tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post963399797886422657..comments2024-03-25T04:46:46.000-04:00Comments on Casting Pearls Before Swine: One QuestionMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-90747450463229826002008-08-01T00:41:00.000-04:002008-08-01T00:41:00.000-04:00A few stories doesn't justify the abortion of 1.5 ...A few stories doesn't justify the abortion of 1.5 million babies a year. The health of the mother is in danger less than 2% of the time. I don't know about the health of the baby. But I do know that Mongoloid children are quickly disappearing in our society. Brings back memories of the Master Race. Also, black babies are aborted at three times the rate of white babies. Something suspicious there.Lone Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13278448546799358207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-88237199817293989912008-08-01T00:38:00.000-04:002008-08-01T00:38:00.000-04:00Should Jim still be reading,"Then under "original ...Should Jim still be reading,<BR/><BR/><I>"Then under "original intent" a person is a born person. End of argument."</I><BR/><BR/>Bad conclusion. The point is that simply because they had "adults" in mind, and likely adult men, it didn't mean that they did not believe any other woman or child was not endowed with the right, and it's doubtful that these men of honor and character would have considered the unborn as less than worthy and not endowed by their Creator with the same rights. It's ludicrous to think otherwise.<BR/><BR/>I also believe that if you were to research the issue, you'd find that those "back alley" abortions were extremely rare. But to pretend it was common helps with the feminist pro-abortion argument. Generally the reason any woman subjected herself to such risks was to prevent family, friends and neighbors from knowing what a slut she was.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-80516695118716882962008-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:002008-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:00Tonto,Abortion is indeed used as birth control. P...Tonto,<BR/><BR/>Abortion is indeed used as birth control. Planned Parenthood is all about abortion as birth control. Even with your examples, we're still talking about a percentage likely around 95% or better that are simply birth control. This is what conservatives are talking about, not total ban with no abortion ever no matter what. It's never been so.<BR/><BR/>Typically, liberals always bring up rape and incest, along with death of the mother as reasons to keep abortion in place. But when those areas are conceded, they still won't go along with a ban on all others. (Plus they ususally go with the ambiguous "health of the mother" rather than life of the mother) Birth control is a major desire of those who wish to keep it legal.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-72056749880481301222008-07-31T14:21:00.000-04:002008-07-31T14:21:00.000-04:00Yeah those are real. I have had a friend and a sis...Yeah those are real. I have had a friend and a sister in law both rushed to the emergency for a tubal pregnancy which ended in an abortion. One knew she was pregnant and wanted the baby. It would have been their second kid together. The other had no idea. She was using an IUD which can cause a tubal pregnancy.<BR/><BR/>So in the old days say 70 years ago I guess those women would have just died unnecessarily leaving behind their other young children without a mother.<BR/><BR/>And I also had a frined which made me really see that abortion under certain circumstances should be left to the doctor and her and her husband. My friend went at 5 months to find out the sex of her baby and check the organs. They told her it was a girl and her husband and her were crying and then they looked again and the baby had not developed a brain.<BR/><BR/>Her only choices were to carry the baby another 20 WEEKS and then let her die slowly over a day or so I guess or terminate now. She thought about it over the weekend and their grief was so bad she went ahead and ended the pregnancy. She couldn't handle it. It was her first pregnancy as a newly married couple. I couldn't judge her for what she did. There was no good solution to this horrible predicament. <BR/><BR/>What is the right thing to do?<BR/><BR/>A client recently told me a story about a coworker he hates because she let her baby suffer. He said she was told her baby woud die at birth and she could terminate at 6 months. She didn't and carried her baby to term and took her regular maternity leave. But told everyone. The baby took two weeks to die. Basically it was really horrible from what he described and then the baby died and she wanted sympathy and he had none for her because he thought it was horrible she DIDN't have the abortion before the baby was born.<BR/><BR/>I understood why she didn't but I also understood why my friend chose to abort and I don't think anyone is more right than the other in this situation so they should be able to choose.<BR/><BR/>Good grief we shoot a wounded cow or horse rather than watch it suffer!