Loose End Continued

As a result of my last post, Dan has decided to respond with a post of his own, because he's too chicken-shit to engage here, and has some petulant pants-wetting issues that compels him to delete me there, even when I've successfully answered demands he's made of me.  Indeed, it's why he deletes me.  But I digress.

In his recent post, he takes issue with my position that abortion is never necessary.  Thus far, I've only ever been able to find a contrary position by those who perform abortions.  In another post, an article was present from some medical experts who were speaking on behalf of many others as well, who insist that there is no medical reason to abort in order to save a woman from a complicated pregnancy.  So there's a clear conflict between a number of those who deal with pregnancies on both sides of the issue, but one side is decidedly pro-abortion and my guess is that they aren't above rationalizing their choice any more or less than the women who choose that route.   I mean how can so many who have had long careers delivering babies so firmly insist no situation exists whereby abortions must be performed when some form of delivery can be performed instead?  Would the pro-aborts try to insist they simply haven't had truly life-threatening situations?  That would be an absurd thing to put forth.  More likely, it is as I said, that the pro-aborts rationalize their decision rather than the situation truly dictating it.  They already are predisposed to believe that it's a "moral" choice, whereas all the others are speaking from experiences dictated by their conviction that it isn't.

Anyway, what follows are responses to Dan's questions put forth as if they are truly exposing flaws in my position.  Before I do, however, I will say this:  Most pro-life proponents have expressed a willingness to compromise in order to save the most lives as possible, by allowing for those rare and minuscule instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.  The rejection of this compromise by the pro-aborts proves they aren't concerned with the health of the mother at all, and simply use these excuses so as to protect ANY reason for abortion from legal consequences.  So here we go:

"These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots."

Is this supposed to be an insult?  If so, it's inaccurate in fact.  Truer is "pro-life zealot".  That's a good thing and one would think this would be a default position for anyone daring to call one's self a Christian.  But as I'm not convinced that there truly is a legitimate reason to ever abort, why would I not deny anyone the legal ability to off their own kid?  Then again, as I consider abortion murder...yeah, that might be accurate after all. 

Before anyone blows a gasket over a possible contradiction, I do not believe that allowing an exception for "life of the mother" denotes a belief that there are truly such cases where a mother's life is so endangered by her pregnancy that the unborn must be killed.  The compromise is simply to save as many lives as possible.  To have the pro-aborts muster the humanity to actually agree with such a compromise is not the ultimate ideal, but merely a stopgap until it can be shown there is no such need.  The law wouldn't even have to be changed.  We can work on those three myths later on.

"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"

Sadly, this is true.  In fact, it happens quite a bit in any of those shithole countries with unfortunate regularity.  Often, it is simply not seen as wrong.  It's a cultural thing.

"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"

Uh...yeah.  I do.

"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"

I recognize that this is true for some, but not necessarily true for all.  I'd prefer to simply say it's not ideal for any of them.  The list in the link I provided in my previous answer clearly states some were "delivered", while others were by C-section.  But you pro-aborts pretend the risks posed by abortion to such patients is negligible.  They're not.  They're about the same.

"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"

I recognize you're purposely overstating this possibility in order to shield the heinous act from objective scrutiny.  Guatemala is among those countries where young girls are commonly abused as a matter of cultural acceptance (even if illegal).  That is to say that there is a high percentage of girls younger than 14 giving birth, including as young as ten, with unfortunate regularity.  To suggest that they all have experienced great trauma simply from being pregnant is just pro-abort hyperbole.  More than likely, any trauma is only related to the actual rape if it was particularly violent...not the pregnancy that results from it.  My reference to Guatemala stemmed from researching all this.  I thought I saved the article that informed me, as it quite clearly showed that these girls commonly go on as if it was no big deal, for a variety of reasons including the fact that they didn't even regard their situation (being preggers) as particularly alarming, and went on to regard their offspring as if a sibling, many having children later on in life.

"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"

As a general rule, yeah.  I'm willing, as are most pro-lifers and most pro-life governments, to hear arguments on a case-by-case basis.  There is the unexpected.

"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"

Oh, I'm the worst kind of monster.  I'm the kind that doesn't think killing the innocent is necessary and that protecting them does not put an unjust burden on anyone, even if it puts some degree of burden on some.  I'm the kind of monster that won't consider the most vulnerable expendable simply because it costs those less vulnerable some hardship.  Most importantly, I'm the kind of monster that doesn't deprive one of one's humanity due to one's size, age or location as if I'm some kind of nazi or klansman.  I'm the kind of monster who wishes he could be as monstrous as my Lord Jesus Christ...the ultimate Pro-Life Zealot.

