Who are the real pacifists?

force-beliefs.jpgSince 99% of murders are abortions, that makes pro-lifers the real pacifists (even if they are pro-capital punishment).

The pro-choice / anti-capital punishment crowd is much less than 1% pacifistic at best.

Who knew?!

 Also see Oxymoron of the year: Pro-choice pacifists

47 thoughts on “Who are the real pacifists?”

  1. “Don’t force your beliefs on me!” – unborn baby

    I agree 100%

    Yet when babies are born, the religious beliefs of the parents *are* forced upon them. How very sad. Why not let them choose for themselves?

    (Neil, can I use HTML tags (bold etc) in this forum?)

    Neil said: Hi Gary – First, if I inferred correctly that you are on the pro-life said, then good for you!

    Yes, tags are permitted.

    I really wish you would undertake a serious study of the Bible. When you do, perhaps you can find the place that shows where the Bible teaches that we should force people to believe. I’ve read it a few times and can’t find it.

    Your comment is interesting relative to the “Christians” who believe in universalism. They would be the ones who think God would force people to believe. But that simply isn’t a Biblical motif.

    Jesus was God in flesh, and He saw people face to face and performed miracles. But He didn’t force anyone to follow him.

    Foolish exercises like the Inquisition were unbiblical in the extreme. But of course you don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.

    So am I to assume that atheists generally encourage their children to seriously study all the holy books and decide for themselves? I didn’t get that impression from Dawkins’ site. The general theme was contempt for anyone of faith.

    I have always taught my children to ask all the tough questions they like. I have never said, “Just believe” and never will. Of course I take them to church and teach them a Biblical worldview. But of course they can reject it, just like I did growing up.

    Like

  2. Think you may have inferred incorrectly. I am pro-choice and believe it is the woman’s choice as I have yet to meet a man who ever became pregnant.

    Neil said: Too bad, I thought we had something important in common. Seems like abortion would be against the materialist worldview since it obviously slows down the perpetuation of the species. But I suppose in the “whatever happens, nature was successful” tautology that anything can be rationalized.

    The fact that men can’t get pregnant is completely irrelevant to the discussion, of course. The only question is whether the unborn are human beings, and they obviously are.

    The notion that women must have the “choice” to destroy their children to be considered of equal value to men is one of the greatest lies going.

    I have studied the bible (I was raised Catholic, strict Christian Brothers schooling, bible study, mass on Sunday, etc) and believe it to be the word of bookish men from 3,000 years ago. How else to explain the misogyny littered throughout? (Not to mention the bad science, math, geography)

    Neil said: Misogyny taught in the Bible? Heh. I know it is hard not to be ethnocentric, but I encourage those with your view to understand the historical perspective. Paul’s writings were surely as controversial then as they are now – but for the opposite reason. Jesus and Paul elevated women like never before.

    Again, in a materialist worldview, who’s to say misogyny is wrong? I think it is, but then again I have a Biblical worldview.

    LOL re. geography and such being wrong. The Bible never claims to be a science textbook yet makes many accurate claims. The geography is incredible. Archeology is the Bible’s best friend, proving skeptics wrong again and again. But what would one expect from a truly divine book?

    The forcing of religion onto children too young to know better is called indoctrination This is down to the church elders, the bible is simply a collection of myths and fables.

    Yes, atheists/rationalists are open with regard to children and faith. However, it should be up to the child to choose when he/she is old enough. The brain of a child is hardwired to accept instruction from parents and elders in order to learn, survive and grow. They cannot tell the difference between truth and fantasy.

    Neil said: Myths and fables? Now you just look desperate. If this indoctrination is so powerful, why do so many leave the church?

    “Of course I take them to church and teach them a Biblical worldview.” That’s my point exactly Neil. Of course they trust you, you’re the parent. They will follow where you lead. Don’t you find it strange that most children follow the faith of their parents? Had you been born in Iraq, would you believe in Jehovah or Allah?

    Neil said: You are assuming that those people really believe in Allah, and are not just pretending to out of fear. Yes, kids are influenced by their parents. But I’ll ask you again: So am I to assume that atheists generally encourage their children to seriously study all the holy books and decide for themselves? I didn’t get that impression from Dawkins’ site. The general theme was contempt for anyone of faith.

    “The general theme was contempt for anyone of faith.” Contempt for ignorance, superstition and narrow-mindedness – and of course, blind-faith! If religious faith was simply practised indoors by consenting adults, fine, I’ve no problem – unfortuantely it seeps into politics, science, health, astronomy, geology, mental health etc. etc.

    Neil said: Thanks for the laughs. As a blogging friend pointed out (I’d link to his site but want to spare him an intolerant “raiding party”), if there is no God then the source of all of our alleged ignorance, superstition and narrowmindedness is your materialism! Think about it.

