Pages

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

"To me, it was not an act of murder..."

[Today's guest post is by Sarah Terzo of ClinicQuotes.com.]

There are many good reasons for pro-lifers of faith to familiarize themselves with secular reasoning against abortion. Christian pro-lifers often cite religious texts and doctrines to oppose abortion. And while "God hates abortion" may be a compelling argument for fellow Christians, we need to recognize that pro-choicers can use religion too. People's interpretations of scripture differ, of course. And apart from scripture, "my personal religious beliefs" can be manipulated by a creative person to justify practically anything.

I stumbled across an example of this in the book Our Choices, Our Lives: Unapologetic Writings on Abortion [1]. I was reading the story of a woman who had three abortions. The woman, who gave her name as Chandra Silva, was a rape survivor who had her first abortion as a teenager when she was well into her second trimester. Her baby, at this point, was highly developed. Chandra describes the injection of prostaglandin, and the pain she experienced as her body tried to expel her child:
I felt the need to use the bathroom when something started descending and my mother, who was trying to help me to the corner store style bathroom, kept forcing an orange bedpan underneath me. At one point, in desperation, I glanced between my legs and I saw a head. It was dark and bluish, and seemed to have little dark hairs. In that split-second instant there was a nurse on the floor searching between my legs. She was in a bit of panic herself, fumbling with gloves and clamps, then whisking away the bedpan contents.
When reflecting on this abortion, as well as her other two abortions, Chandra wrote:
What I experienced was unique to me and my evolving self. To me, it was not an act of murder, as the religious zealots and right-wing oppressors would condemn, because I believe the soul and personality (which includes the body) are separate energies. I believe that we can check in and out of our physical vehicles when the situation requires it – or desires it. And I think that in cases where a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, there is an agreement between her soul self and that of her child. There is always agreement.
Chandra’s talk of the “soul self” and “separate energies” and unborn babies agreeing to be killed are obviously religious ideas, in the sense that they rely upon supernatural assumptions. Her claim that the soul of the baby makes an agreement with the soul of the mother, and that the baby somehow agrees to be aborted, can never be proved – but is a justification of abortion that makes sense to her, in the same way that “If you have an abortion, you’ll go to hell” makes sense to Christians. I doubt that Chandra could be argued out of her religious beliefs, any more than most fundamentalist Christians or devout Catholics could be argued out of theirs. If a Christian were to come up to her and tell her that God had intended her to have her baby instead of aborting, I doubt that Chandra would listen.

Perhaps it is too late to reach Chandra, but the point I’m trying to make is that religious arguments can be used by either side. It is just as easy to support abortion with religious arguments as it is to oppose it. Pro-lifers are not the only ones who use religious beliefs to support their position. From a secular standpoint, religious arguments often seem nonsensical. No doubt, most Christians would find Chandra’s beliefs absurd. Yet people who are not a part of the Christian faith may find the concept of an unborn John the Baptist leaping in his mother’s womb after encountering the unborn Jesus just as absurd.

Christian pro-lifers should take note that as nonsensical and unconvincing as Chandra’s rationalizations are, when they put forth their Christian religious arguments against abortion, they sound just as unconvincing to those who do not share their religious beliefs. The result is that pro-lifers and pro-choicers who do not share the same religious background end up talking right past one another. By focusing on areas of consensus, like human rights and the science of prenatal development, pro-lifers are far more likely to reach someone like Chandra.

[1] Krista Jacob, editor Our Choices, Our Lives: Unapologetic Writings on Abortion (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2002, 2004) 32 – 34

184 comments:

Elizabeth Doecke said...

On the whole, I agree. I don't use religious arguments against abortion, because I think it much better to argue from science and non-religious reasoning. But I cannot let this one line rest: "in the same way that “If you have an abortion, you’ll go to hell” makes sense to Christians". This might be true of some Christians, but I know not one personally that doesn't believe in the concept of forgiveness, no matter what the sin being forgiven, including abortion.

Jameson Graber said...

That's quite a striking example.

Clinton said...

An excellent post. I think this will help religious people understand how unconvincing religious arguments are to secular people. However, one disagreement that I have is the statement that her religious beliefs could never be disproved. I think it would be very difficult because convincing her that she's wrong would mean she would have to come to grips with the fact that she had her children murdered, but I think metaphysical claims can be investigated, argued for, and "proven" (at least as far as anything can be proven).

Russell Crawford said...

There is really no scientific or rational argument that overcomes the major flaws in the pro life argument.

First, pro lifers have a choice, they can save one of the 1.8 born babies, children and adults that are dying each second, or they can save a fetus. They choose to save fetuses and to let babies die.
Second, 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester. So any choice to have sex is a choice to abort 70 percent of the life that is created. So in fact any pro lifer that chooses to have sex is making an intentional choice to abort 70 percent of the "babies" he creates without even trying to save their lives. If you are going to create life, and you believe it is a baby, then you have a duty to try and save it, and pro lifers don't. They make the intentional choice to abort.

Stormii said...

You do know that emotional appeals work both ways, right? Saying "sucking the life-blood of a human adult, and replacing
nutrients and oxygen with poisons and addictive hormones." Is emotional. Really, the only way you would have topped this is by having some creepy guy playing the organ behind you. Also, this is not entirely accurate. While hormones are produced during pregnancy (via placenta) I'm pretty sure none of them can become addictive due to pregnancy. You’re making it sound like the placenta is pumping crack into her veins. Emotional! But hey, you said this for
a reason. Maybe it’s something I'm missing, so feel for to cure my ignorance.

Pregnancy, while not a walk in the park, it’s not a horror story plot and you make it sound like. You can't criticize pro-lifers when you, yourself are exaggerating. There is something called a middle ground, I suggest all you find it.
Now in the middle of your comment (essay more like) you talked something about a soul. I'm not going to reply to this because...well, I skimmed. So, on to something interesting.
Overpopulation! Is this a genuine fear of yours? There are so many things to be scared of such as spiders, the dark and fetuses apparently. However I don't overpopulation as one of them. If this was a global crisis (which it isn't) than you'd be dead by the time this came to pass. Though in your comment you mainly address animals (an animal lover! Awesome, gotta save Big foot right?)
I admit, I see this as an issue as well. When I was really little and every time I saw a deer in someone lawn my dad always pointed out how this was once his home and the
government taken it. This makes me sad to, but I'm an emotional person and care for the wellbeing of others - human or not. So, excuse me for wondering why you care. You have no concern for your species -
the ones that are in a Dracula-like state and reside in the coffin otherwise known as a uterus. If they don't deserve our protection why should we give a rat's ass about some other species? Especially ones that we that do not contribute to the promotion of our own species. While helping out animals and
stuff is great, you need feed your own first. BTW, you comment on her using a logic
fallacy but you used a red herring
concerning at animal bit. Nice, I almost
missed it.

Now you move down to aliens. Interesting. Even through all my geeky love for all things extraterrestrial, I find myself stumped with your analysis. I do wonder how that would work. It first begs the question of would
they be living with us or be like how we see animals, getting the rights like not to be tortured, killed ect. After that would we leave them to their own devices and allow them to group together like in the wilderness? Or maybe it'd be just a discovery of life on their planet. Even though I'm not addressing
your original point (sorry) I have to ask, why would we be co-inhabiting Earth?
Or even near each other besides the passing hello from when we jump from one
galaxy to another? If they are able to get to us (or vise versa) why can't we find (or they find) a different place with no inhabitants? Especially considering we're already crowded as it is. So you say...