"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"

If you could prove that they are more likely to die without an abortion as from one, this question wouldn't be so stupid and presumptuous.  It's clear you worship at the altar of abortion, offering up thousands of dead innocents daily.  So much so that I can't honestly recall you ever offering to give up that 99% of most abortions in order to save these children.  No.  You're simply exploiting them like all pro-aborts do.  You don't care about these children or any other woman considering death for their unborn. 

"Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed."

Absolutely indeed, Dan.  Thousands of children per day.  You're worse than a Molech-worshiper.  You're just wacking kids left and right without the pretext of pagan devotion in defending these pro-abortion laws.  Thousands of innocents per day!

"Girls may labor for days; many die."

This is true for women, even in this country, to say nothing of the country your source highlighted.

"Their babies often don't survive labor either."

This is one of the most egregious ploys.  feo used a similar angle, which proves it's bad.  Sometimes, babies die from difficult pregnancies where abortion wasn't even considered.  Sometimes, people die on the operating table.  Honorable doctors and surgeons...and obstetricians...lose patients they worked desperately to save.  That's no excuse to murder any of them.  Imagine someone saying, "He didn't survive the by-pass surgery.  Should've just killed him in the first place!"  That's what that quote is saying.  Because the baby didn't survive, they should have killed it in the first place.  Talk about monstrous!!  That's pure evil!!

"Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers"

So you'd no doubt like to believe.  But you're speaking of three groups of people.  The first is the heinous pro-aborts who would grant that ANY example of ANY KIND is sufficient to allow abortion, so this example is just another on an endless list.  The second is pro-lifers who either believe that there are actually legitimate reasons to abort that must be considered and permitted.  The third is pro-lifers that begrudgingly agree to allow this -1% of examples in order to prevent the murder of the other 99%.  The third isn't willing that any should die (where have I heard that before?).

"It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus."

I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there isn't a fundamental difference.  However, real Christians argue the difference is only a matter of age, size, and location, not that one is "more human" than the other because of those differences.  Only pro-aborts looking for whatever cheap rationalization they can put over on people pretend that is so.   Speaking of which:

"Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote."

Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged, geezer.  All are people, fully human but at differing stages of human development, as every biology textbook states.  Thus, the human zygote is literally a person, fully human, at the zygote stage of human development. 

"And that is a significant, significant difference."

No.  It's not.  It's a cheap rationalization invented to protect the ability to gratify one's self sexually without consequence.

"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?"

The only right of any concern in this discussion is the right to life.  Physical differences have no bearing on that right and do not diminish that right for anyone.  So the question is stupid, as aside from the question of that unalienable right, all other differences between people of each of those stages of life are irrelevant to the discussion.

"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"

No.  A baby can drink hard liquor, but as far as the unalienable right to life, absolutely identical.

"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"

Pure evil would be a more accurate term.  This is especially true in this extreme case you want to use to push your evil agenda.  Not only are you murdering an innocent for the sins of its father, something you pretend you oppose, you're teaching the girl that such a thing is acceptable.  You're teaching her that if someone makes her life more difficult, killing that person is a legitimate option.  Or, you're teaching her that she can deny another person's humanity on whatever subjective criteria benefits her to do so.   The next thing you know she'll be hating transsexuals.

"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold?"

Do you recognize that you could have made the question much more rhetorically inflammatory if you just exerted a little effort?

Do you recognize that you're presuming her pregnancy is deadly in such a way that abortion is the only possible option when that's most likely untrue?  (I'm being generous.  I don't believe it's true at all.)

Do you recognize that if all the world favored murdering the unborn for this or any other reason it wouldn't mean jack shit to a true Christian, as numbers don't determine morality?

You getting the point here?

"Can  you understand why?"

I think I've already proven that I would understand why.  It has nothing to do with compassion for the 10 year old girl, and everything to do with preserving the ability to abort when convenient to do so.

"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"

I recognize that if you truly want to run that crap then you'd be a liar to pretend the reverse wasn't as true.  But here's the thing:  I don't have to prove it.  The onus is on you to prove that there is a scientifically viable excuse to draw your arbitrary line for determining when one becomes a person with the unalienable right to life that is any time after conception.  But you can't.  I know that it is a full person with that right simply because it is a person, regardless of whatever stage of development to which you choose to point.  It's true because it came into existence by the very means by which a person is brought into existence.  It can't be anything BUT a person. 

The fact is that people like you are inventing reasons to deny that humanity.  You damned well know there is no such line of demarcation without you inventing one.  But it all comes down to the same reality:  that line, wherever you decide to draw it, is to satisfy your convenience...not because it actually makes sense.   What's more, your arguments, especially this one, are specious.  Use your own bullshit idea and just tell males not to rape.  That should do it, right?