    In your “whatever nature does is what it was supposed to do” tautology, then how could we be to blame? We are just doing whatever our evolution-driven brains tell us to. And the same goes for you all.

    Like

  3. Since 99% of murders are abortions

    Neil, do you have a reference for this figure? Is this worldwide or in the states?

    Neil said: Murders in the U.S. are roughly 14,000 – 15,000 per year (search for “murders United States”). Abortions ~ 1,300,000 (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html).

    I’m not sure about worldwide. Definitely more abortions in Russia / India / China (especially gender selection abortions by those misogynistic atheists), but perhaps more murders as well.

    Like

  4. Neil, are you including the 8.2% of legal medical abortions that are performed in order to save life of the mother and remove a child that will not carry to term due to infant illness and has died In utero?

    I find less than 840,000 abortions in the US according to the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

    And quoting figures from NRLC on abortion is hardly a balanced viewpoint, now is it?

    Neil said: This is the fun part, where bias gets exposed. First, even if you were right about it being 8.2% – which is 8 times higher than every study I’ve seen – would that make a difference? Would your views change if my post said 90% insted of 99%? Of course not. If the child is already dead that shouldn’t be in the stats (abortion kills a living being).

    Did you read the link I provided at your request or deliberately ignore it?

    Yes, it was from the National Right to Life page. Do you automatically ignore anything Planned Parenthood says because of their potential bias?

    But here’s the best part: The page quoted the Alan Guttmacher institute for their information. Guess who they are? It was right on the link: “Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

    So technically speaking my source was Planned Parenthood’s research arm.

    Now that we’ve straightened that out I’m sure you’ll modify your views.

    And here is why the CDC has lower figures starting in 1998 (it excludes some states, among other things). Again, this was on the link provided.

    “Because of these different methods of data collection, AGI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Nevertheless, because increases and decreases in CDC and AGI numbers have until recently roughly tracked each other, both sources are thought to provide useful information on abortion trends and statistics. The CDC stopped reporting estimates for some states in 1998, making the discrepancy larger.”

    Like

  5. Did you read the link I provided at your request or deliberately ignore it?

    Nope. Firewall, I’m in work.

    Neil said: For future reference, it would save a lot of time if you mentioned things like that up front or just waited to actually read what I provided at your request before disputing it.

    This is the fun part, where bias gets exposed. Yes, I agree with you. As you say above: Since 99% of murders are abortions But when I search for “murders United States” as you told me to, I don’t get figures for abortion. Ergo, this is only your view/bias.

    If the child is already dead that shouldn’t be in the stats (abortion kills a living being).Not true. Again, this is your view/bias.

    (We’re now onto the question of “When does life begin?” which we’d probably disagree on!)

    Neil said: Well, I support science – and thought you did – so I figured you’d concede that life begins at conception. If it isn’t living, why have an abortion? This is really basic biology and I’m stunned that you would deny it.

    Your next argument is to try and deny that it is human, and that will be equally impossible (it ain’t a puppy).

    Most pro-legalized abortionists have moved on past the “is it living” argument because those pesky ultrasounds annihilated that argument the way abortionists annihilate innocent human beings. Now they trot out tortured “personhood” and “potential human” arguments. But of course these aren’t “potential” humans were talking about. They are are human beings with the potential to go to the next stage. Just as teenagers have the potential to become adults as long as no one crushes their skull and rips their limbs off (without anesthetic, by the way).

    A miscarriage is classed as “an abortion” but is completely natural, and of no fault of the woman. (Most women will have experienced one at some stage)

    Neil said: Yes, I know, we had quite a few. But of course we wouldn’t conflate death by natural causes of an 80 year old with the murder of the same person. That would be illogical. So again, the only question is, “What is the unborn?”

    Do you automatically ignore anything Planned Parenthood says because of their potential bias?
    Nice use of the word “potential” – that made me smile 🙂

    Neil said: I live to make you guys smile 🙂

    Like

  6. BTW here is a quote from Ron Paul on abortion that you might enjoy…

    “Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.” Ron Paul

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

    On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described “the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time.” (see link above)..

    The linked article is basically a slam against Ron Paul for his pro-life stance. Read Paul’s quotes and then read the conclusion of the article. They just don’t get it.

    Like

  7. Re, “But of course you don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.”

    This underlies the fundamental difference between most conservative and most liberal Christians, in my opinion.

    Christianity is NOT an ideology, it is a way of life. As such, it, in every time and in every place it is expressed, absolutely can be judged on the actions of all of its adherents.

    Neil said: So if someone calls themselves a Christian (authentically or not) and does the opposite of what Jesus teaches then you hold that against the truth of Christianity? I think we both agree that Christians should act like Christians are supposed to act. But just because I still sin doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t who He said He was.

