Saturday, February 11, 2017

And Then, Of Course, There's Dan

A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion.  This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic. 

The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue:  is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother?  Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question.  He believes...scratch that...claims that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward.  It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.

Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes.  It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me.  I love red meat!).  It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins.  (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)

In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human.  From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being."  A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't.   It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent.  (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event)  I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings.  As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise. 

Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven.  Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking.  This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being.  Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence.  Hair continues to grow.  Cells are replaced.  Damaged parts are as restored.  More importantly, when the child emerges from the oven (Momma's womb), it is not "fully baked" as it were, but still developing for a good 18 years or more.  The pie isn't fully formed until it is done baking.  The child in the womb is fully formed at whatever stage of development it happens to be at.  Again, the distinction is between fully human and a fully developed human being.  Dan conflates the two without any evidence in support of the argument that his arbitrary line of demarcation is worthy of respect by honest people of character and virtue. 

Then comes the punchline.  After all these and other arguments defending the unborn...arguments that actually relate to available scientific facts and data that undergird our pro-life position, Dan then goes on to suggest that our arguments have led him to reverse his belief that abortion is immoral.  That is, he no longer believes it is because of our arguments that fully support the premise that it is!  It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.  The truth that is more likely is that he couldn't find a way to actually justify his support for abortion for any reason.  His former claim that he would not have one himself were hollow at best, if not an outright lie.

I have to think that his defense of infanticide is similar to his defense of homosexuality.  He knows people who have had abortions and, by golly, they're just such nice people and wonderful, loving Christians.  This is, for Dan, what passes for "embracing grace".  While actual Christians try to appeal to the sexually immoral, with love and understanding, to seek forgiveness of God for their immorality and repent of it, Dan chooses instead to enable it.  That's not a Christian response to immoral behavior.  It is complicity...aiding and abetting.  He may as well be aborting those defenseless children himself. 

85 comments:

Craig said...

I've tried this twice already, so maybe this will work.

Clearly the only difference between Dan and Peter Singer in that Singer has the conviction and guts to take the same view Dan has and advocate for it's logical conclusion.

However, I saw something today that is right up the alley for folks like that. It seems that there is a push to eradicate Down's Syndrome in Iceland, by eradicating the unborn who test positive for Down's. This is appalling in so many ways.

1. There is about a 2% false positive rate for the test, which means that there are a number of human babies killed that are essentially collateral damage.
2. There are a number of people who have chosen to carry babies who tested positive for Down's to term and those families have been blessed raising those children.
3. The fact that some people have decided that it's a positive thing for society to eliminate those they have determined to be undesirables.
4. The fact that these children are being killed because they don't "look like" what someones idea of a human is.

This is exactly the kind of things that Dan's philosophy leads to. Of course if you're going to stand idly by while this particular group of undesirables are eradicated, then how can you protest if at some point science finds the elusive (nonexistent) "gay gene" and parents decide to abort the babies with that particular genetic abnormality.

Once you cast aside the humanity of a human being at any stage of development and allow them to be killed because of their looks, or stage of development you've pretty much opened up Pandora's box.

Marshall Art said...

I have a granddaughter with Down Syndrome, as well as a second cousin with Down Syndrome. A friend of my wife has a son with Down Syndrome. While they can be a handful when they're small, like my granddaughter, the thought that anyone would screen them for the condition and then have them whacked is heinous and appalling to the extreme. Yet, Dan simply believes abortion in general is not immoral. It really wouldn't matter to him why a woman offed her own kid. To Dan there's nothing wrong with it. His rationalization now includes some nonsense about how we drove him to it. Now THAT'S conviction, for you! THAT'S a man who lives his faith, who "embraces grace", who cares about "the least of these".

Craig said...

I think the two scariest things about the Downs Syndrome thing are; 1. The blasé acceptance that roughly 2% of those aborted will not actually have Downs. 2. The fact that this logic can be applied to any child or person deemed undesirable regardless of stage of development or physical location.

If you have a chance check out Matt Walsh's latest about the adoration heaped on Beyoncé's unborn babies. He makes the point (among others) that a significant part of the difference between baby and clump of parasitical cells is the perceived lifestyle the child will have when born.

It's funny that someone as odious as Singer is probably the most consistent and honest about his approach to this issue, yet the Dan's of the world just equivocate.

Also, the new round of videos out that Demonstrates that Planned Parenthood doesn't even believe the lies about them doing "pre natal care".

Feodor said...

Here are a couple reasons to pass human life laws: outlaw homeless and poverty.

"About 15 million children in the United States – 21% of all children – live in families with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, a measurement that has been shown to underestimate the needs of families. Research shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice that level to cover basic expenses."

"A staggering 2.5 million children are now homeless each year in America. This historic high represents one in every 30 children in the United States."

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

I was going to respond the the off topic comment, but changed my mind.

Feodor said...

The topic is human life. But you make it up as you go along.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The topic is abortion and the lying needed to support it.

Craig said...

