Monday, March 16, 2009
Don't Worry--It's Only Tissue
The above is from a site I plan to add to my "Places Of Interest" list called, Priests For Life. They're really big on showing what abortions look like. I like the idea. Viewing images of abortions, or simply an ultra-sound of one's own child should be a requirement before agreeing to an abortion. Hey, if it's only tissue, it shouldn't be a big deal. Nothing got people more stoked about Nazi atrocities like seeing film and photos of the horrors of the death camps. Anyone who believes abortion should be as legal as Barry intends to make it should visit the site and take a look around. Prove you really support it by providing yourself a clear understanding of what it is you support.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Excellent points. We don't show images of abortions at CareNet, but I think the topic is great to bring up with pro-aborts.
They often claim that it is bad to show the pictures, but what could be more relevant to the discussion than an image of what is being debated?
Dear Abby said she would direct those in crisis pregnancies to places CareNet except that they "might" show images of abortions. So in her upside down world performing an abortion is ethical but showing pictures of it is not. Crushing and dismembering an innocent human being is just a choice but showing a picture of it is bad. Check.
Oh Art! How can you do this? Don't you understand that showing images of things Dan considers OK makes you a pervert?
Art, that video is no longer available. You know, youtube is Liberal. It's no wonder they object to this content.
Oh wonderful. Now the video's back. Make me look like a liar.
It will be interesting watching the attempted mental acrobatics those that condemn the site will use to justify their position.
I have no problem showing the images. Just like I want images from war shown and the caskets of troops coming home dead. Being pro-life to me means a hell of a lot more than being opposed to abortion.
Marty,
That's a tired ploy. When using images of war, only those who prefer peace are affected. Those who make war are not. Bush prohibited the publishing of flag-draped coffins for two reasons: respect for the sacrifice and less fodder for the left-wing propagandists. A good move on his part. Rational people know that war is horrible. They also know that sometimes war is required. One can debate whether this war was required or not, but to use the images of our own dead to do so is contemptable. The fact that people die in war, even our own, is a given and not a reason to turn away from facing evil. To use images of war's carnage to support one's opinion against a war is a cheap ploy and an insulting accusation that those who reluctantly support the war actually enjoy it. It's a petty and childish move.
To show pictures of an abortion, however, forces those who support the practice to face the consequences of their support. It's particularly enlightening for those sorry bastards that claim the child is only mere tissue or that there is something more important to consider than allowing that child to live, that child that was invited into existence.
So the challenge is on. If you support abortion, go to the site and fill your mind with the images provided. And while you're at it, seek out the vids of radical jihadists hacking off the heads of bound victims, and then tell me we don't need to fight that horror as well.
"Don't Worry--It's Only Tissue"
Your title reminds me of this article from the Daily Mail a few years back.
Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator
Here's an excerpt from that article...
One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.
She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."
Even these women that believe that they have a right to abortion because, after all "it's only foreign tissue" know better. They know that it's a baby they're killing for their own personal convenience.
Pro-Choice is merely a euphemism for Pro-Murder in my dictionary.
I think we should show graphic video of soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe then those who defend useless war would have to think about their position.
The problem with the abortion issue is that there is no possibility of achieving common ground and resolving the question through our political system. Those on both sides are totally committed to their point of view and are not about to be persuaded otherwise.
The Pervert said:
Don't you understand that showing images of things Dan considers OK makes you a pervert?
I'll thank you to leave my name out of your fantasies. I have not commented here, so you can keep me out of your delusions, perverted and otherwise.
"That's a tired ploy. When using images of war, only those who prefer peace are affected. Those who make war are not."
Marshall it is NO ploy. Not for me. It is the stark reality of war, any war. It is a life issue for me every bit as much as abortion, the death penalty, access to health care and education, clean drinking water, food and shelter, living wage.
"To show pictures of an abortion, however, forces those who support the practice to face the consequences of their support."
To show pictures of the war dead should also force those who support it to face the consequences of their support.
"If you support abortion, go to the site and fill your mind with the images provided."
I don't support abortion.
