Report: Abortion doc attacks pro-life activist
Reader Steve sends a tip about this story in the OC Weekly covering an abortion doctor’s reported assault on a pro-life activist at a shady clinic. Steve writes: “[T]he Weekly’s a pretty liberal publication, but I think they deserve a bit of credit for outlining some of the shocking deficiencies of care that have been brought to light at several Los Angeles area family planning centers.”
Props to the Weekly for risking the wrath of the abortion racket and shining light on these murderous thugs:
An anti-abortion activist taking photographs outside a controversial Santa Ana family planning clinic suffered minor injuries Saturday afternoon after being attacked by a physician who obviously did not appreciate having his picture taken.
According to Santa Ana Police records, Howard Tendai Pfpajena, 66, was arrested on suspicion of assault and battery about 12:30 p.m. near Fourth and Sycamore streets. Online Christian and pro-life news services that earlier today reported [here and here] on the incident had “Pfupajena” as the spelling of the suspect’s last name and claimed he is a physician at Clinica Medica Para La Mujer at 120 W 5th St., which is about a half block from where the suspect was arrested.
An unidentified receptionist at the clinic confirmed Tuesday evening that “Dr. Pfupajena” works there on an on-call basis. She said he was not present at the time the Weekly called, and she did not know about Saturday’s arrest even though she was working at the clinic that afternoon. “Is he still in jail?” she asked.
Police cited and released the suspect at the scene. According to the rabid anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue and the online news reports, the Orange County District Attorney’s office is weighing whether charges will be filed against Pfupajena.
The 31-year-old victim, Tim Nissen, is an anti-abortion protester who was photographing people going into Clinica Medica because of fears unlicensed or unsafe abortions are being performed there. The clinic’s owner currently faces charges that could put her behind bars for nearly 20 years after allegedly performing abortions and doling out medication without a medical license.
The Santa Ana clinic is part of a chain of Southern California abortion centers. A Los Angeles District Attorney’s statement refers to offices in Baldwin Park, Huntington Park, Los Angeles and Panorama City, operating either under the name Clinica Medica Para La Mujer de Hoy or Community Women’s Medical Clinic. Public records contain references to four more locations, in Chula Vista, North Hollywood, Torrance and Santa Ana. One clinic doctor said in a deposition for a 2002 malpractice suit that there were nine clinics.
A California Medical Board complaint accused Dr. Phillip Rand of having performed a “barbaric” abortion at the Santa Ana location in the summer of 2004. Then in his early 80s, Rand administered no anesthesia or painkillers to a woman identified as Angela P. before he performed a vaginal suction procedure. Paramedics later arrived at the clinic to find Angela lying in a pool of her own blood, her pulse racing and her blood pressure dangerously low.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
David Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?
TigerHawk
» Gone but not forgottenHot Air
» China feeling the pinch?Gateway Pundit
» 5 Mumbai Terrorists May Still Be Missing-- New Delhi ThreatenedHot Air
» Bollywood as clueless as HollywoodHot Air
» Monsters of StatePower Line
» From Hollywood to BollywoodTigerHawk
» Rough justiceWeekly Standard
» What Do These Two Things Have in Common?Hot Air
» Mugabe’s army getting antsy
You have already told us that a fetus becomes a child the moment it is born. You have also told us that until it is a child, it os nothing more than a blob of cells. You even have so little regard for that ‘blob of cells’ that you are fine doing medical experimentation on it.
No Zero, you have made your position on this issue abundantly clear.
Do you not understand that you are directly contradicting yourself when you say you don’t know when life begins and then claim that we find it acceptable to kill “that life”?
So many here condemn abortion as the murder of children, and as such an affront against God. . and yet you defend God. When God would have to be far and away the world’s biggest abortionist, as fully a third of pregnancies miscarry - naturally abort - before they come to term. Which begs the question of whether God is just rectifying a Deific mistake made by allowing the pregnancy to happen in the first place.
Many here carry it further by making erroneous comparisons between embryos, fetuses and schoolbus-riding children in a cynical attempt to manipulate emotions; well I will have none of that. You might put up pictures of aborted fetuses; I can counter with pictures of women who bled to death from shoving coathangers and knitting needles up their vaginas in desperate attempts to abort before Roe vs. Wade became legal.
