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
First off, you don’t own this blog. For a first time visitor, you have chastised many people on this thread and that’s a turn off. You are quite ignorant of the history of the people here, and the arguments within. That ignorance alone should restrain you from making judgments. Consider that this is like a small community. I would think that a first timer here should have the humility to first know the members of this community before throwing his weight around and make snap judgments based on a small and limited period of time.
If you had been present at the many debates we have held regarding abortion, and experienced the obtuseness, dishonesty, obfuscation, and outright lies perpetrated by the pro abortion commenters here, you might have a different attitude towards those of us who are weary of their tactics. I call Rusty a babykiller simply because that is what he is, and that is the title he deserves. He refuses to debate us honestly, therefore all he deserves are ad hominems.
Thirdly, your scolding all of us except chapoutier is unfair. He has engaged in many ad hominems as well. I suspect that this has something to do with playing good cop, bad cop. I suggest that you first consult those of us you wish to portray as bad cop before you engage in such tactics. If this is not the case, then you are simply unjust.
Lastly, my “attacks” on chapoutier are well founded. As you might have noticed (unless you are intent on ignoring the fact), he misrepresented my argument, for which he later apologized. This kind of lazy, flippant argumentation is typical of him, and I find it exhausting. My patience wears thin, as I do not suffer fools gladly.
Frankly, I think your tactics are simply a means to ingratiate yourself with the opposition to win them over. Very politic. And slimy.
Goldwater: ‘Before I knit you in your mother’s womb, I knew you.’ Isaiah, is it not?
For someone from the Judeo-Christian tradition, that should be all they need to realize that life and personhood begin at conception (personhood beforehand, actually). From there, the logical argument proceeds in full force. =)
And I apologize for the sentence fragment in the previous comment. My thinking must have shifted in midpost.
Atheling: You are correct in that I do not know the history of the people posting here, and I believe I made allowance for that fact in a post of mine.
As far as ‘scolding’ goes, I have only ‘scolded’ you, and in your own terms. If you refer to what I said to Goldwater as ‘scolding’, I would respond that I disagreed with his statement, and stated as such. He has explained his position, and I have clarified mine, and that should be enough for anyone involved.
Again, I apologize if you think that I mean to ‘scold’ anyone. I was simply concerned that the tension would induce people to leave the thread, and thus any progress on the issue would be lost.
However, you are completely correct that it is not my place (here or anywhere) to ‘scold’ or correct the behavior of others.
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
I disagreed not with your ‘attacks’ on Chapoutier, but on your attacks ad hominem. In particular, your statement after he had apologized how he must be awful in the courtroom. But again, it is not my right to say.
From now on, I will refrain from commenting on anyone’s behavior on a thread, and restrict myself to their arguments.
Again, my apologies to you, Atheling, and anyone else I may have inadvertently offended.
Apology accepted, Ulthwithian.
And welcome
Indeed, especially as you were silent on his attack on my “poor debating skills”.
That omission is what burned me. Be fair about it!
Oh, I failed to address one point. If there was ‘good cop, bad cop’ going on, it was inadvertent on my part. I cannot claim absolutely none of that was going on, for growing up as the middle kid of 5 ingrains certain habits in one.
But as I said, it’s my most grievous fault.
Thank you for your welcome.
You’d be surpised how many Democrats are against abortion.
One of my co-workers for instance.
We disagree on many things, but when it comes to Planned Parenthood, we’re in totally agreement.
Atheling: Ah, see, I missed that point. As stated, I went back 100 posts, but I did not see that point. I should have made certain to find it since you in fact pointed it out.
I fully understand how double standards (especially when employed by your ‘own side’ against you!) rankle.
As a matter of fact, you seemed to have missed Chapoutier’s first salvo on this thread (and he was referring to me):
What burns me is you ignore that blatant insult, and defend him from any???
American: Actually, I don’t think I would be.
From what I can see, the ‘Democratic party’ has become so, ah, ‘inobservant’ of its titular constituency that I am not surprised that its rank-and-file might not agree to everything in its platform.
The same can be said of the Republican party as well, unfortunately. Politics is not very pretty these days.
Atheling: Again, yes, I missed that. Though I did go back only 100 posts. I did read the entire thread, though, so I have little excuse.
Sorry. ><
Chapoutier: Consider yourself chided! ;p
Well, I hope you see why it rankled me when you just stepped in and began defending Chap from ad hominems without looking at his history. Heck, it was all here on this thread.
The fact that Chap does not even man up and admit it demonstrates something about his character. I have a hard time being civil to dishonest people, for some reason.
Anyway, glad we cleared that up.