"Just look at Human History, and all tie places where one group of humans thought itself to be inherently superior to other groups of humans." Wow, I think someone spilled a large dose irony in this forum! Gosh!


Concerning the dolphins. If they're persons than whatever. But, they don't need us to baby them. Soon, they will build their own hierarchy and be oppressing members of their species in no time. I'm sure they'll make you proud. I'm already tearing up just thinking about it...


You seem pleasant. I hope you reply to me. I see no point in making a fine comment such as this when no one is there to tear my argument to shreds. Seems like a waste.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I apologize; it appears I clicked the wrong "Reply" spot. My post below that indicates it is for Russell Crawford should instead be directed toward Stormii.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

First, pro lifers have a choice, they can save one of the 1.8 born babies, children and adults that are dying each second, or they can save a fetus. They choose to save fetuses and to let babies die.

Wrong. It's not either/or, it's both/and. I don't know a single pro-lifer who would ever choose to let any child die, born or unborn. Please see here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

Second, 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester.


That is just as logical as these points:

100% of human beings eventually die. If you choose to have a child, you are choosing to let him/her die at some point in his/her life. Therefore, you should not have a child.

Also, approximately 50% of elderly people die of old age. Therefore, it's perfectly licit to shoot senior citizens in the head, since they die of natural causes 50% of the time.

Clinton said...

Word of advice: Please don't engage with Mr. Crawford. I have experience with him; it will only lead to headaches (same with Ignorance_is_Curable).

JoAnna Wahlund said...

There is value in responding for the sake of the lurkers (so they know how to easily rebut these types of ludicrous claims).

Clinton said...

I suppose that's true. The first thing I would question is his claim that 70% of all conceptions die in the first trimester. That's almost certainly not true.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

He's probably getting it from here: http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm

As the article explains, however, there's no way to know how many zygotes/blastocysts survive the period from conception to implantation. Even studies utilizing the conditions of IVF can't predict it since the conditions of IVF are not similar to that of a normal conception, and there may be factors involved in laboratory conception that cause miscarriages (when those conditions aren't present in normal conceptions).

It's really irrelevant, though. The fact that human beings die of natural causes doesn't justify deliberately killing human beings (I know you know this, but I was just explaining why I chose not to confirm or deny his claim).

Clinton said...

Exactly, plus the fact that many entities that result from the sperm and the egg are not actual human entities, but other things like a hydatidiform mole or choriocarcinoma. So the figure is just misleading.


And yeah, I actually fairly recently wrote about the claim that miscarriages justify abortion. It's a bizarre argument, one of those where I can't understand why someone doesn't just take a few seconds to really see if their argument works.

PJ4 said...

Stormii really.. don't waste your time on this guy… he's just like Crawford.
Full of crap.
Neither of them know the ass from a hole in the ground.
Both are delusional and neither understand science, logic or reason.


I think it's best we just ignore these 2 altogether…
If we pretend they don't exist (like they pretend we're not real in utero) then maybe they will go away. =)

ignorance_is_curable said...

Your mere claims are worthless without evidence.

Mirable said...

Wait til PJ4 provides you with evidence that:

1) pregnancy is so healthy that it cures cancer and all other auto immune diseases

2) twins are fully conscious within the womb as early as 11 weeks in gestation and they will purposely hug and stroke one another.

No wonder she won't ' waste her time' on you.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Thanks for the info. Regarding #1, if it was true there would be a big sales pitch by manufacturers of synthesized hormones (identical to the natural version) to accomplish those same health benefits without needing to be pregnant. There is too much potential money in it for that to not happen. Since it is not happening, the premise is FALSE.

Regarding #2, it doesn't matter in the least. A rat is a fully conscious animal, but it is still JUST a mere animal. Even for months after birth, human babies, while able to be conscious, are NOT able to exhibit "self-consciousness". See the "mirror test" for details.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test



It is self-consciousness that is a much-more-important indicator of personhood, than basic mere-animal-level consciousness.

Russell Crawford said...

"Wrong. It's not either/or, it's both/and."

It is impossible to save both. Born life is dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. You cannot save 1.8 born persons each second. So where is the proof? Prove you can save all life indefinitely.

"I don't know a single pro-lifer who would ever choose to let any child die, born or unborn. Please see here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse...."

You are choosing to let innocent babies, children and adults die, this very instant. You could be saving life, instead you are posting.

"Second, 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester. "

That is a scientific fact.

"That is just as logical as these points:
100% of human beings eventually die. If you choose to have a child, you are choosing to let him/her die at some point in his/her life. Therefore, you should not have a child. "

That is a context fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

"Also, approximately 50% of elderly people die of old age. Therefore, it's perfectly licit to shoot senior citizens in the head, since they die of natural causes 50% of the time."
That is also a context fallacy as well as a straw man fallacy.
The context of the laws presumes that triage will be used to save life. There would likely be a few elderly that would be saved, but most likely born babies and children would be saved.
It is a straw man fallacy to build an argument that is based on shooting senior citizens. There is no basis for such a claim.

Russell Crawford said...

Clinton cannot make an argument that is sensible so he presumes that no one can. I have engaged Clinton several times and he always runs away and hides after an ad hominem or two.

Russell Crawford said...

Yes, stand up for your beliefs, that is the moral thing to do. Clinton, listen to this lady, enter the debate.

Russell Crawford said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Russell Crawford said...

"He's probably getting it from here: http://miscarriage.about.com/o...
As the article explains, however, there's no way to know how many zygotes/blastocysts survive the period from conception to implantation."

70 percent die in the first trimester and of those remaining another 30 percent die before birth. That is all that matters, and it has nothing to do with justifying abortion, it has to do with you not being able to justify killing innocent babies.


"Even studies utilizing the conditions of IVF can't predict it since the conditions of IVF are not similar to that of a normal conception, and there may be factors involved in laboratory conception that cause miscarriages (when those conditions aren't present in normal conceptions). "


That is of no consequence, the claim is that you cannot justify your murder of innocent babies, not that I can abort babies.

"It's really irrelevant, though. The fact that human beings die of natural causes doesn't justify deliberately killing human beings (I know you know this, but I was just explaining why I chose not to confirm or deny his claim)."

You can't justify murdering innocent babies by claiming that a fetus is a child. That is the point I am making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Russell Crawford said...

"Exactly, plus the fact that many entities that result from the sperm and the egg are not actual human entities, but other things like a hydatidiform mole or choriocarcinoma. So the figure is just misleading."

That is right, so you can't justify murdering innocent babies by claiming that a fetus is a baby.

"And yeah, I actually fairly recently wrote about the claim that miscarriages justify abortion."

I don't say miscarriages justify abortion. I say you cannot claim the zef is a baby, because miscarriage is so prevalent. You cannot justify your murder of innocent babies by claiming a fetus is a baby.

'It's a bizarre argument, one of those where I can't understand why someone doesn't just take a few seconds to really see if their argument works."

That is my point exactly, you should look at your argument and you will see that you cannot justify murdering innocent babies by claiming a fetus is a baby.

ignorance_is_curable said...