    Re: abortion. I’m against it. I will never have one. I will personally try to dissuade every female I have any personal influence over not to have one.

    But I’m for using the right words: Abortion is not “murder” under the law. It’s not. And so the entire basis of this post collapses. It’s not even good rhetoric.

    Neil said: It is only bad bad rhetoric that it isn’t currently described as murder in the law. Consider “Laci’s Law” and other legislation that give worth to the unborn when she is wanted. Of course abortion is murder. Judges just had to torture the language to make abortion legal.

    Why are you against abortion? If it doesn’t kill an innocent human being, then it is a cost effective and safe procedure (at least according to its supporters). If is does kill an innocent human being, then why should it be legal?

    Like

  8. I find it odd that indoctrination is considered by some visiting here to be worse than abortion. Children should be free to decide their religious beliefs, but only if their mothers didn’t first choose to kill them in the womb?

    Like

  9. Neil, I honestly don’t understand your first imbedded comment in my comment above. It probably has to do with the fact that you see the faith as a set of truths first, an ideology, and I see them as secondary. I said nothing about invalidating, or validating truth. I suggested that past performance actually is an indicator (but no guarantee of) future events with Christians, as with all other groups. See my own posts today about my own garden-variety failings today. But really, we might need a translator.

    As for why I am against abortion, I am no more obligated to explain my stance to you than you are obligated to convince me of why you take some of the stances you do. I’m against it. Take it or leave it.

    Like

  10. Neil Said: Well, I support science – and thought you did – so I figured you’d concede that life begins at conception. If it isn’t living, why have an abortion?

    Simply because something has the potential to become a human baby, doesn’t mean it is human. A bundle of cells do not a human make.
    I think (but may be wrong) that the current period of time in which an abortion may take place is prior to the development of a functioning brain – it is based upon (possible) consciousness more than life.

    Neil said: Once again, a conceptus is a human being, not a potential human. It is at the stage of development it is supposed to be at. A toddler is a potential teenager by your definition, but we don’t allow them to be crushed and dismembered for convenience’ sake, do we?

    Like

  11. ER, thanks for the clarification. We’re probably talking past each on the 1st item but no big deal.

    You are right, you aren’t obligated to explain your abortion position to me. I just thought was how this blogging thing was supposed to work. No problem.

    Like

  12. Well, brother, it is how this blogging thing is supposed to work. But usually at some point, you decide that you and your opponents are at an impasse. I’m just letting you know that on abortion — abortion, itself — you and I agree. And that it simply will do no good for us to get into the whys and wherefores of it. For you will not make me any more against abortion, so you should count your blessings where they lay, and I will not give you any more understanding as to why I am on your side for the thing itself that you say you want, yet I still disagree with you on how to get it. It’s a genuine impasse that doesn’t matter — because the aim is the same. And it’s not unlike many of the other things you and I disagree on; this one just isn’t ripe for argument.

    Neil said: Thanks, ER. I’m OK with that.

    Like

  13. Simply because something has the potential to become a human baby, doesn’t mean it is human. A bundle of cells do not a human make.
    I think (but may be wrong) that the current period of time in which an abortion may take place is prior to the development of a functioning brain – it is based upon (possible) consciousness more than life.

    There is a heartbeat by the time a woman figures out she is pregnant. There is a rudimentary brain a week later.

    Unless a woman acts really, really fast (i.e. takes early-response pregnancy test and goes to an abortion clinic that day), an abortion is performed on an embryo (to use medicinal terminology) that has a brain and a heartbeat.

    Some totally shameless self-promotion: I took on the “blob of cells” argument. You may find it here:
    http://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/debunking-the-pro-choice-argument-part-ii/

    Caveat: I will be traveling for the next few days and engaging in Christmas festivities. If you want to bicker with a non-religious female pro-life libertarian, you’ll have to either be patient or find someone who won’t be ruckusing up and down the east coast. 🙂

    Neil said: I recommend her link as well. Good luck debating her. She does it even better than me, plus you can’t play the “it’s just your religious beliefs” card with her.

    Like

  14. I can’t believe you put me in moderation.

    HARRUMPH!

    Neil said: Hi Bridget – I would never put one of my favorite commenters in moderation! It might have been your link that did it, because this comment came through the first time. I apologize on behalf of WordPress :-).

    Like

  15. This is the fun part, where bias gets exposed. Yes, I agree with you. As you say above: Since 99% of murders are abortions But when I search for “murders United States” as you told me to, I don’t get figures for abortion. Ergo, this is only your view/bias.

    Neil, I don’t mean to repeat myself here by reposting my comments but this is my key point and you mananged to avoid it. Abortion is only murder in your eyes. Abortion is legal, murder is not. You may not agree with it but claiming “Since 99% of murders are abortions” is not true in the eyes of the law.

    When/if the law is ever changed, you above post will have some relevance.