Again, welcome – and it’s always good to have another pro lifer here to defend the unborn.
Later!
Well, I will note that when shown the error in his logic, he admitted as such.
And while I realize it’s hard to be civil in such circumstances, it’s even more rewarding, I’ve found.
Having said all this, I sincerely do hope that Chapoutier comes back to this or other threads, so that we can continue our discussion.
I queried some time ago:
Suz: IIRC, the counter to that was not where life began, but where humanity began. That is why the subsequent discussion as to humanity and personhood.
This does make sense, as non-human life is not protected in the same way as human life.
I should also mention that my liberal co-worker has a Peace Begins in the Womb bumpersticker, for which I give her major respect because…
a) We live in the liberal stronghold of Los Angeles
b) We work in the entertainment industry
The woman certainly has grit.
Did I miss the answer?
Suz: I think the answer was that the question is irrelevant, as whether it is alive or not doesn’t matter and is pretty self-evident (it is alive), while the question of whether it is human is the sticking point with many people.
That would be the answer, I believe.
On August 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, Ulthwithian said:
Forgive me for seeming coy.
I meant did anyone answer the “when does a un/pre-born human being achieve the state of being human?”
I’m asking the pro-aborts, btw. I’m assuming I understand your position on that, Ulth.
Forgive me for commenting when I haven’t read the other 300 or so comments yet, but I wanted to air my scattered and not-altogether (yet occasionally) serious thoughts based solely off Michelle’s report.
The best argument I heard on the pro-ab side: “Yer a stupid idiot and don’t know what eff you’re talking about, har har har.” (Okay, I added the laugh, but the look on her face equated to the same condescending smart-@$$ behavior. I can play that game, too.)
Dang fascists. Submit, woman! Do sign supplies come with spell-check? Or do they really have a problem with “Christiain” fascists? Some new movement I’m not aware of? Leave Christie Brinkley alone! She hearts Obama!
What is this strange growth in my belly? Ahh, get it out, please, get it out!!! It might be a tumor!
What are the majority of those “conditions” that lead one to get an abortion? Hint: they aren’t medical. Should a woman whose life is at stake be allowed to do what is needed to survive? I believe so. Should a woman who made a stupid decision be allowed to cleanse herself, so to speak, for her own convenience? No. If women were forced to confront the consequences of their irresponsible actions, abortions would be less commonplace.
Kudos to Priscilla for voicing her disgust to Michelle.
Science says, science says… Science says bacteria and amoebas are living creatures. Brains are not needed to qualify. I don’t need a high-paying scientific career to understand the concept of life.
Our “dark age” moral standards are headed down the drain drip by daily drip, and pro-life activism is increasingly looked upon as foolish. When anyone mentions “dark age,” I’m reminded of things like the Inquisition. Seeing people wanting to preserve life does not put me in an Inquisition state of mind. Abortion does. Some of us traditional folks would like others to consider the idea that life begins at conception. Progressives want to sweep the thought under the rug, my friends. (Ugh, that’s one of the things that would get on my nerves over the next four years. Still better than the alternative.).
They want us to end divorce! And the problem with that is…? You take a lifetime vow, you’re expected to live up to it. Don’t marry until you’ve carefully examined the pros and cons. The vow of marriage has become a conveniently disposable commodity (not unlike abortion), and it shouldn’t be that way.
They want to abolish homosexuality! Well, I would prefer that people not constantly encourage it. Keep those gaudy, immature, tasteless demonstrations outta my face. How can we take the radical homosexuals seriously when they act the way they do? (I think it was Tammy Bruce who brought that up in a C-Span 2 interview.) I can compromise. Have your civil unions, but leave the definition of marriage alone.
They don’t want anyone to have birth control! Celibacy isn’t impossible. Personally, I have no problem with birth control, but then again, I admit that I’m irresponsible. However, irresponsibility should have its limits. Abortion for convenience’s sake is crossing the line.
I don’t consider myself a pro-life hardliner by any stretch. Wiggle room is necessary with our current population size. But abortion should be the absolute last option, not the first and easiest one.
Oh, and I was able to restrain myself from invoking the dreaded “G” word.
Nice report, Michelle. The fun has just begun.
If I’ve kept anyone’s attention to this point, I appreciate you reading my diatribe.
Gahhh…..”AN un/pre-born…”
Suz: Ah, I apologize. I was answering the question you asked without knowledge of the background.
The best answer you will find here (from the pro-abortion side) is that of Chapoutier in his discussion with me. He is not sure, but thinks that conception is a bit early. I will certainly take correction from him on this point if that is incorrect.
