« Burned Out Sunday | Main | Taking Jesus Seriously »

May 14, 2007

Comments

Rudy said in the interview, "But I also believe that in a society like ours, where people have very, very different consciences about this, it's best for us to respect each other's differences and allow for choice."

I wonder if he really believes this when it comes to crimes such as rape, murder, and theft. Some people have different consciences about these. Should we then be indifferent and respect those ideas and "allow for choice?"

What a horrible argument for abortion rights. Even pro-abortion rights activists have to see how wildly inconsistent this view is when taken to its logical conclusion.

I was very disappointed to, Melinda, that Rudy never answered the "Why?" question. Hence why he will never get my vote.

Of course, there is no recourse for anyone that opposes abortion but believes others have thier own right to determine. I know the law allows for such lunacy. One cannot oppose taking a life buut making an exception of someone else does it. The only consistent position is the one that says no to abortion in every case except the LIFE (not health) of the mother. No amount of dancing will change that, and speaks to just how depraved a human being can be that would convince herself or another that abortion is okay.

"If the unborn isn't human, then no justification for abortion is necessary and there's no reason to be personally against it."

Agreed and there is no evidence possible that doesn't involve theological dogma that can justify legal personhood for a fertilized egg. Also, I don't believe that "human" is a meaningful distinction. perhaps the "being" or "person" was left off inadvertingly.

All we can objectively know is that viability occurs around 21 - 24 weeks.

"Most Americans aren't comfortable with legal abortion in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason."

As a matter of fact, the number of abortions after 24 weeks is de minimus and only 1% at 21 weeks and after.

About 90% occur in the first 12 weeks. A third of the abortions are performed on women aged 20 - 24.

It is true that most Americans are uncomfortable with post viability abortions but then those basically don't happen. Most Americans are also opposed to restricting abortion in the first 13 weeks.


As usual Alan, you have avoided the issue altogther. You are the one that needs to give reason for that ludicrous assertion that there is a distinction between persons and humand and beings etc. There is no avoidance of those terms in prolife speech because the terms are all interchangeable. Also, your arbitrary definition of viability is nonsensical. Quadrapalegics are not viable in the same way that many preborns are. Shall we kill them? You are not viable without food, water etc. To consign a preborn to non viability when they are exactly as viable as a preborn is supposed to be is to seek justification for the death sentence you pronounce on those that cannot defend themselves, hence, my previous description of your worldview as barbarous applies all the more.

You are a threat to civilized people, and I can only be grateful that you are not in the position to promulgate the kind of atheistic wholesale genocide that easily prevails and is the logical end of your perversion.

Patrick said: "You are a threat to civilized people,"

This is a little overblown. Perhaps some of Alan's ideas might be characterized that way but not him personally.

His ideas may also be a threat to his own soul. In a way, like Giuliani, Alan can't give a good reason (that I have seen yet) for abortion at any stage to be bad, outside of his personal opinion.

I appreciate the input William, but I do disagree. I have the testimony of nearly 40 million human beings killed in the womb. People that will not reason through the arguments are more than a threat to their own soul - they help shape pilicy that legitimizes mass murder for political advantage, economic security, or just plain promiscuous, immoral living.

It is not ideas that have led to millions of deaths. It is people acting on those ideas, and I charge Alan and those that share his views on abortion with the dehumanizing of global humanity, and therefore uncivilized. People that hold a functional view of other human beings are uncivilized, despite their education or economic status. And thereofore, Alan is uncivilized.

Patrick,

To the extent that you characterize Alan as a person, your statement is a judgment that, I think, goes too far. I do agree with you about the consequences.

There is a fine line between condemning an individual and condemning their beliefs. I try to uphold this: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose him, if God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

That verse is indeed a key one in my own ministry. I do not see how the verse applies here, though. If A person engages in homosexaulity, they are homsexual. If a person lies, they are a liar. If a person acts uncivilized they are.....?

I do not have the authority to condemn, but I am uncertain as to the meaning you are applying to that. Surely in scripture, we see the apostles and Jesus himself accusing people of being hypocrites, or of being caught up in the bonds of iniquity. Paul turned one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

You are also applying a specifically salvific exhortaion to perhaps an overly broad range of categories. Alan deserves a moral rebuke, as do any that continue to make the kinds of responses he does to the pro life position. Either that, or Alan is to be disngaged on the issue until he reponds with more than subjective emoting and superficiality.