"And while you're at it, seek out the vids of radical jihadists hacking off the heads of bound victims, and then tell me we don't need to fight that horror as well."
Violence breeds more violence. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword or else die by it.
Dan,
Do honestly feel you've maintained the high ground by continuing to call Mark names, by responding to his teasing with more name calling, and doing so after repeated sanctimonious pleas for civility? I suggest that if you have a problem with Mark, take it to his blog or yours, or better yet, ignore him altogether. You are always welcome here, but I must again insist that here, I am both sole target of name calling and as well as the lone poster with name calling privileges.
DL,
I refer you to my reponse to Marty above. The pics of dead soldier ploy is cheap and doesn't compare.
As to the possibility of of resolving this issue, the same could be said for most other issues. The difference is that this one is preventable completely, the humanity of the aborted person is not in question scientifically, but only subjectively decided so by proponents.
Marty,
"Marshall it is NO ploy."
Of course it is. The fact of suffering and death is not a secret to anyone on either side of a debate on a given war. The deaths and injuries to our soldiers, allies and civilians is not the measure of a war's "morality" or justification for not engaging in it. It never is or else evil is never defeated.
"To show pictures of the war dead should also force those who support it to face the consequences of their support."
But it doesn't. It turns people from doing what needs to be done when confronted with evil. You think violence begets violence? Not defense violence. We faced violence in WWII and put an end to it with violence. This living by the sword nonsense doesn't apply to what must be doen when diplomacy fails. It applies only to those who never seek peaceful solutions first and go right to the sword.
I was just reminded during last Sunday's sermon of Tom Fox, one of three Christians who took it upon themselves to "talk peace" with terrorists in Iraq. He got his ass beaten and killed for his troubles because he would not recognize the level of evil in the animals he chose to confront. In other words, he proved himself a complete and utter idiot. He did nothing for the cause of peace and his actions were wasted for their stupidity.
Those who support abortion don't seem to want to talk about it when photographic proof is shown. Quit trying to change the subject and tell us why that is not the hand of a human being who deserved to live.
Stop changing the subject you cowards .
"Quit trying to change the subject and tell us why that is not the hand of a human being who deserved to live."
Was that comment for me?
If so, I can't tell you why because I think it is the hand of a human being who deserved to live.
"This living by the sword nonsense doesn't apply to what must be doen when diplomacy fails. It applies only to those who never seek peaceful solutions first and go right to the sword."
Console yourself with that thought Marshall, but it ain't what Jesus said. You're adding your own philosophy to his words.
Marty,
"Console yourself with that thought Marshall, but it ain't what Jesus said. You're adding your own philosophy to his words."
Not at all. But it seems you're making the same mistake made by Dan in confusing when Jesus is speaking to us as individuals and what government's job. And even for the individual, you'd be hardpressed to show how turning the other cheek means we're to let someone kill us. If you're cornered with nowhere to run, you'd perpetrate some level of violence to save yourself or a loved one. To live by the sword is to fight first, with no attempt to resolve issues by any other means. Think of jerks who get into fist fights all the time. Eventually, they get their asses kicked. In that sense they have died by the sword. But when a Hitler or Hussein moves to attack people, we are not living by the sword in defending ourselves.
But hey, since you bring up swords, did you ever notice how much like weapons a doctor's tools can look? Particularly the scalpel, which is a bladed object. Now, I'm not saying that doctors are the same as soldiers, but those that are in the abortion business are exacting a terrible violence upon a most helpless and innocent victim. How do you think they should die? By the vaccuum? Or perhaps be crushed and dismembered? How about a puncture behind the head and his brain sucked out? They are living, and making their living, by these means.
"But it seems you're making the same mistake made by Dan in confusing when Jesus is speaking to us as individuals and what government's job"
I make no mistake. I know Jesus was speaking to the individual. It is how I meant it. The government will do what it will do. That doesn't mean, that as a Christian, I should go and kill for the government. Concientious Objection would be the proper response for a follower of Christ.