Rusty and the rest of them have seemed to do what they do best here. Chapoutier at least was having a discussion about it.
My position should be fairly obvious from my posts in this thread, yes.
Sigh. I tried to catch all the typos, but that one slipped through.
CO2(nice name, BTW): I have occasionally run into better arguments. They don’t generally hold together very long, but at least it’s an argument.
As for the rest, one thing at a time.
CO2:
There is nothing wrong with our population size. Look at Europe going by way of the dodo bird soon. We are probably the last western nation that has a stable fertility rate.
And guess which nations’ fertility rates are the highest?
Indeed, the overpopulation arguments are as demonstrably false now as they were in Malthus’s day.
Now, correct apportioning of the Earth’s bounty… that could definitely be looked at in some ways.
You go Michelle…
Boy, do I wish I could be in Denver to protest the circus..
Heh, SuzEQ, we had near-simultaneous lapses in our proofreading.
Atheling: Per person, Western societies are having less children than in the past, so I see your point. My “wiggle room” point should be taken in the context that with six billion-plus people, it’s impossible to expect a utopia where abortion can be eradicated, because society’s pro-ab mindset has evolved to the point where we’d be inundated by wahmbulances if Roe v. Wade would get overturned. I don’t lose sleep over the abortion issue because it will never be allowed to be revoked. What bugs me is the inch that was given that has now become a mile long.
Thanks for reading, Ulthwithian. You got me good there.
Wink.
All Planned Abortionhood’s facilities are strategically located with their eugenics ideals in mind.
These people are modern-day Josef Mengele practitioners.
So you’re telling us racism, eugenics, and weeding out the undesirables, the poor, the minorities, and the genetically inferior is good, because it spared women from the crushing burden of being a parent? Are you joking?
Spare us your hagiography. Sanger is the very embodiment of evil, and your support of her genetic purification ideals is no less despicable.
It always amazes me to sickness how the left can take the truth and twist it get what they think they want.
It would be horriffic, though, if they had control of who gets to own weapons and who doesn’t while they have this blind spot on their souls…
“Oh, and I was able to restrain myself from invoking the dreaded “G” word.”
What’s the dreaded ‘G’ word? Ground beef? Grunions? G-string?
Ends with “d,” and there’s an “o” somewhere in the middle. “Ground” was close, if you take some letters out. But don’t say it out loud, lest you sound like a religious zealot.
Gonad, how about that one? Freakin’ gonad.
Lol
I thought it might be “guilt.”
Shhh, GK. I told you not to say it and then you said it and now the giant will unleash his mighty power…
Naw, Roger, I don’t want anyone to feel guilty. There’s enough white guilt to fill a stadium this Thursday.
These people are disgusting. Obama is there hero. Obama is disgusting.
It is amazing to me that some Christians still insist that Obama is the right candidate. His stance on abortion coupled with his wishy washy attitude about other policies do not add up to a leader that Christians should accept.
The job of President of the United States is Above his “Character” Grade.Not to mention his “Intelligence” Grade.
“Obama’s Abortion Stance Disgraces Christians”
“the Catholic Church is against it”
Jesus dont like it, so you dont get it. Why do fundies, both christian and muslims, try to legislate their crazyness?
“the Catholic Church is against it”
Jesus dont like it, so you dont get it. Why do fundies, both christian and muslims, try to legislate their backwardness?
Jesus didn’t like murder, so we legislate that kind of “crazyness”.
Jesus certainly didnt, but God sure had a blood lust for innocents in the old testament
I didn’t think I had anything left to say tonight, But I have to make a brief comment on two comments,
Before one should throw out such generalizations about the God of the universe one should gain understanding of the God of the Bible and his essence.
If you are a believer then seeking understanding of God’s essence is the goal. If you are not a believer then you will never be able to fathom who God is and how he works his plan through people on earth.
I will supply two short thoughts about God’s essence which will be a start at answering these generalizations.
First, The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the old testament. Therefore Jesus does not say don’t kill only don’t murder; two different actions. Jesus was there during the flood, during wars, during Sodom and Gamorra, even with the Jews as they wandered. He has his place in bringing justice to sinners. Try not accepting Jesus as your savior and see what He says will happen to you.
Second, God has given us life; He can do with it as he pleases. His actions in the old testament were justified by his plan for His humans. Read about Jehu in I Kings and II Kings.
“There is none righteous,no, not one”
(Romans 3: 10)
We are the ones who should be thankful for our lives in the first place. God could have created the Universe without humans. We are only here because of His amazing grace. We are only saved by His grace alone.
As far as why we “fundies” like to legislate, because it is the right thing to do.
