point did you become alive?

I have asked these questions frequently and am never able to get an answer from anoyone on the pro-abortion side. I have asked you and can not seem to get an answer.

If your arguments are valid then you should be able to answer these questions.

I asked in my previous post about how are you able to construct this standard of yours in such a way that it does not allow for other standards to be created. We have many people, Barak Obama for example, who recognize a right to abortion right up to the moment of delivery. How do you handle this position? How do you explain that his standard is wrong and some other standard such as your is correct?


" Where it can be called "murder" is certainly after normal birth and maybe after a fetal nervous system has developed,"

So then how long does a person have to be alive to obtain his right to life? When did he change so as to be a human being and a member of the species the day after that he was not the day before?


" but it is for governments and the medical establishment to decide how many weeks is too late for an abortion."

I would prefer the people to decide by their vote and not the courts or government to decide by fiat.

However, this issue extends to something much more basic. As I mentioned earlier 'right' is right as a characteristic of itself. Even should the government decide that abortion up to the moment of delivery is acceptable we are still left as thoughtful, moral, rational individuals to determine whether our government has acted rationally and morally.

My government and courts have made many egregious decisions and the fact that my government and courts made them does not validate them or give them logical or moral rectitude. Those decisions were flawed and no amount of legal authority makes them otherwise.

My government is often wrong but that does not absolve me of the responsibility of trying to be logical and moral.

Pax,

InFides

Sean said...

David, while I commend you on your solid reasoning and logic, youre arguing with someone who does not have the mental capacity to comprehend your arguments, no matter how logically you state them.

Anonymous said...

Sean- when you turn to insulting people you disagree with, you insult your own dignity.

Anonymous said...

Pax - I made it perfectly clear that you are of course entitled to hold your views on abortion and that living cells or fetuses no matter how immature should not be terminated (not even under the some of the circumstances I outlined - to which you made no response). You may have strong objections to a government's policy on abortion and you have the right to campaign against it. I have no such strong feelings, and as I've said repeatedly, it's for the woman to decide and of course she will, whatever you say. Now I have no more to say on the subject. Let's drop it. You have been very civil (unlike that Sean) and I appreciate it.

InFides said...

Hello Good Gentles All!

Hello Anonymous!

" (not even under the some of the circumstances I outlined - to which you made no response)."

If I failed to respond please tell me which arguments of your I missed. I try to cut and paste and then address every argument in a debate in order to be thorough. If I have missed anything please tell me what (cut and paste) and I will address it.


"...and as I've said repeatedly, it's for the woman to decide..."

My concern is that she is deciding for someone else. I have not heard your reply to this fact.

Let us consider the following.

We have the woman and child prior to conception. The woman is 'un-pregnant' and the child does not exist at all.

We then have conception. The woman is now pregnant and the child exists and is alive.

The woman can do one of two things:

Have the baby or abort it.

If she has the baby then afterwards she will again be 'un-pregnant.

The baby will be living its life.

If she aborts the baby then afterwards she will again be un-pregnant.

The baby will be dead.

When trying to balance between conflicting interests the mother's should give way because in both cases she will return to her original state whereas the baby will suffer an irreparable loss of life.

There is no equivalence in the temporary interruption in one's life to the loss of that life.

I must also say that I am having trouble understanding how a mother's interests could not coincide with her baby's in almost all situations. It appears that since over 98% of abortions are for non-medical reasons (CDC and Alan Gutmacher institute statistics) then the woman's interests appear to be shallow and egotistical when compared to the child's loss of life.

".. and of course she will, whatever you say."

I am not concerned with the deliberate commission of immoral acts by people who should know better. I am interested in whether I have adopted a logical and moral position. Our ethics should stand independently of the willingness of others to fail to abide by them. I am opposed to stealing even though many people steal. Even if everyone else on earth was a thief I would still be opposed to thievery.

In my life first things first. I try to understand the ethics of a situation and then I live by them. I make my life fit my ethics not the reverse. If my ethics are merely situational then I do not actually have them at all.


" Now I have no more to say on the subject."

I feel that, deep down, you have much more to say. Perhaps it is merely that you do not wish to subject your positions to rigorous analysis or probing questions? I noticed that you answered none of my questions in my last posting. They are valid questions that deserve consideration. If your position is logically sound it should be able to address them coherently, if not then you owe it to yourself to understand why. I am not saying you have to change your position. Many people are quite happy living lives that are not logically consistent. But do you not at least want to explore your philosophy? I know how difficult it is. I did it myself.

I bear no ill will and am not upset. But even if you do not want to answer these questions to me at least consider answering them to yourself. Look in the mirror and see what the man has to say.


" Let's drop it."

I am so anxious to continue. I can not force you and I would not if could but this is important and I feel the discussion is good for all. I am learning much and wish to continue.


"You have been very civil (unlike that Sean) and I appreciate it."

You are more than kind and all politness. I know how abrasive I can be and you are generous not to hold it against me.

Hello Sean!

I thank you for the compliment but please, no personal invective. I respect Anonymous and I am not anxious to see him treated that way.

Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,

InFides