<BR/><BR/>Having said that these instances are so rare I am sure if abortion only occurred in these cases we would go from the millions each year down to a few hundred thousand if that.<BR/><BR/>Like with the death penalty or justifiable homicide it needs its limitations.<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone could think this is a form of birth control although the numbers of abortions suggest otherwise sadly.Tontohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910035272961769212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-1288424272096025802008-07-31T11:36:00.000-04:002008-07-31T11:36:00.000-04:00Tonto, out of my respect for you, I will offer one...Tonto, out of my respect for you, I will offer one concession. I would approve of abortion only to save the physical life of the mother. <BR/><BR/>However, that necessity is so rare it is nearly non-existent.<BR/><BR/>I believe former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, There is never a medical reason for abortion." I may have either the quotation or the quoter wrong, but I know some expert said something very close to that, though he may have been referring to partial birth abortion. <BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, Abortions performed to save the physical life of the mother would be my only exception to my conviction that abortion is morally wrong.<BR/><BR/>My ex-wife claimed she had a tubal pregnancy once. She said she had to have an abortion to save her life then, but I don't know how much of her story is true, and how much is exxageration.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-92059569696716340232008-07-31T11:23:00.000-04:002008-07-31T11:23:00.000-04:00But Mark you can NOT possibly believe that there i...But Mark you can NOT possibly believe that there is no reason ever to have an abortion under any circumstances legally?? That would make no sense either since we know there are times when we think it is ok to kill/murder a walking around person.<BR/><BR/>Also I think the consensus is s fetus is not "person" with rights until it is "viable" and that up to now with technology is not able to happen until 25 weeks gestation. I know because I had one around then.<BR/><BR/>So you kill a pregnant lady at 8 months it is two murders because the baby has rights because the fetus/baby is viable and would be able to live and breathe on its own if it were born at the moment. However you still cannot use the carpool lane if you are 8 months pregnant!! :)<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with abortion under certain cirucmstnaces...I think that is what Jim is saying too...I DO have a problem with an "unfettered right" to abortion and what freaks out liberals is that conservatives WANT NO ABORTIONS AT ALL and we know that is unsafe...and what freaks me out about liberals is that they want UNLIMITED abortions under any cirucmstances and that is just sick.Tontohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910035272961769212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-68299782681881304622008-07-31T10:05:00.000-04:002008-07-31T10:05:00.000-04:00I have real problems with the "well, we don't know...I have real problems with the "well, we don't know when it becomes a person" argument. If you don't know when it becomes a baby (as if this is a magical transformation) don't you think we should stop killing them at least until we do. If there is even the slightest chance that an abortion is murder, it should be stopped immediately. And it is murder, but those who cling so stringently to the idea that it's not really a person would have us believe that because we don't know when life begins, it is okay to take it at any stage. I say, when in doubt, don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-74480255780831164652008-07-31T02:08:00.000-04:002008-07-31T02:08:00.000-04:00Jim, (sigh) You say, "I believe a fetus is not a b...Jim, (sigh) You say, "I believe a fetus is not a baby. A baby is a person. A fetus is not a person."<BR/><BR/>I say you are wrong, and my post provides evidence that supports my view. Where's yours?<BR/><BR/>Man, if you're really almost 60 years old, you surely haven't learned much in your years. Most Liberals have outgrown Liberalism by that age.<BR/><BR/>Ok, so there will always be abortions. Maybe. But is that, in your mind, really an acceptable reason to kill as many babies for the sake of convienince as you want to? <BR/><BR/>That's like saying there will always be murder so we might as well legalize it. That is STUPID logic. In fact, that is exactly what the pro-abortionists are saying. Only instead of using the word "murder" they are using the word "abortion". There really is no difference between murder and abortion, except in murder, sometimes the victim is a despicable less than human. The unborn innocent baby is ALWAYS innocent. If anything, abortion is worse than murder.