Embryos and fetuses are not living, breathing, born human beings. They are not even potential human beings, as the very designation ‘potential’ entails eventual actualization, and, as we have noted, fully a third of pregnancies naturally abort. An embryo or a fetus is a possible future human. And when it is a matter of favoring the life of a fetus or an embryo, a possible future human, or the liberty of a born woman, an actual present human, the latter must logically take precedence. Such matters are like the Schiavo case; they should remain between the immediate family, the doctor, and their consciences, and the state and the coercive religious should butt their intruding asses out of such.
OK, now I think you are being obtuse on purpose, Chap. What an infantile way you debate.
Since I don’t know when life begins, I assume it is life from the moment of conception. So YES, I consider an 8-week-old fetus life and I oppose killing it.
An 8-week-old fetus may be life and it may not be. Neither of us knows. I think it is deserving of life, and you think it is deserving of death.
I see you are also avoiding answering my question to you. Until you grow a spine *AND* the ability to answer questions put to you, instead of simply regurgitating previously dismissed talking points, conside this our last communication.
Millions of aborted babies compared to the small handfull of women that tried to self-abort? Some comparision, Yas. Want to go picture for picture. I’ll even go 1,000 aborted babies to one of your sainted coat-hanger women. Your number will of course have to be reduced by the pictures of women who were butchered and die in those safe and legal abortion clinics you love so much.
And whether you believe in God or not, miscarriages are natural. Your comparision between miscarriage and abortion is like a comparision between a natural death and deliberate murder. In other words, an completely invalid comparision.
But this is the topper… “Embryos and fetuses are not living, breathing, born human beings. They are not even potential human beings, as the very designation ‘potential’ entails eventual actualization, and, as we have noted, fully a third of pregnancies naturally abort.” The union between human sperm and human egg is not a even a potential human being? How easily you dismiss innocent life to justify your desire to see it killed.
The decesion to abort is not just between a woman and her convenience. There is another life at stake here. Dehumanize it all you want, but that does not make it any less human.
It DOES exist. An unborn child is a human being and is alive - her cells are multiplying and dividing, she is constantly growing, and from conception to birth is nothing but a living human being.
Each and every person here who defends abortion has a decidedly different opinion on when life begins - some think it’s when the baby can breathe outside the womb, others when the baby is born, others (like Peter Singer) not until the child is one.
But all of you agree that the unborn child isn’t worthy of life unless she’s “wanted” or defined by the mother as worthy of life.
Our examples are extreme, but that’s because abortion is extreme. What’s more extreme than saying it’s a right and a choice to dismember, burn, or puncture the skull of an infant merely because the infant exists at an inconvenient time?
And I stand by those arguments. Once you devalue life at its earliest stages, the rest is fair game.
As I said above, if you’re going to argue that life begins whenever an individual (i.e., the mother) decides it’s life - that the definition is arbitrary - then anything is fair game.
Stan,
Do not blame me that you continue to use words improperly or that you don’t/can’t properly parse your own sentences before hitting submit. I refuse to be lectured on the finer points of debate and logic from one that in one breath will say that he has no idea if aborting a fetus is taking a “life” and then in the very next calls someone who does so (or who supports it) a “murderer”. We won’t even go into the mens rea necessary to commit murder, something which could not in any way be present when even you are not sure there is a life. Let me spell it out even simpler. 1) The words “murder” and/or “kill” necessarily presumes a life.
2)You claim you do not know if there is a life.
3) So why do you use those terms? At least someone like EQ is presuming to know its a life, so I can see her using those.
However, just for kicks…what question are you talking about that I refuse to answer?
I’m not “presuming” anything. From Merriam Webster, the definition of “life”:
An unborn child - from zygote to baby - fits this definition perfectly.
Ending that life is murder. Semantics don’t change absolute fact.
EQ said the following but I wish to address it for the sake of everyone making the abortion = murder connection.
