Say Anything Blog

I approve of your wording.

“highly emotional”

Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.

Actually, the legal case against a “right” to an abortion is quite reasoned.

Put simply, there is no right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution.  It is a state’s rights issue, and the citizens of each state should be able to determine the way forward on the issue just as the citizens of South Dakota did last night.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Yes, Chad; it’s completely rational to kill babies as a form of birth control.  Yeah.
Typical lying leftie spin.  People who want to save lives are irrational and emotional, and those who want to kill are rational and level-headed.  That makes a lot of sense.  People kill and do violence out of fear.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.

I tested that theory of yours, and I determined it’s wrong. I read the Constitution, and did not see a “right” to abortion listed in there. But, according to you, this decision could have been reached based on “emtion.”

So, I spent all night reading Ayn Rand and thus eliminating all forms of human emotion from my system. I read the Constitution again, and you know what? There’s STILL no right to an abortion in it.

“killing babies” and “saving lives”

Like I said, these are terms designed to evoke emotion, at the expense of honesty. At best, they are misleading; at worst, out-right lies.

For me, regardless of personal beliefs, it all boils down to whether or not you want the gonverment controlling that aspect of your life.

“killing babies” and “saving lives”

They are simply true; every abortion kills a baby, and every abortion prevented saves a life; what part of that don’t you understand, Chad.

In your upside-down world, then, abortion “saves lives” and preventing abortion “kills babies”?
I object to the govt having any say at all in abortion; it should receive no govt funding or support; it should be a personal and local decision.  Or maybe you don’t want the govt “controlling your life” by forbidding you to rob banks or commit murder?  What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong, and no amount of leftie lying will change that.  If you don’t want children, don’t have vaginal intercourse; if you choose to do that, live with the consequences; don’t resort to killing to relieve you of the responsibility for what you did.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Like I said, these are terms designed to evoke emotion, at the expense of honesty. At best, they are misleading; at worst, out-right lies.

I agree with you there. The whole point of the debate is whether these are “lives” or “babies” in the first place. Anti-abortion rights activists are trying to win the debate through definition.

Let’s see; one abortion equals one death.  That which was alive is now dead.  Isn’t that the whole point of abortion?  “Winning the debate through definition” is precisely what the pro-abortion folks have been doing; they are trying to redefine a baby as a “fetus”, which is part of the necessary dehumanizing process to prepare for killing a human being.  At least be honest enough to use the term “human fetus”.  The real definition is up to the mother; if she wants it, it’s a “baby”.  If she doesn’t, it’s a “fetus”.  Who is doing the defining?

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hey Dave, is this really the term you want to use:

Anti-abortion rights

Given that you yourself have condeded that there is no right to an abortion in the constitution and that Roe should be overturned so that the states can decide this matter for themselves.

Also:

trying to win the debate through definition.

Well, so is the pro-abortion crowd.  They’re trying to define a life in the womb as something other than a life.  Which, of course, just isn’t true.  If you stomp on a chicken’s egg and kill the chick inside it, you’ve killed.  If you pull a child half-way out of the mother’s womb in order to crush its skull, you’ve killed.  You have ended life.

There’s no getting around that.  You pro-abortion ghouls could at least be honest about what it is you support.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Of course that’s the term I want to use. I’d call myself an anti-abortion rights activist, because I don’t think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think the most accurate terms for the two sides are anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights.

Also, I would add that “ending life” is of no conern for the ~98% of Americans who eat meat every day, so the ethical objection to abortion must be based on something more serious than this.

I don’t think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think the most accurate terms for the two sides are anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights.

One question: If you really recognize that there is no constitutional right to abortion, then why use the term “rights” in how you define the two sides.  It doesn’t make sense.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I would add that “ending life” is of no conern for the ~98% of Americans who eat meat every day, so the ethical objection to abortion must be based on something more serious than this.

Hey, who’s trying to win by definition now?

But that definition only works for ridiculous people like yourself.  For the rest of us, animals are not equivalent to humans.  They’re just dumb animals.

I would turn that on you and ask how you can support abortion but oppose hamburgers, but I know you’ve got some retarded way to rationalize your way around that bit of hypocrisy.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Actually, a great many animals are our food.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Rob:

But that definition only works for ridiculous people like yourself.  For the rest of us, animals are not equivalent to humans.  They’re just dumb animals.