<BR/><BR/>I will never accept the argument that you can hate the abortion but support a woman's choice. That is playing semantics. If you think it's ok for a woman to decide to kill her baby, then you support the killing of the baby. <BR/><BR/>And then, I just gave you proof from the horse's mouth that even evolutionists don't believe their own theories, but you chose to ignore that.<BR/><BR/>So, from now on, I choose to ignore you. I don't tolerate stupidity in my comments for very long. You have outlasted your welcome.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-77211290213229397802008-07-31T00:30:00.000-04:002008-07-31T00:30:00.000-04:00I answered the question, but it's moot. I believe...I answered the question, but it's moot. I believe a fetus is not a baby. A baby is a person. A fetus is not a person. To Antonin Scalia, a fetus is not a person.<BR/><BR/>There will ALWAYS be abortions. There always have been and there always will be. The question in my mind is will they be safe? If they are legal, they will be safe. If they are not legal they will not be safe. People who would force women to have unsafe abortions are mother killers.<BR/><BR/>Mark I have no problem with my Christian beliefs. I've never said it's just fine to abort fetuses. But it's not just fine to allow pregnant women to die from unsafe abortions either.<BR/><BR/>The entire scientific community recognizes that evolution has and does occur. It is fact. You obviously are hung up on the word "theory" because you don't know the meaning of the word. I've provided that meaning in an earlier post.<BR/><BR/>You think it's a ridiculous "theory"? You can't argue with fact unless your world view simply will not allow you to recognize fact.<BR/><BR/>Marshall said, "I would agree that at the time it was written, they had "born" people in mind, but not as a conscious thing, but as more of a routine thing."<BR/><BR/>Then under "original intent" a person is a born person. End of argument.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-29717581691687139442008-07-30T20:25:00.000-04:002008-07-30T20:25:00.000-04:00You notice how the usual suspects haven't been act...You notice how the usual suspects haven't been active in this thread?Lone Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13278448546799358207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-567391290126291252008-07-30T18:22:00.000-04:002008-07-30T18:22:00.000-04:00I have not heard any serious pro-choicer assert a ...I have not heard any serious pro-choicer assert a fetus is not a human. Rather, the argument is that a fetus-human is not the same as a person-human, and therefore must subjugate its right to life to the decisions of the person-human who cares for it.<BR/><BR/>In other words, a fetus might be human, but it's not a person. <BR/><BR/>But that assertion requires one to define what makes a person a person. And that's where the difficulty arises. Every single definition I have heard which excludes a fetus also excludes living, breathing, obviously-a-person, people.<BR/><BR/>Honest pro-choicers, like Peter Singer, understand this and accept the fact that their definition makes it ok to kill infants, toddlers, the handicapped, and the elderly. Most people see this is the end result of pro-choice ideology and recoil at it's baseness. But some don't.<BR/><BR/>And these I think fall into one or more of the following groups:<BR/><BR/>-Too loyal to their political party <BR/><BR/>-Too married to old-school feminism<BR/><BR/>-Too anti-religious<BR/><BR/>-Too welfare state oriented, and don't know the real facts about who is getting abortions.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-8876486476604820892008-07-30T15:27:00.000-04:002008-07-30T15:27:00.000-04:00Whether it be Dredd Scott or Roe v Wade, the Democ...Whether it be Dredd Scott or Roe v Wade, the Democrats are notorious for classifying certain people as non-human. Every time there is a moral decision to be made in this country, the left comes down on exactly the wrong side of the fence.Lone Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13278448546799358207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-51699624905611043262008-07-30T09:15:00.000-04:002008-07-30T09:15:00.000-04:00Jim, you say, "There is little argument that the p...Jim, you say, "There is little argument that the product of conception is human, that it is life."<BR/><BR/>If you agree, why do you revert to the argument that it's a fetus, not a baby?<BR/><BR/>Again, the question is: <BR/><BR/>When is it not a living human being? <BR/><BR/>You failed to answer that question, and there is a good reason for that: <BR/><BR/>YOU CAN'T.<BR/><BR/>Hmmm...you say you are a devout Christian yet you believe the ridiculous theory of evolution is fact, and you believe God would want us to kill babies in the womb, effectively taking the job of God out of His hands. How do you reconcile this humanistic idea of God with your Christian beliefs?