This is the heart of the argument. I do not see a zygote (blastocyst or fetus)as a life if I did I would have to say the following people are guilty of multiple counts of infanticide and deserve either life in prison or the death penalty:
1. Women that use IUD birth control
2. Scientists researching embroyonic stem cell research or cloning
3. Doctors performing legal abortions.
4. Women receiving legal abortions.
I do not believe these people are guilty of multiple counts of infanticide and as such, they do not deserve punishment commiserate with such a crime. If you think abortion = murder and you do think these people deserve such punishment at least you are being consistent. If you do not, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
I understand arguments such as StanW’s et al where they are absolutely erring on the side of caution. While they might not think killing a zygote = murder to the same extent as killing a newborn, they don’t want to even open the door via a slippery slope argument (still technically a logical fallacy, but nonetheless valid from a legal standpoint). Needless to say, I disagree with their assessment and cite that there is no evidence that a zygote is anymore “alive” then an amoeba (in fact all the evidence seems to confirm that they are about equal).
Strawman.
StanW:
Please reread my replies to you in #83 and #119 to understand my position. The following statement of mine:
Is not my position and was used to illustrate that this question is not black and white. Please read my entire posts, I extent that courtesy to you. Thank you.
Oh, I forgot, add the following to my list of 4 types of people:
5. Couples that use IVF to have a baby of thier own and allow culling so as to not have 4-5 kids at once.
So the answer you gave to my question is not your position, Zero. They why did you post it at all.
So, it is a blob of cells until it is born, but that isn’t your position, so let’s back that up a few weeks. so it’s a blob of cells a few weeks before it is born. So if the child is born at 24 weeks, then it is a child, a real human at what? Say 20 weeks?
Or, as other posters have said, is it just an arbitrary time line of convenience; which is not dependant on fetal development or survival chances, but on the mothers desire to actually met her offspring, and her ability to fit into her party dress?
Zero, it seems to me you are trying to claim both sides of the issue. And while you may be able to parse out “That blob of cells is not life… oops, now it IS life”, I do not consider myself God-like enough to do that.
When a human egg and a human sperm come together, you have human LIFE. That life deserves a chance to live and not become part on someones experiment so that a lost hand or spine can be regrown. If you wish to use your body for that type of experimentation, go right ahead. At least it will be your choice and not one forced upon you.
And the IUD, IVF, birth control argument is a separate discussion that does not belong here. It is a deliberate distraction from a discussion on abortion.
StanW:
I was clear why I posted it: to illustrate it is not black and white, I think we agree on that.
There is nothing God-like about saying something without a developed CNS couldn’t possibly being anymore a living human than a sponge (the sea-dwelling type).
They are all intimately linked. You can not say the above and then say:
IUD and IVF both destroy a zygote (the result of an egg and sperm coming together).
And I can counter with pictures and stories of women who received “safe, legal” abortions and died from things like blood clots, infection, destroyed uteruses and ovaries, having their intestines pulled through their uterus/cervix, had little/no or too much anesthesia. Women left incapacitated because the clinics didn’t have necessary medical equipment. Women who screamed in pain and begged for abortionists to stop hurting them.
All of the women I’ve highlighted here have one thing in common: abortion was supposedly “safe” and “legal” when they obtained theirs.
So don’t hand me the line that legal abortion makes it safe. It doesn’t.
ZA, there are men in prison for assaulting pregnant women and causing the deaths of their “blastocysts.” By your astute yet antiseptically clinical definition of life, aren’t these men being held illegally?
OK, we may be getting somewhere now. So it has to have a CNS to be life. When does that occur in the development of the fetus, Zero? And are you in favor of abortion past that time?
I will be happy to debate various methods of birth control with you, on a thread about birth control. My position on that, as is my position on abortion, is consistant.
StanW:
Honestly Stan, please reread #83. It is really unfair of you to carry on a conversation with me when you don’t read what I am writing. I am being very careful to read and reread what you write to be sure and understand you.
Ref. IUD and IVF, it IS the case that a zygote is “killed” in both of these things. That said, do you believe this amounts to murder?
I’m sorry, Zero, I thought we were having a debate here. You said the fetus had to have a developed CNS to be considered life. I asked you a simple question in return.
I suppose you are just like Chap. Asking your own questions and demanding answers to them, while steadfastly refusing to answer questions put to you by others.
Again, my answer to this is simple and consistant with my position on abortion. Ask me again, on a thread about birth control.
DBNinKY:
If they were found guilty of murder I’d say that law seems contradictory to other laws.
I don’t think that is the case though, I believe those men are being (rightfully) held for a particularly heinous assault.
So now you’re the judge and jury on who’s being intellectually honest here?
I don’t think so.