So then the problem most people have with abortion is not that it “ends life” (as you first said); it’s that it “ends human life.” Would this be more accurate?

So then the problem most people have with abortion is not that it “ends life” (as you first said); it’s that it “ends human life.” Would this be more accurate?

Entirely.  Because, for most people, there is no equivalence between human life and animal life.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Because, for most people, there is no equivalence between human life and animal life.

Despite the fact that humans are animals. Or did you mean “human animal life” and “non-human animal life”?

Despite the fact that humans are animals. Or did you mean “human animal life” and “non-human animal life”?

I think you know what I mean.

For someone who was just bitching abot how pro-lifers seek win the argument with definitions you are sure spending a lot of time focusing on word and phrase meanings.

We’ve been down this road before, and I really don’t have the desire to beat your batshit crazy idea of human/animal equivalence to death once again.

Suffice it to say that I am right, and you’re a fringish kook who thinks that eating burgers is equivalent to Nazism.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

We’ve been down this road before, and I really don’t have the desire to beat your batshit crazy idea of human/animal equivalence to death once again.

You’re the one who said abortion was wrong because it “ends life,” a statement you didn’t even believe was true. If you’re upset that I call you on your factually incorrect statements, stop making them.

Suffice it to say that I am right, and you’re a fringish kook who thinks that eating burgers is equivalent to Nazism.

I’m jealous, Rob. I wish I’d said it first.
You’re exactly right. Semantics aside, the real difference, when you get right down to it, is that we believe that human life is inherently valuable. Kooks like our friend Dave seem to be under the impression that we are no more endowed by our Creator than any other organism.

Rose: Actually, Dave wants to end human life, but has a problem with ending animal life.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I see. So tell me Dave, which would you consider more morally repugnant: an aborted fetus or a Spamburger?
(let’s assume, for the sake of argument that Spam does, in fact, contain real meat
...just out of curiousity.

From the other side, yes, but it might be an interesting read… The RH Reality Check blog has been featuring guest bloggers from Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and others talking about these SCOTUS cases: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/tag/supreme-court

Chad said, Which is exactly where the anti-abortion position lies. It’s not based in logic or reason, but irrationality and emotion.

Don’t be a dufus Chad.

Abortion kills an innocent human.

There’s your logic and reason.

For me, regardless of personal beliefs, it all boils down to whether or not you want the gonverment controlling that aspect of your life.

This sounds like a bad defense in a murder case.

But you know what Chad? Perhaps you’re right and the world would be better off without your offspring. So go ahead and kill your kids. The last thing we need is another Chad running around this world.

Rose writes: 

Semantics aside, the real difference, when you get right down to it, is that we believe that human life is inherently valuable.

I’d agree with that statement. Species membership is not a morally significant factor.

So tell me Dave, which would you consider more morally repugnant: an aborted fetus or a Spamburger?

There are so many unknown variables here, but in general the slaughter of an animal for food is worse than an abortion of a fetus. In fact, I can’t come up with a scenario in which the abortion would be worse.

Here’s a “scenario” for you: Respect for human life, combined with a healthy natural human diet, which includes animal food.  Duh.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Dave:
How’s this for a scenario?
If you had to make the choice between your being aborted and killing a hamster, what would you do? (Granted there are some special circumstances in this case, for which I might be persuaded to make a one time concession in favor of abortion...)

Tell the mother that is carrying that “fetus” that she should wait to buy baby clothes until it is actaully a baby?  When Americans start taking responsibility for their actions, they will stop looking for the easy way out.

If you had to make the choice between your being aborted and killing a hamster, what would you do?

If the hamster would be killed in a painful matter, I’d rather abort a fetus. If not, I’d just flip a coin, as neither the hamster nor the fetus has a right to life, and neither of them can see themselves as existing over time and they lack self-consciousness.

Dave:
What if it was a virtually painless death faced by either hamster or fetus? Then who gets it?
Is this the issue for you; whether or not the death is painless or not? Because that really is a non-issue.

What if it was a virtually painless death faced by either hamster or fetus? Then who gets it?

It’s a coinflip. There’s no pain, and neither can contemplate its own existence (ie, see itself as existing over time--self consciousness). So it wouldn’t matter.