    Neil said: Only in my eyes? Actually, it was murder until a few SC judges made some really bad law a few decades ago. And according to Laci’s Law and such (I’m repeating myself again . . . please read more closely) it is obviously considered murder. But whether the law recognizes it as such it is still murder.

    I suppose Hitler didn’t murder Jews since it wasn’t against the law there.

    Really, Gary, such nitpicking is a pathetic attempt to gloss over your support for the most heinous action going.

    Most importantly, are you really such a literalist to miss the point of the post? Please keep this in mind the next time you accuse a “fundie” of reading the Bible literally.

    Like

  16. it was murder until a few SC judges made some really bad law a few decades ago

    “Bad law” – Subjective reasoning.

    In your eyes it may be bad, other people would disagree with you on that one. Your bias is showing yet again. Until you rule your own country or become supreme ruler of the universe, you are in the wrong!

    Neil said: Gary, once again you are being a literalist with the whole post. I was gigging pacifists who say you shouldn’t ever use violence but don’t oppose the abortions that create a river of blood.

    Your “if legal then moral” worldview is a bit alarming, though you make a good postmodern I suppose.

    BTW, lots of pro-choicers will admit it was bad law. They realize that they might have made more gains with an incremental approach. For example, the judges said we don’t know when life begins, which is not only untrue but a point that should obviously have led them to err on the side of caution. And of course the “privacy” thing was a complete fabrication.

    Like

  17. D’oh, missed a tag, here’s the update:

    but don’t oppose abortion, which creates a river of blood.

    Or freedom from an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, to cite but one example. Once again Neil, your use of language belies reality and shows your bias by using mere rhetoric.

    Neil said: Hey, if you want to kill the rapist I’m OK with that. But let’s not kill the child for the crimes of the father.

    I was gigging pacifists who say you shouldn’t ever use violence but don’t oppose abortion

    “Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage.”

    “Refusal to engage in military activity because of one’s principles or beliefs.”
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pacifism

    By all means, call me a literalist with regard to this post, I would disagree with your use of the word pacifist in this regard. Perhaps some pacifists see abortion as a surgical procedure, while still opposing war and violence in their definition of pacifism – not yours.

    Your whole post is tenuous at best. Why not just admit that and we can move on 🙂

    Neil said: Dictionary.com – 1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind. Yes, please move on 🙂

    Like

  18. Yes, Neil, there are a few visiting your site that I wish would move on…….back over to their atheist sites. When I get interested in what they have to say, I will go visit their sites. It seems to me that they really do have trouble with their own views or they would not be out lurking our kind of sites. God bless, Neil and Merry Christimas!

    Like

  19. Hi mom2,

    Last time I checked this was a blog on the Word Wide Web. If you’re looking for a private conversation, this is obviously not the place.

    If you have issues with my posts, by all means, talk to Neil, he can ban me and I can take my alternate viewpoints elsewhere.

    Thanks.

    Like

  20. Abortion is legal, murder is not. You may not agree with it but claiming “Since 99% of murders are abortions” is not true in the eyes of the law.

    Depends on your definition. Murder can mean the unlawful killing of another human, but that definition is underinclusive. If you kill in self-defence, it is both murder and lawful.

    Murder can also mean the intentional killing of another human (distinguish from manslaughter): they are both subsets of homicide.

    In order for Neil to be wrong and you to be right, you have to prove him wrong on all definitions of murder. By some definitions, you would be correct (in that abortion would not be murder when legal). However, there are other definitions of the word which render Neil correct, and he is under no obligation to use only words that have one meaning, or words whose many meanings are applicable. Such would make it awfully difficult to communicate.

    Incidentally, define “unlawful.” There are laws which outlaw abortion on the books, ya know. 🙂

    Like

  21. Mom2, this is awful: “our kind of sites.”

    That attitude, in a nutshell, is why nonbelievers think believers are arrogant jerks.

    For God’s sake! It’s Neil’s site. Not mine. Not yours. Not “ours.” These people are not lurking, and they are trolling. They are coming to engage Neil. He likes it. I know because I like it, too.

    Like

  22. Pardon me, ER if that did not come across in the best way. I just am suggesting that Neil’s site is one that Christians enjoy and since the atheist seem to only come here to try to convince believers that we are wrong, it should be apparent to them after a few comments that they are wasting their time with us and would rather enjoy going back to their own sites to find agreement. I am glad they come to read, but it appears to me that in the last few days they have tried to take the site over.

    Like

  23. Regarding the idea of “if legal, then moral” I’m reminded of an anecdote Mark Steyn shared recently:

    “One of my all-time favourite observations on Canada’s brave new Trudeaupia came from the great George Jonas, apropos the good old days when the Mounties’ livelier lads were illegally burning down the barns of Quebec separatists. With his usual glibness Pierre Trudeau blithely responded that if people were upset by the RCMP’s illegal barn-burning, perhaps he’d make it legal for the RCMP to burn barns. As Jonas observed, M. Trudeau had missed the point: barn-burning wasn’t wrong because it was illegal; it was illegal because it was wrong.