God Bless
But would these radical pro-aborts dare to hold a sign that says “We support the right to kill our own children!” ?
I thank God that abortion was not so popular in my parents day.
Ulthwithian, I went back and read your earlier comments, since I didn’t know where you stood. Thank you for the compliment, but watch the condescension, okay? I’d ask why my point (not argument) was inadequate for you, but I think it’s because I just isn’t smarts enuff.
Shoot. I told myself I wouldn’t be sarcastic.
The other points I made were based off the poster a protester was showing in the video. Indeed, another time.
Ah, what the hey —
diploidzygote. Funny word.I’d better go now. Bye-bye.
There’s just one small problem with your analogy: A person who has not yet passed the bar can always choose to do otherwise. As Ulth pointed out, a person is not called a lawyer until certain criteria (passing the bar) are met. Meeting those criteria is not a guarantee.
On the other hand, a zygote can only grow into an adult human being if it doesn’t die. It cannot become a chicken (and I don’t mean a coward), goat, lion, dinosaur, or tomato plant. It can only grow (not “become”) into an adult human because its entire nature is human.
The term “zygote” is a legitimate term to describe the level of maturity of a human being, just as fetus, newborn, toddler, child, pre-teen, teenager, young adult, adult, middle-aged, and geriatric all describe other levels of maturity of a human being. It seems entirely unreasonable to take it to mean “something other than human” because it’s entire nature—DNA, proteins, and other cellular structures of the entire organism—is human, and only human.
We need to protest the giving of driver’s licenses to parents.
Mothers should stay at home and take care of thier children and NOT be driving around higildy-pigildy killing their babies!
On August 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm, Rusty said:
And before the SG’s warning in 1964, people believed smoking was harmless as well. So what’s your point with this, except to say “hands-off” abortion in conducting objective research into the possible causes of breast cancer?
Over ninety-percent of the groups who publish such findings support abortion – OF COURSE THEY’RE GOING TO SAY THERE”S NO CORRELATION!
Anyone who seriously wants a cure for cancer, breast cancer in particular, will keep all possible contributing factors open to research and not dismiss anything out of hand, simply because it offends their politics if a link is discovered.
On August 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm, chapoutier said:
Not at all! This is the first “long volley” I’ve seen in a long while. So refreshing after watching lgm serve into the net day after day!
It is comforting to me to know Christianity has sustained through the ages. From it’s begininng more than 2000 years ago with Christ’s birth, death and resurrection. It is much greater than the naysayers and unbelievers of the 21st century. Through persecutions, killing of martyrs and being an unpopular way to believe and live – still it remains. Above all the political correctness of the 21st century, it still remains and will continue to be unconquerable.
So no takers for the “when does an unborn ________________ (fill in the blank with some term demonstrating human DNA) achieve the state of being human?”
Not surprised by the lack of answer from the pro-aborts. Heck, I feel silly just ASKING the blamed question.
The Muslim religion has had an answer to this question for a long time. At a level of 1.2 billion, they represent about 22% of the world’s population. They are the second largest religion in the world.
This is one of the sayings (Hadith) of the Prophet Mohammad that Muslim Scholars cite whenever there is an issue related to a fetus in the womb of the mother. According to this text, a fetus becomes fully human by the end of the first 120 days or the first four months or by the end of the 16th week of pregnancy
There should be no middle ground on this issue. Any doctor or medical profession who provides material support for or performs an abortion should immediately lose their license to practice.
I do not support but would be ok with government funds for condoms and other birth control but abortion should not be a state sponsored or sanctioned form of birth control. If you get pregnant and do not wish to keep the child, you must carry to term and then put the child up for adoption.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
So, you’re saying that because there are many Muslims, then what they believe is true?
And you think some arbitrary number plucked by their pedophile brigand prophet bears any weight?
No thank you. I’d prefer to rely on science.
LOL! Quite apt!
I’ve been doing sidewalk chaulking for years… highly effective! pro-aborts HATE IT, hA! check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrjW9NZo6Y
Ulth, if you are still reading this thread, I do want to respond to your post 292. I just haven’t had the time to give it the consideration it deserves.
Oh, I am with you athling, I think the Muslims are just another bunch of religious nuts trying to foster the statements of a long dead guy on the rest of us. I was just trying to help the poster with the question.
I am glad you believe in science and all the amazing discoveries that it has brought us. For example, the wonderful understanding of evolution is allowing us to begin to break down primitive belief systems based on the religious statments of long dead guys.
I must have missed that vote.
I also believe in reason, Rob, which is something you apparently lack.