According to this, about 50% never make it past the blastocyst-implantation stage, to become "confirmed pregnancies".
ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/Feature/Feature-The_Facts_of_Life.html



And since we know that about 15% of confirmed pregnancies miscarry, the total loss rate is about 65%, although that would include all three trimesters, not just the first.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Since human BEINGS are persons, just like "intelligent beings", "extraterrestrial beings, and "alien beings", while unborn humans are mere animals, NOT beings, just like ordinary rabbits are not rabbit beings, and frogs are not frog beings, it Logically Follows that abortion is NOT about killing human beings!

PJ4 said...

and you see… these guys already provide enough proof that they are anti science, anti-logic, and anti-reason.
Just sit back and let him do our work for us..


No one in their right mind wants to associated with their kind of idiocy…


They keep proving it over and over….
*weepy glees*.

Coyote said...

"Almost any reason for denying certain human beings their human rights has major holes that pro-lifers can exploit."

Are you sure about that?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

An unborn child is an organism of the species homo sapiens. An organism of the species homo sapiens is a human being. Ergo, killing an unborn child is killing a human being.

When a human being becomes a person is a metaphysical concept, not a biological one. Why are you anti-science?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Russell, I am very confused. Can you explain (briefly) what action of mine is directly killing human beings as I sit typing? Are you referring to the natural deaths of unborn children? If so, I must remind you that natural death =/= murder. It is impossible for anyone to stop a person's death due to natural causes, whether an unborn child or a senior citizen.

Once again, however, just because some human beings die natural deaths does not make it permissible to kill other human beings.

So, again, your assertion is false.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Russell, what is your definition of murder? I don't think it's accurate.

PJ4 said...

JoAnna
Your time is being wasted on him
He's anti science
Anti reason
And anti logic
Just like Crawford

I think if we ignore him he'll go away

Mirable said...

If you pull a potato out of the ground are you killing a 'potato being' ?

If you catch a mouse in a mouse trap, are you killing a 'mouse being' ?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If you pull a potato out of the ground, you are picking a potato (a plant-based organism of the species Solanum tuberosum). If you kill a mouse, you are killing a mouse (an organism of the species Mus musculus). If you kill a human being, you are killing a human being (an organism of the species homo sapiens).

Seriously, this is not a difficult concept. Do you know the biological differences between plants, animals, and humans? If not, perhaps you should take a biology course?

Mirable said...

So 'being' is only applied to the species homo sapiens sapiens, is that what you are saying? IG this is the case, please explain why only humans are classified as beings and no other life form deserves the honour?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

A plant is a plant being. A mouse is an animal being. A human is a human being.

organism = being

Is this news to you? I remember learning this in my fourth grade life sciences class.

Mirable said...

Well then why treat human beings any different from cat beings if all organisms are beings?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Human beings have human rights. Plant and animal beings do not have human rights. See here: http://www.secularprolife.org/#!abortion/cimp

Mirable said...

Oh look. It says that hat human being and person are synonymous.

Ok. I want to hear from you. Why is a human being any more special and deserving of rights than a plant or animal being?

Why do people have the right to life and plants and animals do not?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Yes, a human being is also a human person. "Human being" is a biological distinction. Human person is metaphysical distinction.


As I said above, human beings have human rights. Animals do not have human rights because they are not human, and human beings are endowed with sentience, reason, and conscience. If you don't know what human rights are, see here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Mirable said...

Are animals not sentient? Animals can also suffer. And some can even attain the language skills of a two yr old human toddler. Is that not enough to give some animals human rights?

cjvg said...

Every pregnancy can kill the woman
While it is not a given that it will, it is most certainly not a given that a woman will come through a pregnancy alive.
No octor will EVER guarantee you that your pregnancy and childbirth will be unremarkable and you will not die from it.
They will give you odds, and if you are in good health otherwise they are presumably very good odds, but not a guarantee.
Perfectly healthy women die from pregnancy and/or childbirth without there ever being any indication that this might happen. In fact the maternal death rate in the US is dead last of all western countries, and even behind some so called less advanced countries (as is the chance a baby will life through its first year)
Now you will argue that everything in life has risks, however can not and should not be able to force anyone to assume these risks against their choice.
The woman or girl in question is without a doubt a human being with human rights. A fertilized egg/fetus/embryo etc. does not have the same standing as the woman in question.
The law recognizes this since there are no legal statues that prosecute the destruction of embryo's at fertility clinics as murder. No laws are even being proposed or financed or any action groups specifically to prevent this "murder" Furthermore, no protests are held by anti-choice activist in front of fertility clinics, so obviously even they are not convinced that an embryo is a human life as long as it does not entail forced gestation.
A woman/girl is a life, same can not be said for a fertilized egg, fetus, embryo until the point of viability
No one has the right to use a third party for their benefit, not even if that is the only thing that can safe their life. I can not demand the use of your kidney, even if you can comfortably life with one and I would die without receiving yours.
So why are you awarding a fertilized egg/fetus more rights then any other living human on the planet?
What gives you the right to demand a woman donates the use and abuse of her body and organs for a third party, and against her will.
Concern for a potential life while dismissing the already present life as irrelevant, completely discounts your purported "concern" for life
You do not know the woman, her medical history, her social circumstances, the financial situation, the circumstances of conception etc. You will not be the one forced to live or die with the consequences of her pregnancy , and as such you have no right to take her choice away from her.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I am not anti-science. I am anti-Prejudice, anti-Hypocrisy, and-Parochialism, and anti-Stupidity. All of which are involved in insisting that unborn humans are more deserving to be called "beings" than rabbits or frogs.

When was the last time you heard anyone use the phrase "fetus being" in casual conversation? LOGICALLY, if an unborn human can be called a "human being", it ALSO can be called a "fetus being", but NOBODY does that. Because "being" is actually a synonym for "person"!

So, extraterrestrial beings are persons, alien beings are persons, intelligent beings are persons --and none of them need have any aspect of human DNA to qualify as persons. "Human-ness" and "personhood" are two DIFFERENT things.

And this is where Science enters the picture. What are the Objective Generic characteristics of persons, that distinguishes them from mere animal organisms, ANWHERE in the Universe? Since "human-ness" is NOT one of those characteristics, other things need to be referenced, such as "having Free Will", or "being self-aware", or several other things, like this one:
http://www.csub.edu/~mault/symbols.htm

The Science Fact is, unborn humans have NONE of the Objective Generic Universal characteristics that can distinguish persons from mere animal organisms. Period.

So, since rabbits and frogs are not persons, they are never called "rabbit beings" or "frog beings". An unborn human is ONLY a human ANIMAL organism, not a person/being! Only an Anti-Science, Prejudiced, Hypocritical, and Stupidly Parochial human-centered attitude would claim otherwise. Which definitely describes abortion opponents far more than myself.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Actually, "being" has two significantly different definitions, one of which is a synonym for "person", and the other means "exists". Thus the phrase "plant being" can be interpreted as "plant exister". And the phrase "human being" can be interpreted as "human exister".


Except that is NOT the normal interpretation! Because the word "being" can also be used as a synonym for "person", it becomes very easy to "conflate" the two definitions, and therefore conclude that JUST because a human exists and HAS "being", it also automatically qualifies as a person.