    “That’s an important distinction, and not just for the Royal Canadian Taser Police. Once it’s no longer accepted that something is wrong all the laws in the world will avail you nought. The law functions as formal expression of a moral code, not as free-standing substitute for it.”

    The recent event that prompted this anecdote was the beating of a 96-year-old man by a London thug on a bus, in full view of its passengers and probably a closed-circuit TV camera.

    Regarding the crime of assault, Steyn wrote, “if a citizen of an advanced Western social democracy no longer knows it’s wrong, the laws are unlikely to prove much restraint.”

    Again:

    “Once it’s no longer accepted that something is wrong all the laws in the world will avail you nought. The law functions as formal expression of a moral code, not as free-standing substitute for it.”

    Like

  24. But let’s not kill the child for the crimes of the father.

    Not up to you, or me or the man in the moon – it’s the woman’s choice. Think of the psychological scarring involved with carrying/raising the child of your rapist.

    Neil said: There are many products of rape walking the street today. I was adopted, so perhaps I am one. Is it OK for a mother to kill her 2 yr. old who was a result of rape because of the psychological scarring? Of course not. So the only question is, “What is the unborn?” If “it” is a human being, then we ought not destory her. If it isn’t a human being, no justification is necessary.

    By the way, abortion often multiplies the trauma of the victim instead of relieving it. She was violated once and is now being pressured to kill her unborn child. We agree that rape is bad and that rape plus pregnancy may be worse. But killing the child isn’t the solution. Why not emphasize adoption?

    I wrote on the hard cases here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/the-hard-cases/

    Dictionary.com – 1. a person who believes in pacifism or is opposed to war or to violence of any kind.

    Perhaps some pacifists see abortion as a surgical procedure, while still opposing war and violence of any kind in their definition of pacifism – not yours!

    Neil said: Perhaps those pacifists should view lots of abortions and the aftermath and then convince me that it isn’t a violent act.

    Like

  25. Tyler,
    I’m very curious about your statement: “it is the woman’s choice as I have yet to meet a man who ever became pregnant.”

    Do you believe the man has any say in an abortion? Does he get a vote? If not, why is he responsible for child support? What if the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she decides not to go through with it? Seems like he could wash his hands of the “problem”.

    I’ve asked this question of others before, but don’t think I ever got an answer. I really would like to understand the logic.

    Neil,
    Have you seen the story about the adopted man who found his Mom at Lowes? Turned out, they had worked together for about six months before they realized who each other was…

    Like

  26. Neil said: So the only question is, “What is the unborn?” If “it” is a human being, then we ought not destory her. If it isn’t a human being, no justification is necessary.

    Good point neil. Now provide evidence to prove a fertilised egg cell is a human being, as you implied above?
    From my understanding the current “limit” to most abortion laws is around the time cerebral activity begins.

    Neil said: By the way, abortion often multiplies the trauma of the victim instead of relieving it. She was violated once and is now being pressured to kill her unborn child.

    I agree, pressuring someone to do something (or not do something) is wrong. You think the trauma the women feels has anything to do with the anti-abortionists bleating on about her being a murderer etc?

    Like

  27. She was violated once and is now being pressured to kill her unborn child. Excuse me? Where did you pull that from?

    Who exaclty is putting pressure on her? What if the woman decides all on her own? Women can decide for themselves you know.

    Neil said: It is very common for women to be pressured to have abortions.

    I’m still waiting for you to explain to me if a woman can “decide for herself” to destroy her toddler conceived in rape.

    Like

  28. “Good point neil. Now provide evidence to prove a fertilised egg cell is a human being, as you implied above?”
    Human DNA – unique from her mother’s. Human chromosomes. Etc. It is a human fertilized egg cell. The nature is human, and one must work hard to deny it. I think most would agree that there would be ethical issues in putting the fertilized human egg in a dog, for example. Why would that be if we had no idea what its nature was?

    There is no question as to the nature of what is developing. It isn’t as if the doctors wonder, “Well, it might be a cat . . . no, looks like a puppy . . . wait, no, it’s a human. Again!”

    “From my understanding the current “limit” to most abortion laws is around the time cerebral activity begins.”

    I’m not sure. Let’s say you are right. Would you support banning all abortions (except for the life of the mother) at that point? If not, I’m not sure what you point is.

    “Neil said: By the way, abortion often multiplies the trauma of the victim instead of relieving it. She was violated once and is now being pressured to kill her unborn child.