You see, reason requires the use of the faculty of discrimination, which is an ability to discern differences in two or more things. You seem unable to see any differences among religions.
That tells me you lack reason (your poor grammar skills notwithstanding).
But then, I’ve never doubted that, considering the irrational and idiotic rants you’ve posted here on this blog over the past few months.
Be sure to take your meds.
You didn’t. It’s just made up by libs who think nothing of murdering the unborn.
I believe you athling! Your religion is the one true religion to emerge from the millions of years that man has been inventing and reinventing it!
(I kinda wish Thor, Odin, Loki, etc. were still around though, they were pretty cool….)
Rob,
First, you’re assuming that Christianity was made up by men. Since the argument you’re engaging in is over whether or not God exists, that is not a safe assertion because it is a conclusion which can only be reached after examining the evidence, not primary evidence upon which arguments can be based.
Second, you need to look closer at the science. For example, the very first cell had to have DNA in order to function. The most important portion of DNA is made up of molecules of 4 amino acids put together in a very specific order. (Proteins are built from the ordered DNA molecules, and the order must be perfect in order to form a working protein which won’t kill the organism.) Those 4 amino acids have a property known as chirality, or the twist—left or right—of the molecule. Amino acid molecules always form a 50-50 mix of left and right twist molecules when they’re formed. Every single molecule in the chain must have the same chirality or the entire DNA chain will be ruined. Therefore, in perfect conditions (only those 4 amino acids) the odds of any one molecule in the DNA chain being the right one to do its job is 1 in 8.
The odds against two molecules in a row being the right one is 1 in 64. (8×8) Getting 3 in a row right is 1 in 512. Getting just a 100 molecule strand of DNA right (the average length of a protein) is 1 in 2.04×10^90. There are less that 7,000 protein molecules which work for all forms of life combined. So lets round up and divide the odds of getting a single strand right by 7,000. That gives us 2.91×10^86 to 1 against getting even one 100 molecule chain of DNA right to form any working protein molecule. By comparison, I’ve seen estimates of the number of atoms in the entire universe which range from 10^70 to 10^80.
So the odds against even forming a usable 100 molecule strand of DNA in perfect conditions exceeds even the highest estimate of atoms in the universe. So what do you think the odds against forming the DNA strand of a one celled organism which scientists are looking at as a “common ancestor” is? It’s 15,000 molecules long.
And this is just a fraction of what is needed to form an actual functioning cell.
Go right ahead and think that Christians are stupid for thinking that life had to be created. After looking deeper at the science, I gotta say that I simply admire your massive faith. It far exceeds my own.
Ulth, hope you are still following this…
I think this is the real sticking point. You look at the issue as an either/or. Either .000000000000000000001 (you can add as many zeros to that as appropriate) is sufficient or 100% is. There are no gradations. Everything must be defined in quantum. I simply do not agree with this. I have been thinking about the law school analogy and it is weak for basically the reasons you have pointed out. But lets take another example. Someone who is sick with an illness. At what point is someone who is afflicted with a cold virus become “sick”? It can’t be when someone is exposed to the virus because many that carry it never develop sufficient symptoms such that they either recognize that they are sick nor would be considered sick by any standard measurement. But slowly, the virus spreads and at some point, when they are at some level symptomatic (i.e an actualization of the potential for symptoms), which may be hard to pinpoint exactly, we say “that guy’s got a cold.” Same way with getting over the illness. When do we go from being “sick” to “not sick”?
I have no issue with erring on the side of extreme caution in labeling someone “sick”, but that doesn’t mean that the second they carry a virus they can be deemed as such.
N.B. I in no way mean to imply that pregnancy is a “sickness” or a “virus” or to minimize the issue. The issue of life or death is quite obviously more serious than “sick/well”. I use the example only to emphasize my belief that it is not an either/or, binary issue and that there is nothing inherently wrong with accepting gradations.
Go right ahead and think that Christians are stupid for thinking that life had to be created. After looking deeper at the science, I gotta say that I simply admire your massive faith. It far exceeds my own.This has what has always confused me about religion, in all sincerity. Yes. I absolutely agree that the odds of life if you look at it from a statistical standpoint are very very very very low, if you are viewing it from just the perspective of life appearing on our planet. However… what happens when you take that dice and roll them millions, if not billions, of times across the universe on millions, if not billions of other planets that could presumably sustain life? Chances are somewhere, somehow, “life” comes up. I think that it is hard for us to appreciate this element of chance because we are on the inside looking out rather than on the outside looking in.
Sorry for the strike…meant to quote.
No problem.
