Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, March 30, 2007

Leftists Worry About The 3,200 American Deaths In Iraq

But don’t bat an eye at 4,000 deaths caused by abortion every day.

From J. Trandem at Scott Hennen’s Hot Talk blog:

Some of the same people who continually rant about the number of deaths suffered in this time of war support the scourge which is taking lives at a rate unparalleled by any other affliction.  The number 4000 represents the number of abortions performed today and every day in the United States.  About 25 of them happened in Fargo.

Is this what people mean by “women’s rights”?  Is it reasonable to support this “right”?  Many abortion supporters argue that these aren’t actually human lives that are being terminated.  Two qualifying questions:  Are they human?  They have human DNA, what else could they be?  Are they alive?  They have a beating heart.  Can you name something that has a beating heart which isn’t alive?  The only reason someone would argue that something is not a human or alive is so they can kill it.  Abortion supporters regularly refer to a baby as a fetus.  When you are pregnant do you refer to it as a fetus?  When you go to the doctor for your check-ups does he ask you how your fetus is doing?  Do you tell people that you are having a fetus?  Do people ask if they can feel your fetus kick?  It seems that their logic is consistent regarding the designation as a fetus.  They call a baby a fetus only when they want to kill it.

I know that this may sound like harsh language compared to the terms typically used by abortion supporters, but it isn’t.  It’s realistic.  They aren’t just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.  They fight to protect the right to kill one’s own child if it’s deemed necessary for ANY reason.  They’ll throw the rape and incest garbage at you, but those aren’t the reasons behind most abortions.  Don’t you think we would hear about it if there were really 4000 rapes resulting in pregnancy a day?  The reality is, most abortions happen because the individual choosing it isn’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to care for a child that she was complicit in creating.  In a word, selfishness. I’m not giving the Dads a pass.  They also need to be held accountable, but when they aren’t there to help, adoption is always an option. 

Read the whole thing.

This post was prompted, I’m sure, by the advancement of two good pro-life goals in the North Dakota legislature. 

First our legislators put a halt to a bill that would allow pregnant teenage girls to receive prenatal care without their parent’s knowledge or consent, something that prompted one of North Dakota’s more idiotic liberal bloggers to proclaim that she “hates this state.” I guess the idea that our minor children should have to, you know, tell their parents if they’re knocked up is just too much to take for some liberals.  I mean, most schools send a note home to parents if their kids get detention, but if these liberals got their way we wouldn’t be extended that same courtesy if our little girl got pregnant.  Which is lunacy, of course, but then nobody has ever accused many of these libs of being sane.

Second, the state has made good progress on an abortion “trigger bill” that would ban abortion in this state should the Roe vs. Wade ruling ever be overturned.  Which is just fine with me.  Should it pass, it would send a message to the rest of the nation that North Dakota a) does not appreciate it’s right to determine the abortion issue for itself being usurped by the Supreme Court and b) favors life over abortion.

Comments

The truth of abortion is that it is baby-killing as a means of birth control, in almost all cases.  Of course, even one case would be too much.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 06:42 am
Avatar for Dave

Many abortion supporters argue that these aren’t actually human lives that are being terminated.

Many intelligent abortion supporters correctly argue that these aren’t actual persons that are being terminated.
Dave on March 30, 2007 at 06:48 am
Rob
Rob
17183 comments
Send a private message

The idea that a human baby is not a “person” until it emerges from the womb is an absurd rationalization engaged in by those who don’t wish to admit that they are condoning murder.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 30, 2007 at 06:57 am

By your “reasoning” then, Dave, it’s OK to eat veal, which isn’t yet an animal.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 06:57 am

Fetal cow brains are eaten in Spain - god knows how they prepare them. We saw some bizarre things at an open air market there.
Rob/Dave
The catholic church used to claim that ‘quickening’ occurred at the begining of the third trimester. Now they claim its at conception, due to the polticization of the topic. I think their old policy has to do with the fact that the still birth #s during the first two trimesters used to be higher and people feel better if they think it doesn’t yet have a soul. Obviously I don’t think ‘quickening’ ever occurs.
MOFAL’s claim that legalized abortion prevents back alley jobs is important to consider I think. The bummer is that its the poor who would seek out illegal ones as they can’t very well fly to Holland and have the thing sucked out. We can’t let abortion be too cheap either or that would send the wrong message.