It would appear that the topic is the inconsistency of people like Dan when it comes to human life. More precisely his insistence that humanity is defined by "looks like", not by things like DNA ang genetic makeup.

As for your off topic aside, given the fact that I've spent the last 20 plus years engaging full time in working to mitigate the plight of the poor, I feel confident in suggesting that simplistic platitudes aren't necessarily helpful.

It seems as though you are advocating for abortion as a means tu alleviate poverty, which seems a bit much. But maybe that's not the case.

Feodor said...

One man's simplistic avoidance is another's simple leaps toward a solution.

"Salt Lake City crunched the numbers. And the prescription was clear. The city was spending $20,000 per homeless resident per year—funding for policing, arrests, jail time, shelter and emergency services. Homelessness was not going down. Instead, for $7,800 a year through a new program called Housing First, the city could provide a person with an apartment and case management services.

And more importantly, chronic homelessness has dropped 72 percent."

Feodor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

Condoms and birth control help alleviate poverty. So does Planned Parenthood.

But you guys make it up as you go along. Like how Glenn says ����In the name of Jesus to poor and homeless children.

Craig said...

Your first comment points out the obvious that there are multiple ways of dealing with these issues, some of which are more effective than others. The problem is that to simplistically assume that what works in one place will work elsewhere is not necessarily a reasonable assumption.

As to your second comment. I guess if you think that abortion is birth control, I can't stop you. I'm sure that the millions of primarily children of color terminated by PP might have some small effect of reducing the increase of poverty. Of course, if you are consistent then you'd apply the same logic to every person in poverty regardless of their developmental state. Perhaps we could implement laws to rid society of those undesirables, and maybe make foreign aid contingent on similar measures. Or how about just establishing arbitrary limits on who can have children and how many they can have.

It's possible that you may be ignoring how cultural differences play into this as well. The last 8-10 families I've worked with had 5 plus children and were steadily working their way out of poverty and up the economic ladder. While I wouldn't have made the choice to have that many kids in those circumstances, I certainly don't think I (or anyone else) should be imposing limits on these families.

Feodor said...

Educate yourself first, cowering Craig:

"Birth control: Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Craig said...

Educate yourself,the PP statistics have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, Perhaps you'd trouble yourself to watch the recentl documentation of the fact that "pre natal services" provided by PP are pretty non existent.

If you want to lump the dismemberment of a viable infant in with using condoms feel free. But why not take your philosophy to its logical conclusion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You've bought into the Planned Parenthood propaganda. 3% is bogus.

Try looking at facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/01/amazing-infographic-exposes-planned-parenthoods-big-fat-3-lie/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIOBOFaVYs&list=UUfkzsfj7Go1Q_kRFZmJptsw
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/planned-parenthoods-most-misleading-statistic

Feodor said...

I believe I listed the facts, Glenn. Put down your Trumpist "alternate facts" and propaganda and put on your glasses on.

And read above.

Feodor said...

No cowering Craig. They have not been debunked. In fact, they have been verified. It is true that these numbers are not to the advantage of brutalizing wishes on the part of those who care not for the poor (anti Christians like you and Glenn) and dontou'd rather count something else. Like money instead of services to persons. 3% of PP services are abortion related. A big reason - birth control and prevention being a much larger part of what they do - as to why abortions are at record lows.

But you guys make it up as you go along. You didn't read where birth control does not include abortion, did you, cowering Craig. Pretty horrible researcher.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo can't handle the facts; truth has no place in his brain.

The facts we presented are the true facts in the case. Over 95% of PP services are abortion and your self-deception won't change that.

Whether your tirade included abortion as birth control is irrelevant -- Abortion is use ONLY for preventing birth, i.e. BIRTH CONTROL. (when applied to birth control pills and condoms and other contraceptives, "birth control" is a misnomer; these are conception controls. There is only one birth control and that is abortion)

Feodor said...

If you guys insist on ignoring numbers, you vacate an ability to make an reasonable argument.

Craig said...

And FEO has spoken. The matter is settled for all time. It doesn't matter if anyone might have evidence to the contrary. It's easier to just go nasty.

Feodor said...

Control your idiocy, Glenn. The medical definition of Birth Control: "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus."

Abortion is not birth control.

Get a grip, child.

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.


I see how compassionate you guys are toward poverty and homelessness, too.

All you want is to take down an organization that provides healthcare to women.

How anti-Christ like of you both.

Craig said...

Yes, I've spent the last 20 plus years of my life working in the areas of ameliorating poverty and providing affordable housing, but all of a sudden some internet schmuck hiding behind an alias, decides that he's qualified to pass judgement on whether I meet his arbitrary compassion threshold. What a freaking joke.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

I didn't deny any definition of "birth control," rather I pointed out that it is a misnomer. Abortion certainly prevents a birth, and that by definition is birth control.

Abortion is not health care, and PP provides MINIMAL health care, if at all. That has been proven time and time again, but you are too stupid to accept the factual evidence because it would upset your worship of abortion and PP.