I don’t see what referring to other planets in the universe gets you. We’re already comparing the odds against the formation of a subset of DNA to the number of atoms in the universe, including those making up the planets, suns, black holes, nebulas, comets, etc. In fact, it makes the odds worse because I assumed perfect conditions in calculating those odds. Most other planets are absolutely incapable of supporting life, so even if DNA could have somehow formed on those planets, it could not lead to anything else.
So far I haven’t even addressed the question of which (if any) religion is true, merely the question of “Is there an intelligence behind the existence of life?” Some of the evidence which can be examined to figure out if a religion is true includes historical accuracy of claims, actual demonstrations of the ability to supersede physical laws, accuracy of statements about “how things are” before scientific knowledge existed, accurate prophecy of future events, etc.
Couple of points: you assume that life must develop as we know it to have developed on Earth, i.e, carbon-based and heavily reliant on certain climatic parameters and dependent on H2o. That is, of course, how we have determined how our life developed, but it is certainly wrong to assume that that is the ONLY way. Again, I think it comes down to the whole “inside looking out” perspective.
Second, I would like, as a point of procedure, to see the source of your stats with respect to odds of amino acids, etc, etc, etc…the number of atoms in the universe, etc…
Third, i would say that you are conceding the point that it is possible it is a matter of chance. Perhaps unlikely chance, but still there. And of course the only way we could be arguing this issue one way or the other is if we happened to hit the right roll of the dice and came into existence. Which would seem to skew our perception as to whether or not our existence was a matter of chance in the first place.
Fourth, you cite the number of atoms in the universe as proof. Have you multiplied that apparently set number over the number of chances presented over eons and eons? Of course if you need to roll two sixes in a roll, if you do it once, your chance is one in 36 for one roll with one set of dice. But if you keep rolling millions and millions and millions of times with millions and millions and millions of sets of dice, the odds get a bit better, don’t they?
True. But we are asking the question of how life on this planet appeared. We are stuck with the constraints of how observable life works.
Sure. When I looked for the number of atoms in the universe before, I had only done a quick search. I just did another Google search and found others which were consistent with my earlier search, including this one.
Here is a page which is part of a larger discussion of how DNA works. This page discusses the role of DNA in creating proteins. It also looks like I need to make a few corrections. (I am still learning all the time.) DNA is made up of 4 nucleotides, not 4 amino acids, which are what proteins are built from, and chirality is a feature of amino acids, but not mentioned in relation to nucleotides.
So that means we need to update the math like this:
Odds against a single correct molecule in a particular position: 1 in 4
Odds against 2 correct molecules in a row: 1 in 16 (4 x 4)
Odds against 3 correct molecules in a row: 1 in 64 (4 x 4 x 4)
Odds against 100 correct molecules in a row: 1 in 1.61×10^60
Okay, that’s less than the number of atoms in the universe. But more new information (to me) from the howstuffworks page is that 3 nucleotides are needed to specify which of 20 possible amino acids are to be used in each position. (This is base 4 numbering, a concept I am very familiar with as a computer programmer.) It also states that the number of nucleotides needed to form a complete protein molecule ranges from 300 to 3,000. If we take the lower number, that is 1 in 4^300, or 4.15×10^180. And divided by the 7,000 possible proteins (erring on the side of naturalistic chance) gives us 5.93×10^176.
Here is how I check the calculations of the first two levels for myself on a sheet of paper:
1
2
3
4
1 1 : 2 1 : 3 1 : 4 1
1 2 : 2 2 : 3 2 : 4 2
1 3 : 2 3 : 3 3 : 4 3
1 4 : 2 4 : 3 4 : 4 4
We’re looking for a single answer in these cells at this point. (Multiple possibilities is done later.) This quick example is enough to demonstrate that exponential multiplication is the correct way to calculate the odds.
Not exactly. Materialists assume that chance is the only possibility. I think it is entirely appropriate to look at their assumptions directly to keep the argument simple. And as a philosophy of science it’s appropriate to look for natural laws first, only looking for alternate explanations if natural laws and material explanations have been thoroughly ruled out.
In this instance the case is easily strong enough to work entirely within materialist’s assumptions to show that even a fraction of what is needed occurring naturally is statistically impossible.
Not yet, but that’s a good idea. According to this web page the estimated age of the universe stands at 13.73 billion years plus or minus 112 million years. For the sake of simplification, let’s round that up to 15 billion, then lets convert it to seconds to see how many chances we would have to create a 300 molecule strand of DNA if every atom in the universe made an attempt every second since the big bang.
