DNC Dispatch: The Planned Parenthood protest; Update: Vid added
Scroll down for updates…vid added…
DENVER — I attended the abortion protest at the new Planned Parenthood mega-facility here in Denver this morning.
The pro-abortion presence was measly. I counted about seven or eight demonstrators who tried to compensate for their low numbers with their loud mouths.
The ignorance of the pro-abort activists is, frankly, astonishing. This woman, Elaine Brower of NY, stood with the small gaggle of pro-Planned Parenthood cheerleaders attacking pro-lifers as racists.
But when asked whether the barbaric eugenics legacy of Planned Parenthood godmother Margaret Sanger bothered her, she told me: “No, I don’t believe that. That’s made up. This has nothing to do with black people.”
Speaking of which: All of the pro-abortion activists I saw were white. Meanwhile, across the street from Planned Parenthood’s palace, I spoke with black and Hispanic mothers who had very strong feelings about abortion. They weren’t there to take part in the protests. They were there because Planned Parenthood had the disgustingly bad taste to build their bloody business right next to a large park and playground. It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Park — and it was filled this morning with families watching their sons practice football:
One of the moms, Priscilla, was angry about the construction of the clinic right across from her neighborhood park and said bluntly: “I don’t want a f**king abortion clinic in my neighborhood!” A Hispanic mother added: “It’s against the Catholic Church.” Someone tell Joe Biden. And another black mother of three I spoke to while sitting in her minivan, when asked about her views on abortion, told me simply: “I don’t believe in it.”
But our tax dollars pay for it.
And you’re a woman-hating racist if you oppose it.
And if you want to make your views known at the DNC, you better be quiet about it.
The People’s Press Collective, an impressive group of Denver-area bloggers who have united to provide multimedia coverage of the circus, caught a Democrat clean-up crew quickly dispatched to scrub away pro-life chalk messages left on the sidewalk at the Pepsi Center yesterday:
The message they didn’t want the public to see:
“True change ends abortion.”
***
Stay tuned here, at Hot Air, and at the People’s Press Collective for more video.
Update: Here’s vid of the protest. Some of my interview with Priscilla, one of the moms angered by Planned Parenthood’s presence, begins at around 5:39:
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
194 CommentsFirst, they came for the Catholics
January 31, 2012 10:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
181 CommentsThe March for Life 2012
January 23, 2012 10:21 AM by Michelle Malkin
132 CommentsShredding Kathleen Sebelius
October 28, 2011 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 CommentsAccording to Nancy Pelosi, 11 House Democrats are Willing to Allow Women to ‘Die on the Floor’
October 14, 2011 08:46 AM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsJoe Biden ‘Fully Understands’ China’s ‘Millions of Children Left Behind’ Policy
August 22, 2011 07:01 PM by Doug Powers
59 Comments
The victims of nationalized health care
July 5, 2011 02:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Abortion
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
And, EQ, I took a look at your study. More BS. The Minnesota study was all well and good. But the point of the the APA study was that people who get knocked up by accident are more likely to deal with mental anguish. The abortion aspect has nothing to do with it.
The rest of your study was….well, what do you know! Anecdotes and the Eliot Institute!
I am amazed that you graduated from a school of higher learning and you try to pass this stuff on to me. Anecdotes and organizations dedicated to outlawing abortion does not a study make. If I tried this sort of crap in a term paper, I would have failed out.
Hey, Rusty:
How’s it going babykiller?
Quit masking your callous hatred towards women and children under some pseudo intellectual superiority.
You’re a cold blooded, lying baby killer, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.
Despicable.
?
My intellectual superiority isn’t “pseudo.” It’s pretty apparent.
You could argue, correctly probably, that you, or at least kind hearted people on your side of the aisle in this debate, have some form of moral superiority here. But that isn’t, thank God, how laws work here. Morality doesn’t come into play until another person is at risk. Since any legitimate non-religious observation will tell you that a zygote or a pre-viable fetus isn’t a person, here we are. The crux of the debate!
And I’m disappointed that the irony of you calling me out for psuedo intellectual superiority when you’re only point is to call me names will be lost on you. I am sure Chap will appreciate it though.
And save the babykiller talk for someone who has actually been involved somehow in an abortion. I, again, thank God, have never been put in or had a loved one that I know about put in such a precarious position. So how am I a babykiller? My support for the pro-choice movement changes things how?
If I’m a babykiller, I am no different than the 60% of Americans who are pro-choice. Not bad company, really.
I went to school. (long time ago) You want to argue when does life begin? Define Life:
1. reacts to stimuli
2. ability to gain mass.
3 ability to replicate.
am i missing something? I suppose then, that life begins after puberty? That unique person is unique at conception. Are identical twins identical, chap? That is untrue AND YOU KNOW IT. They are individuals. would you incarcerate both for one’s crime?
I didn’t say identical twins were not individuals. I merely said they have identical DNA. And atheling was the one using that as the basis for her argument, not me. So take up any issues you have with her.