    I agree, pressuring someone to do something (or not do something) is wrong. You think the trauma the women feels has anything to do with the anti-abortionists bleating on about her being a murderer etc?”
    I think you are over-playing the “pressure” card. Do you think it is bad to pressure people not to abuse their children?

    The trauma is primarily from the guilt of paying a perfect stranger to destroy your unborn child. We offer post-abortion trauma counseling at CareNet Pregnancy Center (I’m a board member and volunteer there) that is helping in getting women to forgive themselves.

    PETA folks could protest me and call me a murderer, but you won’t see me feeling guilty about eating meat.

    True and lasting guilt is hard to escape. See how this theme was explored in Macbeth, the Telltale Heart, Crime and Punishment, etc. Rationalization can only take you so far.

    But there is good news! Forgiveness, healing and redemption can be found in Jesus Christ, for the sin of abortion and for the other tens of thousands of sins we have committed. I’ve seen it happen over and over.

    Like

  29. It is very common for women to be pressured to have abortions Wow! Sounds very scientific Neil, please show us your evidence for this particular data.

    Neil said: I have a bunch of sites I can reference. I’ll do so provided you agree ahead of time that you’ll concede my point and change your view. Otherwise, why should I bother? You are also welcome to investigate for yourself the reasons women give for abortion. You might find it enlightening.

    <I’m still waiting for you to explain to me if a woman can “decide for herself” to destroy her toddler conceived in rape. Ah, once again your bias is showing, no worries, I’m sure you’ll underatand eventually… unless of course you’re blinkered by religion – Neil, tell me you’re not blinkered by religion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Neil said: Pssst . . . your presuppositions are showing. Seriously, which religious argument did I make here? You brought up the whole religious thing earlier. I’m quite comforting in debating pro-abortionists anytime, anywhere without even cracking the Bible.

    For the third time, is it moral for a woman to “decide for herself” to destroy her toddler? If not, then we would appear to agree that you don’t kill innocent human beings for reasons such as inconvenience, career, romance, potential poverty, products of rape, gender, potentially disabled, potentially gay, etc. Therefore, the only question is whether the unborn is a human being.

    How is that a religious argument?

    Like

  30. I have the citations and will dig them up after the holidays. Off the top of my head:

    64% of American women who abort are pressured into the decision.

    Six times as many post-abortive women are members of the National Right to Life as are NARAL members.

    I’ve never seen anyone cry over their exercise of their right to free speech, education, or other measures of civilised society. If it’s really so fabulous, why do women who abort get so upset? There are NO “post-free speech” support groups….?

    When Roe was decided (hello, judicial fiat), the trimester system was adopted because of viability, NOT cerebral activity. Since that time, viability has moved backwards; Sandra Day O’Conner said that Roe is on a collision course with itself. What will happen when scientific advancement allows a fetus to be viable a week after the last missed period? Will we ban all abortions after that? Consider that we do NOT allow women to deliver their viable babies prematurely (except for physical need); the logical conclusion of Roe is for the fetus to be viable at a very young age, and the woman neither allowed to abort nor permitted to deliver.

    It’s pretty clear that it’s a new human at conception. There is nothing else, save the addition of food and oxygen, that needs to happen in order for that zygote to become an infant, then a toddler, then an adult. We don’t consider toddlers to be not human because they need food and nutrients to become adults.

    Define “cerebral activity.” The brain stem is present at about one week after the first missed period.

    Here’s the question that NO pro-choicer has yet to answer: when is it a human, and upon what principle is that decided? What characteristics of that stage of embryonic development make it human that were not present before?

    Like

  31. If it’s really so fabulous, why do women who abort get so upset?
    For the same reason women who have a miscarriage get upset.

    Neil said: Gary, I think you missed the point of the comment. Women get upset when they miscarry a baby that they wanted to keep. If abortion solves their “problem,” why be upset? PETA people don’t like me eating meat, but I sleep well at night.

    It’s pretty clear that it’s a new human at conception.
    No, that’s an assumption on your part. If it were “pretty clear” there wouldn’t be this much debate. (Is “pretty clear” a scientific term, I can’t find it in my medical journals!!)

    Neil said: One thing I’ve observed is that when commenters start nitpicking on grammar that they are getting desperate. While you are in your medical journals, please read the part about how a sperm and egg form a HUMAN conceptus with HUMAN DNA, chromosomes, etc.

    The brain stem is present at about one week after the first missed period.
    Which is exacly how long after conception??

    What characteristics of that stage of embryonic development make it human that were not present before?
    Consciousness?

    Neil said: Who said consciousness was required to be considered human? Health tip: Don’t go into a coma around Gary. 🙂

    Like

  32. What characteristics of that stage of embryonic development make it human that were not present before?
    Consciousness?

    Drat. I hate when I fall asleep and cease being human. Last time that happened, my sister put me in a kennel and gave me a bone. When I woke up, I was allowed back in the bed like people.