Women who have abortions are victims of the culture - and people like you - who make them think there is no other choice. I’ve never said they deserve jail time. Indeed, 60% of women who have abortions are coerced into doing so.
Doctors who perform abortions are, yes, guilty of killing innocent life.
IUDs cause problems aside from abortion. I do not agree with them and do not think they should be used.
I also believe in-vitro is wrong.
Additionally - someone else mentioned intent. Now, I believe birth control of any kind is wrong (with the exception of using something like the pill to control endo or fibroids) - but I’ll allow flexibility that not every sexual encounter creates new life. There are only about 5 days/month when a woman is fertile and even with irregular cycles, that fertility is easily tracked through basil body temperature and other fertility markers. So the pill is greyish terrority. The intent is to prevent pregnancy, not necessarily destroy life.
Embryonic stem cell research, in-vitro, and abortion all willfully end a developing life - after life has clearly been established. The intent is wholly different.
So I’m not intellectually dishonest. Thanks for trying though.
StanW:
Here is part of #83 again:
It is not just about the CNS.
EQ:
Do you think doctors that perform abortions should be tried for murder?
I asked for clarification as to what question I had not answered. You have not provided it.
EQ,
We’ve talked on this before. By saying invitro, i’m thinking you mean invitro fertilization? And that you also dislike IUD?
2 legitimate questions.
Why would you dislike a process that creates life, by people who wish to have and love the children they create? That seems to me to be sort of backwards from the rest of the statement. Here we are defending life, but not propogating its creation? Seems out of sorts.
2nd, IUD’s help prevent pregnancy. Why would those be considered wrong? Life isnt being created in the first place, thus no destruction of life is happening.
Just seriously curious.
I saw and read that post, Zero. And what I got from it was this… “BlahBlahBlah ARBITRARY POINT BlahBlahBlah!”
Why is your arbitrary point any more or less valid than mine? And why even bring up quantifiable measurements if the decision is arbitrary.
Again, back to my original point. We both consider it life, and neither of us know for sure when that point of life beings. We just differ on what to do about it. I think life happens at the moment of conception and deserves protection and the chance at maturity. You think life is some arbitrary point after conception. And since you have no idea when life begins, how can you so easily dismiss it as “a blob of cells” and allow it to be killed or experimented upon?
I gave you two conditions for continuing our conversation and your fulfilled neither.
Do your own homework, Chap!
Many pro-abortion groups fight for men who assault/murder women (and cause the death of their unborn child) - and try to get the charges pertaining to the death of the child dropped.
The law - like pro-abortion rhetoric - is inconsistent. But these are our choices:
1) Remove all laws pertaining to the death of unborn children from the books. Which means if I were pregnant and my husband/boyfriend/a total stranger assaulted or murdered me, and my child died, there’d be no charges - even if I had fully intended to have the child and considered him a human being.
This would, naturally, mean people like Manishkumar M. Patel (who intentionally spiked his girlfriend’s food/drink with RU-486 and caused her to miscarry twice) walk free. After all, he committed no crime - the baby has no legal protection.
Or Gerardo Flores, who stepped on his pregnant girlfriend’s abdomen and killed their unborn twin sons. He wouldn’t be in prison, either because his sons were not worthy of protection.
Or
2) We keep the laws - which pose a major problem for pro-abortion folks.
If the unborn child in my womb is a person and the person who kills him/her can go to prison…the baby in the womb of the woman who goes to the abortionist is no different.
I agree. The devices and methods that prevent a zygote’s implantation or development are indeed separate from the violent, physical act of abortion and they will be addressed - once we succeed in having RvW overturned. Right now, we’ll just be satisfied to pluck one hair at a time.
Thank you, EQ, for the examples. The inconsistencies in the pro-choice argument of the subjectivity of life are indeed monumental. I really am stupefied by it.
StanW:
I have agreed with your assessment that the point is arbitrary. I understand and accept your “slippery slope” / “erring on the side of caution” position. I merely disagree. I think we should be able to agree to disagree.
I do have an idea. That is my point.
EQ:
Agree, do you know what states have such a law?
Ref. the men you cited, I believe they are guilty of a particularly heinous assault that deserves a great deal of jail time; perhaps something on par with maiming as serious as removing / destroying someone’s genitals), they should absolutely not go free.
So, abortion doctors should be tried for multiple counts of murder, agree or disagree?