The conflation obviously breaks when the word "human" is replaced with something else, like "rock". Because a rock exists, it could be worthy of the label "rock being". But nobody is ever going to think it also automatically qualifies as a person!


Which brings us to unborn humans. They exist and therefore can be called "human beings" EXACTLY LIKE ROCKS CAN BE CALLED ROCK BEINGS. But in NEITHER case do they automatically also qualify as persons.

ignorance_is_curable said...

And the reason for that is "Prejudice", pure and simple.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

A fetus is a type of human being. Organism is a synonym for being. You wouldn't say "fetus being" because "fetus" is not a description of a type of being; it is a descriptor for a stage of development. That's also why you wouldn't say "infant being" or "teenager being" or "adult being." You could say, "fetal human being" or "infant human being" or "teenage human being."

Is an unborn child an organism of the species homo sapiens? Yes. This is a biological distinction.

Whether or not an unborn child is a person is a purely metaphysical distinction, not a biological one. You can certainly believe that not all human organisms are human persons, but you can't use a biological argument because personhood isn't a biological concept.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Animals are not endowed with the same level of reason, sentience, and conscience that human beings acquire naturally. That is why there are natural human rights (endowed by nature) as well as legal human rights (endowed by government).

If you don't see a difference between human beings and animals, then please read the following: http://theweek.com/article/index/255240/no-animals-donrsquot-have-rights

Incidentally, do you think that animals can consent to abortion? I'm curious.

Mirable said...

So nature grants special rights to humans? Kind of like God?

MarcusFenix said...

Ahh, since you can't remove posts here... ;)

Joanna there busts you on the either/or end of it right out the gate. See, people do understand and disagree with you!

You told me directly that posting here is causing babies to die. You've told me directly elsewhere that you're going to tell people about where i'm hiding bodies, since as a pro life advocate, I'm a "murderer". Still waiting, buddy.

Let's break down your nonsense some more though.

"Second, 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester."

So, wouldn't saving the remaining 30% be that much more important, rather than you purposely destroying them? If things are that bleak, you're only exacerbating an already problematic situation.

"So any choice to have sex is a choice to abort 70 percent of the life that is created."

You'll have to explain how an automatic process in the body, that a woman has zero control over and doesn't even know is occurring is a "choice", which requires active knowledge and consent for the problem to occur. One of those things isn't like the other.

"If you are going to create life, and you believe it is a baby, then you have a duty to try and save it..."

Not sure if you've been paying attention, but that's what pro life advocates are doing, by definition. Thanks for playing.

"They make the intentional choice to abort.

Which would be the bass ackwards idea of the entire platform. Now, please, start your rebuttal with the "you can killl a baby" premise again, so I can start shredding that for the 4th time.

MarcusFenix said...

It's likely been said to you by others, but I haven't scrolled down into the feed here.

Just know, that Crawford here is totally off his rocker. He's nutterbutters crazy. I'm not even trying to use an ad hominem attack.....but it's just the truth. He'll talk in circles, dismiss you out of hand, then reverse the claims you make against him as ones against you....and so on, so forth.

I've done this dance with him before. He can't admit he's wrong...and wont.

MarcusFenix said...

Exxxcept when he crushed you on Debate.org that time....even the commenters, who didn't need to vote for it, thought you were so far out there as to be not worth the time.

That 31-1 beat down must still sting a bit.

MarcusFenix said...

Take your pick, or neither? How about that humans are simply that way...now you've got no personification of nature to fall back on, and no religious argument to use.

Unless you've got some cats in the back room typing up the next great novella or something, why not consider humans as being exceptional, when it's easily demonstrated as such?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Please read the following and tell me where it mentions God: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Clinton said...

Russell, I am very much ingrained in the debate. I have debated you before, as Marcus indicated, and I have these discussions all the time. The problem is that you are an unreasonable individual, and I do not wish to take the time to try and engage with you because it will only end in headaches.


If I thought you were interested in reasonable discourse, I would have this discussion with you. I have written numerous articles on this website, and my regular readers will tell you that I make a logical case for abortion and I never make ad hominem arguments (for your edification, a personal attack does not equal an ad hominem fallacy, and calling you out for being unreasonable is not even a personal attack but a statement of observation).

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Interesting. So, by his logic, all you have to do is be pro-choice and you can kill anyone at any time for any reason, because (as a pro-choicer) you have no obligation to save anyone's life. I wonder if he's a serial killer IRL trying to justify his crimes.

MarcusFenix said...

that's pretty much it, all the way around.

i asked him once where all of my "victims" were, since he said he was going to tell people where i "hid the bodies".

His return statement, when I finally got one:

"Look in your local obit section of the newspaper."

Can't make this kind of thing up. I've got close to 200 screen shots of his nonsense from a debate I had with him not long ago. it ended up being a multiple day troll fest, because he wasn't making an actual argument and was being so far past the unreasonable mark as to not be recognizable.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''Animals are not endowed with the same level of reason, sentience, and conscience that human beings acquire naturally.''

And there is also to no need for a unborn human to get up to that point now is there?

Also you said ''naturally'' then what is this then?

''Natasha, Chita, Zabaykalsky Krai, Russia (2009), a five-year-old girl who spent her entire life locked in a room with cats and dogs, and no heat, water, or sewage system. When she was found, she could not speak Russian, would jump at the door and bark as caretakers left, and had "clear attributes of an animal".

Mirable said...

Cool. So yo have demonstrated that people can pick and choose the rights that should be granted to other people?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I can't believe I have to explain this. All humans are endowed with the natural ability to develop the innate human qualities of sentience, reason, conscience. Yes, if horrifically abused or otherwise injured, or in a certain level of development, they may not have active capability. Coma patients don't have sentience or conscience while comatose, for example, but they are still human beings. Newborn infants don't have the ability to reason, but they are still human beings.

By your logic, we can go ahead and murder newborns at whim, since one could argue that they don't possess sentience, reason, or a conscience either. Do you believe that?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Nope. That would be what you're arguing - that one can use arbitrary criteria to kill human beings.

My argument is that all human beings have the innate right to life, since the right to life is a natural human right.

Mirable said...

So then why did you link to the UN to prove your point?

Mirable said...

Just a minor quibble.

con·science

ˈkänCHəns/

noun

noun: conscience; plural noun: consciences

1.

an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.


-----------


Don't you mean consciousness?

Mirable said...

How about those that never develop the capacity for sentience and sapience?

Anencephaly for example. And as GBR mentioned, feral children.

Mirable said...

And why can't the right to life be a natural kitty right? Or a natural radish right?

Mirable said...

Homo sapiens sapiens is exceptional, therefore, homo sapiens sapiens automatically has special rights granted by nature...

No, not seeing it.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

To show that this is a concept that has been around for hundreds of years, if not longer, and that is non-religious in nature.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Let me know once animals start organizing and demanding their rights.

ignorance_is_curable said...

A fetus is a type of human being.
-------
A fetus is a type of HUMAN, period. The word is perfectly useful as a noun, not just as an adjective. So, there is no need to make use of the word "being".

Similarly, YOU are a type of human. Is it NECESSARY to describe yourself with an additional term ("human being")? If so, why?

The answer to THAT question will reveal much.