There is nothing in the article or in the comment string that has says anything about how uncompassionate we are in regards to poverty and homelessness. You have no idea about our views on the matter based on anything here other than what Craig has stated. You just make things up as you go along -- bearing false witness. That is what is truly un-Christ-like.

Craig said...

Knowing what Christ said about both little children and the least of these, I'd question how Christlike anyone could be who advocates abortion as a means of attempting to control poverty and Downs Syndrome. Again, what's a few dead false positives.

Lack of compassion indeed.

Marshall Art said...

feo satisfies himself with pro-abortion numbers used to mitigate the charge that outfits like PP are solely in the business of abortion, with all other "non-abortion" services actually that which is tied to the inevitable abortion they hope to perform.

I agree with Craig (and I'm sure Glenn as well) that killing one's offspring to resolve issues of poverty is, to say the least, less than Christian and in no way a sign of compassion. The logical extension of that heinous position is to whack those who have been born as well, given the expense of raising children.

As this and all other abortion related discussions generally highlight, there is a distinct attempt on the part of those defending the practice to rationalize, rather than to accept the realities. Those realities include the fact that the real issue is the corrupt nature of human kind and the willingness by pro-abortion supporters, such as Dan and feo, to enable that corruption by pretending a human being isn't a human being, or not human enough to enjoy the protections those of us who have been born insist is our right. This from a guy who pretends others are "brutalizing".

Childbirth has never been the cause of poverty. Engaging in the behavior designed by nature to bring about pregnancy during a time when the economic situation of the participants does not provide for the possibility is. Dan and feo never seem to address that at all, given as how supportive of sexual immorality they are. That makes it a fairly simple proposition: If one is not financially set, one ought not engage in any activity that will worsen one's economic situation. feo finds abstaining from sexual activity a far worse concept than killing one's own children. That is brutal, devoid of compassion and morally bankrupt. That is feo.

Craig said...

It's naive and simplistic to suggest that aborting children will significantly reduce poverty. There is plenty of evidence that certain behaviors do reduce the chances of living in poverty. But abortion isn't one.

I find the use of the words "control" and "planning" ironic when it comes to this discussion. Because even a modicum of control would eliminate the need for abortion, and anyone who waits until their pregnant or practice "birth control" certainly hasn't engaged in any planning.

Marshal Art said...

Of course. And without a doubt, their position requires and depends upon dismissing the humanity of the unborn; choosing an arbitrary point of development to subjectively assert that the unborn at that arbitrarily decided point is not "fully" human, simply because it is not fully developed.

Craig said...

And the "Russian spy", is related to this topic how?

Craig said...

Since you rarely answer questions, I can't believe you'd start now.

No, making up childish names, going off topic, and making unfounded judgments are much more your speed.

Craig said...

This is what happens when you feed trolls. The thread goes way off topic and they pretend manage to ignore anything that proved inconvenient for their agenda.

Craig said...

I would have thought that your earlier epic failure would have taught you a lesson about making assumptions, I guess not. But the continued childish insults and name calling makes me wonder if your a middle school student, not a teacher.

Craig said...

Yup. When you continued to assert the accuracy of your assumptions despite reality I'd say that epic failure.

Of course since I'm no Trump supporter, I'm satisfied to watch what happens and allow the investigation to reach its conclusion. Not being blinded by hatred, I see no reason to jump to conclusions.

Now, I guess you can continue this fixation, or get back to the topic of the post.

I see no reading to indulge your folly.

Marshall Art said...

Some small children, and feo, can't seem to abide rules. These small children, and particularly feo, insist on misbehaving or, more likely, are somehow mentally/emotionally incapable of doing so.

If I had young people under my tutelage, there is no way I would want them to see me act like feo does here. It's no wonder he hides behind a fake name. Someone who can actually rise above the type of behavior so typical of him, someone who can actually best those to whom he dares condescend and do so with actual Christian kindness and respect...such a person would never need to hide behind a false name. But I guess when one is a false priest like feo, a false name is only natural.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,
You are being intentionally STUPID.

Terminating a pregnancy is controlling birth, preventing it from happening. THAT by definition is birth control.

Pregnancy prevention is contraception -- preventing conceiving. Once the baby has conceived all you can do is control whether it is born. THAT is real world.

You prefer to go with 1984 definitions made up by people who want to sanitize what is really happening. Which only proves how stupid you really are.

Anonymous said...

It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.

It takes a lot of gall to admit reality? The fact is, Marshall, when I began my blog over a decade ago, I was probably every bit as pro-life as you are. Over the years, seeing you all make the same arguments I had made at different times in my life, I could see that those arguments continually begged the question, committed ad hom attacks and generally contained logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Watching you all (and others) argue against abortion over the last ~decade or two has caused me to virtually flip my position. That is what has happened in the real world.

It's not galling to admit reality. What is galling is trying to bully someone into agreement by suggesting it's galling to disagree or calling reality an absurd notion. That only further pushes people away.