Yup, indeed, EQ1. As I noted in #178:
“scientists tell us that if they would have found even just one molecule of an organism on Mars it would have been declared “life” in no uncertain terms. Even if could only be detected by an electron microscope. If they happened upon human double helix, it would be human life.”
We, the dictionaries, and science itself are all talking in quite specific, defined language. There’s just no “it depends on what is is” wiggle room on it.
- StanW
Ah, so when a pregnancy is ended by God, it’s natural, and when the decision is made by man, the natural creation of God, it’s murder.
- Stan W
I stand corrected, when God causes a fetus’ to abort, it’s a ‘natural death’, and when man does it, it’s murder. The inconsistency of belief remains shocking.
- StanW
Such hysteria is apparent in your postings. I don’t love abortion clinics any more than the post office, or department of motor vehicles, or any other structure where services are performed. . .and boy oh boy, how I just LOVE going to the DMV!
No, you have an opinion, that is MY point.
And if your opinion is wrong, you are willfully destroying human life. I, too, have an opinion. If my opinion is wrong, I have allowed a “blob of cell” to mature into a human being.
We will have to agree to disagree, Zero, as your arguments have not changed my opinion. And I’m sure my arguments have not changed yours.
That being said, I did enjoy the debate, with you.
StanW:
But if your opinion / idea is wrong, your position may have impeded incredible scientific progress (among other things).
Anyhow, yes, let’s leave it be. Nice talking to you.
I believe they call a tornado “An act of God”. So if a tornado destroys your house, it is natural. When I rent a bulldozer and destroy your house, it is a crime. Both acts result in the same end, but are differently carried out.
When a person dies outside of a deliberate act, we say they died “a natural death”. Whether that be old age on heart attack. By sticking a knife in your chest a dozen times, your death is decidedly NOT a natural death.
A miscarriage is a natural occurance. When man intervens, it is a deliberate act.
The only inconsistancy here is your willful obtuseness, Yas. I hope you can see that now.
Enjoy your day at the DMV!
That’s patently insane, ZA. In my days I’ve heard of many hunting accidents where hunters have been killed. None of the victims regrew limbs or organs - and suffice to say being killed did little to extend their lives.
Now the question still is up for an answer. In the scenario none of ‘em - Moe, Larry or Curly know if they would be shooting and killing off one member (or more)of another hunting party hidden behind a bunch of trees or not. So do they fire away or hold their fire?
It’s not a trick question and, as I noted, such hunting tragedies happen in real life on a fairly regular basis.
Yes. I agree 100%. For the record, have you read up on some of these people? Most of the abortion doctors aren’t Boy/Girl Scouts. Just one example: Nabil Ghali and the clinic he ran, Blue Coral in Florida. He’s a real piece of work. And not far off the norm.
Yes, according to pro-abortion logic, they should. The people they killed - unborn children - are not, according to many on this board, worthy of protection under the law because they’re not human beings. In other words, these men killed nothing…no one. The acts of violence they committed were directed at nothingness, and therefore, not criminal.
I can look up states that have such laws - I believe it’s about 40 that have such protections.
Abstract: Here’s my response to your questions…
First, I’d ask if you’ve ever listened to commercials for birth control pills, or if you know someone who takes the pill and can ask to read the list of directions and side effects that come from the pill. We’re talking everything from weight gain to blood clots to heart trouble. Complications that I want no part of.
From a purely evolutionary point of view, women’s bodies are designed to have mestrual cycles that run approximately 28-40 days. Typically, in the middle of these cycles a woman ovulates. There are about 5 days (the two days before, the day of, and two days after a woman’s ovulation) that she can conceive a child. There are also biological markers (increased basal body temperature and physical signs) that indicate peak fertility. Even women with irregular cycles can track these markers and identify days of fertility and infertility. This method – Natural Family Planning, or NFP – is on par with the pill, condoms, and other methods of birth control when all are used correctly.
The pill synthetically overrides the natural hormonal system of the woman, putting her in a state where her body thinks it is actually pregnant (any “period” that comes is not an actual period, but bleeding in the absence of the pills that cause a pseudo-pregnancy). Now, some pills either allow only four of these “periods” a year and others not at all. To any logical person, that cannot be healthy. My religious views aside, I would not justify deluging my body with synthetic hormones just so I could always and constantly be available for sex.