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-39490241170758317852008-07-30T01:06:00.000-04:002008-07-30T01:06:00.000-04:00Jim,It seems you suffer from the common malady amo...Jim,<BR/><BR/>It seems you suffer from the common malady amongst the left, which is the strange belief that we hold certain people as infallible. This is not the case, unless we're talking about Jesus Christ. Scalia is not Jesus, so he's entitled to be wrong now and again. That I've never seen him wrong until your quote is mere coincidence. <BR/><BR/>He believes the Constitution talks about walking around people. I'd like to see him expound upon that to see how he arrived at it. I would agree that at the time it was written, they had "born" people in mind, but not as a conscious thing, but as more of a routine thing. I doubt anyone would consider the unborn except in a discussion or debate <I>about</I> the unborn. But that doesn't mean that they are not a part of mankind with equal worth. It simply isn't natural to think of them in each and every discussion regarding mankind or humanity. <BR/><BR/>The facts are plain. We are each of us created with the equipment to reproduce. The act of intercourse is designed for procreation. The pleasure we experience is designed both to insure that we do it at all, and that we know when we've executed the process to it's completion. Whatever results from our coupling is also by design and the whole process is to produce another human being. It can't be anything else no matter how microscopic it is initially. There's no other way to produce another human being, and one can't be bigger at that stage of development. Despite Mark's choice of words and phrases, <B>there is no argument!</B> It <B>is</B> a person.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-8867611574124895952008-07-30T00:22:00.000-04:002008-07-30T00:22:00.000-04:00Well, Jim, since you seem to be the lone voice cry...Well, Jim, since you seem to be the lone voice crying in the wilderness here for the right of a woman to kill what you admit is alive, and human, as long as she times it correctly...<BR/><BR/><B>Since</B> the all-powerful Supreme Court has snatched my Right to vote my conscience on the matter from me, and <B>since</B> women are going to murder their children no matter what I think, and <B>since</B> some on the other side of the issue refuse to acknowledge that what is a being, and is human is actually a human being...<BR/><BR/>Conservatives don't abort their children. (Not in large numbers, anyway.)<BR/><BR/>And if my political adversaries want to self-eliminate, then who am I to stand in their way?<BR/><BR/>If not for Row V. Wade, do you think that there might have been 400,000 more Democrat Voters in Florida in 2000? Voters raised in good Liberal households and brought up with good Liberal values who would have voted for the Democrat that year?<BR/><BR/>What do you think that the Nationwide effect of all of those children who would have been raised in households with Liberal values going to the polls in 2000 to vote for AlGore would have been?<BR/><BR/>So Congratulations! You guys won! Open Season on un-born human living tissue masses which would, if left alone, one day become taxpaying Citizens.<BR/><BR/>If not for Row v. Wade, there would have been no President George W. Bush, no war in Iraq, and Global Warming? Climate Change? (What are we calling the Enviro-scam these days?) would simply be a footnote in History, a near miss, cleverly averted by an intelligent, progressive, and forward thinking American Electorate...<BR/><BR/>...Who were unfortunate enough to be "un-born" when Row v. Wade became the Law of the Land by Judicial fiat. <BR/><BR/>Keep killing your children, Libs.<BR/><BR/>We'll keep raising ours.<BR/><BR/>Until we out-number you seven to one, and your stupidity can be eliminated once and for all from Public Policy.tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-69043244493570974182008-07-30T00:17:00.000-04:002008-07-30T00:17:00.000-04:00Mark, nice attempt to sidestep my point. I have s...Mark, nice attempt to sidestep my point. I have stated my opinion many times. Many times. But here it is again:<BR/><BR/>I think abortion is regretable. I wish it didn't happen, but it does and when it does, it should be safe where the pregnant woman is concerned.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that an abortion kills a baby. It kills a fetus. To me it is a difference that matters. I don't believe that contraceptives kill babies. Some of you apparently do.<BR/><BR/>Rick said, "There are two central core issues in America today that should not even be in contention, because they are really so simple." Well, "thou shalt not kill" is not one of them. It appears nowhere in the Constitution. People are killed in the name of America everyday. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" but I don't recall reading any qualifying statements on the tablets.<BR/><BR/>You are all entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-13672349779523042182008-07-29T22:08:00.000-04:002008-07-29T22:08:00.000-04:00"I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constituti..."I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that “persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws” I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice." [emphasis added]<BR/><BR/>There you go. Scalia, never wrong, clearly says that an unborn fetus is not a person. Case closed."