The reality is, I have rarely looked at "pro-choice" arguments over the years. Oh sure, I've given them a passing listen, but always from the starting place that they were wrong.

The reality is, it is primarily seeing the lack of reason and the presence of arrogance and presumption that has pushed me away from the pro-life position that we once shared.

Pro-life arguments (and their lack of consistency and reason, as well as the arrogance and bullying with which they are put forth) are what caused me to change my position. In the real world.

There is nothing galling about reality. It's just how things happen.

So again, I'd argue that, at least with folk like me, the number one thing you could do to support the "pro-life poisition" is stop arguing in favor of your position.

It drove me away.

Reality is reality.

~Dan

Craig said...

If facts and evidence drove you away, then one must wonder how committed you were in the first place. Given your past ambivalence toward abortion, and your current arbitrary standard, I'm not sure.

You titled your post " Resist", and as "proof" of your standard you offered a video of a human at one stage of development and declared that since it didn't look like humans at later stage of development it wasn't "fully human". I wonder if you've ever bothered to look at humans in later stages of development who are in the midst of being aborted and watched as they try to resist being dismembered. I guess that kind of resistance doesn't move you very much.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The actual "health care" PP provides is minuscule, and not needed at all due to the very many real women's health care clinics.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/28/fact-check-yes-women-can-go-elsewhere-if-planned-parenthood-closes/

PP does not offer pre-natal care:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/planned-parenthood-expos-we-dont-offer-prenatal-care
https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/this-video-shows-exactly-why-we-dont-need-planned-parenthood

Craig said...

I guess all the recent video of PP chapters denying the fact that they provide pre natal care is all fake, the fact that they don't do mammograms is all faked.

If ignoring anything that does fit your narrative and making up stupid names is all you have to offer, then why even bother.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo loves the lying propaganda from PP regardless of how much proof has been exposed against such lying propaganda.

There is absolutely NO need for PP except to provide child murder.

Craig said...

Of course none of this is directly related to the topic of the post. Why not just write your own posts at your own blog instead of trying to drive threads at other blogs.

Craig said...

A quick check reveals that the Washington Post fact checkers give the 3% claim 3 Pinocchio's. A rating which equates to mostly false.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"The fact is, Marshall, when I began my blog over a decade ago, I was probably every bit as pro-life as you are."

Sorry, Dan, but I find this hard to believe. Perhaps I'll check your archives when my weekend arrives to see how you commented on the practice. In the meantime, considering you say the same thing about having once been conservative, while never providing any evidence that you understand what that means, similar claims about a pro-life position have no value.

"...I could see that those arguments continually begged the question, committed ad hom attacks and generally contained logical fallacy after logical fallacy..."

While you may have done so, I still don't believe you have explained what you mean by "begged the question". Here would be a great place to do so, as well as to provide the question you believe needs answering. I'm betting you've been given all the answer you need, except that it doesn't reflect what you wish reality was. In addition, you might want to provide an example of any "logical fallacy" you think has been put forth, much less "logical fallacy after logical fallacy".

"Watching you all (and others) argue against abortion over the last ~decade or two has caused me to virtually flip my position. That is what has happened in the real world."

But not to real people. Not really honest people, anyway. What we've put forth in our arguments are nothing short of factual scientific data that supports the pro-life position with regards to the humanity, or as you put it, being "fully human". Conversely, you've put forward absolutely nothing, save an Oxford English Dictionary definition that doesn't serve the purpose as you think it does. To be given truth and insist having received it is what has changed your position is more than a little mental. What normal, honest person is convinced of a notion 180 degrees opposite what the data suggests?

"What is galling is trying to bully someone into agreement by suggesting it's galling to disagree or calling reality an absurd notion."

Galling is ignoring the facts of science that support the pro-life position and insisting that repeatedly putting forth those facts is somehow, in Gentle Leftist Snowflake World, tantamount to bullying. Bullying is ripping a defenseless child from its mother's womb and killing it. The truth pushes you away like light drives away cockroaches.

"The reality is, I have rarely looked at "pro-choice" arguments over the years. Oh sure, I've given them a passing listen, but always from the starting place that they were wrong."

And yet you consistently fail to provide any supporting evidence that such is true.

"The reality is, it is primarily seeing the lack of reason and the presence of arrogance and presumption that has pushed me away from the pro-life position that we once shared."

"Lack of reason"?? How so? The pro-life position is more than merely reasonable. It's moral and in line with the basic tenets of Christianity with regard to the value of human life.

"Arrogance"??? You continue to level this charge for the crime of telling the truth and standing by it. That's far more a sign of arrogance, that YOU dismiss the truth in favor of your unsupported alternatives, than is telling the truth.

"Pro-life arguments (and their lack of consistency and reason, as well as the arrogance and bullying with which they are put forth) are what caused me to change my position. In the real world."

And yet you consistently fail to provide any supporting evidence that such is true.