And for you environmentalists out there, the pill has a significant impact on waterlife – altering the gender of water species.
I don’t like IUDs for essentially the same reason. It is a foreign body that interrupts a totally natural process and it – again, logically – isn’t healthy. This story is just one example of the complications and problems of IUDs, which are often more severe than the pill.
Second, I don’t agree with IVF because 1) it creates multiple embryos – many of which will languish in cold storage or be used for ESCR and 2) removes the marital act from the creation of children. Just as I believe I don’t have the right to destroy a life via abortion, I cannot give myself the power or right to create life in a lab when more than half the lives created will never live beyond that little freezer or sacrificed in the name of medical progress.
Believe me, I understand the anguish of being unable to conceive. It would break my heart. But many times – on this board and elsewhere – my pro-life views have been attacked because I haven’t adopted children and, therefore, don’t care about what happens to kids after birth and can’t render an opinion on the subject.
So I’m going to pose a question: if my pro-life views are contingent on whether or not I’ve adopted a child, why is it that IVF is defended as a choice when there is the possibility of adoption? Mind you, IVF isn’t cheap.
Had I been unable to have children, I would have adopted and not used IVF. I still plan to adopt.
Hope that explains things.
Yes. That’s exactly right. I have no more right to murder an unborn child than I do to shoot my neighbor in the head.
It coulda been worse. If emjem really wanted to get your goat she could have asked, “On which side?”
Additionally, a pregnancy that ends in miscarriage does so because there is something developmentally wrong with the child. In a majority of abortions, the child is perfectly healthy.
Of course, there is a growing trend toward abortion disabled children too…including those with cleft lip/palate.
Can you who support abortion not see the tangled web of inconsistency you’ve gotten yourself into?
Purplepeep:
Your hunting analogy was referring to this debate, correct?. I was adding to your analogy the fact that stem cell / cloning research could provide incredible cures / save lives. Furthermore, the hunting party has no knowledge (presumably) of what they are shooting at. In the case of a zygote / blastocyst / fetus, that is not the case. It is a poor analogy.
EQ:
Then you are not intellectually dishonest, you are consistent. As I said:
Now, what about the other 4 groups I talked about in #212 and #213? I think you mentioned women are victims, but I guess I am not entirely clear if you think any of those other four should be tried for multiple counts of murder. So, please, of the following, who should be tried for multiple murders:
1. Women that use IUD birth control
2. Scientists researching embryonic stem cell research or cloning
3. Women receiving legal abortions.
4. Couples that use IVF to have a baby of their own and allow culling so as to not have 4-5 kids at once.
No, as I said, the acts of violence are criminal and directed at a part of the woman.
EQ,
Thanks for the response. and you should know i’m not going to attack you
I might challenge a perception or two, but, not attack so much. You’ve always been level with me, and i extend that courtesy in return 
In response, these days its hard to get away from commericials, no matter how much tv i don’t watch!
Logically, however, I could argue the same types of side effects for most prescription medicines. For instance, and just pulling a medicine name out of thin air, Zanax is used to treat depression and anxiety problems. but here is the list of side effects for that drug. For most people, the prospect of being well overrides the ills the side effects bring. Those effects can be regulated by the dosage amount, or sadly enough by other medication. But those in turn have other side effects, and the cycle continues.
As being astute on biology and anatomy, i am aware of how the pills work. We use the same idea behind vacincations and other types of medicinal remedies. (I do have to go here, however…) Because i have no moral or religious mandate that states preventing pregnancy is wrong, i can see why people would seek to prevent them, and still wish to engage in sexual activity. Married couples use them when they wish to be intimate, but cannot afford or do not wish to have children. You could break it down on a case by case basis as far as single people vs married people, but, the example holds. I know that when i was married, we wanted children and had them. My wife and i discussed using birth control however, until we felt ready for children in our lives, and thus for a brief time, we used those measures. Its all in the application.
As far as invitro is concerned, again, turn to married couples. two committed people seek to have children, and biologically one of them is unable to naturally. I’m not seeing the error here. And generically speaking, married couples seek out this treatment on larger scales than single people. Secondly, the process can be used to generate as many eggs as one deems needed. Couples who want more than 1 child often have several specimens saved so they can come back later and repeat the process without having to go thru the entire medical proceedure once again. Patients have control in regards to these things, and so logically, that could be rendered moot by someone simply stating thats what they want.