On August 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm, Rusty said:
It’s called “creative accounting.” Schools systems use it all the time to supplement their often extravagant and wasteful spending programs seeking federal grants and stipends, intended for specific uses, but then reallocating the funds once the money is received/approved. The lie is saying PP doesn’t do the same thing to fund abortions.
Pot, meet kettle. To say the wholesale removal of human souls from the earth is a woman’s right to choose is idiotically simplistic and evilly pat.
Most abortion polling questions are guided at best, and skewed to yield results that support the pov of the organization conducting the poll; thus the pro-abortion sources you cite are no more valid than those we cite for pro-life; in fact, the pro-abortion polls are more suspect and often outright invalid, because RvW is hanging by a thread without such misleading results to fall back on.
Subjective hyperbole, which is pretty much where the majority of your posts stand in the latter part of this thread.
Or maybe PP built near the park to develop a future clientele in the preteen girls that play there, a perverse marketing ploy; they’re not above it!
Wrong-o! Proof that the pro-life movement is sagcious enough to plan its battles wisely: once RvW is overturned – and it soon will be – IUDs and the poisons disguised as contraceptives will be next on the list. But to avoid the necessary pain of pro-abortion inciters like you, we’re satisfied to pluck one hair at a time.
I’m a little uncomfortable talking about potential because it starts the dialogue on issues of cloning. Let me be clear. The potential of the newly fertilized egg is no different than the potential of an 8 year boy who wants to be a baseball star. The only difference s the boy may self-reflect on his potential. Should the government have the power to remove the potential of ether forms of human life? That is why it is constitutionally dangerous have an arbitrary time. Again the only possible constant is the moment of conception.
oh a poll!! so according to the polls, Kerry should be president, but he’s not. and the truth is you pro-abort types fear the polls. you lost with the late-term abortion, and you know you’d lose at the polls. thats why you want the issue in the courts, to be decided by our jack-booted black-robed masters.
since you’re so confident that you’ll win at the polls, I’m sure you’ll agree that roe v wade should be thrown out.
and of course any observation that says life begins at conception is not legitimate according to people like you.
Yes – the “crux” of whether or not it’s okay to murder another human being. I don’t think homeless people are persons…so let’s kill them, shall we?
That’s as ridiculous as your argument is.
If an unborn child isn’t a person – what is he? A parasite?
Go around and tell pregnant women that. Go and tell the women here who’ve shared their painful abortion stories that they only got rid of a “thing”, and they should just buck up and deal.
I agree with right4life: If you’re so confident Americans support all abortion, take it to the polls. Let them vote.
PROVE us wrong.
Rusty, if over-confidence and a heightened sense of self-worth could be expressed in monetary terms, you’d be the richest pro-abortionist in the universe.
Not insult, but sometimes you’re so full of yourself (there’s a royal “we” quality in a lot of your posts) that it’s hard to take anything you say seriously.
That is the danger right4life. The courts are the final arbitrators. The problem is the courts have created a right that does not exists in the constitution. Poles and public oppion are not the law.
Rusty doesn’t want to be restrained by the constitution. All of us are limited by legal social agreements. The only option is to live the life of anarchism. Rusty I can guarantee you that I am a better shot than you.
Rusty, et al:
When does life begin?
If it was covered, forgive me and point me in that direction. I became fatigued at wading through the flotsam and jetsam in this thread and may have missed the answer.
Talk about extraneous matter…sheesh.
and as long as that is the case, we do not live in a democracy or republic, rather a judicial oligarchy.
judicial review is a formula for the tyranny of the courts, as Jefferson said:
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
On August 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am, FamilyMan said:
Me, too.
Personal best shot 300 yards w/168 grain BTHP Federal Match load.
‘Course most urban sniper shots are taken at 75 yards or less, so I’m okay. How ’bout you, FamilyMan?
God SuzEQCitizen I what you on my side if the countries taken over by rabble.
right4life
I have been struggling with Jefferson and John Adams for years and have yet to completely resolve the issues.
right4life
The struggle is between natural law and positive law.
Do we use the cyclical nature of checks and balances on abortion or do we leave it to the courts as the finally arbitrator?
SuzEQCitizen
I’m good at close in. Door to Door with quick response.
An unprovable, bandwagon claim if ever there was one!
If cigarettes and other common carcinogens can cause the RNA and cellular coding disruptions that lead to cancer, then I have no doubt that an abrupt halt in the female body’s process of preparing for pregnancy – changes in hormone levels, enzymes, etc – through invasive termination/abortion can and do have an adverse effect on a woman’s physical and mental health.
Isn’t it pretty cold hearted of you to assume there’s no correlation between abortion and female health problems simply because some suspect poll says there isn’t one?
You claim to be concerned about women’s health, but what if the “evidence” you cite is later found to have been skewed, yet has caused cancer research dollars and initiatives-explorations to have dried up and turned in the wrong direction in the quest for cures? What then?