"but those that are in the abortion business are exacting a terrible violence upon a most helpless and innocent victim. How do you think they should die?"
Innocent blood is on their hands. No doubt. However, I do not advocate for the death penalty. I advocate for repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
Marshall, every political issue that faces this nation could be solved if one side or the other would simply give up and recognize the truth and justice of the other side's position. That's not an answer, it's just an arrogant and childish demand to have one's own way.
The only way either side can force its beliefs and standards on the other is through force, so I have to assume you support totalitarianism for America. If we are to retain the form of government our forefathers created for us, then we will need to sit down together and find common ground. If you are one of those who prefers a Taliban-style religious dictatorship, then that may not be a concern of yours.
Marty, I believe I've seen this sort of argument before, and I've never understood it:
I make no mistake. I know Jesus was speaking to the individual. It is how I meant it. The government will do what it will do. That doesn't mean, that as a Christian, I should go and kill for the government. Concientious Objection would be the proper response for a follower of Christ.
I believe the government is morally permitted to use violent force to protect its people and punish evildoers. The OT commanded capital punishment for ancient Israel, and Jesus never implied that this was a concession due to man's hardened hearts; in fact, the command for capital punishment for murderers precedes the covenant with Abraham and goes back to after the Deluge (Gen 9:6) and presumably applies to all people. Though Jesus Christ told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more," (John 8) there is no indication that He considered the routine work of the centurion to be a sin. And, most emphatically, Paul wrote about the government's God-given authority to bear the sword (Rom 13).
If the government is morally permitted to use violent force to protect its people and punish evildoers, then surely the Christian is permitted to wield violent force as a duly appointed representative or agent of the state.
The opposite position -- your apparent position -- is that the Christian can enjoy the benefits of a reasonably secure society so long as he personally doesn't get his hands dirty doing the work that makes society secure.
This position is untenable.
It's like arguing that it's wrong to murder but okay to hire a hitman.
Or, it's okay to eat meat but wrong to be a butcher.
DL, your argument is illogical, ahistorical, and morally repellant, and since you feel no qualms about comparing others to the Taliban, I won't hesitate to express the contempt I have for your position.
The only way either side can force its beliefs and standards on the other is through force, so I have to assume you support totalitarianism for America. If we are to retain the form of government our forefathers created for us, then we will need to sit down together and find common ground. If you are one of those who prefers a Taliban-style religious dictatorship, then that may not be a concern of yours.
Our founding fathers never intended that we reach absolute unanimity before passing any laws, including laws protecting the rights of others, or laws that criminalize certain behavior.
Even the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land -- didn't require unanimous support to be ratified, nor does it require such support to be amended.
When our country outlawed extortion, at the local and national levels, we didn't find it necessary to persuade organized criminals to agree with the law, did we?
There are other activities that organized crime engages in, and if we decide to outlaw those activities, are we Taliban-style totalitarians if we don't first persuade the Mafia, the Russian mob, and the Yakuza to support the proposed law? Of course not, and it's absurd and slanderous to suggest otherwise.
It's not that I'm arguing that abortion doctors and mob bosses are morally equivalent, but the principle is still the same: criminalizing certain activity does not require, has never required, and should never require unanimous support.
I would hope that someone who claims to love democracy would understand what he loves better than that.
DL,
Where do we find common ground on the issue of human life? Science shows that at fertilization, a new human being has come into existence. It is the initial stage of human development. Since at that moment, we are talking about another person, how does one who values human life compromise regarding the killing of that person? Are you suggesting we compromise with human life as if it was a matter of how much we tax ourselves? If there is any "compromise" at all, it would have to be in the specific area of the life of the mother. I've allowed for that as anyone who's read my comments would know. I've yet to hear anyone compromise from the other end. So if there's anyone NOT looking to compromise, it would be those who support keeping abortion legal.
There's nothing totalitarian, nor Taliban-like, in insisting that people be treated like people at every stage of human development. You either have respect for the right to life for all or you don't. If you don't, then it seems to me that the extreme terms are to be applied to you, not to me. YOU are the one who has decided you have the right to determine who lives or who dies. YOU are the one dictating your opinions. YOU are the one dictating that one class of people is not deserving of equal protection under the law.