See, we can take a phrase like "rabbit being" and think of it as saying, "a being that has rabbit-type qualities", just as we could take the phrase "human being", and think of it as saying, "a being that has human-type qualities". But in what sense is "being" getting used???

Consider for a moment the fictitious character known as "Bugs Bunny". This character is portrayed quite thoroughly as a person-class entity, AND as a type of rabbit. Therefore, to the extent that the word "being" is getting used a synonym for "person", in a phrase such as "rabbit being", Bugs Bunny would fully qualify as a rabbit being!

Your average ordinary rabbit, of course, is still just a rabbit, not a person-class "rabbit being".

YOU are a person-class entity. You are free to call yourself a "human being", and CORRECTLY/deliberately use "being" as a synonym for "person".

Likewise an intelligent extraterrestrial alien being would also be a person-class entity. Remember the movie "Alien"? THAT fictional alien was a mere animal; nothing about it was ever portrayed as implying it had person-class characteristics. The title of the movie is NOT "Alien Being", after all!

(Other movies in the franchise, such as "Alien vs Predator" made it quite clear that the "Alien" species was purely animal, while the "Predator" species was person-class.)
============

Organism is a synonym for being. You wouldn't say "fetus being" because "fetus" is not a description of a type of being; it is a descriptor for a stage of development.
--------
When talking about a person-class entity, the physical nature of that entity is irrelevant. A True Artificial Intelligence would be a "machine being", for example. In the "Star Trek" universe, the aliens known as "Organians" were "energy beings". And the "Gamesters of Triskelion" were, apparently, "brain beings". Therefore, if a human fetus truly qualified as a person, there could be NO objection to calling it a "fetus being"!
==========

That's also why you wouldn't say "infant being" or "teenager being" or "adult being." You could say, "fetal human being" or "infant human being" or "teenage human being."
--------
And of course you can say "fetal human", "infant human", "teenager human", and "adult human". So? WHY is it NECESSARY to include the word "being"?
=============

Is an unborn child an organism of the species homo sapiens? Yes. This is a biological distinction.
--------
AGREED. AND it has nothing to do with either "personhood" or the word "being", WHEN that word is a synonym for "person".
=========

Whether or not an unborn child is a person is a purely metaphysical distinction, not a biological one. You can certainly believe that not all human organisms are human persons, but you can't use a biological argument because personhood isn't a biological concept.
-------
But I am not arguing about biology; I'm arguing about Prejudiced Parochial Short-Sighted Hypocritical dictionary definitions. WHICH ARE THAT WAY ONLY BECAUSE OF "COMMON USAGE", not because the dictionary arbitrarily declared that certain words had to be used in certain ways.
www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Please link to where kitties and radishes have organized and demanded rights. I have a cat and she's never once expressed the desire for inalienable rights.

Mirable said...

The concept of rape slavery and genocide has been around a lot longer.

So, how about these naturally endowed rights by virtue of human exceptionalism?

Mirable said...

I thought that rights were given to us by nature?


Your statement here appears to contradict your earlier statement.

Mirable said...

so what? rights are granted to humans by NATURE, you said. Because humans are amazing.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

They are given to us by nature. But if you believe that animals are endowed with the ability to develop sentience - which includes the ability to communicate with other rational beings - a fully formed conscience, and the ability to reason, then they would demonstrate that capability by demanding that their rights are recognized. (Not granted - recognized.) Have they? Please provide evidence.

Mirable said...

Well if they are given to us by nature then why do we have to organise and decide which rights we get and which rights we don't?

And why do the rights that we are entitled to change over time and across countries?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Yes, they are. Do animals produce art and music independently and spontaneously, without being guided by humans? And not things like birds calling as a form of communication, but literally creating works of art and music for their own enjoyment and that of others? Do animals engage in philosophy and define the natural rights of their species? Do they have governments in which they enshrine rights for others of their species? Do they have ethics and morality? All these qualities and more show that humans are indeed exceptional, in an evolutionary concept, to other animals.

If humans are not exceptional, do you then believe it ethical to kill other human beings? If we're all just animals, why would you have a problem with it?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

We don't. That's what you don't seem to understand. Recognizing intrinsic rights is not at all the same as granting them to others.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Because some human beings desire to suppress the natural rights of others. Sort of like how some born human beings wish to suppress the natural rights of unborn human beings. Sound familiar?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I am a human. I am a human being. I am an organism of the species homo sapiens. I am all of these things, as are all humans from conception onwards.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that unborn children are humans, but not human beings? Are you saying that they are human organisms, but not human beings? Being = organism in a biological context. In a metaphysical context, being = person. You seem to be conflating the two.

Mirable said...

So our 'intrinsic' rights are granted by nature because we are exceptional?

Is that what you're going with?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Why are rape slavery and genocide wrong, in your opinion?

Mirable said...

So because we are capable of making music, philosophy and forming governments, this is proof that nature has endowed us with special, intrinsic rights that no other creature is entitled to?


Speaking of which, how come 'nature' doesn't respect all of our nature given rights? Why does it kill and injure us with natural disasters and disease? Why do tigers not respect our intrinsic rights? Why does a tiger see us as a mere meal?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Depends on your definition of exceptional. If exceptional = containing the passive abilities of sentience, conscience, and reason, then yes.

Mirable said...

So nature GAVE us special rights because we have certain traits that other animals don't?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Because tigers don't have reason, conscience, or sentience.

Natural law =/= laws of nature. You're talking about the latter while I'm talking about the former. This is a fairly decent overview of natural law as it pertains to human rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Rights

Mirable said...

But nature granted us these rights and gave us all of these special traits.

So why doesn't nature respect our very special rights?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Once again, you're confusing natural law with the laws of nature, which is why you're finding this concept so hard to understand. Read the link I previously posted for a better understanding of natural law. This is an excellent resource, also: http://www.amazon.com/What-We-Cant-Not-Know/dp/1586174819

JoAnna Wahlund said...

For the third time, natural law is not the same as the laws of nature. You're talking about the latter, I'm talking about the former. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Rights

Mirable said...

I am familiar with it. And it still doesn't bolster your case that humans have intrinsic rights simply by virtue of being able to write poetry etc.

Mirable said...

Indeed. The concept was invented by humans.

I thought it was granted by nature?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I find that hard to believe given that your comments thus far have dealt with the laws of nature, and not natural law.

I think I asked you this before but never got an answer. If your position is that we're all just animals, should it be legal to murder anyone?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Once again... natural law =/= laws of nature.

Recognized by humans. Not invented by them.

Mirable said...

Human rights were invented by humans. As far as nature is concerned - no creature - plant, animal, or bacteria, has any intrinsic rights.


You keep saying that nature endowed us with special rights because it gave us big brains (and everything that comes with them) through evolution. That doesn't automatically follow, sorry.


All we humans have done is make the claim that we have all these rights - simply because we are 'special' vs. other species.

Mirable said...

So you are saying that nature invented intrinsic rights for humans because we are 'exceptional'?

for realz?

MarcusFenix said...

You're likely not "seeing it", because you didn't process what was there.

Dismissing nature and/or God, humans can't simply be exceptional...because they are?

I mean, unless there's some Squirrel City or Ape Airlines I'm not aware of..then the accomplishments of humans versus those in the remainder of the animal world pretty much speak for themselves.

Mirable said...