    Yeah, consciousness doesn’t fly because it:
    1) has ZERO connection to the world; and
    2) you’ve yet to explain why consciousness is a necessary condition of being human, in a way that cannot be doubted or debated.

    Even if you raise a debatable point, you can’t get over the “err on the side of life” hurdle.

    Why are women who miscarry upset? I mean, according to you, it’s not a human, let alone a wanted one.

    Like

  33. Neil & theobromphile, don’t be so disingenuous. You know full well Tyler is refering to our minds/sentience/etc, as apposed to being “conscious” or awake when he says consciousness. It does you no favours to deliberately misinterpret him in that fashion.

    The discussion of what defines life and what makes us human is ongoing. To say otherwise is a little presumptuous.

    As I stated earlier in an earlier comment, it seems many/most abortion laws line up with the beginnings of brain activity, whether they were intended to do so or not.

    Neil said: Try another line of reasoning, Havok. Charging us with being disingenuous is amusing. I’m not even sure that you “know” that Tyler meant that.

    It isn’t presumptuous at all to say that life begins at conception. I find it highly ironic that the science-worshiping atheists can’t understand basic biology. Just one more proof that the whole “Christians are anti-science and atheists are pro-science” is a big straw man.

    Re. the laws: What I find interesting is that pro-aborts often trot out the brain wave reasoning but as soon as you ask if they would support laws banning abortions after brain activity starts, they wiggle out of it.

    So, Tyler and Havok, are you on board for supporting a full abortion ban (other than the life of the mother) after the time that brain activity begins? Or were your brain activity arguments disinegenuous? (If you are for the ban I’ll consider that progress – though Tyler will have to reconcile that with his “woman’s choice” argument).

    If you do support the ban, that would outlaw virtually all abortions, by the way.

    P.S. Bonus points for addressing Theobromophile’s “Why not err on the side of life?” argument. If the definition of life really is an ongoing discussion, maybe we should stop abortions until we’re sure we’re not murdering 1m humans per year.

    Like

  34. Neil & theobromphile, don’t be so disingenuous. You know full well Tyler is refering to our minds/sentience/etc, as apposed to being “conscious” or awake when he says consciousness. It does you no favours to deliberately misinterpret him in that fashion.

    ROFL.

    How is it disingenuous to assume that people meant what they said? “He said consciousness, but he didn’t really mean consciousness, you jerks!”

    I don’t play “psychic” with people’s posts. I presume that they meant exactly what they said; I presume my fellow debaters to be of enough intelligence to either say what they mean or to, upon reflection, restate their arguments.

    Like

  35. .As I stated earlier in an earlier comment, it seems many/most abortion laws line up with the beginnings of brain activity, whether they were intended to do so or not.

    What do you mean by “most abortion laws?” Last time I checked, there are no abortion laws in the United States that are enforced; it’s all about Roe v. Wade, wherein the Supreme Court played legislature and made law from the bench.

    Now, other abortion laws in the United States that are not enforced, due to Roe, prevent abortion after conception, except for health, life, rape, or incest.

    So you can’t really say “most abortion laws,” unless you mean “the abortion laws that I like, and let’s ignore the ones that I don’t like that Roe preempts.”

    FYI: three weeks after conception there is a heartbeat and a brain stem.

    If you want to talk law, let’s compare the abortive procedure with what is allowed with corpses. Last time I checked, if you suction a corpse through a knife-tipped tube and shred it to pieces, you’ll be charged with some sort of crime. No one even debates that a corpse is alive. Yet it’s completely legal to do that with unborn humans.

    Furthermore, in many states, it is illegal to beat a pregnant woman until she miscarries. The punishment is more than simple assault (i.e. what it would be if the perpetrator beat a non-pregnant person in the same manner).

    If you want to talk legal consistency, you are going to make the pro-life argument for us.

    Like

  36. I’m not american, so I know little about roe vs wade. It was my understanding that in practice abortion can be carried out up to the time brain activity begins (whether due to law or medical ethics). A heartbeat and brain stem are not indications of brain activity.

    The laws concerned with a cadaver have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, so please don’t try to confuse the issue.

    Following your argument, if it is found that a woman eats food, or indulges in activities which are known to increase the risk of miscarriage, and has a one, then she should be charged?

    Neil said: I find it ironic that you think the cadaver issue should be ignored but then immediately conflate the deliberate crushing and dismembering of an innocent human being with what someone eats.

    Should we then limit the activities and diet of any woman who is sexually active?
    And given that can be difficult to know with certainty, perhaps we should curtail the diet and activities of women after their first period?

    I have no idea of the rational for the additional charges for beating a pregnant woman. It doesn’t sound like they’re murder charges however, so I don’t think that supports your view.