To answer your question in return, I dont personally feel whether you’ve adopted children or not is contigent for the matter. As i’ve stated to others before, if we could only comment on what we personally have done or only on our own experiences, we’d be droll and boring people with little more than mediocre opinions about boring crap. As intelligent adults, we can read, research, and listen, and formulate responses (or even personal convictions, principles, etc) on what it is we see and hear. I would believe that another answer to your problem with having specimens destroyed would be to allow other couples to have those children themselves. People are not as selfless as i’d think though, and want their own children, with their genes.
I think that covered everything…
I think this is the question. And yes, I would rethink it. Of course, there really are no competing interests when we are talking about how long to wait to bury a dead guy, no real consequence to waiting (except maybe the smell). So that analogy is a bit faulty. But also with respect to abortion, of course I am willing to look at medical facts to determine at what point we have to say “no more abortions, this is too close for comfort”. And really, that is pretty much what Roe v. Wade did with the breakdown in trimesters. Now that is an admittedly ambiguous framework and I have no problem being cautious on that aspect. But that also does not mean I think we just proscribe it altogether.
You need to scroll up, ZA. A question was raised as to which viewpoint is the morally superior one. That’s the context. I’ve employed a scenerio that happens in real life, not theory, which enables a person to very clearly make that distinction.
As I pointed out upthread this technique is also part of law emforcement & military training, usually termed “Shoot - Don’t Shoot” where participants are tested to see if they make correct split-second life and death decisions.
Again, it’s not a trick or gotcha question. Although, even though it’s a simple real-world question, it quite obviously is extremely difficult for some to tackle.
Because it employs a real-life situation, it forces one to consider if their take is the morally inferior one. Such self-examination can be most uncomfortable, though it will yield a great deal of self-insight and enlightenment.
Purplepeep:
Yes, in the context of this (beginning of life) debate.
Well aware of “shoot - don’t shoot” as I am ex-military and an OIF vet.
In your example, obviously, one should not shoot. However, it is not pertinent to what viewpoint is morally superior in the context of this (beginning of life) debate because it is a poor analogy for reasons I mentioned in #242.
“You need to scroll up, ZA. A question was raised as to which viewpoint is the morally superior one.”
Thanks for the answer, ZA, like I sez it was offered to help folks to more clearly sort through a basic issue in their own mind.
Now - a very important ingredient, if you’ve read it’s entirety - is the factor that Moe, Larry and Curly all realize they are not omniscient. That is the key to the scenerio and I think impacts the core question(s) at hand here.
You can take nothing or something away from it, whatever. It’s as Einstein might have put it “eine gedanken experiment”.
Your welcome.
No, they are not omniscient, but they certainly have a great deal of details about the nature of what is behind the tree. Furthermore, shooting at what is behind the tree could potentially save lives (in the context of the “beginning of life” debate).
Unfortunately, as a “thought experiment” it is flawed ref. the issue at hand.
You must be looking at a different scenerio than the one presented since that was not a factor in it; in fact, lack of such knowledge was the posited linchpin of the dilemma.
(Also note that very few hunters possess x-ray vision.)
I think a hunter would have a hard time telling investigating officers he was taking wild shots into an unknown area because it might be beneficial to anyone who might be on the receiving end of the incoming.
Well, it might be a good start for an insanity defense. Otherwise, nahhh.
It got you thinking and answering along the lines of the morality involved, ZA, so I’m satisfied enough with it.
purplepeep:
Are we solely discussing “shoot - don’t shoot” or is your analogy meant to apply to the topic of this thread?
I employed the hunting scenerio in reference as to which argument is of superior morality, ZA. (Although it could also go to common sense.) It’s a simple matter of determining which advice the person would be best advised to heed with the information given.
(If you’ve ever known or heard of a farmer taking a round while just out walking his land that’ll help lead to the correct conclusion.)
You’re welcome to come up with your own scenerio to offer up for folks to puzzle over in the next pro-anti-abort comment thread to come along. This one has pretty much run it’s course.
For me - and to my thinkin’, at least - I think it’s helpful to pose real-life analogies that reflect core questions of a controversial topic.