The reality, Dan, is that you're a liar who now supports another lie. To rebut that charge, you'll actually have to defend any of the charges you've leveled against us.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

You're the troll. You are a text-book example of a troll. You are a troll who lacks the character to act maturely, and jumps topics when your lack of intelligence is again made plain.

You wish to consider me a troll because I publish a post about something Dan wrote or said? That would be true of every reporter, journalist or commentator. That's a great part of what they do. Instead of acknowledging this simple fact (not simple enough for your simple mind evidently), you try to create another way to disparage someone who's consistently ruled your sorry ass.

Later, I'll get to some of your other more recent falsehoods and debunk them as well.

Feodor said...

Blogger Feodor said...
I believe I listed the facts, Glenn. Put down your Trumpist "alternate facts" and propaganda and put on your glasses on.

And read above.


February 14, 2017 at 3:06 PM Delete
Blogger Feodor said...
No cowering Craig. They have not been debunked. In fact, they have been verified. It is true that these numbers are not to the advantage of brutalizing wishes on the part of those who care not for the poor (anti Christians like you and Glenn) and dontou'd rather count something else. Like money instead of services to persons. 3% of PP services are abortion related. A big reason - birth control and prevention being a much larger part of what they do - as to why abortions are at record lows.

But you guys make it up as you go along. You didn't read where birth control does not include abortion, did you, cowering Craig. Pretty horrible researcher.

February 14, 2017 at 3:12 PM Delete
Blogger Glenn E. Chatfield said...
Feo can't handle the facts; truth has no place in his brain.

The facts we presented are the true facts in the case. Over 95% of PP services are abortion and your self-deception won't change that.

Whether your tirade included abortion as birth control is irrelevant -- Abortion is use ONLY for preventing birth, i.e. BIRTH CONTROL. (when applied to birth control pills and condoms and other contraceptives, "birth control" is a misnomer; these are conception controls. There is only one birth control and that is abortion)

February 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
If you guys insist on ignoring numbers, you vacate an ability to make an reasonable argument.

February 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM Delete
Blogger Craig said...
And FEO has spoken. The matter is settled for all time. It doesn't matter if anyone might have evidence to the contrary. It's easier to just go nasty.

February 14, 2017 at 3:21 PM
Blogger Feodor said...
Control your idiocy, Glenn. The medical definition of Birth Control: "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to prevent pregnancy from occurring in a sexually active woman. Also referred to as family planning, pregnancy prevention, fertility control, or contraception; birth control methods are designed either to prevent fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus."

Abortion is not birth control.

Get a grip, child.

February 14, 2017 at 3:23 PM Delete
Blogger Feodor said...
For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.


I see how compassionate you guys are toward poverty and homelessness, too.

All you want is to take down an organization that provides healthcare to women.

How anti-Christ like of you both.

Feodor said...

By the way, epitome of a troll would be a blogger who has to import another blogger's post and piss out simply because he misses the other blogger coming around and giving him attention. (See above post.)

Feodor said...

For Planned Parenthood, out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures. 3%.

Undebunked.

Anonymous said...

One last time. A one week old human fetus looks like and IS a human fetus.

It does not look, in any way, like a human.

The question then, is, Is a fully human fetus the same thing as a born human being? Does it deserve the same rights as a born human?

These are questions you ignore and presume that "fully human fetus" = born human in your responses.

This is begging the question and a logical fallacy.

Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk. Ignore the question and attempt to browbeat people into agreeing with your unproven suggestion and you ignore reason, debase science and drive people further away.

Your call.

Dan

Feodor said...

Craig, your WaPo article confirms that the above stat is true. It also disprovesves Glenn's silt argument. WaLo does want to make an alternate rhetorical argument based only in nominclatute: labels. Which I find unconvincing and contradictory. The data I list is based on discrete billable events. 3% of which are abortions.

Craig said...

The WaPo article makes it quite clear that PP obfuscates the numbers to the point that it's impossible to prove the accuracy of the 3% number.

Once again, you make false claims about "how we are", regarding poverty and homelessness. You have absolutely no objective evidence to back up your assumption, except evidence that contradicts your claim.

Your track record of making unsupported claims is not impressive, yet you keep doing so.

BTW, if you're going to slam MA for writing a post after Dan closed comments on the referenced post, then I'm sure you're going to be consistent and slam Dan who does the same thing regularly.

You should, but I doubt you will.

Craig said...

I just noticed Dan's "arrogant bullying " quote. I think he's been reading himself and Feo a little too much.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"One last time. A one week old human fetus looks like and IS a human fetus.

It does not look, in any way, like a human."


Say it a few hundred more times and it still comes out the same. It's a most inane, deceitful and unChristian example of your typical equivocation. If it's a "human fetus", it is a human. It looks exactly what a human is supposed to look like at that stage of human development, just as one's five year old looks just as human at that stage of development is supposed to look. Like the Klan, or the islamist or the Nazi, you're simply choosing to regard the way a human being looks to determine what is or isn't "fully human". You provide nothing but subjectivity to hold your position. No science, no data, no evidence...only the personal preference to allow you the liberty to abort...that is, unjustifiably kill...another human being.