Are you further suggesting that Alan has been taken captive by the devil? Is that something you want to say to him? Would that be condemning? You see my point?

I appreciate your manner. I think there are times when brute honesty is appopriate.

"Are you further suggesting that Alan has been taken captive by the devil? "

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA (head spins, green slime everywhere)

Way harsh Patrick.

"Also, your arbitrary definition of viability is nonsensical."

Again, I assume too much. "Viability", when used in the context in which I used it, means the lungs having developed sufficiently. This is typically in the 21st to 24th week. Until the technology changes that appears to be a hard line. All the sophistry in the world won't change that simple fact and attempting to ignore science, law, and history with the mere turn of a phrase like "...they are exactly as viable as a preborn is supposed to be..." is simply sophistry.

This is why attempting to translate theology into public policy is so problematic. Politics in a free society usually means compromise and those who believe as Patrick do are unable to do that.

Gosh William, thanks, I guess.

More later.

Patrick,

I agree with you in general. My focus on posting this scripture was to illustrate character in the servant of the Lord, which I see as the main point of the passage. It was not meant to suggest anything in particular about Alan.

I think it was prompted by my general concern with the tendency on a lot of blogs to descend into ad hominem attacks.

It occurred to me that perhaps that was how Alan might perceive your words.

Your last post explains the "Why?" behind your words. I think that it is a productive step in the conversation.

Alan,
there are many people on lung machines and respirators -are they viable? No, sir, it is your definition that collapses into sophistry, yeah absurdity. Many human beings, persons etc. would fall into your definition of non viable and therefore we can kill them with impugnity. YOU need to explain why that is different, without resorting to adding various new strata of requirements as your position is exposed as increasingly suspect and fallacious. Furthermore, science is on my side, not yours. Neither is history on your side and the law is clearly on the side of life despite short term secular progressive attempts to usurp constitutional protection and subject it to economic and promiscuos whim. By the way - you brought God into the discussion not me.

Politics in a free society means whatever those in power make it to be. Consistent with your anti supernaturalism though, Leviathan is your only hope - until of course it collapses into anarchy (see recent protests in France when the liberal lost for a tatse of what is coming by those that hold your perspective).

Alan the Barbarian - that's funny. Or is it Linda Blair?

"As a matter of fact, the number of abortions after 24 weeks is de minimus and only 1% at 21 weeks and after."

Only 1% of 1.5 million per year? 15000 is a small number?

Good work Daniel - of course that does not matter to those that find preborn life an interruption to thier self centered existence - but thanks for pointing it out anyway!

"There is no evidence possible that doesn't involve theological dogma that can justify legal personhood for a fertilized egg."

You claim to have understanding. Can you explain the evidence that justifies legal personhood for yourself?

"Also, I don't believe that 'human' is a meaningful distinction. perhaps the 'being' or 'person' was left off inadvertingly."

This website's main argument -- which you know very well -- is that personhood is an essential part of humanity. IF a thing is human, and living, and an individual organism, THEN you are to be treated as a person. The three components of this definition are easily described by tests: "human" can be tested genetically or behaviorally; "living" and "individual organism" are both behavioral. (To clarify briefly, the intent of "individual organism" is to allow myself and yourself to qualify, each of a pair of twins to qualify, but my arm to fail.)

"All we can objectively know is that viability occurs around 21 - 24 weeks."

Why is this objective? It seems relative to our current state of technology -- and furthermore, it seems by its nature irrelevant to the debate. We're asking whether _any_ fetus may be actively killed, not whether some may be transplanted outside of the womb.

A so-called "nonviable" fetus will live perfectly well if (essentially) ignored. How is that nonviable? The only way the fetus will die is if it's forcibly extracted from its natural environment. By this definition we're all nonviable, because we don't have enough technology to survive for any sustained amount of time in (for example) the vacuum of space.

-Billy

Daniel, about 5 or 6 % of the abortions in the U. S. are due to health reasons. I get the impression that most, if not all, of the post viability abortions are medically indicated.

Billy, 21 - 24 weeks are the current limit and that seems a hard limit for a while.

We should probably kick this can down the road as it cycles off soon.

The comments to this entry are closed.