The Unprogressive Progressive

[Mirdath]

Give us an example of case where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Tell us what percentage of abortions meet that criterion.

My best friend has had two abortions; both of those pregnancies would have killed her had she carried them to term. Percentages, I don’t know, and at this point don’t particularly care. You’re just as capable of using Google as I am.

So you define “necessary” as whenever “it is deemed necesssary.”

Why should it not be that way? The mother, and doctors, are both capable of determining what should be done – and it is up to the mother in the end. Not everyone subscribes to your moral standards, and they have every right to disagree with you. Necessity is in the eye of the one who’ll have to go through labor, and others have no right to butt in unless asked.

You do know the meaning of the phrase “circular argument?”

Quite. ‘It’s wrong because God said so’ ‘Why did he say so?’ ‘Because it’s wrong’.

How many living human beings are deliberately killed by cance operations?

How many human beings are deliberately killed by abortions? By the definition I’m using, none at all.

Right – anyone can kill anyone.

Any woman has the right to say what should or shouldn’t happen inside her body. Killing another human being is, and should be, unethical.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Say you have a situation like my friend’s I described earlier: either terminate the pregnancy or both are certain to die. She weighed 90 lbs at conception (and is pretty tall); she doesn’t weigh much more now, and both she and the fetus are dying of starvation. She can’t eat enough to support them both. What do you choose? Will you kill the mother by your passivity? Or will you make the best of a bad situation and save her life?

Mirdath, in this situation the mother needs food. If she is ill, and can’t eat it then she needs to get it via a tube or IV. If you kill her baby, as far as I can see, she will starve to death anyway, plus have a dead child.It is not a choice between who lives and who dies, it is a case of getting her good medical treatment.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, in this situation the mother needs food. If she is ill, and can’t eat it then she needs to get it via a tube or IV. If you kill her baby, as far as I can see, she will starve to death anyway, plus have a dead child.It is not a choice between who lives and who dies, it is a case of getting her good medical treatment.

She was not ill. No matter how much she ate, it just wasn’t enough to keep them both alive. And it was the doctors she went to who told her that she could not carry to term without them both dying. Termination is ‘getting her good medical treatment’ in some cases, and this was one of them.

I’m glad she did make that choice instead of trying to bet on a medical miracle.

 

[fix]

She was not ill. No matter how much she ate, it just wasn’t enough to keep them both alive. And it was the doctors she went to who told her that she could not carry to term without them both dying. Termination is ‘getting her good medical treatment’ in some cases, and this was one of them.

I’m glad she did make that choice instead of trying to bet on a medical miracle.

A good end is justified by an evil means?
There is always a choice. The choice is to do good and avoid evil.
Direct abortion is always wrong. The decisions of a patient and a doctor are not superior to truth. They are both bound to do what is right.

The problem, as always, is many do not grasp what truth is.

 

[Mirdath]

A good end is justified by an evil means?
There is always a choice. The choice is to do good and avoid evil.
Direct abortion is always wrong. The decisions of a patient and a doctor are not superior to truth. They are both bound to do what is right.

The problem, as always, is many do not grasp what truth is.

Is ‘what is right’ here murdering both mother and child by your willful negligence? Does the life of a human being mean that little to those who are so blindly ‘pro-life’ they’ll throw out the only way to save a dying woman simply because there’s a fetus inside her – one that will not be born and live anyway?

 

[fix]

Is ‘what is right’ here murdering both mother and child by your willful negligence?

No, murder is always wrong. Negligence is always wrong. The problem with your sentence is that you are misusing the terms. The choice is to attempt to save both. If one dies in the attempt that is not murder.

Does the life of a human being mean that little to those who are so blindly ‘pro-life’ they’ll throw out the only way to save a dying woman simply because there’s a fetus inside her – one that will not be born and live anyway?

No again. You twist the words and arguments in an attempt to bolster your position. Both lives are very important. My question is by what authority you decide one is better than the other?

 

[Mirdath]

No, murder is always wrong. Negligence is always wrong. The problem with your sentence is that you are misusing the terms. The choice is to attempt to save both. If one dies in the attempt that is not murder.

How exactly would you propose to save both? It isn’t always nearly so nice and clean, so absolutely good or evil, as some would like to imagine. Either the mother was going to die, or both were. Saving both wasn’t an option for the doctors.