Is this the issue for you; whether or not the death is painless or not? Because that really is a non-issue.

All beings have an interest in avoiding pain--not all beings have an interest in avoiding death. Pain is a monumental issue. Every ethical decision we make should be based on whether it will increase or decrease the amount of pain or suffering in the world.

...not all beings have an interest in avoiding death.

What possible justification do you have for saying this?  The only death you are entitled to speak of is your own.  You don’t get to decide for any other human being.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108: You act on this assumption--that not all beings have an interest in avoiding death--every time you cook a hamburger. I think your outrage is a bit misplaced.

so, in the case of a severely mentally handicapped person who can’t

see themselves as existing over time and they lack self-consciousness

,
they would lose out to the hamster, too?

I am speaking of human beings, which I made very clear in my statement.  It is your smartass position about eating a normal human diet that is your issue.  You try to conflate your dietary extremism with your lust to kill children, and always end up failing to convince anyone on this blog.  I’m not even outraged here; I am used to your lack of ability to think and reason.  “All beings” could refer to bacteria and amoebae, which are way outside the scope of this discussion.  To repeat, my point is that human beings avoid death.  Your agenda is about your perception of what is painful, which is a far lesser issue.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I’m going to throw an additional thought into the mix here for Robert, Rose, and Dave.

Why is it that Christian theology provides one of the most complex, detailed and compelling set of ideas regarding an after life (not to mention emphasizing the frailty of human existence and the importance of humility - we are dust), but then Christians seem to lead the charge in culture with voicing their fear—or at least, distaste—for death?

If it is about a moral ability to decide to take a life, you need to say so.  The thought that you have a problem merely with death (Robert and Rose) seems to be clouding the conversation with Dave.

Watcher: You make somewhat of a point with me, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian theology.  My distaste for Dave’s views on diet and infanticide, which he tries to justify with some crap about pain being worse than death, is honed over many comments he has made on the subject.  My position is that human life is precious, and shouldn’t be taken by other humans except under extreme conditions, like war.  Avoiding the responsibility for sexual activity doesn’t excuse taking life, in my book.  It’s not about a fear or even a distaste for death, but out of a respect for human life, especially of the young and innocent.

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Watcher: It is not a fear of death, but rather a conviction that human life is sacred. I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply...that the Christian concept of heaven is some elaborate ruse that Christians themselves don’t really believe? And that’s why we’re opposed to abortion-because we know those babies really don’t have an afterlife awaiting them? If I’ve misconstrued your comments, please clarify. If not, I think you’re missing the point.

Rose,

I’m not trying to imply that at all, though I could see taking that implication away from it. 

My point was to elicit exactly what you said: you believe human life is sacred.  So where does your conversation with Dave go, who appears to be operating from a more materialist/humanist/perhaps atheist framework?  It’s almost apples and oranges, unless you can explain sacredness in terms that he accepts.

My point was that with the hope of heaven, you would have all the reason in the world to embrace death.  So if you embrace life even more, there must be a good reason.

Why is life sacred?

Robert108: You are saying non-human animals do not have an interest in avoiding death. The obvious question:

What possible justification do you have for saying this?  The only death you are entitled to speak of is your own. You don’t get to decide for any other being.

Robert108: You are saying non-human animals do not have an interest in avoiding death. The obvious question:

I said nothing of the kind.  You make your usual logical error of assuming the opposite of what I said.  I am not a dialectical thinker.  My actual statement:

I am speaking of human beings, which I made very clear in my statement.

What part of that didn’t you understand?

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108: So you believe non-human animals DO have an interest in avoiding death? How do you know this?

Robert108: So you believe non-human animals DO have an interest in avoiding death? How do you know this?

I didn’t say that, either.  Your inability to think continues to amaze me.  Again, here is what I said:

I am speaking of human beings, which I made very clear in my statement.

Pay close attention to the part in bold type.  Hint: It will tell you I was speaking of human beings.  Non-human animals are your big concern, not mine.  I eat them, generally speaking.  I do care about the tasty ones, but only for flavor and nutritional purposes.  I am not concerned about any of their interests, if they can be said to have any besides eating and reproducing.  I will leave all that up to you.  Get it now?

---

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.