"The question then, is, Is a fully human fetus the same thing as a born human being?"

This has not only been answered, but answered with the weight of science behind the "YES!" that we've put forth. This is not to say that "science says a fetus is a person worthy of the same right to life as someone so loathsome as a Dan Trabue who is willing to have that fetus killed on a whim". It is that science makes no case that there is a distinction between one human at the earliest stage of human development and that same human at any later stage of development. It is a person from the start, because it can be nothing else.

Thus, why would it not "deserve the same rights as a born human?" The only truthful answer that could come from your "tribe" is that it is convenient for you to deny such people those same rights. You don't have to worry about having murdered a most defenseless and helpless child if you choose to regard it as not yet "fully human". How despicable you are to pretend that pointing out these facts are what drove you to support abortion and deny its immorality!!

"These are questions you ignore and presume that "fully human fetus" = born human in your responses"

We've clearly NOT ignored the question, nor have we "presumed" anything at all. The science drives our conclusions as one cannot honestly conclude otherwise in the face of what the science of embryology and human development teaches. At the same time, however, YOU ignore the question, what evidence can you offer to presume that such a person is NOT worthy of the same respect you insist upon for yourself? We've been given none to date from you, other than a dictionary definition that doesn't do the job.

Marshall Art said...

"Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk."

The problem is that you have no standing to make such a demand. All the science weighs in the favor of the innocent, not in favor of the spineless parent who refuses to face the consequences of his/her actions. It is YOU who must prove that a human fetus does NOT equal a born human. This is true considering that:

1. No human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant can exist without a man and woman engaging in the very act designed to produce another person.

2. A human zygote, embryo, fetus, infant has distinct DNA that distinguishes it from its mother.

3. Barring defect or outside interference, what was conceived by the procreative act of a man and a woman will grow to become a stage of human development that even Dan Trabue couldn't disregard as human. But until Dan can provide evidence to the contrary, its looks doesn't have to meet Dan's standards for what a "fully human person" looks like in order to be one.

"Ignore the question and attempt to browbeat people into agreeing with your unproven suggestion and you ignore reason, debase science and drive people further away."

Bullshit. We aren't "suggesting" anything. We're stating scientific fact. If doing so amounts to "browbeating" in your sorry world, that's only because you hate the truth, not because of anything we're doing wrong. You are ignoring the science, and thus debasing it by rejecting reason to hold your position that there is some dividing line that separates one stage of human development from the rest with regards a person's God-given right to life. Don't give me crap about "browbeating" when you're supporting the unjust horrific killing of millions of innocents per year. Shame on you.

Craig said...

"Prove that a human fetus = a born human and we can talk."

There is so much that is wrong embodied in this one statement.

On the one hand if Marshall and Mrs. Art conceive a child, the fetus that exists 1 week after conception is clearly and unarguably the same genetically as it is after it's born. It's also the same as it will be at 5, or 25, or 85. This is biology 101 and the fact that Dan chooses to be obtuse simply highlights the fault of his position.

On the other hand, the 1 week old fetus is clearly not in the same state of development or location as in the born human, the 5 year old, the 25 year old, or the 85 year old. But the stage of development doesn't diminish the fact that a genetically unique human being comes into existence at conception. The genetic material present from conception is all the genetic material anyone gets.

Where Dan (and the much more forthright and courageous Singer) fails, is that he is attempting to draw an arbitrary line so the he can decide at what point it's ok to terminate this human being. Now, if Dan had the courage of his convictions he'd actually take a stand, and articulate that one singular point where he believes one achieves "full humanity". Further, he would need to provide some sort of evidence that his one point is the most logical point. I'd be impressed if he would do so. Clearly it's possible, Singer has done so why can't Dan.

If he does so, the problem he needs to surmount is to explain why his point should be given more weight than scientific literature and US law. Of course, if he disagrees with Singer, he'd need to explain why he's right and Singer is wrong.

But we all know what's going to happen, he's going to trot out the whole "It's just my opinion" canard and try to convince himself that scientific texts and US law are just someones opinion and that they don't carry any more weight than his.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I certainly hope so.

Marshall Art said...

I doubt you will, Craig. Worse, I think what is likely is that he'll not respond at all since he's clearly driven himself into a corner. There's really no way to support a pro-abortion position and maintain one's integrity as a Christian. At least not without the typical equivocation when it comes to what any particular relevant Scriptural passage he believes is relevant to the issue might say. Slinking away is all he really has. He can't defend his position through science, as he has stated that science doesn't tell us when one is "fully human". And he can't really argue from a position of Christianity without first being able to explain why, at the very least, he thinks his arbitrary point of "full humanity" is valid.