So? All that means is that we have capabilities that other animals don't.

It doesn't automatically follow that because of this nature has 'granted' us intrinsic rights that no other species should have.

Now does it?

MarcusFenix said...

Clearly, you're just responding and not reading.

Remove the personification of nature, remove religion, etc. Take things at simple face value.

If we have capabilities that others do not...then why would it not then follow that we, with those unique capabilities, suddenly lower the bar to make us no better than mice, or dirt?

Now does it? :P Either you believe that humans are no different than your common barnyard animal (when it can be clearly demonstrated we're above that), or...you don't.

If you don't, then please explain which animal species produced the keyboard you're typing on, and go from there. It's not hard to see this really, unless you're purposely wanting to be argumentative or obtuse on the matter.

MarcusFenix said...

"(for your edification, a personal attack does not equal an ad hominem
fallacy, and calling you out for being unreasonable is not even a
personal attack but a statement of observation)."

To him, it absolutely is..or it's directly a red herring.

He either can't tell when something is this way, or doesn't want to admit the distinction. *shrug*

Mirable said...

Rights - and who and what they are granted to - is a human invention, nothing more.

MarcusFenix said...

Which was basically the point I was getting to...glad we're on the same page.

LN said...

Well since I said "almost", yes.

Clinton said...

Haha, yeah. That's another debate I'd rather just forget about. One of these days I'll actually manage to debate someone worth debating. There's actually a possible debate between me and Matt Dillahunty in the future. I have a friend who hosts a podcast and is trying to set up a debate between the two of us.

Russell Crawford said...

"Ahh, since you can't remove posts here... ;)"

I don't intend on answering your questions again and again for eternity.

"Joanna there busts you on the either/or end of it right out the gate. See, people do understand and disagree with you!"

Everyone tries to say they can save both, but they can't. She can't and you can't.

"You told me directly that posting here is causing babies to die. You've told me directly elsewhere that you're going to tell people about where i'm hiding bodies, since as a pro life advocate, I'm a "murderer". Still waiting, buddy."

You remember things differently than me.

"Let's break down your nonsense some more though.

"Second, 70 percent of all conceptions die in the first trimester."

So, wouldn't saving the remaining 30% be that much more important, rather than you purposely destroying them?"

It would be great to save the 30 percent. As soon as you save the babies, the give it a go.


" If things are that bleak, you're only exacerbating an already problematic situation. "


Not me, I save the babies and let the zef die.

{"So any choice to have sex is a choice to abort 70 percent of the life that is created."

You'll have to explain how an automatic process in the body, that a woman has zero control over and doesn't even know is occurring is a "choice", which requires active knowledge and consent for the problem to occur. One of those things isn't like the other.}
You have 100 percent control over your sex act. If you choose to have sex, you consent to abortion.

{"If you are going to create life, and you believe it is a baby, then you have a duty to try and save it..."

Not sure if you've been paying attention, but that's what pro life advocates are doing, by definition. Thanks for playing.}
No, you are not attempting to save the fetuses you abort. You try and save the other peoples fetuses and let you fetuses die.

{"They make the intentional choice to abort.

Which would be the bass ackwards idea of the entire platform. Now, please, start your rebuttal with the "you can killl a baby" premise again, so I can start shredding that for the 4th time.}

You could save the zef's you create instead of the zef of others.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''All humans are endowed with the natural ability to develop the innate human qualities of sentience, reason, conscience.''

FALSE, that part I posted prove otherwise. All of that is acquired not ''natural'' or ''innate.'' Just because the success rate is 99.9999999999% doesn't mean now it's innate. Also to remember everyone here has the INNATE nature to die in the future. So, should we treat potential like actual and get the coffins ready and burry all of the pro lifers so I don't have to hear the whining anymore? Why not!

''Coma patients don't have sentience or conscience while comatose''

NOT TRUE and this coma surviver say's so. I was in a coma two months ago for about close to two weeks from a seizure. And since I'm here that tells you that those in comas most of the time have not LOST their rationality, autonomy, reasoning abilities, theory of mind or their conscience. And for us to actually check to see if these items were destroyed from the coma you need to wait for them to wake up and look at the damage. So in these cases you need to err on the side of caution while in the case of the unborn human there is no reason to since we KNOW they don't have none of them to begin with from the fact infants have none of it either.

''Newborn infants don't have the ability to reason.''

Obviously. Do note that abilities don't NEED to be used 24 hours a day for us to known you still have them. In the case of the coma we don't know if their ability to reason was destroyed through that brain damaging (if there was any.) After all pro lifers like yourself wouldn't tell a teenager like myself that a lost the ability to ride a bike and then REGAIN it when I start riding a bike here in a bit to my friends house. You would look foolish if you said that.

''By your logic, we can go ahead and murder newborns at whim''

DID I say anything about killing newborns? After all the pro life position tells me that a cat would lack the right to life so are you guy's saying I CAN go on ahead and kill the cat anyway?

By your logic, we can go ahead and murder newborns at whim

''Do you believe that?

I wouldn't have a problem with killing infants that have something like anercephalic or Harlequin-type ichthyosis

Russell Crawford said...

{Russell, I am very much ingrained in the debate. I have debated you before, as Marcus indicated, and I have these discussions all the time. The problem is that you are an unreasonable individual, and I do not wish to take the time to try and engage with you because it will only end in headaches.}

Then why comment?

{If I thought you were interested in reasonable discourse, I would have this discussion with you. I have written numerous articles on this website, and my regular readers will tell you that I make a logical case for abortion and I never make ad hominem arguments (for your edification, a personal attack does not equal an ad hominem fallacy, and calling you out for being unreasonable is not even a personal attack but a statement of observation).}

You have a different belief in what is and is not an ad hominem. I go with this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Russell Crawford said...

{"(for your edification, a personal attack does not equal an ad hominem
fallacy, and calling you out for being unreasonable is not even a
personal attack but a statement of observation)."

To him, it absolutely is..or it's directly a red herring.

He either can't tell when something is this way, or doesn't want to admit the distinction. *shrug*}

You can claim your remarks are not ad hominems, that is fine with me. But my sources say they are, mainly because your reasoning that would support your argument is false.

Russell Crawford said...

He got 31 votes from 5 people, I have 40 thousand followers on Facebook. Ho Hum.

Russell Crawford said...

I use the pro life definition. The unjustified death of a potential life is murder.

Russell Crawford said...

That is an ad hominem and is worthless.

Russell Crawford said...

"Russell, I am very confused. Can you explain (briefly) what action of mine is directly killing human beings as I sit typing? Are you referring to the natural deaths of unborn children?"

You are not just sitting there typing. You have made a choice to attempt to save fetuses. You could have made the choice to save babies, children and adults. Those babies are dying because you chose to save fetuses and let them die.


" If so, I must remind you that natural death =/= murder. It is impossible for anyone to stop a person's death due to natural causes, whether an unborn child or a senior citizen. "

It is possible to stop people from dying. You only have to choose to save them, I suggest the use of triage to save the most life possible.

"Once again, however, just because some human beings die natural deaths does not make it permissible to kill other human beings."

You are choosing to let humans die that do not need to die. It is not permissible for you to do that.