If you have a problem with me "forcing" my belief that everyone possesses the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then I suggest you have psychological issues with which you need immediate help.
"I believe the government is morally permitted to use violent force to protect its people and punish evildoers."
Ok.
Bubba you don't have to understand my position regarding the sword, but can't you just accept it as a valid position? My church certainly does....
From the United Methodist Social Principles:
"Some of us believe that war, and other acts of violence, are never acceptable to Christians..... We honor the witness of pacifists who will not allow us to become complacent about war and violence.....We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription."
"Or, it's okay to eat meat but wrong to be a butcher."
I don't eat meat.
"The opposite position -- your apparent position -- is that the Christian can enjoy the benefits of a reasonably secure society so long as he personally doesn't get his hands dirty doing the work that makes society secure."
So Bubba.... do you get your hands dirty with making "society secure"?? You certainly haven't joined the military. What about the police force? You a cop?
Marty, you misunderstand my position: my position isn't that only cops and soldiers should be free to enjoy the security of society.
It's this:
If it's morally permissible for the government to do X, then it's morally permissible for a Christian to do X as a duly appointed agent of the government. If it's morally permissible for a Christian to enjoy the benefits of a certain activity, it's also morally permissible for the Christian to engage in that activity, and vice versa.
Even blanket opposition to war in general, I understand and accept as a valid position even if I disagree with it and don't think it's rooted in a thorough understanding of Scripture.
THIS is what I reject as invalid: the position that even when war is morally permissible, a Christian is morally prohibited from participating.
The same point can be made about war, police, or eating meat -- it doesn't matter that you don't eat meat; it was an analogy -- so let me try to explain my position again. I'll focus on matters of criminal justice rather than foreign policy.
Most Christians, myself included, believe that the government has the right (and indeed the duty) to use violent force prudentially to enforce the law -- to protect innocent people from direct threats, and to bring unwilling criminals to justice.
There are some Christians who, while they believe the government has the duty to use violent force to enforce the law, believe that "turn the other cheek" prohibits Christians from using such force as duly appointed government agents.
They concede that the government should have police officers, that cops should have guns, and that cops have the right (and sometimes the duty) to use those guns. They just don't think that it's moral for CHRISTIANS to be cops.
That is an absolutely incoherent and idiotic position.
If that's not the position you hold, regarding either cops or soldiers, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
I didn't misunderstand you Bubba. I know exactly what you are saying.
We have no control over what the government does or doesn't do except with our vote. And that can go our way or not. Yet we still live in this society reaping it's benefits or it's losses whether we agree with it's governance or not.
If there is something the government does I think is morally wrong, like the use of violence, I won't participate in it. I would hope other christians wouldn't either, but that isn't my choice to make.
I can only be true to myself and what I believe is right and wrong for me as a christian. I can't decide what is right or wrong for you, even though I may think what you do is wrong.
"There are some Christians who, while they believe the government has the duty to use violent force to enforce the law, believe that "turn the other cheek" prohibits Christians from using such force as duly appointed government agents."
If a christian believes it's wrong to use such force, then I would say they should not work as "duly appointed government agents", but rather work as teachers, social workers, etc.
"THIS is what I reject as invalid: the position that even when war is morally permissible, a Christian is morally prohibited from participating."
I personally don't believe that war is ever morally permissible. Whether a christian decides to participate or not is up to them. But when they are done and their service is over I will fight, nonviolently, to make sure they are taken care of by a society that all too often leaves them to fend for themselves.
Marty, though I don't appreciate the implicit criticism of our society as uncaring toward veterans, I appreciate the clarification.
I understand you don't believe that war is morally permissible, but my point hasn't been about those Christians who think war is impermissible: it's been about those who think it's permissible, but ONLY for non-Christians.
In brief, my criticism here hasn't been about those Christians who believe war is immoral, but those who think it is moral ONLY by non-Christian proxy.
I see.