No again. You twist the words and arguments in an attempt to bolster your position. Both lives are very important. My question is by what authority you decide one is better than the other?

By the fact that the mother is independently alive and has already made contributions to society and humanity as a whole. The child could have been another Einstein or Gandhi had it been able to survive, yes, but until it is viable outside the womb its life is secondary to the mother’s.

 

[fix]

How exactly would you propose to save both?

I said try to save both. That one may die in the process does not equal murder. You think intentionally acting to murder one of those lives is morally acceptable.

It isn’t always nearly so nice and clean, so absolutely good or evil, as some would like to imagine. Either the mother was going to die, or both were. Saving both wasn’t an option for the doctors.

It seems you are the one with the “clean” idea. Direct abortion is evil. Medical issues are often complicated. That does not mean there is no moral solution.

By the fact that the mother is independently alive and has already made contributions to society and humanity as a whole. The child could have been another Einstein or Gandhi had it been able to survive, yes, but until it is viable outside the womb its life is secondary to the mother’s.

That means the more one contributes the more one is alive? Sounds very evil.

 

[Mirdath]

I said try to save both. That one may die in the process does not equal murder. You think intentionally acting to murder one of those lives is morally acceptable.

And I said that if you tried to save both, you’d end up killing them.

It seems you are the one with the “clean” idea. Direct abortion is evil. Medical issues are often complicated. That does not mean there is no moral solution.

My idea is hardly clean – it’s making the best of a very bad situation. Saving both lives isn’t possible: do you save one, or let them both die? I’ll take the one.

That means the more one contributes the more one is alive? Sounds very evil.

Sounds very Marxian, actually (which, while Marxism is a pretty good utopian economic theory with the minor problem of not working in practice, was not my intent ). Not alive, that’s not the question, but human. Some people really do seem to be more animal or monster than human. Would you say Ed Gein, David Berkowitz, or Zodiac were truly human? They were monsters wearing human flesh (quite literally in Gein’s case).

 

[mlchance]

So, uh, you two done yet? Can we get back to the thread?

While this is a bit late, the conversation about semantics redefining human in order to deny humans their rights is dead on target, as your own definition of human clearly demonstrates. The rhetoric used by pro-abortionists is of the same kind used by pro-slavery advocates and Nazis regarding Blacks and Jews.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[fix]

And I said that if you tried to save both, you’d end up killing them.

Why? You need to be very specific to make your case. Use the common case of tubal pregnancy. The section of the tube with the baby may be removed even if there would be a death of the baby in doing so. The intention is to save both lives, yet the baby dies as an unintended consequence of the medical procedure. That case is not direct abortion it is indirect.

My idea is hardly clean – it’s making the best of a very bad situation. Saving both lives isn’t possible: do you save one, or let them both die? I’ll take the one.

In this case it would come down to things like intent. It requires a good intent and a good means.

Sounds very Marxian, actually (which, while Marxism is a pretty good utopian economic theory with the minor problem of not working in practice, was not my intent ). Not alive, that’s not the question, but human. Some people really do seem to be more animal or monster than human. Would you say Ed Gein, David Berkowitz, or Zodiac were truly human? They were monsters wearing human flesh (quite literally in Gein’s case).

All human. We all have the potential to do good or bad. Doing bad does not magically make a human a non human.

Again, the more one contributes makes one more human or less human?

 

[vern_humphrey]

My best friend has had two abortions; both of those pregnancies would have killed her had she carried them to term. Percentages, I don’t know, and at this point don’t particularly care. You’re just as capable of using Google as I am.

I wish you wouldn’t blow smoke up me kilts like that – it tickles.

“My best friend” is not a medical diagnosis! “I’m sorry to tell you Ms Mirdath, but you have a bad case of my best friend.”

Give us a diagnosis, not some story about your best friend. You should realize that after your attempt to convince us an unborn baby is “a parasite,” your refusal – repeatedly – to answer my challenge, we are not obligated to believe your story about your best friend.

Why should it not be that way? The mother, and doctors, are both capable of determining what should be done – and it is up to the mother in the end.

Because human life cannot be taken in a whim. Innocent living human beings cannot be killed for convenience. It is no more up to the mother to decide if the child may live than it is up to the father to decide of the mother may live.