Which brings up another question, until we know for certain what causes most forms of cancers – especially breast cancer – why be so dismissive of abortion as a possible source? Shouldn’t all options be left on the table until we’ve beaten this terrible disease?
chapoutier said:
Well, no sh*t; have you a penchant for banjo music?
All digs aside I have to agree in certain respects to your assertions. The definition of life is arguably beyond the point of two haploid cells that become a zygote. Does a zygote undergoing meiosis have the vibration of a soul? This is almost like arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
Abortions are performs for the following reasons: to protect woman’s life, physical health, mental health, rape, fetal defects, socio-economic factors, and on request. The US (based on state by state basis) is one of the few countries in the world that will allow an abortion based on socio-economic factors and on request. Does anyone know why that is? Anyone care to guess? Follow the money perhaps…
China allows for abortions based on socio-economic factors and on request China also shoots prisoners in the back of the neck and sells their organs worldwide (a human liver goes for $100,000). The truth is (and it’s a horrible truth) aborted fetuses have a dollar value. Liberal politicians will take money from industries that need a human fetus for their research. Simple as that.
See: Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) for further investigation.
I have to take issue with your dis of Margaret Sanger. True, her eugenics program was a serious mistake and is not one of her greater moments. But, had it not been for Sanger’s efforts, women might still be having babies every one or two years. Sanger’s efforts helped free women from this both physically and financially and gave them the freedom to plan and implement their own futures for the first time in history. If she had not done it, some one else would have had to do it. It’s one thing to vilify her for the eugenics plan but it should be added that she was a dedicated supporter and proliferator, in her time, of much needed birth control information which, in her day, saved many a maternal life from the risks of childbirth. Many worn out women who died in their 30′s and 40′s, along with their 10th or 11th infant who died also, were spared this fate thanks to Sanger.
Mommy, why did you kill me?
Just that there is absolutely no evidence that backs this up. None.
And I am not using a poll. I am using an objective study. And there are no objective studies that say otherwise. No honest person thinks abortion causes cancer.
In my view, when the haploids become a diploid – then there is a human life. No further questions about it.
To say you nailed it with this point is putting it mildly but, as I can think of no better, more emphatic terms in which to express it – you nailed it! Following the money gets to the root of all evils – especially abortion.
Fantastic post, GW!
There is no sense in dismissing abortion as a contributing factor to cancer until we can discover what does cause and/or contribute to it. To do so imperils women’s health by leaving research and preventative care/early detection to the winds.
Likewise, what’s the point in a pro-life person or group citing any study – objective or no – in support of their arguments, when said study will only be summarily dismissed by pro-abortion supporters as biased and “ridiculous.”
Sorry, my mistake; however, whether a poll or a study, either can and often are skewed to yield the desired results of the group conducting the research.
Chapoutier: If your wife is a twin (and I assume she is since you said so), then she should know that her DNA _is_ unique. Even identical mirror twins (such as myself) have unique DNA.
IIRC, this happens less than 24 hours after fertilization.
As such, your logic on this point is incorrect. If I read the argument correctly, it went something like this.
If someone is a person, they have unique human DNA. (I believe Atheling made this point.)
My wife does not have unique human DNA. (Chapoutier)
Therefore, by the contrapositive of the first statement, my wife is not a person. (Chapoutier)
Your assertion that your wife does not have unique human DNA is incorrect.
Now, if the original statement by Atheling was, “If something has unique human DNA, then that thing is a person,” your logic is invalid as well as incorrect. If so, you argued that the inverse of a statemnt is identical to the negation of the statement, which logically is non sequitur.
As for the rest, I note that people have brought up objections of APA being unbiased. I have yet to see those objections resolved.
Too funny – the white group calls the multi-racial group racist. I’d have paid to see it.
I find it very interesting that the first step of any genocide is to dehumanize the target.
I recall learning in Anthropology that most names peoples have for themselves translate very simply as ‘people’. (Tolkien show a very good grasp of this in his Elvish.)
The most vivid (and hardly unique) example is that of the Comanche Indians. They consider themselves the only human beings. Their word for all of the rest of us is ‘daivo’, ‘nonhuman two-legged animal’. (The spelling may not be correct, but it should be phonetically correct, from English.)
It should be self-evident that it is easier to kill something if it is lower, hierarchically speaking, than you. PETA uses this argument in reverse.
BTW, if you want a source for the twin DNA point, you can find one here.
While the article itself is not what I would call scholarly, the cited work is from the American Journal of Human Genetics, which can be found here.
Funny you should say this. Reminds me of the testamony of a Holocaust survivor who upon the arrival to the work camp was fed tainted radish stew that gave everone horrible diarhea. They were then coraled into a stockade and no treatment was given to them. This was the process of their dehumaninzation to the camp guards as she put it. It’s a very necessary process if you want to have a successful genocide (abortion) campaign.