And in a sense, he has long ago dodged the issue anyway, since his position had been to allow that others might feel differently, so by golly, they should have the right to kill their own children. Yet, some might feel exactly the same way about killing their four year old child and Dan wouldn't be down with that. He'd actually insist that justice for the four year old be served. Any way one looks at it, Dan is in a fix. Indeed, all arguments are against him. To claim we have driven him to now believe abortion is not immoral is more of the same dodging. It's merely a new way to continue the dodging he's been doing for years.

The fact is that he was never opposed to abortion in any way. He may have assumed that posture in order to portray himself as Christian, as he now does with so many goofy positions he holds. Personally, I think it's as I said earlier...that he must know people who have aborted their children who otherwise appear to be "Christian", just a he does with the homosexuality issue. He can't bear the thought of those "nice" people being at risk spiritually and eternally. OR, he doesn't want his "progressive" friends to look at him poorly for not towing the progressive position.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, that last paragraph is what a "hunch" actually looks like. I hope Dan will take note.

Craig said...

It might be labeled a hunch, but you've at least got some good reasons why you've reached it.

Personally I suspect that it's more that folks convince themselves that as long as they personally wouldn't have an abortion that they are pro life. When in reality they are supporting candidates who are working to expand access to abortion and women who have them. Or they claim to be "pro choice" yet never seem to advocate for any choice other than abortion.

It's one more instance of intellectual inconsistency that you see from those on the left.

Craig said...

I'm curious why the end of life is determined by the absence of a heartbeat why the beginning of life isn't as well?

Feodor said...

The end of life is not determined by the absence of a heartbeat. We revive those whose hearts have stopped. We replace the hearts of those whose hearts are dying - sometimes with something that is a machine, not even a heart at all.

Death is the irrecoverable loss of the brain on which is written what is indeed life: thoughts, feelings, relationships, memories.

When a life is irrecoverable we know it's time to stop the heart and the lungs ourselves. And we do that thousands of times a day I imagine. We can even self choose beforehand to keep others from keeping our heart and lungs going big our life is irrecoverable from our brains.

The very reason that, by reflection upon medical ethics and humane ethics, we save the mother in situations where either the fetus or the mother will die: we choose to save the existing life already and still being written on the mother's brain over the brain that has yet to have accomplished life over writing potential life.

Gone for Lent now gents. Got to shrive myself of egregious sins and hanging out here is a mistake of character. ✋🏽

Craig said...

Ok, then why not apply the same standard to beginning of life as end of life.

Anonymous said...

Brain waves don't begin until 24 weeks, I'm told. Are you suggesting that this is where you're comfortable drawing the line?

Dan

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Trying to be technical doesn't mitigate Craig's point in the least.

"When a life is irrecoverable we know it's time to stop the heart and the lungs ourselves."

There's absolutely no Biblical support for this position in any way.

"The very reason that, by reflection upon medical ethics and humane ethics, we save the mother in situations where either the fetus or the mother will die"

This assumes one can determine with exactitude that only one or the other will survive the birth. I grant that the decision in such a case should be the mother's alone, because it is she whose life is on the line. Where the birth would kill her, abortion then becomes a self-defense situation and is not relevant to any discussion with regard to abortion on demand. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there was ever a time in this country where choosing to abort in such a situation was illegal.

There is a special place in Heaven, I would wager, for mothers who take the risk that their child will survive or that their child's "potential" life is of greater value than her own, and thus proceed with giving birth. False priests might not agree.

Hanging out here isn't a mistake of character. Your character, however, is indeed a mistake and for you, Lent should be year 'round. Said another way, you bring a wholly unChristian character to this blog with your every visit. And that last line of your last comment is simply one more piece of evidence that proves the point.

Marshall Art said...

"Brain waves don't begin until 24 weeks, I'm told. Are you suggesting that this is where you're comfortable drawing the line?"

Craig may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the point is to try and get those like yourself to find where YOU draw the line, and then explain why you are justified in doing so. Craig has already affirmed his position as to when life begins and how that is no different than when one's right to life begins as well.

Craig said...

Heartbeat starts at around 18 days, are you comfortable with drawing the line there? At this point, most Dr's agree that about 20 weeks is viable. Are you willing to draw the line there?

At this point you've not shown a willingness to draw a line anywhere. None of your arguments indicate any logical point to draw a line. And somehow you've been unwilling to do so.

As a political matter, I could live with drawing a hard line at fetal viability, with exceptions for rape and life of the mother. Along with eliminating federal funding for PP, the same regulations on abortion clinics as on vets, and the same parental notification as school nurses need.

See, that's much more specific and reasonable that "It doesn't look like...".

Since science continues to support the pro life position, I'd be willing to support a political compromise and wait for advances in science. But where's the compromise from unlimited free abortion? Or where's the compromise with the Singer's of the world. At this point, you and Singer are making the same argument.

Anonymous said...

I've been quite clear. IlThe fact is that we don't have a definitive answer, so I prefer to let Marshall be entirely free to decide for himself and other people have the right to decide for themselves.

You helped me see that your side hasno authoritative, definitive answer, so thanks for that.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The authoritative, definitive answer is that science says life begins at conception. Ergo, abortion kills a human life. Ergo, it is murder.