Not everyone subscribes to your moral standards, and they have every right to disagree with you.

And a right to dissemulate and use false arguments, too, apparently.

Necessity is in the eye of the one who’ll have to go through labor, and others have no right to butt in unless asked.

So you agree the husband has the right to kill his wife, if he finds that convenient?

Quite. ‘It’s wrong because God said so’ ‘Why did he say so?’ ‘Because it’s wrong’.

Strawman alert!

I have consistently based my arguments on the concept of human rights. As the Declaration of Independence tells us, we have certain unalienable rights – and the foremost of these is life.

All living humans have the right to life – if they do not, what good are any other rights? How can a dead man exercise the right to free speech? What good is trial by jury if there is no right to life.

Who denies there is an unalieable right to life denies the entire fabric of human rights. Therefore to say that a woman has a right to kill her unborn baby is a contradiction in terms – if she can kill at whim, there are no rights at all.

How many human beings are deliberately killed by abortions? By the definition I’m using, none at all.]

But you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to call black white, up down, and good evil.

Any woman has the right to say what should or shouldn’t happen inside her body. Killing another human being is, and should be, unethical.

Killing another human being – inside the womb or outside – demands the highest level of justification. Abortion does not meet that test.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Vern Humphrey
Actually, an umderage girl may not have a choice. Even if she were not forcibly raped, we must all agree she is not of an age to make an intelligent decision to have sex. She was raped.

Ok. Fine.
If you re-read my post, I said women.
So what do you suggest for the 11 year old who is pregnant?

 

[wabrams]

My best friend has had two abortions; both of those pregnancies would have killed her had she carried them to term. Percentages, I don’t know, and at this point don’t particularly care. You’re just as capable of using Google as I am.

Why should it not be that way? The mother, and doctors, are both capable of determining what should be done – and it is up to the mother in the end. Not everyone subscribes to your moral standards, and they have every right to disagree with you. Necessity is in the eye of the one who’ll have to go through labor, and others have no right to butt in unless asked.

Quite. ‘It’s wrong because God said so’ ‘Why did he say so?’ ‘Because it’s wrong’.

How many human beings are deliberately killed by abortions? By the definition I’m using, none at all.

Any woman has the right to say what should or shouldn’t happen inside her body. Killing another human being is, and should be, unethical.

She was not ill. No matter how much she ate, it just wasn’t enough to keep them both alive. And it was the doctors she went to who told her that she could not carry to term without them both dying. Termination is ‘getting her good medical treatment’ in some cases, and this was one of them.

I’m glad she did make that choice instead of trying to bet on a medical miracle.

Is ‘what is right’ here murdering both mother and child by your willful negligence? Does the life of a human being mean that little to those who are so blindly ‘pro-life’ they’ll throw out the only way to save a dying woman simply because there’s a fetus inside her – one that will not be born and live anyway?

At the end of the day, having MD at the end of your name doesn’t make you God nor does it give you a crystal ball to see into the future. Search the net, there are plenty of stories of women who were told abortions were the only way they would survive, they disregarded the advice, and had healthy children.

 

[Mirdath]

“My best friend” is not a medical diagnosis! “I’m sorry to tell you Ms Mirdath, but you have a bad case of my best friend.”

You asked for an example of a case. I gave it to you as best I know it. I’m not a medical secretary, and if I were I wouldn’t be allowed to tell you case details anyway. Don’t complain about it.

Give us a diagnosis, not some story about your best friend. You should realize that after your attempt to convince us an unborn baby is “a parasite,” your refusal – repeatedly – to answer my challenge, we are not obligated to believe your story about your best friend.

You’re not obligated to believe anything I say, and so far you’ve exercised that right and left. Your ‘challenge’ simply isn’t worth the time it’d take me to answer it, and even then you wouldn’t accept any answer except one that agrees with your own ideals – so why should I bother?

Because human life cannot be taken in a whim. Innocent living human beings cannot be killed for convenience. It is no more up to the mother to decide if the child may live than it is up to the father to decide of the mother may live.

Is it up to the mother to decide if she may live? I argue yes. You, apparently, do not.

And a right to dissemulate and use false arguments, too, apparently.