Funny you should say this, reminds me of the testimony of a Holocaust survivor who upon the arrival to the work camp was fed tainted radish stew that gave everyone horrible diarrhea. They were then corralled into a stockade and no treatment was given to them. This was the process of their dehumanization to the camp guards as they put it. It’s a very necessary process if you want to have a successful genocide campaign.
Ulth,
Interesting article re: the DNA, however I would note that it said that the DNA of “some” identical twins is not the same, not all. Hard to tell, but it does not seem that it was implying that the mutations that occur and cause small differences always occur.
But in any case, you misinterpreted my argument. I was saying that my wife is a person, despite the fact (though that now seems in dispute) that she does not have DNA, thus unique DNA is not what defines human life.
To avoid the identical twin DNA debate, if a being was created from cloning, such that the being absolutely had the same DNA as the host, would anyone here feel that it was not a person?
On August 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Ulthwithian said:
You are absolutely correct.
The pro-abortionists have done this by calling a human life all manner of terms other than human being.
As an aside, the sames holds true with a single killing, for the most part.
Your argument is basically that we can’t dismiss anything that might cause cancer. Video games! Tofu! Baseball hats! Nose piercings!
The difference being that people have been studying relationships between abortion and breast cancer for some time now and there has never been any evidence that supports a correlation.
Kind of a parametric question dude. Let’s talk about quail eggs.
Becoming less and less so every day.
Chapoutier: First, we need a viable clone. If a clone is made at the same time in a person’s life that a twin is ‘created’, then the same issues would apply to both.
As I do not know of any human cloning that has been done, the argument is hard to say. It would highly depend on how the clone was created. If you take an appropriate cell from a donor, and then recreate the person out of that, then by the article I listed the same type of differences should emerge.
Actually, I’m trying to follow the argument. (I will assume you meant that she does not have unique DNA, as having no DNA would be… difficult.
)
The issue is one of logic. The Pro-Life position here stated was,
“A fetus, at conception, has unique human DNA.”
“If something has unique human DNA, then that thing is a human person.”
“Therefore, a fetus is a human person.”
You decided to take exception to the syllogism. You gave the example of your wife, who to your knowledge did not have unique human DNA. Your reasoning went as follows.
“My wife is an identical twin.”
“Identical twins have identical (non-unique) human DNA.”
Then you attempt to use the same syllogism that was used previously.
“If something has unique human DNA, then that thing is a human person.”
Specifically, you try to use the inverse of the statement.
“If something does not have unique human DNA, then that thing is not a human person.”
This, literally, does not follow from the original syllogism.
In logic, you can have the statement, “If p, then q.” If that statement is true, then, “If not q, then not p,” must also be true.
However, the truth of the statement “If not p, then not q” _cannot be verified_ by the original statement, because the original statement is one-sided.
Thus, the question of whether someone has non-unique DNA is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Your logic would be correct if the statement had been, “A thing is a human person _if and only if_ that thing has unique human DNA.” However, that was not the statement made.
I’ll note that my last comment shows that unique human DNA, from the pro-life position, is sufficient to be a person, but is not required. That is why the question of non-unique DNA is irrelevant to the discussion.
The moment a sperm (living matter) fertilizes an egg, a human is born.
Rusty, Chap, and the other intellectually dishonest and arrogant posters can be as smarmy as they wish. It doesn’t matter what asinine non-sequiters they toss in to confuse the issue.
The issue is crystal clear: An embryo is a living organism that will become a human being. It is not inert matter (like a rock) that spontaneously becomes an unborn baby at a certain month of gestation.
The other reason pro-aborts will never win an argument with a pro-lifer (meaning, they will never convince a pro-lifer of their view point), is because pro-aborts like Rusty and Chap condescend and ridicule instead of debate.
Therefore, engaging in any discussion with them is a futile endeavor. If they genuinely sought to analyze the issue, they wouldn’t insulate themselves with arrogance and contrary semantics.
I wanted to see giant puppets!!! Where are the giant Puppets???
you go MM!!!! give them holy HELL!
Abortion should be a states right issue and not pay for by the feds. Thats it. And not girl under 18 should be able to get one without a perants or the courts concent. Period.
RogerC: While you may be correct in general, I am currently attempting to have a civil discussion with Chapoutier. I would take it kindly if you would refrain from making such comments towards those who do not share your viewpoint, as it will do absolutely nothing to change that viewpoint.
There’s no evidence for or against the correlation, at best there’s a 4% increase in cancer risk. However, ‘people’ are scared if such a correlation was given proof it would add more logs to the fire of a militant, violent pro-life movement like we saw in the 90′s.
It has become a law in Oklahoma that a mother seeking an abortion must have the opportunity to see her baby on a sonogram. She, of course, doesn’t have to look at it, but it will be offered in every case.