"Moral ONLY by non-Christian proxy" is just...well...weird.
It's either moral or it isn't.
EXACTLY. I'm glad we're on the same page, at least on that count. :)
Yeah me too Bubba. :)
"I don't appreciate the implicit criticism of our society as uncaring toward veterans"
Whether it's society as a whole and it's perceptions of mental problems, or whether it's an overworked, understaffed, underfunded VA system, the truth of the matter is waaaay too many vets, especially those suffering from PTSD or brain injuries are being left to fend for themselves. Shame on us for letting that happen.
Marty,
I don't believe there is any action that is by itself moral or immoral. Killing isn't immoral if it is in self-defense. Sex isn't immoral if between a man and woman married to each other. Stealing isn't immoral if to feed someone starving to death. War isn't immoral if it is waged against an evil despot seeking to oppress innocent people trying to live in peace. Violence is not immoral in self-defense either. What is immoral is to do nothing to protect the lives of others being attacked by an aggressor simply because one chooses to believe, wrongly, that one's faith mandates no violence ever. If our leaders felt as you do regarding war, we'd be wiped out or overtaken in no time. It would be immoral to allow that to happen without a fight.
"YOU are the one who has decided you have the right to determine who lives or who dies."
So do you if you support the death penalty.
"If our leaders felt as you do regarding war, we'd be wiped out or overtaken in no time."
What if we had gone in, like say Iraq, instead of with guns and bombs, with food, clean water, and medical supplies? We really don't know what would happen if we took the non-violent route. We've never done it, so how could we know the outcome?
Marty,
"So do you if you support the death penalty."
This is apples and oranges. I'm not advocating putting to death a whole class of people in the hopes of finding cures for diseases for another class of people. Once again, the view that a pre-birth person of any stage of development is fair game for experimentation or elimination is equal to the belief that blacks are less than equal to the rest of us.
Both society and God has determined that one who murders has by doing so made themselves worthy of capital punishment. It's called both justice and respect for life in that if you have so little respect that you murder someone, the only true justice for that victim is to forfeit your own life. Considering that one has to be a complete clinical imbecile to not know that murder carries a severe penalty, the murderer has decided all by himself by his actions that he is worthy of death.
As to your last comment, Tom Fox took your idea to heart and got beaten and murdered for his trouble. Add to that the fact the person with whom we had the problem was in no way in need of any of the supplies you suggest we bear as gifts. He controlled the country and he had about twelve years to change his tune. In that time he shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone, he kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered thousands of his own people, he sought means of producing WMDs, he paid rewards to the families of those who died murdering American allies known as Israelis, he embezzled millions, if not billions of dollars meant for the very acts of humanity to which you've alluded.
People who preach the peace at all costs nonsense risk thousands of lives by their unwillingness to deal with obvious evil as one should, and then have the nerve to suggest that those elected to the position of responsiblity jump into wars without any diplomacy at all. Wake up. Evil exists and people suffer as a result. Little is more immoral than pretending one can kumbaya a Sadam Hussein, your average drug lord, or typical gang-banger into hugs and kisses while people's lives are at risk.
Marshall, you make perfect sense. Really you do. I totally understand where you are coming from.
However, for me, this is a case where it just may be that man's wisdom is foolishness to God. You think Tom Fox was a fool. But he was a fool for Christ and God may have considered that very wise indeed.
Marty,
Believe me, I've considered just that. How would God look upon Fox's idiotic decision? It comes really close to committing suicide except for his goofy idea that he might get through to those with the mentality of his murderers. To rational people paying attention, it was suicide for sure. I picture God welcoming him but at the same time gettin' on him, "Are you stupid? Are you nuts? I gave you brains, why didn't you use them?! Those guys are evil!!" It may very well be that it was Fox who considered himself wise in his actions, but his horrible death proved he was a fool.
"I picture God welcoming him but at the same time gettin' on him, "Are you stupid? Are you nuts? I gave you brains, why didn't you use them?! Those guys are evil!!"