"So, again, your assertion is false."
You say that as 1.8 innocent babies, children and adults die each second.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''
she's never once expressed the desire for inalienable rights.''
Same with unborn humans and newborns PLUS feral children since they lack the intelligence to even grasp the concept of what ''inalienable rights'' are in the first place. So if we're welling to grant it to them you may as well grant the whole animal kingdom them to while we're at it to remain consistent. If you want to say ''well unborn humans can eventually gain the intelligence to understand them'' then we may as well take rights away from everyone here at the moment since we wouldn't be able to understand them in the future once we're bury 6 feet into the ground.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

It would be nice if you debated ignorance_is_curable in real life. I would pay to go see that. He is one of the better ''higher level'' pro choicers out there. You should debate him on podcast instead.

MarcusFenix said...

"I don't intend on answering your questions again and again for eternity."

You're not in danger of that, since you never answered them to start with, using a real answer. Glad we sorted that out.

"Everyone tries to say they can save both, but they can't. She can't and you can't."

Not when you dismiss it out of hand, but that's another story.

"You remember things differently than me."

I can post the screen shots for it if you prefer.

"It would be great to save the 30 percent. As soon as you save the babies, the give it a go."

soon as you answer what we're saving them from, why, why it's all 1 person's responsibility, and all that....we can get to it.

"Not me, I save the babies and let the zef die."

Which creates more problems, because you're letting lie die on purpose, rather than saving as much as you can. The admission is a good change of pace though.

"You have 100 percent control over your sex act. If you choose to have sex, you consent to abortion."

Yes, over the "sex act"....not what biologically happens behind the scenes with it. Apples and oranges, Crawford.

Also, lets turn this around. If sex = consent to abortion, then sex also must = consent to pregnancy.

Congratulations, you've just completely taken the entire pro-choice community and told them their slogan about that is completely wrong, and it really DOES equal that. Good job!

"No, you are not attempting to save the fetuses you abort. You try and save the other peoples fetuses and let you fetuses die. "

Which, this makes no sense...par for the course. Consistency, please? Coherent sentences and answers are your friend.

"You could save the zef's you create instead of the zef of others."

So, you've magically gained the knowledge that I somehow didn't do that somewhere, or that I have the power to save all life, everywhere, by will and thought alone? Guess how far that kind of thinking gets you?

You've failed again, crawford, sorry.

Clinton said...

Well, Matt Dillahunty has the name behind him, so my friend knows that he'll bring in listeners. I would be open to debating IIC, except that most of his case is made up of personal attacks and I'm not really too interested in debating someone who can't make a comment without attacking you (which is why I rarely reply to any of his comments). I would be open to it, though.

MarcusFenix said...

"You can claim your remarks are not ad hominems, that is fine with me.
But my sources say they are, mainly because your reasoning that would
support your argument is false."

Ok, so...what sources are those? What reasoning is it that you have, which shows someone elses argument as "false"?

Someone can say you're being unreasonable without calling you glaringly idiotic a-hole. One of those is an observation about your personality and approach. The other, while still being true, would constitute an ad hominem for purposes of debate.

At least try to learn the difference.

MarcusFenix said...

That looks an AWFUL lot like an Argumentum ad Populum there, Russell. LAN has over 650k likes, does that make them more than 13x more correct than you on the subject? Nope.

Also, if you had such a large fan base...it doesn't show on your facebook page, so there's that. And they could have even commented there, or gone through the process to vote, and didn't...or, they could have come to your own website when we were getting into it, and all that showed up was a sock puppet account.

For all of these 40,000 people you keep touting, it's interesting to note how many of them we've never heard from...ever.

The loss, despite your 40k people...was still a massive defeat. You lost. Plain and simple.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

I do think that IIC would be a better debater then Matt Dillahunty and I haven't seen IIC go on the ''personal attacks'' yet since I was here. Probably he was here longer then I have been because he ''disappeared'' from another website he go's on every now and then. I wondered where he went and tracked him down on his website and to here.

MarcusFenix said...

Partially...but it's also terribly accurate. I genuinely believe you're crazy. I genuinely believe you need some help, and that psychological professionals need to be involved in the process. Of course you're going to say it's "worthless", because it's about you.

It doesn't make it less true, however. You can never admit you're wrong, even when you contradict yourself in back to back statements or when others point it out.

I really think you need real help from qualified professionals. End of story.

Russell Crawford said...

"Yes, over the "sex act"....not what biologically happens behind the scenes with it. Apples and oranges, Crawford. "


You know that 70 percent of your conceptions will abort, yet you choose to do what it take to conceive and then choose to let the conceptions die. You could saved them, so it is not a "behind the scenes occurrence" You murdered your own babies.

"Also, lets turn this around. If sex = consent to abortion, then sex also must = consent to pregnancy."

Sex equals consent to abort a pregnancy, not pregnancy.


{"You could save the zef's you create instead of the zef of others."

So, you've magically gained the knowledge that I somehow didn't do that somewhere, or that I have the power to save all life, everywhere, by will and thought alone? Guess how far that kind of thinking gets you?}
No, when you have sex and intentionally abort, you could have chosen to save the zef you let die.

Mirable said...

I only counted 800.

Hmmm....

Russel has been arguing with other PC'ers on another blog...

I delete the notifications as fast as they come into my email. What a waste of time!

GEIxBattleRifle said...

What's your face book page so I can look at it?

Russell Crawford said...

You are expanding your skills. The above post is an ad hominem fallacy and an ad lipidem fallacy.

Russell Crawford said...

Search Scientific Abortion Laws or Natural Abortion Laws on Google.

Russell Crawford said...

Thanks for you opinion.

Russell Crawford said...

Thanks for not participating.

MarcusFenix said...

"You know that 70 percent of your conceptions will abort, yet you choose
to do what it take to conceive and then choose to let the conceptions
die."

What you continually FAIL to realize is that it's not a situation of "letting" that be the case. How does one "let" involuntary natural processes occur without your knowledge or permission, in the way you mean it?

You can't. You're implying intent and motive where there is none. You simply can't, or won't, understand such a simple concept.

"You could saved them, so it is not a "behind the scenes occurrence" You murdered your own babies."

As asked dozens of times to you....have you called the police? You're actively accusing me of murder. Where are the bodies of my victims? What jail sentence do you believe applies in this case? Your "omission" case fails on every level, based on the requirements of the very law you cite for it. It's not even a bad argument..it's just ignorant and wrong.

"Sex equals consent to abort a pregnancy, not pregnancy."

Nope. You're adding in extra terms to twist the phrase. Sorry, won't allow you to do that. Interchange pregnancy and abortion in that statement. No extra words, no different phrasing, just straight switching of words. It fails, as you do. I mean, i know you twist things because otherwise you're exposed for the incorrect fraud you are, but...it's old and incredibly apparent.

"No, when you have sex and intentionally abort, you could have chosen to save the zef you let die."

Does repeating the same nonsense make it right, Crawford? How did i "let" something die that i was unaware of its existence in the first place? Are you letting nameless children die in Africa by not having personally gone to save them yourself...even without knowing a name, a place, a cause of death, or any other factor? It would be foolish to hold you responsible, even despite the fact you've liked poverty.com into your arguments a dozen times elsewhere. We can make the trade, that you're responsible for them, but you wouldn't like how that turns out.

You need to get past the "let" bit, because it's just wrong. Please make that correction.