This is a lie and the only reason it would be presented is to justify a murder of one’s own child because it is a burden to continue the pregnancy. God gave us intelligence to identify a lie when we hear one.
Intellectually dishonest and arrogant apparently equals “disagree with Roger.”
And “confuse the issue” apparently means “bring in alternative evidence/viewpoints/arguments that upsets Roger’s sensibilities.”
If you do not wish to debate, Roger because you are unable to rationally do so without dismissing your opponent’s arguments out of hand, then please let some of the others here who seem to be doing a fine job of it in your stead.
Thank you Ulthwithian, for your posts.
I took atheling’s post as saying that, as you said, “if and only if”. And my only point with respect to identical twins was to disprove this, based on the stipulation that an identical twin is a person. but I think you have admirably shown why this is becoming a silly and tedious point to dwell upon.
I often wonder what groups like the Heritage Foundation do with their $$. You’d think they’d run some commercials with the high stats for minority abortion and a report of the billions PP makes in profit every year.
I went to Catholic high school, and we saw firsthand what pix of aborted babies looked like and learned of the procedures done to accomplish it. Once you see those pix you don’t forget them.
And for the folks who think there’s no psychological effect, when I was a college freshman, we had a wonderful friend who papered her room with babyfied posters. She slept every spare minute she could. She also tried suicide. That’s when we found out — she had had an abortion that summer and couldn’t deal with it. She finally admitted it to her parents and they got her the counseling she so desperately needed.
If it’s inside you, you can kill it however you want, but once the child is born you better not spank it; that’s abuse. (Sorry, it was just some chuckle I had when I read this.)
Abortion seems to be a symptom of other problems. Laziness, selfishness, ignorance, poor parenting. (I don’t mean poor parenting by the woman having the abortion. Yes, the abortion itself would be evidence of poor parenting. I was talking about her parents.)
I used to be against abortions wholeheartedly. I have seen and been sickened by the videos, read the sorrowful stories of women deeply ashamed and troubled by their choice, and personally worked with children who have no clue how close they were to being aborted.
But fortunately I realized that the vast majority of people seeking abortions are members of the demographics I don’t like anyway! It was like learning that I no longer need to call Terminix; the rats and cockroaches are killing themselves!
Besides, it’s just like Rusty and lgm and a few others are saying; they aren’t really human anyway.
These are just minorities, poor people, commies, hippies, stoners, junkies, sluts, trailer trash, Oprah’s Book Club members; you know, life unworthy of life. I would say, “Let’s Kill ‘em All,” but we don’t have to…they are doing it to themselves!!!
It’s ingenious!
I hate to defend chap here but he tends to remain sequitur at all times despite his ‘loquaciousness.’ I have to agree though he’s got an ego the size of Lake Erie. Lol.
Misscheryl: God gave us the intellect to refute arguments. While I agree with your position, one cannot refute an argument with will. Lgm asserts one thing, and you assert that it is a lie. Neither is sustainable on its own.
Chapoutier: While I thank you for your appreciation, I do not believe I have shown that the point is tedious or silly, if by the point you mean the original post that you opposed. I will repeat the logical argument here presented.
Assertion 1: A fertilized egg, at conception, has unique human DNA.
Assertion 2: A fertilized egg, at conception, is an organism.
Assertion 3: If an organism has unique human DNA, then that organism is a human person.
Conclusion: A fertilized egg is a human person.
Since the logical chain is valid (or consistent), which assertion do you disagree with, or do you disagree with an assertion or conclusion after this? For completeness’s sake:
Assertion 4: The termination of life of an innocent human person is murder.
Assertion 5: Abortion terminates the life of a fertilized egg (or something that the egg has developed into).
Assertion 6: A fertilized egg is innocent.
Conclusion: Abortion is murder.
Actually – your point is incorrect. God gave us intellect to know to pray – our arguments aren’t what changes hearts or effects a person’s soul – that in itself is an arrogant attitude. God changes hearts – generally after much prayer has taken place. I suggest those of us who believe so strongly in God’s will in this issue, to quit arguing so much and get on our knees and pray a whole lot more. We are called to pray – not argue!
Misscheryl: Where do we get our Reason from, if not from God? And what better use for our Reason than in service to He who gave it to us? Certainly, we can pray for those who disagree with us. However, there is nothing wrong with using Reason to point to God.
Also, I do not fully agree with your point that ‘God gave us intellect to know to pray’. Hopefully, our consciences tell us that. The only way our intellect could tell us that is if we can reason our way to God. If this is the case, then why can we not share our reasoning with others?
You have got to be joking. “Sequitor”??? Have you read his responses, or rather, evasions, non sequitors, obfuscations, etc… on this thread?
Ulthwithian has put forth an able argument and Chapoutier has yet to respond in an honest and intelligent manner. In the end, he dismissed it all as “silly”.
And you want to defend that? Really, I am all astonishment.