There are 86,400 seconds in a day (60 x 60 x 24). We’ll say a year is 365.25 days, giving us 31,557,600 seconds in a year. Over 15 billion years that would be 4.73×10^14 seconds. Multiplied times the high side estimate of 10^80 atoms gives a total number of opportunities of 4.73×10^97.
In case you hadn’t noticed, 5.93×10^176 is still an order of magnitude greater than 4.73×10^97. Just for kicks, I divided the odds against by the atoms per second number. The odds against accidentally creating the correct strand of DNA necessary to produce a mythical simplest protein (assuming every protein is as simple as the simplest) under perfect conditions exceeds the number of atoms in the universe times a generous count of the seconds in the universe by a factor of 1.25×10^79.
Does it seem at all reasonable to you that this could have happened by chance?
It would be intersting to see what the next few thousand years produce in the way of religion though, huh?
Mary Shelly called her creator DOCTOR FRANKENSTEIN. Wouldn’t it be cool if in a thousand years the religious folk are using THAT book as some sort of bible? And a new Jim Jones leading Kool-Aid drinkers to pray to Frankenstein! lol
Rob – God is in His heavens! That’s all I know and that is good enough. We humans, religious or not, do worry about things that don’t matter and we certainly can muddy up a good thing..but He remains constant through the ages of ages. That is not determined by someone’s faith or lack thereof..it just is.
Rob,
Yes, a lot of people believe just about anything. Heck, we’ve got people believing an obviously false science fiction story as true. (That’s scientism.)
But just because there are large numbers of false answers does not mean there is not a correct answer. How many wrong answers are there to 2+2? An infinite number. How many right answers are there? Just 1.
There is objective criteria we can use to test the answers to 2+2 to determine if the answer is correct. Likewise, we can test religious claims to determine if they are correct. (See my previous answer to chap for a list of criteria.) Your example of Doctor Frankenstein would fail the historical accuracy test. The Bible does not.
Correction: (That’s Scientology.)
Doh!
Getting back to the main topic:
You keep going back to the approach of asking how many cells are necessary before that group of cells becomes a human being. That’s a classic problem known as a Sorites Paradox. The classical example of this problem is, how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?
Take a look at the link to see why it has been such a debated question over the centuries. The problem which has lead to such extensive debates is that the answer is incredibly vague. You cannot draw a simple line between a heap and not a heap.
That is why such an approach is useless in defining laws to protect the life of the unborn. There is no clear and obvious dividing line when you take a Sorites Paradox approach to defining human life. That is why atheling pointed out that choosing something like 12 weeks is arbitrary. It’s just picking a point in the middle of the Sorites Zone when someone else can pick a different line in the same zone. (BTW, Obama’s line seems to be that if the baby hasn’t been born when the abortion has been started, then it’s fair game. Peter Singer, on the other hand, wants to draw the line at 1 year old.)
On the other hand, there is one thing which is absolutely certain in the question of whether or not it is a heap of sand: You have sand. If you remove all the sand from a heap of sand, you wind up with zero grains in your “heap.”
The same is true of a zygote. If you remove all the human cells from the organism, you wind up with zero cells. That is why it is reasonable to identify even the single cell immediately after conception as a human being. The entire organism is made up of human cells.
Even if you can’t clearly define a point where you have a fully formed human being (a “person”), you can easily identify a point where an entire organism consisting of human cells comes into being.
I don’t think a precise demarcation is necessary. We can establish policy to err on the side of caution while still preserving the ability for women to abort pregnancies very early on. If you wait too long, sorry. Out of luck.
Is 12 weeks arbitrary? In a way, but that arbitrariness is irrelevant if it is accepted that the fetus at that point can not possibly be considered a person.
That’s a mighty big if.
Since when is “human rights” dependent on personhood? I thought the whole reason we worked our way to that term is because the definition of “person” had been abused throughout history to justify slavery, murder, theft and any other abuse of other humans you can think of. The point is that to avoid such abuses, it is necessary to recognize that those rights apply to every human being simply because they’re a human.
Nope. You cannot “err on the side of caution” while still destroying an organism which is made up entirely of human cells, even if the structures formed by those cells are immature. (BTW, do you realize that at 12 weeks, there has been a heartbeat for 9 weeks and brain activity for 4?) That is “erring on the side of aggression.”
“Erring on the side of caution” means “Okay, we’re not sure if it’s a full human being, but it could be, so let’s not take the risk that we’re killing a human being.” As I’ve been careful pointed out, it is a 100% human organism, therefore it is a human being. Since it is a human being, then why shouldn’t we err on the side of treating it as owning inherent human rights.