Anonymous said...

And if that is yourhunch, I fully support you deciding to not have abortion. The problem is, you don't want to extend the same Grace to others.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,
I just stated a FACT, not a hunch.

But just because you don't want a slave, you should extend grace to those who want slaves.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Glenn, Craig, myself and others on this side of the divide extend Christian grace to those who are at risk of being murdered by their own mothers. As Glenn says, it is no hunch what science says about when new human life begins. It takes a special kind of non-Christian corruption to choose against giving the benefit of the doubt to those at risk on the weak grounds that "we don't know". If you wish to insist that we do not have any way of determining when one possesses the right to life, actual Christian grace would demand that you err on the side of life, not on the whimsical and cheap rationalizations of those who simply do not wish to fulfill their Christian obligations with regard to sexual behavior and their consequences. In doing so, you could then wear your Christian facade with a bit more credibility.

Craig said...

And Dan isn't willing to step up and compromise at all on his unrestricted abortion for anyone for any reason, based only on his opinion that they look different. Hell, he won't even repudiate Singer.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Craig. Like all leftists, Dan abhors absolutes. In doing so, it is hard for him to be willing to be pinned down. There's too much risk in being specific. It doesn't matter to him the actual risk to those who must suffer the consequences of such a spineless attitude. What's important is how he is perceived by the world.

Anonymous said...

I am absolutely opposed to you deciding for everyone else, Marshall. Or others deciding for you.

As always, I fully support you clinging to whatever opinions you have. Too bad y'all can't do the same.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I am not opposed to one person (God) deciding for everyone else that murder is wrong.

Anonymous said...

I'm fine with that, too, Glenn. But you ain't God.

Dan

Marshall Art said...

"I am absolutely opposed to you deciding for everyone else, Marshall. Or others deciding for you."

That's lovely, but not at issue here.

"I fully support you clinging to whatever opinions you have. Too bad y'all can't do the same."

Two problems here:

1. No one is denying you the "right" or ability to cling to whatever goofy and baseless position floats your leaky boat. The issue here, as always, continues to be trying to get you to provide anything that supports your position as even remotely, possibly true or valid. If only you'd stop tap dancing long enough to do so.

Craig said...

Dan, appears to be wholly in support of terminating the existence of viable humans who don't look like he thinks they should look. No limits, no regulation, no charge.

If that's "grace", I'll pass.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

I never, ever even intimated that I considered myself on any level even remotely similar to God. But there you go with your usual asinine statements.

BUT, science and God calls human life beginning at conception, and when you abort that life you are guilty of murder. And you support the murder of the unborn.

But, then again, as has been demonstrated so very often, you couldn't care less what the real God of the Bible has to say because you worship a God of your own making, one that approves of abortion and homosexual behavior, etc.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For Trabue:

Here is REAL science about the unborn, IF you choose to enlighten yourself.
http://crossexamined.org/what-is-the-unborn/

Marshall Art said...

https://patriotpost.us/articles/47749

Anonymous said...

Presenting the "real science," you're offering some guy who advocates for conservative positions, with no real background in science that I can find. Is that what constitutes "real science" to you, Glenn?

Beyond that, you all repeatedly are demonstrating an inability to understand what I'm saying and that gives me no confidence that you are able to understand, you know, science and all that. Or God.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but we all could embrace a bit of humility when offering our opinions, eh?

Peace.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Trabue,

The political views of people presenting actual facts has no bearing on the facts. Unless a liberal like you wants to push an agenda but it is obvious because they say "science" is 2+2=5.

You just deny what every single scientist in the world can't deny; from conception a human life has begun.

Marshall Art said...

Aside from presenting a few arguments (pro AND con) that haven't been addressed in these discussions, the article to which Glenn linked absolutely provided scientific facts by citing the science books from which those facts are taken. Thus, Dan lies once again by pretending Glenn presented no "real science". He most certainly did.

Humility is not an issue here because it isn't lacking in the presenting of that real science and the just conclusions to which an honest person must come with regard to whether or not the unborn, at every stage of its development, is possessed of the same right to life as we are. Indeed, the pro-abortion position is inherently the arrogant position, as well as the condescending nature of Dan's rebuffs. It is arrogant to suggest that we are failing in any way in understanding either science or God, particularly when we bring such solid evidence to bear. Dan, on the other hand, continues to fail in presenting anything more than unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion as to why he now holds that abortion is not immoral. Such a position is clearly contrary to reason and all scientific understanding...not to mention Scriptural teaching.

Craig said...

Art, as long as you humbly decide to terminate the existence of your viable unborn child it's fine. But if you lack humility, then....

You realize your talking to someone who uncritically buys "science" when it suits him. Someone who's elevated "peer reviewed studies" to the level of some sort of Delphic oracle. Despite the documented problems with the entire peer review system.

But who's perfectly willing to ignore biology/embryology 101 when it gets in the way.