Ulth,
my point was not that an organism having human DNA was not significant, just that it is pointless to get hung up on whether or not it is unique, if in fact it can be shown that uniqueness is not a prerequisite for being considered human.
Which assertion do I disagree with?
This one. I would say that it is an organism with human DNA with the potential to develop into a human person. A zygote has no thought process, no sentience, no ability to feel anything, no organs, no brain, no nervous system. To equate this organism to a fetus in the third trimester or a person that has been born seems to me absurd. I am not saying that I know at what point on the spectrum a zygote develops into a fetus that one could safely consider a human, and I am all for erring on the side of caution with respect to this, but it is my sincere belief that that line is some time after conception.
Misscheryl:
Prayer and debate are not exclusive.
God gave us a mind, with an ability to reason. We ought to use it.
Since you seem to be the expert on my posts, rather than just talking about them please show:
1. my evasions
2. non sequitors
3. obfuscations.
If you can find any I will be happy to justify and/or defend my comments.
And as for my slight delay in addressing Ulth’s post, please note that, unlike you, I like to put some thought into my responses and not just spew out whatever comes out of my brain.
Chapster said, “Intellectually dishonest and arrogant apparently equals “disagree with Roger.”
And “confuse the issue” apparently means “bring in alternative evidence/viewpoints/arguments that upsets Roger’s sensibilities.”
Wrong on all counts. Try not to condescend. THAT is my point. It seems to me that you are the ones who have an issue with us disagreeing with your POVs.
But, again, this is another example of trying to score points instead of debating.
He certainly has, and certainly defended your own words more ably than you seemed to be able to do last night.
But you’re willing to concede that a tomato seedling, which has no leaves, barely any roots, and no tomatoes or seeds, is indeed a tomato plant?
chapoutier:
At least I’m not a liar and obfuscator.
For a lawyer, you’re a pretty lousy debator. Ulthwithian has demonstrated your illogical reasoning and argument.
Roger,
If you really do not think I have been debating here in good faith then fine.
We, and several others here who seem to actually be engaging me in you know… debate, will have to agree to disagree.
No. Where did I do that?
Speaking of God:
At the age of thirty Claire became a Christian. She had previously spent much of her life as a typical young woman in modern American society. One clear spring day the vehicle she was driving was involved in an accident, and Claire succumbed to her injuries several hours later. Upon entering the Kingdom of Heaven Claire was surrounded by an all-encompassing light and a feeling of complete and utter well-being. She noticed members of her family, long-passed, congregating around her. A young man of 15 or 16 approached Claire, his eyes misty.
“Who are you,” Claire asked with a soft smile.
“I am the child you had aborted 16 years ago. I have no name.”
Talk about uncomfortable!
I agree that God gave us a mind and we ought to use it…I do believe much of the arguing has nothing to do with using our minds. I think many people are too eager to talk. It’s true that controlling a person’s tongue is the hardest thing to do. People don’t think enough before they talk…In many instances, because the cause is moral and right, it seems to excuse a lot of arrogance and hatefulness. People (certainly including myself) are to eager to talk. That’s all I’ll say about this.
Still waiting on those examples of obfuscation and/or evasions and/or non-sequitors.
Want some examples?
When I brought up the issue of the tomato plant, you changed the subject by bringing up spaghetti sauce. How mature.
When I discuss DNA of an organism, you obfuscate with the DNA of human hair. Illogical.
I’m sure as this thread continues, you will continue with your dishonesty.
No. My point was to show that a tomato plant and a tomato are not the same thing. Which was on point.
First. that was in response to EQ, not you, and my point was the mere existence of human DNA in determining if something is a human being is not very helpful. It is at best an incomplete calculation. Which was on point. Which led to the discussion of unique DNA by you.
But lets not continue to play out this little drama on every thread, atheling. You don’t like me. Cool. I get it. Same here. But I am sure others here are growing weary of it.
Chapoutier: Let us examine this claim. Certainly, I believe you have hit the crucial point. I’m fairly certain everyone realizes the primary difficulty with abortion is determining the onset of humanity. Most people here to seem that it is self-evident, and as such see any confusion regarding the issue as deliberate sophistry. While I’m sure you recognize my agreement with their basic premise, I will try to explain this.
Now, you do not believe that a zygote can be called human. Would you be comfortable referring to it as ‘a potential human being’? Since, in the normal course of events, a zygote will turn into a human being, I believe that this is fair. I would ask that you not turn this around and ask what I believe, for I think that is obvious. I am trying to discuss based on your principles, as I see them, instead of mine.
Now, zygotes have the potential to become human, if they are not human already. We ask ourselves if this potential is ever not met. This is indeed true; miscarriages occur for any number of reasons, and for those who wish children it is inevitably seen as a tragedy. However, as I stated before, in the normal course of events a zygote will always turn into a human being, by your definition.
Well and good. But potentiality should never disqualify one from their inherent nature. Let us take for example a child, 3 months post-natal. Can it fend for itself? No. Can it reason, that one phenotypic quality above all that distinguishes humans from non-humans? By any psychological definition of the term, an infant cannot. Is it, then, human?