Sparkie Arbuckle on March 30, 2007 at 07:14 am
Avatar for Dave

Rob:

The idea that a human baby is not a “person” until it emerges from the womb is an absurd rationalization…

Agreed. The location of a human has nothing to do with whether it has attained the qualities of personhood--whether it has become a person yet.

r108:

By your “reasoning” then, Dave, it’s OK to eat veal, which isn’t yet an animal.

Another flawed analogy from r108. Even by your standards this makes no sense.

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 07:22 am
Rob
Rob
17183 comments
Send a private message

Agreed. The location of a human has nothing to do with whether it has attained the qualities of personhood--whether it has become a person yet.

That’s your opinion.  You seem to think that a human is not a human until he/she can perform certain brain functions, which leads you to believe that infanticide is perfectly moral.

Which is exactly why your insane opinion counts for nothing.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 30, 2007 at 07:29 am

Veal, being unborn, is OK to kill, by your reasoning.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 07:35 am
Avatar for Dave

That’s your opinion.

And yours too, right? Or do you actually believe there’s a moral difference between a 7-month old fetus and a 2-month premature newborn baby? Because I sure don’t think so… as I said, the location of a human has no bearing on its Personhood.

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 07:40 am
Avatar for Dave

Veal, being unborn

No...veal calves have been born.

You’re not this stupid. What’s the catch?

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 07:42 am

Veal, being unborn

?
Veal_Cows.jpg
these veals look born to me. unless their mom is a barn about to have quintuplets.
Sparkie Arbuckle on March 30, 2007 at 07:42 am

Oops! My bad.  Apparently, veal is very a very young calf, more like a “partial-birth” abortion.

Now they claim its at conception, due to the polticization of the topic.

Nope.  It’s due to the discovery of DNA, which demonstrates that the unique individual profile is formed at conception, and continues to express itself until death.  In fact, that very DNA can be used to “identify a person long after they are dead.
Funny, isn’t it?  According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person”, but a dead person is still a “person”.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 07:44 am

Actually, I’m no fan of veal.  I prefer a good, thick filet mignon, done to 130 degrees internal.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 07:46 am
Avatar for Dave

According to Dave (...) a dead person is still a “person”.

Stop lying. What makes you think I beleive “a deap person is still a person”?

Why do you lie like this? Or are you just not smart enough to follow a very simple conversation?

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 07:47 am

I prefer a good, thick filet mignon, done to 130 degrees internal.

Mmmmmmm. When I was last in Miami I went to the Coral Gables Country Club (Posh) and had a killer filet - one of the best of my life. I think the chef is one of those who knows how long to leave it out at room temperature so its just perfect. I drool just remembering it.

Sparkie Arbuckle on March 30, 2007 at 07:52 am

My actual quote: 

According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person”, but a dead person is still a “person”.

Do you deny that a dead person is still a person, Dave?
According to you, an unborn human isn’t a person.
I guess you can’t read a simple sentence without distorting its meaning.  How sad.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 07:53 am
Avatar for Dave

Do you deny that a dead person is still a person, Dave?

Of course I deny it! I haven’t said anything to indicate otherwise, so why did you ask such a stupid question?

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 08:11 am

Good.  Now when you go back to my statement, the part that says: “According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person"..." you admit I made an accurate statement, right?  I know this is difficult for you, Dave, but keep at it, and you will get it eventually.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 09:47 am
Avatar for Dave

r108: This is what you wrote:

According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person”, but a dead person is still a “person”.

The first part:

an unborn human isn’t a “person”

I have said is true.

The second part:

but a dead person is still a “person”.

is just absolute bullshit. When you accuse me of believing that, you’re either lying or just incredibly stupid. Which is it?

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 02:24 pm

Dave: This is just tiresome.  If you think a dead person is no longer a person, I apologize for not using enough words for you to understand.  Society still regards a dead person as a person, but you don’t regard an unborn human as a person.  Got it now?