<BR/><BR/>Then how come the courts allow a man to be charged with two counts of homicide if he kills a pregnant woman and it results in the death of the unborn child, yet if a woman murders her unborn child, she is just exercising her RIGHT? Seems like something is wrong with that picture.Abounahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10492976686803243121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-21629878411079516702008-07-29T21:46:00.000-04:002008-07-29T21:46:00.000-04:00Jim, why must you always reference someone else to...Jim, why must you always reference someone else to state your opinion? Can you not think on your own? Do you have your own opinion or do you just want to live vicariously through others?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-47303613089970022322008-07-29T21:40:00.000-04:002008-07-29T21:40:00.000-04:00This is all moot. There is little argument that t...This is all moot. There is little argument that the product of conception is human, that it is life.<BR/><BR/>Is it a baby? Not in my opinion. And that is an important distinction as I quote Mark:<BR/><BR/>"I will now present my side of the argument". See he admits that there is an argument. He doesn't even claim, "Here is the truth because whatever I say is the truth."<BR/><BR/>I will leave it to the man who more that any jurist believes Roe is anathema to the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>I give you your hero, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:<BR/><BR/>"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately, and indeed there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings.<BR/><BR/>"<B>I think that’s wrong</B>. I think when the Constitution says that “<B>persons</B> are entitled to equal protection of the laws” I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice." [emphasis added]<BR/><BR/>There you go. Scalia, never wrong, clearly says that an unborn fetus is not a person. Case closed.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-32736380783192846222008-07-29T18:38:00.000-04:002008-07-29T18:38:00.000-04:00Eric?!?Talk about disturbing imagery! Gak!!Eric?!?<BR/><BR/>Talk about disturbing imagery! Gak!!tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-14827531873076005222008-07-29T17:31:00.000-04:002008-07-29T17:31:00.000-04:00I did read the previous post, but at the time, I d...I did read the previous post, but at the time, I didn't have the time to comment.<BR/><BR/>(My internet time is somewhat limited lately. Long story...)<BR/><BR/>You were doing fine without me...tugboatcapnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751281215697965077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-18199738750943763872008-07-29T13:27:00.000-04:002008-07-29T13:27:00.000-04:00"...that stage is long past by the time that mothe...<I>"...that stage is long past by the time that mother lays down on the table to sacrifice her baby to the god of convenience and irresponsibility."</I><BR/><BR/>GAH!!! What imagery, Tug! Wish I had thought of it. Kinda like passing their children through the fires of Molech... Creepy, and evil.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08874712703862427318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-67287696889728904062008-07-29T13:20:00.000-04:002008-07-29T13:20:00.000-04:00""At what point during the developing stages does ...<I>""At what point during the developing stages does the fetus become a human being?""</I><BR/><BR/>That depends on how desperate a mother is to be rid of her amorphous blob of unliving tissue. For some that's as late as said blob is three-quarters delivered, where its unthinking, unfeeling brain is promptly sucked out of its unliving, unfeeling skull.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08874712703862427318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-27443110830402559482008-07-29T08:47:00.000-04:002008-07-29T08:47:00.000-04:00Tug,Good point about when one knows they're pregna...Tug,<BR/><BR/>Good point about when one knows they're pregnant. However, the argument about most birth control pills is that it is believed, if not scientifically proven, which I think it is, that the chemicals will cause a miscarriage of the zygote/blastocyst if the pill is taken after conception occurs. Not every time, I suppose, but that it does at all shows a consistency in the concern about the morality of using the pill.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-64899309068045228502008-07-29T08:34:00.000-04:002008-07-29T08:34:00.000-04:00Just re-reading my post, I guess I left out the an...Just re-reading my post, I guess I left out the analogy between the game 20 questions and my point. In the game, it takes as many as 20 questions to determine the answer. In an abortion argument, it takes only one.<BR/><BR/>Oh sure, Tug...NOW you show up. Did you read the previous post at all?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.com