If it is indeed human (as our laws state and offer protection thereof), I will point out that a 3-month-old infant has only the potential to have the qualities that we normally associate with humanity. It cannot reason, talk, walk, or fend for itself. Thus, I would argue that potentiality to achieve an end should not disqualify someone from that end, prior to seeing whether or not it will achieve that end.
If, however, a 3-month-old is not human, then the laws in this country need to recognize that as such, and permit infanticide, to remain consistent.
If potentiality to achieve all of human capability is not a bar to the title of humanity, but is indeed the _requirement_ to achieve that title, then we must go back into prenatal time to see where the demarcation line must be drawn.
A useful test for this would be to determine the earliest time that can be determined where a potential human being, in the normal course of events, can turn into a completely realized and actualized human being. The earliest point would be when the fertilized egg becomes diploid, for before that point, and egg and sperm, by themselves, will not turn into a human being, in the normal course of events. After that point, the zygote will.
Thus, this leads to the rational argument that life and humanity begins at conception.
Wrong. The “point” was determining if the tomato seedling is a tomato plant. Your bringing up the difference between a tomato plant and a tomato is obfuscation, and NOT the point.
Again, you are dishonest.
I reread your original quote and you are right, you were trying to distinguish a tomato seedling from a plant, not a plant from a tomato. So I apologize for that. But regardless, a tomato seed is not a plant. So the point remains the same. And this is the last time I will type “tomato” on this thread.
Then leave this thread. If you can’t be honest and mature about this debate, then you have no business here.
Really, whether I like you or not is irrelevant. However, I will say this: Your responses and attitude on this thread have proven what I and many others have said about you: you are arrogant and dishonest.
I’d be quite ashamed at this point, if I were you. But that’s assuming you have a conscience, which is doubtful, considering your position on abortion.
RogerC: Again, I will point out that Chapoutier seems perfectly able to discuss and debate with those that approach him as willing to do also. Now, I realize that I have the benefit of being new here, and so there is no vis-a-vis baggage between Chapoutier and myself in the same way that there appears to be between, say, Chapoutier and Atheling.
I would ask that, in the words of that well-known saying, ‘those that say something cannot be done to please remove themselves from the path of those who are doing it’.
Thank you. I shall retract the dishonesty charge. However, your criticism of my debating skills is quite laughable in light of your poor reading comprehension, isn’t it?
Chap said:
This is clearly an agnostic/ atheist statement which is fine. I can see why Chap has trouble with the zygote being ‘alive’ it first requires a faith in God. The idea the zygote itself at the point of conception is imbued with the Alpha and Omega requires first the work of turning your own will over to God’s will on a daily basis. If you truly have the faith that you’re a vessel of God’s will than the idea of the zygote having life is a no-brainer.
Agnostics/ atheists have to define life according to what their physical senses see, i.e., fully functioning visceral systems before they’re convinced the organism is ‘alive.’
There you go again. My initial use of the tomato seedling example already disqualified the tomato seed, as it had not yet been fertilized. Your bringing this up in this particular comment is more obfuscation, and completely irrelevant.
Good Lord, you must be a nightmare in the courtroom.
Goldwater Knight: I disagree, emphatically, with your statement. This would directly imply that abortion is perfectly fine if you are an agnostic or an atheist (or, in short, anyone who does not believe what you believe).
This is simply not the case. Your argument is, essentially, that you cannot reason your way to the idea that abortion is murder. I have already demonstrated that the logical chain is consistent.
The idea that abortion is murder is not a religious one, but a moral one. It requires no faith in God at all to see. Please, this is simply hurting the pro-life arguments here.
Atheling: It is entirely possible to disagree with someone, even to point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, without resorting to attacks ad hominem. There is no need for that here.
Ulthwithian:
When you “scold” Chapoutier for the same, I’ll listen.
Otherwise, mind your own business.
Atheling: I find Chapoutier’s shortcomings self-evident. Even so, your morality is on very shaky ground if it must rely on such arguments.
Having said this, I’ve gone back 100 posts, and have seen very little to ‘scold’ Chapoutier about. If you really want me to note every point by either of you where attacks ad hominem have been made, I can do so.
Go ahead, waste the bandwith.
You won’t last long here with that Hall Monitor Sanctimony, btw. (H/T to Capt. Dogcatcher).
Yes, that is fine.
Very true.
Where I have an issue is with your example of a three month old child. I certainly agree with this statement:
But this:
does not necessarily follow. Potential is a requirement, but why can’t one argue some minimum level of realization is necessary to attain that status. One who has entered law school has basically endowed himself with the necessary potential to be an attorney. But the mere existence of that potential does not mean one can say a 1L is a lawyer. they have to jump through a few hoops first.