EWTH,
If all you have said is the case, then why does the Pro-life side not rail just as vehemently against the morning after pill or IUDs? According to your logic there is absolutely no difference between using an IUD and killing a 1 year old baby, or an adult for that matter.
We do. Don’t you remember the fight against RU-486?
No. You guys really don’t. And RU-486 is different in that its main use was a chemical alternative to a regular abortion. It can also be used as emergency contraception, but that is not its main purpose nor what pro-lifers were upset about.
RU-486 was fought because the effect is the same: a human being dies. Yes, the morning after pill and IUDs end the life of a human.
Even so, what does that have to do with whether or not abortion is wrong? Just because you’re busy fighting one battle (against more brazen and obvious forms of abortion) doesn’t mean that there are not problems in other areas which need to be addressed eventually.
Think of bridge maintenance. There are many bridges in the U.S. which need to be fixed because they’ve decayed over the years. Just because the work crew is busy working the most critical bridge at the moment does not mean that other bridges don’t need to be repaired. Would you claim that a rusted old bridge is perfect simply because no one is working on it yet?
Do you understand the argument that a human is a human is a human, no matter what level of maturity it is at? Do you understand the concept of inherent human rights?
Aren’t they forms of abortion? You make no distinction between the zygote and the fully developed baby when you rely solely on the existence of human DNA and potentiality, so the only conclusion is that an IUD is just as heinous as infanticide. So your bridge analogy is inapt. According to you each bridge is equally as critical.
No, no, no! The bridge analogy applies to which battle is currently being fought due to limited resources, not the level of development.
Besides, once abortion is outlawed, then it becomes possible to deal with other abortifactants by simply showing that they cause abortions. Trying to argue as you suggest would be like trying to swat a fly while ignoring the lion rushing at you. Only a fool would ignore the most obvious and urgent problems to chase after details which can easily be cleaned up once the primary problem has been solved.
I repeat: Do you understand the argument that a human is a human is a human, no matter what level of maturity it is at? Do you understand the concept of inherent human rights?
Why is the murder of a one day old fetus (which apparently constitutes only a fly or a less broken bridge) more urgent than the abortion of a 12 week old fetus (the rushing lion or a bridge on the verge of collapse)? Why is any distinction being made by the pro-life group at all?
I understand completely, but what we are debating here is exactly when or how a zygote develops into a fetus and then into a human. You can’t really argue about your question above until we resolve that fundamental definitional issue.
Is a “zygote” made up of human cells?
Yes, a zygote is made of human cells. but you are avoiding my question. Is it exactly morally equivalent to kill a zygote as it is a 12 week old fetus or a a one year old baby or a 50 year old adult?
Then it is human. Is it morally okay to kill a human for any reason other than as a just punishment for a crime?
My answer should be obvious.
So killing a zygote is the moral equivalent of killing a baby already born?
If so, I still do not understand why the pro life movement does not fight just as vehemently against the morning after pill and IUDs. Why are there no protests with people holding pictures of aborted single cell organisms outside of pharmacies that dispense these products?
What is your answer? Is it morally okay to kill a human for any reason other than as a just punishment for a crime?
Sure. Self defense is one. In war is another. If you are trying to get me to say that a zygote is a human life you will not succeed. I do not believe that. But you clearly do, so will you kindly respond to my question.
And that is precisely why pro-lifers don’t tend to focus less on less obvious instances of abortion. It is far easier to show that the unborn are human when some hard-hearted cretin is causing a beating heart and brainwaves to stop so he can suck body parts, complete with fingers and toes out of what should be the safest place on earth: a mother’s womb.
I repeat, it’s not lesser murder to kill a less advanced human being, just harder to show, as you have just proved in spades.
What I don’t get is why you are so dead set on holding on to your Sorites Paradox, nailing jello to a wall, definition of “person” come hell or high water in spite of the solid scientific evidence that they are human (not fish, fowl, or plant) from the very moment of conception. Why are you so hardened that you insist on erring on the side of destruction rather than the side of caution?
So you consider women who use IUDs to be murderers?
Are you kidding? Safe? Do you know how many pregnancies are miscarried? Often without the woman ever realizing they were pregnant at all? But I guess when that happens, it was all part of some bigger plan or something.
Well, I don’t insist on anything. I have never had an abortion. I just leave possible the option for others to do so.
Hopefully you will never find yourself in a situation where someone strips you of your human rights by defining you as a “non-person.” If that ever happens though, then maybe you will understand why I oppose it so vehemently.
Obviously, continuing to point out facts to you is a waste of time. It’s clear that you don’t accept the concept that human rights belong to human beings. I’m done here.
Been fun. Thanks.