It’s not likely having at the topic itself will result in too many “conversions” one way or another, giving something for folks to mull over seems a better route to me. Otherwise too often it can turn into good folks railing at one another personally on whatever topic. Someone can be wrong without having to be evil scum o’ the earth.
(Of course, I reserve the right to pick on anyone sans mercy at anytime)
Rusty
It’s time to rise up and end contraception and abortion, Rusty. Both are evil, and so would any action to drive a woman to a state where she can get an abortion.
In such a case, I would question your motives there anyways.
Purplepeep:
Let’s agree to disagree.
Earlier I had formulated an analogy of my own involving something along the lines of a combat situation where the possibility of “collateral damage” existed but would still save other lives. I decided that it just wasn’t worth it because, as you say, I won’t convince anyone (furthermore, it really wasn’t wholly accurate either).
Regardless, many of the folks that post here are intelligent enough not to need analogies like we are discussing to think about this issue. Afterall, this is a “real life” issue.
I don’t believe I have called any other person on this forum “evil” to date (not that you were suggesting that). I think its important to be civil, otherwise, it’s really pointless to talk.
No!! You have to cry “Uncle”!!!
If something along theses lines comes up again - a fair bet to take - you can refine it and run it up the flagpole again. I can see where you could maybe somehow or another validly use a police hostage situation to illustrate moral criteria involved in making a difficult decision.
But there are core values that underlie and determine how folks think on any given issue. An analogy is just one tool to help us clarify our core values intellectually. It’s sometimes easier to do so when they’re examined removed from the context of an emotional-laden issue. (Of course, if a commenter had been accidently shot by a hunter that might complicate things, lol.)
Awww, shut up you little jerk!
(j/k & using a McCain response, to boot.)
#197 zeroangel asks:
Is that you or your conscience asking??
Purplepeep:
Uncle… ?
I do try to detach myself from emotional arguments. Suffice it to say: I envision a world where amputees can have limbs again, a world where anti-rejection meds are a thing of the past, and maybe, just maybe, death itself can be defeated on some level. If this makes me immoral, then so be it.
Me, and just me, in every sense of the word. If I am wrong, then I would argue that I am faultless and this “God” should explain himself to me, afteall, He did create me.
I admire your confidence, but I have to believe that even demigods have doubts sometimes.
Mine are usually during those infrequent moments when life quickly flashes right in front of me…or while reading world history and I can fully realize how insignificant my personal rationalizations and feelings are in the greater scheme of things.
Who was that Greek dude who kept pushing a boulder up a mountain?
Continuous refusal to acknowledge a power greater than oneself is a journey too tiring and futile for my taste.
And why were they so “desperate” to terminate said pregnancies?
This has to be one of the worst arguments for legalized abortion yet.
“We need to legalize the destruction of human life to protect women from stupidly shoving foreign objects into themselves in an attempt to terminate their own pregnancies”.
There are some out there…can’t say who…that would say that these women deserve it for doing something just so freaking STUPID as shoving SHARP foreign objects into their ueteruses in an attempt to terminate a life.
But then I would imagine such things as NOT doing something as insanely foolish as that would escape you.
Sadly, this is pretty much the sum of the argument.
Odd. I feel the exact same way about the other end of the spectrum. That is, continuous justification to oneself of the exsistence of a higher being despite there being no evidence of such a thing.
I can’t claim “continuous justification” regarding existence based on evidence. I admit that I have my moments. But I made a conscience decision long ago, that my lucid moments of “gratitude,” “humility,” (and the acceptance that I cannot control the majority of factors in my existence) is enough for me to put my eggs in one basket. For lack of a better word, I call my basket “faith.”
BrianNY:
It’s true atheists have no one to feel “gratitude” to. But then, I guess that’s all the more reason to doubt, that is, why would a creator being “bless” me with such a decent life, and so many others live a tortured existence.
As far as humility, you don’t need God for that, just look at the universe.
Not if her friend didn’t want to press charges, she shouldn’t have been. Her friend didn’t even want to file charges and then drop them. She was happy to have been “assaulted”.
Personally, I’d love to see you go up to that little girl and say, “Your mother’s friends restrained your mother so that you could be born, and that was wrong of them - they should have been arrested and your mother should have been allowed to abort you.”
Or, better: “They should have been arrested and you shouldn’t have been born.”
I only say this because I know you’d never have the guts, especially if her mother were present.