Let me be clear abortion is clearly the great Shoah of our time. To imply being and atheist or agnostic gives you the green light to kill your unborn is not what I’m driving at. I mean it’s ignorant, even selfish.
GK:
You don’t have to explain yourself. I and many others know very well where you’re coming from. Hall Monitor here just doesn’t know you.
Anyway, Ulth, life calls for a bit. I will be happy to pick this up later if you wish. But regardless, thank you for the lively debate. I will say that in the course of about 4 posts, you have done more to challenge my thinking and views on abortion than one million “baby-killer” slurs.
And you’ve managed to limit your obfuscations to only those related to tomatoes today.
Well done, Chap!
Assertion 3: If an organism has unique human DNA, then that organism is a human person.
Unique to the human species. Not donkey DNA…
Atheling: If you think that is what it is, I am sorry you feel that way. I see your persistent attacks on chapoutier as detrimental to the discussion I at least am having with him (or her), and I am simply asking you to refrain. Should you not wish to do so, that is indeed your right, but realize that you are doing your side of the discussion few if any favors by alienating the opposition.
Chapoutier: The answer to that objection is that entering law school does not in the normal course of events lead to becoming a lawyer. Indeed, if nothing is done, the law school student will fail and not become a lawyer.
There is also the fact that we are not discussing the murder of law students as opposed to lawyers. The question must take into account the proposed action. That is, not nearly as many people would be disagreeing over this issue if death was not hanging over it.
Also, you mention a ‘certain modicum of realization’. If one requires this, the question shifts to one of ‘how much’, which indeed seems to be where you stand. My question to you is, ‘Why is this necessary?’
If potential is not enough (and, I will add at this point, if you do not mind, ‘biological potential’, since we are discussing a biological issue), then any amount of realized potential short of full realization will not be enough, either.
To take your own example of the law school student, you do not call a law school student a lawyer in his first year. Quite correct, all well and good. However, you do not call him a lawyer in his second, third, or subsequent years, either. In fact, graduating from law school is not sufficient to be called a lawyer, but passing the bar, correct?
If your own analogy holds true in the case of a potential human being, then only a human being who has fully realized his or her potential can be truly called a human being. This would not be ‘at the end of the first trimester’. This would not, indeed, be at birth. The obvious theoretical point would be at puberty, the realization of physical potential (with the onset of the ability to create life). Also, anyone who failed to realize their potential would _never_ become a ‘human being’, by this definition.
Current law rejects this. Therefore, the argument that a certain amount of realization of potential can be grounds for proclaiming ‘humanity’ seems to be false. There seems to be two options. Either you select the point at which full realization has been achieved, or you select the point at which the potential for that realization is achieved.
You misrepresent me. I took exception to his statement for the reason that it portrays the pro-life stance incorrectly to those who oppose it.
I agree with him in that abortion is selfish and cruel, for those who do it knowingly and willingly. I am unaware of the term ‘Shoah’, but the holocaust being conducted is terrible.
I am trying to put the pro-life argument to non-pro-lifers in a way they can accept and understand, and it would seem from Chapoutier’s comments that I have succeeded, at least in part.
Michelle, hope you have a lot of Advil, body protection, and ear plugs for Denver. Stay safe.
Great interview with Pricilla.
Atheling said:”There you go again. My initial use of the tomato seedling example already disqualified the tomato seed, as it had not yet been fertilized.” A tomatoe seed is the product of the fertilized tomatoe flower. A tomatoe seed contains an immature tomatoe plant. A fertilized human “egg” contains an immature human being.
Cicerokid: Nice term, immature. Do you mind if I use it if/when my discussion with Chapoutier continues? It does contain the essence of what I am trying to convey.
Ulthwithian said:
Not sure why you disagree ‘emphatically’
It’s great you’re able to layout the argument on a moral plane but do morals really come into play all the time when a woman decides to have an abortion? The abortion question is tied to cultural conditioning and the instilment of a spiritual belief system would go far in curtailing abortion.
‘Shoah’ is the Jewish word for Holocaust, sometimes called, “The Great Shoah.”
I usually don’t talk about God for such reasons. The idea that the zygote is alive with the breath of God and that in and of itself makes it human I find intriguing.
But at the same time can repel non-believers quite easily.
Goldwater: Ah, well, I figured that ‘Shoah’ was something like that. I apologize if I used the term incorrectly or without a proper understanding of it.
I disagree emphatically because of the great harm it can do the pro-life movement. If the pro-life movement is put on a religious footing, it opens the door for those who are not religious to simply ignore the movement. Similarly, the fact that there are atheists and even many theists who disagree wholeheartedly with monotheism who are pro-life. If you seek to move the pro-life movement to a religious footing (and from your comment, it would seem a Judeo-Christian footing), you could lose those supporters.
For a certainty, if you encounter proponents of abortion who are religious, religious arguments can be very persuasive. However, a moral argument should be able to convince religious and nonreligious people alike.
I hope this makes my position clearer.