    Neil said: In many states they are murder charges, so I assume you’ll concede the point in those cases. Of course, the fact that the nature of the unborn is highly politicized is why they aren’t all considered to be severe crimes. Pro-aborts hate anything that highlights the humanity of the unborn. Bring up anesthetic for the unborn during abortions and watch the pro-aborts squeal.

    You’re saying that a fertilized egg cell is a human being. Your reason is that it can potentially become a human adult.

    I’m saying currently abortions seem to be carried out (whether by law, or simply medical ethics) until around the time brain activity is known to occur, and that perhaps brain activity is a better limit, as there can be no suffering (to the proto-human, if you will) prior to that time.

    Like

  37. Neil said: I find it ironic that you think the cadaver issue should be ignored but then immediately conflate the deliberate crushing and dismembering of an innocent human being with what someone eats.

    I was addressing the charge for causing a miscarriage through assault, nothing to do with a cadaver.

    Neil said: In many states they are murder charges, so I assume you’ll concede the point in those cases. Of course, the fact that the nature of the unborn is highly politicized is why they aren’t all considered to be severe crimes.

    Nope. I don’t know the details of those laws. Does itdepend on how advanced the pregnancy is?
    The nature of the unborn is being debated, which could explain why they aren’t all severe crimes

    Neil said: Pro-aborts hate anything that highlights the humanity of the unborn. Bring up anesthetic for the unborn during abortions and watch the pro-aborts squeal.

    Prior to any brain function (and ability to feel pain/suffer), what purpose would the anesthetic serve, exactly?

    Neil said: Most abortions occur after brain activity. And even if it were only 10%, why oppose the anesthetic for those after the activity is supposed to have begun? Do you support legislation requiring anesthetic for those cases?

    This isn’t a simple black and white issue, as much as you seem to be trying to paint it as one. If it was, then there would be no debate.

    Neil said: Actually, it is black and white. Psychologically speaking it is very complex. But morally speaking, it is not. Killing innocent human beings is immoral. If you want to ignore science and say that we don’t know when life begins (the faux grey area ironically put forth by alleged science lovers) then it is still black and white to say we should err on the side of life.

    Does the very profitable abortion industry try to paint it as a grey area? Sure. Do rebellious human beings try to make it so? Sure.

    Like

  38. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would require physicians to offer anaesthetic to women whose fetuses are beyond 20 weeks gestation. They would not be required to accept. There is some evidence that fetuses feel pain at that time.

    The pro-abortion group violently opposed this Act. They stated that fetuses may not feel pain then and that it would be psychologically distressing for women. In the balance between causing acute pain to a human and minor distress to a pregnant woman, the pro-abortion group chose the pregnant woman.

    The cadaver issue sucks for you guys. The fact that we give more deference to the dead than to the living, albeit unborn, does absolutely nothing for your argument.

    Now, if you are going to debate consciousness, you lose. You know that, right? In order to remove someone from life support who is not conscious, you need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious; and that there is little or no hope of recovery. Abortion fails on both prongs. 🙂

    Like

  39. I think it ought to be passed. It’s another death knoll for the pro-abortion movement. Our society grows closer and closer to the realization that the unborn truly are persons from the moment of conception, as we once did.

    Like

  40. Elisa,

    The UCPAA only gives women the option of anaesthesia for their fetuses; it doesn’t mandate it. One would think that the “pro-choice” side would be on board with legally mandating more options for women.

    It just seems like basic humanity to me. If abortions at that stage truly are for reasons of severe fetal abnormality (i.e. no brain) or a health risk to the mother, why would you want the child to suffer more? Wouldn’t it be more comforting to women to know that, even if their baby is at the stage where it can feel pain, that the procedure is done in the most humane manner possible?

    Like

  41. theobromphile said: The UCPAA only gives women the option of anaesthesia for their fetuses; it doesn’t mandate it. One would think that the “pro-choice” side would be on board with legally mandating more options for women.

    I certainly would be. I see no reason not to have it as an option.

    Whoops, being pro-choice, was I supposed to answer another way? 🙂

    Neil said: Hey, we agree on something. 🙂 Hallelujah!

    Like

  42. I hate to bring up an old issue, but I heard this morning that Obama and Clinton are trying to outdo each other on abortion. Following her loss in Iowa, Sen Clinton is assailing Obama for simply voting “present” on abortion, but Planned Parenthood has given him a rating of 100%.

    I don’t believe that abortion should be a “litmus test” for choosing the president (either for or against), but I know there are those who disagree with me. This article clearly states where both candidates stand.

    See the article at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-abortion6jan06,1,5155900.story?coll=la-news-a_section.

    Neil said: One more reason I wouldn’t want Hillary to be President – she falsely tries to appear as a moderate on abortion when she is as wildly pro-abortion as Obama.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s