“I see dead people.” Dead humans are commonly referred to as “people”, as in “how many people died in that air crash?” Examples abound.  If you can’t face that reality, it’s not to your credit.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 02:28 pm

As so often happens around here, a serious topic degenerates into discussing someones ugly dog or in this case the relative tastes of veal versus snake butt or whatever it was. I work with Special Needs children every day, most of them cannot focus on one thing for more than a few seconds at a time either. I hope some of you enjoy riding in the small yellow buses every day.

Once again Rob, despite the differences in our Life Model (Evolutions versus Creation), your wisdom and fairness on these matters often astounds me. While I would have used many more words, I admire every one you chose to use in this dabate.

I will only add that: A woman and most liberals can terminate the life of a fetus and call it something cute like abortion, the removal of a mass of tissue much like a tumor; but if someone kicks her in the gut and the fetus dies it is a human being and that person is guilty of murder; or if she falls in a store and loses the baby, the store is sued for killing her baby. Same woman, same time in her pregancy, but one act makes the fetus a legal abortion and two others are criminal termination of a life. Such a dichotomy cannot be sustained by any rational human being, and certainly should not be justified under law.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on March 30, 2007 at 03:00 pm
Avatar for Dave

Society still regards a dead person as a person, but you don’t regard an unborn human as a person.  Got it now?

R108, just apologize for lying about me by saying that I (not “society") believe a dead human being is a “person.” That is not true. You either lied or are too stupid to follow a simple conversation. Again, you wrote:

According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person”, but a dead person is still a “person”.

The parts in bold are not true.

Question: Did you lie intentionally, or did you write something that was untrue out of plain stupidity?

Dave on March 30, 2007 at 03:17 pm

I repeat:

Dave: This is just tiresome.  If you think a dead person is no longer a person, I apologize for not using enough words for you to understand.  Society still regards a dead person as a person, but you don’t regard an unborn human as a person.  Got it now?

I should have written the sentence: “According to Dave, an unborn human isn’t a “person”, but according to society at large, a dead person is still a “person”.

Get it now?  I apologize for not spelling it out clearly enough for you. I have no recollection of you saying that a dead person is still a “person”.  If you don’t know that, it isn’t my fault.


"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

robert108 on March 30, 2007 at 04:47 pm

Dave and R108
I think, with a few more posts, we’ll have a consensus… one of you will be right and one will be wrong and I’m sure looking forward to seeing who the victor is!

/SARCASM

Sparkie Arbuckle on March 30, 2007 at 05:08 pm

Sparkie: You are wrong, we are waiting with baited breath for your decision on this matter.

By the way, what is baited breath, does it smell like dead fish bait?


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on March 30, 2007 at 06:32 pm

Dave said, Many intelligent abortion supporters correctly argue that these aren’t actual persons that are being terminated.

You’re stupid. A person is a human. Abortion kills a human. End of story.

likwidshoe on March 31, 2007 at 04:05 am
Avatar for Dave

likwid:

A person is a human.

Correct. However, that does mean that the converse is true--that all humans are persons. If all P’s are Q’s, does that mean all Q’s are P’s? No.

Some human beings--rational adults, for example--have attained the qualities of personhood. Other human beings--fetuses, newborns, the profoundly mentally disabled--have not, and are thus not persons.

I don’t think this ends the story, because I recognize that these issues are complex, and that every day we learn more about them.

Dave on April 2, 2007 at 07:26 am
Avatar for Chris Brownell

I have an interesting discussion with “Teller Of Truths” over at her blog. May or may not be worth a read. The link is in the text of this post.

C.

Chris Brownell on April 3, 2007 at 04:49 pm

Rob

does not appreciate it’s right to determine [any] issue for itself being usurped by the Supreme Court [or another branch of the Fed]

a good message for any and all states to send. i am often saddened when I think of what greater diversity we would have in the US if we had stronger states, if the people were better able to self determine, and so forth…

Sparkie Arbuckle on April 3, 2007 at 06:15 pm
Rob
Rob
17183 comments
Send a private message

Some human beings--rational adults, for example--have attained the qualities of personhood. Other human beings--fetuses, newborns, the profoundly mentally disabled--have not, and are thus not persons.

You know, I could take the word “apple” and redefine it to mean “a round, orange citrus fruit” but that wouldn’t mean that I’ve changed what an apple is.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on April 3, 2007 at 07:01 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.