I don't know about that, Art. My ex wife, who liked to impress people all the time, once bragged about her giving a bum on the corner some money to our minister, who promptly informed her the particular bum in question was a fraud. He said, "He probably has more money than you do".
But then, he explained my wife's heart was in the right place, and God would likely look kindly on the intent. It isn't for ourselves that we do what we think is moral and good. It is for God.
I think God would reward brother Tom for his intent.
"It may very well be that it was Fox who considered himself wise in his actions, but his horrible death proved he was a fool."
Marshall we have no way of knowing whose lives Fox touched before his violent death. Even in his death he may have touched lost souls. Only God knows the seeds that were planted. He was a missionary. Sometimes they lose their lives for the sake of the gospel. I'd say he was pretty courageous. Knowing the dangers, yet for the sake of Christ and peace, he didn't waver... even in the face of danger and death.
"I don't know about that, Art."
Why not, Mark? He welcomed Fox, didn't He? That takes care of intent. But good intentions don't always overcome the stupidity of the action. He didn't go to preach the Gospel to non-believers. He went to make peace with assholes. All he did was save them the gas money by leading himself to the slaughter. Do you need to be killed to know that radical Islamists would like to hack off your head? The goal is peace with assholes. You don't get there by willingly offering up victims. That isn't holy. It's un-godly stupidity.
"Marshall we have no way of knowing whose lives Fox touched before his violent death."
No. But we can speculate, and my money is on one. Yours. And that's sad if you look upon this idiot as courageous. I say again, the possibility of this guy changing the hearts of those who beat and murdered him was not really in question by reasonable people. As I stated above, he just made things easier for a group of scumbags just drooling for a victim. It was about as courageous as if he were to have stood before a speeding train to prove his faith that God would save him. I wonder if he told his family before leaving, "See ya, hon. I'm going to get myself killed for the Lord." I think he, and the other three nitwits, had no idea of how dangerous it was to do what they did. Their understanding could not have been any greater than one who watches too many movies. They didn't really believe their chances of success didn't exist. I have no doubt they thought they were going to prove something with savages. It could never have turned out any differently and as such, it made no impact on anyone there.
Edwin made a good point about how pro-aborts try to change the subject whenenver images are discussed.
Re. motives: I think God looks at intent but He tells us to ask for wisdom as well. Giving to the fake poor is a poor use of what God has given us. Good stewards give and act generously and carefully.
Marshall,your outrage is not impressive due to a drive a truck through it whole in your consistancy. I am not "in favor" of abortion anymore than you are when innocent children are killed when we drop bombs in a war. You find excuses for one and no excuses for the other. At least I am consistant. I am for neither but accept the fact that there are circumstances. Your self righteousness is not very believable. I've heard all the arguments that they aren't equivalent so don't waste your time. None of them have convinced me after dozens of times through...well, your blog, waste your time if you want but it will not convince me..unless you have something new which I have not heard from the right in at least 25 years. So I'd bet the farm you don't have that.
Ron,
It's not my outrage that should impress you, and frankly, I couldn't care less if it did or not. What should impress you is the thought of murdering an innocent human being. There is only one circumstance that can truly justify taking one of these innocents lives and that's should the pregnancy be deemed fatal to the mother if allowed to proceed. An extremely rare occurence. But, I'm willing to also concede the also rare cases of rape and incest. What this means is that we might have to put one child to death in order that 99 others be allowed to live. Not hardly perfect, but I'll take it if I can get it.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for trying that tired comparison about war. You know damned well that there is no intent to kill innocents in war, and our troops go dangerously out of their way to prevent collateral damage, but in abortion that is exactly the intention. What a sham to even suggest it!
I don't need any new arguments over what I've just mentioned for someone with a heart or soul and a brain with some level of logic and reason to see how one thing is on purpose and the other an unfortunate circumstance of a hopefully noble endeavor, fending off agressors. So you're far from consistent that you might suggest that because we can't prevent innocent death during wartime, that we then must allow the selfishly willful destruction of innocent life. You condemn yourself by pretending there's some logic or sense in your position.
Post a Comment