I’ve got mine, you’ve got yours

So you agree the husband has the right to kill his wife, if he finds that convenient?

How did you manage to get that out of what I said? Truly an abortion of logic. I said no such thing, nor even anything distantly related or implying such a thing.

Strawman alert!

I have consistently based my arguments on the concept of human rights. As the Declaration of Independence tells us, we have certain unalienable rights – and the foremost of these is life.

Hahaha… According to the Declaration, those rights are granted by the creator, therefore by God, therefore they’re there because God says it’s wrong to violate them, therefore a glorious and beautiful logical circle.

All living humans have the right to life – if they do not, what good are any other rights? How can a dead man exercise the right to free speech? What good is trial by jury if there is no right to life.

Can a fetus talk? Can it bear weapons? Can it house soldiers? Can it have any possessions to search and seize? Can it commit a crime and be tried? Of course not! These rights do not apply to the fetus anyway. It is not a human being in the eyes of the law.

But you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to call black white, up down, and good evil.

Guess I’m just not your type

Killing another human being – inside the womb or outside – demands the highest level of justification. Abortion does not meet that test.

Universally? Let’s sidetrack for a moment and assume you’re right that a fetus is a full human being. Catholicism allows that killing in self-defense is not sinful or evil when one believes one’s life may be in danger. Correct?

Abortion to save the mother’s life is by definition self-defense.

 

[Mirdath]

At the end of the day, having MD at the end of your name doesn’t make you God nor does it give you a crystal ball to see into the future.

Very true, but having MD come after your name gives you a much better idea than anyone else of how the human body works and what is and isn’t likely to harm or destroy it. They make mistakes just like the rest of us, but the simple fact that they went through medschool and have however many years of field experience should be enough to inspire at least a little trust in their judgment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ok. Fine.
If you re-read my post, I said women.
So what do you suggest for the 11 year old who is pregnant?

An 11 year old? You do like to base moral rules on the most extreme cases, don’t you?

Just out of curiosity, how many 11 year olds got pregnant last year?

Let’s rephrase that – “what do you suggest for an underage girl who is pregnant?”

1. Recognize that the physical fact of her pregnancy is not the only – or even the major – problem this child faces. She needs lots of help, and her parents are the ones to give it. So, step one, notify the parents!!
2. Give her loving support. Don’t simply abort her, kick her out the door, and let her go back into the same enviroinment where she was raped. Get her a medical checkup – as you would for any pregnant woman. Get counselling for her. Get her treatment for drugs or alcohol, if that’s part of the problem
3. Find and prosecute the father of the child, and get this sexual predator off the street.
4. Sit down with her and make long range plans – if she wishes to adopt out, find an appropriate agency or adoptive parents.
5. Ensure that she continues her education. .
6. Recognize that the child is as much a victim as the mother – and probably moreso. Rape is the only crime that carries the death penalty for the victim – who doesn’t even get a trial.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You asked for an example of a case. I gave it to you as best I know it. I’m not a medical secretary, and if I were I wouldn’t be allowed to tell you case details anyway. Don’t complain about it.

In other words, you can’t produce a diagnosis that justifies abortion to save the mother’s life. So that issue is disposed of – there is nn such diagnosis.

You’re not obligated to believe anything I say, and so far you’ve exercised that right and left. Your ‘challenge’ simply isn’t worth the time it’d take me to answer it, and even then you wouldn’t accept any answer except one that agrees with your own ideals – so why should I bother?

How much bandwidth are you going to use up trying to avoid that challenge?

You come up with made up stories about your “best friend” but somehow it isn’t possible to answer my challenge.

Is it up to the mother to decide if she may live? I argue yes. You, apparently, do not.

Why is it not up to the father to decide if the mother should live?

I’ve got mine, you’ve got yours

Thank you for admitting you use dissemulation and false arguments.

How did you manage to get that out of what I said? Truly an abortion of logic. I said no such thing, nor even anything distantly related or implying such a thing.

If one human has a right to kill another wholly innocent human on a whim, why stop with the unborn? There are a lot of born people who are much more inconvenient than a baby.

Hahaha… According to the Declaration, those rights are granted by the creator, therefore by God, therefore they’re there because God says it’s wrong to violate them, therefore a glorious and beautiful logical circle.

There’s a specious argument – do you claim there is not a right to life?

Can a fetus talk? Can it bear weapons? Can it house soldiers? Can it have any possessions to search and seize? Can it commit a crime and be tried? Of course not! These rights do not apply to the fetus anyway. It is not a human being in the eyes of the law.

Can an old lady with Alzheimer’s talk? Can she bear weapons? Can she house soldiers? Can she have any possessions to search and seize? Can she commit a crime and be tried? Of course not! These rights do not apply to the elderly anyway. They are not human beings in the eyes of the law.

Guess I’m just not your type

My type is honest and logical.

Universally? Let’s sidetrack for a moment and assume you’re right that a fetus is a full human being. Catholicism allows that killing in self-defense is not sinful or evil when one believes one’s life may be in danger. Correct?

Abortion to save the mother’s life is by definition self-defense.

Dead wrong – and another false argument. Self defense only applies against unjust aggressors. An unborn baby cannot be an unjust aggressor.

 

[Mirdath]

In other words, you can’t produce a diagnosis that justifies abortion to save the mother’s life. So that issue is disposed of – there is nn such diagnosis.

Prove it. Comb over every medical record in the world, avoid getting arrested for it, and come up with nothing. Then and only then can that statement be considered true. In order to prove that that situation doesn’t happen, you have to take every single abortion case into account and show that each one was done for reasons other than to save the mother’s life.

Why is it not up to the father to decide if the mother should live?

Do I have to repeat myself about origin, foundation, and extent of humanity yet another time?

Thank you for admitting you use dissemulation and false arguments.

That statement is the only dissimulation I’ve presented in this thread so far

There’s a specious argument – do you claim there is not a right to life?

Hardly specious. You presented your terms but did not take the implications of using the Declaration of Independence into account and ended up in a tiny logical circle, validating my prior claim.

I don’t believe there’s a right to life that is given by God. There is one established by society.

Can an old lady with Alzheimer’s talk?

Yes.

Can she bear weapons?

Yes.

Can she house soldiers?

Yes.

Can she have any possessions to search and seize?

Yes.

Can she commit a crime and be tried?

Yes.

My type is honest and logical.

You have no idea how glad I am you’re so very, very wrong about me

Dead wrong – and another false argument. Self defense only applies against unjust aggressors. An unborn baby cannot be an unjust aggressor.

It is damaging and possibly killing her without cause, isn’t it? The harm isn’t intentional, but how is that not something one should defend against?

 

[vern_humphrey]

In other words, you can’t produce a diagnosis that justifies abortion to save the mother’s life. So that issue is disposed of – there is nn such diagnosis.

[Prove it.

I just did all I’m obligated to do – when you failed to back up your claim

The burden of proof in this case is on you.

[Comb over every medical record in the world, avoid getting arrested for it, and come up with nothing. Then and only then can that statement be considered true. In order to prove that that situation doesn’t happen, you have to take *every single abortion case

into account and show that each one was done for reasons other than to save the mother’s life.
[/quote]

More smoke. You said there are abortions to saved the mother’s life, I challenged you to produce one, and you failed.

Do I have to repeat myself about origin, foundation, and extent of humanity yet another time?

Just because you say something, that doesn’t make it true.

So far, you have failed again and again to offer anything of substance. You have failed to meet one challenge after another.

That statement is the only dissimulation I’ve presented in this thread so far

Careful. Your tongue may turn black over that one.

Hardly specious. You presented your terms but did not take the implications of using the Declaration of Independence into account and ended up in a tiny logical circle, validating my prior claim.

Just because you say something, that doesn’t make it true.

I don’t believe there’s a right to life that is given by God. There is one established by society.

Then it isn’t a right at all, is it? It’s merely a privilige that can be revoked at will. If “society” established the privilige to live, cannot society withhold it – from Jews, Blacks, or Catholics?

You have no idea how glad I am you’re so very, very wrong about me

You have no idea how sad I am that I’m so very, very right.

It is damaging and possibly killing her without cause, isn’t it? The harm isn’t intentional, but how is that not something one should defend against?

The child is not an unjust aggressor.

As for damaging or possibly killing her – you have yet to produce a diagnosis that supports that claim.

See where your failures leave you?