MarcusFenix said...

But it doesn't make you a more reasonable person, or any less crazy, does it?

:)

Russell Crawford said...

The fact is you created zygotes and chose to let them die.

Russell Crawford said...

More ad hominem fallacies.

Mirable said...

It's not a matter of 'not participating'

It's a matter of not even reading

Which is what I am doing now.

Russell Crawford said...

I can tell you are not reading by you instantaneous reply.

MarcusFenix said...

His friends list of 800 is a smothering of friends, family, random people who he's friended, etc.

I don't usually follow Crawford too close, after having been on his page and argued/trolled him for a while, and other exchanges out here we've had. He swears that pro-choice folks all love him and that he's unlocked knowledge that the rest of us are just too dumb to notice or not ready for as a society.

I believe he needs help. I really do.

MarcusFenix said...

That's because it takes about 2 picoseconds to realize you're full of crap, FWIW.

Mirable said...

He picked a fight with a radfem:P


Anyways, he can do whatever makes him happy. I really don't care.

MarcusFenix said...

I asked him, but he never answered...why is it Scientific abortion laws, but his website is naturalabortionlaws.com

It's not like someone is gunning for the URL or something. *shrug*

MarcusFenix said...

Notice you're not saying they are *wrong*. Just that they're ad hominems. I find that telling.

Stating you're unreasonable as a person isn't attacking you rather than the argument in place. Your arguments are already pretty easily smashed without needing to do that.

Differences and all that.

MarcusFenix said...

See, you've not understood the word "let" or tried to address the subject.

Would this not be considered unreasonable...?

MarcusFenix said...

Since apparently giving you the site is too much work, here is the one he gave me to review.

https://www.facebook.com/russell.c.crawford?fref=ts

MarcusFenix said...

You're most welcome.

Russell, why is it on your facebook page, the first thing I see is your top article there, and someone telling you you're full of crap. Where are the 40k coming to your defense? Curious.

JDC said...

The link to his facebook page is here:

https://www.facebook.com/NaturalAbortionLaw

JDC said...

Uh he was probably looking for the facebook page about the "scientific laws" as opposed to Russell's personal page.

MarcusFenix said...

You may be right, but when i asked, that was the page Russell himself gave me, so...i went with it. :)

MarcusFenix said...

Actually, i'm glad you linked that. It's got 40k likes....and it's just as much of a ghost town as his website and personal page are.

Coincidence? ;)

Basset_Hound said...

This guy is exercising similar "reasoning". "I don't remember it. Therefore I didn't do it."

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Because they kill sapient/autonomous/rational/moral/free will beings

JDC said...

That's strange, given that the forty thousand followers he is always bragging about are on the other page. You'd think he would at least keep track of that.

JDC said...

Interesting. From a quick glance, it seems that the facebook page is mostly just him posting articles that are in some way related to abortion. The about section contains the same info about the laws as his website, but it doesn't seem that they are discussed much on the page itself. All in all, it's hard to see how the number of likes on that page are supposed to grant his claims any sort of credibility.

MarcusFenix said...

Would make sense...but...we already know the oil/water relationship involved with him and sense. ;)

Mirable said...

Facebook 'likes' can be bought, btw.

MarcusFenix said...

It doesn't, and would on his part be an appeal for bandwagon mentality. Mass majorities of people used to think the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat, and yet they were wrong. In the small areas where people comment on his site, you'll notice they don't usually comment on his stuff specifically....just on abortion in general. I could be nitpicking, but something doesn't look right.

Mirable said...

http://twirp.ca/2013/06/how-to-tell-if-someone-has-bought-likes-on-facebook/

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Damn I got over 5 notifications from here. Thanks for the help guy's on Russell here. It's about time I start snuffing out the weak pro choicers for dominance. so the blood thirsty human killers like me and IIC here can thrive in our own made environment.
Na just joking.

JDC said...

That might explain a lot.

MarcusFenix said...

Nice link, ty :)

MarcusFenix said...

Well, if you weren't...i don't think you'd find anyone who would get in your way. ;)

ignorance_is_curable said...

You may be missing a point. When you attack the person instead of the argument, there is no chance you can win a Debate.

ignorance_is_curable said...

You are now perhaps beginning to see what I was talking about, a "conflation of definitions". WHEN "being" is used to equal "person", it CANNOT simultaneously be used to mean "organism" or "exists".


Thus, when I specify that I'm using the word "being" to mean "person", I CAN legitimately say that unborn humans are NOT "human beings", simply because they are not persons!


Things might be simpler all around if the word "being" was EXCLUDED from the Debate. Then its different definitions CAN'T be conflated/mis-used.


As a result, we could all agree that all humans are indeed humans. We could agree that many humans are certainly persons, so we could say "human persons" when talking about them.


SOME can agree that it is quite possible for a human to exist and ONLY be a mere animal organism; one example of such is a brain-dead adult human on full life-support. All the Objective Generic characteristics of personhood, which HAD been possessed by that human, DIED when that human's brain died --and so ONLY a mere living human animal organism is left.


Note that the Legal System Recognizes the preceding Fact that the PERSON is dead; that's why such living human animal bodies can almost routinely be unplugged from life-support.




(Do not confuse the preceding with something known as a "persistent vegetative state". This is like a coma, only worse, and it is difficult to accurately diagnose, while brain-death is comparatively easy to diagnose. The Legal System is still hosting major arguments about the personhood status of those humans who happen to be in a persistent vegetative state.)


So now we can get to the main arguing point for our purposes here, regarding unborn humans and personhood. ALL the data indicates that they don't YET qualify as persons --and therefore they, too, are mere living human animal bodies.


Worse (for those opposing abortion), we have additional data indicating that NO unborn human will "inevitably" become a person. It is quite possible for ANY human to FAIL to become a person. Look up "feral child" for the data about this. Without appropriate Nurturing, all a young human EVER becomes is just a clever animal, like a gorilla or chimpanzee is a clever animal.


Pro-lifers want us to believe that humans are innately associated with personhood, and they are TOTALLY wrong.


Net result, abortion is only focused on killing human animals, period.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I would have to decline. My debating skills are related to the time I can take to think about how I want to express/explain something --and that time is basically not available in a live debate setting.


In an exchange of written arguments I would be willing to take on ANY abortion opponent. This also has the advantage that everything contributed to the debate by either side would be right there in writing for easy reference. There would be no need to play back a recording to be sure that someone actually said what you thought they said.

MarcusFenix said...

I think you, as well, have missed a point. Three things, in fact.

1. I'm not attacking him in lieu of the debate, which would be an ad hominem. I'm saying I believe outside of the debate that i believe he is unreasonable and unbalanced. If those are demonstrated time and time again, as has been done, it's not taking his argument, sidestepping it and saying "you're an idiot if you think that!". It's calling out his actions directly.

2. An ad hominem, like many other informal infallacies, don't create a situation whereby if it's used, it suddenly negates the rest of his argument or mine. Belief that using an ad hominem (or other informal fallacy like it) constitutes the entire argument being void (as Crawford has done) is itself a fallacy, the Argument From Fallacy.

3. As I've noted, he's not denying the charge. He's just calling it an ad hominem. Both Clinton and I have stated that calling him unreasonable isn't one, and it's explained why. He just wants to keep saying it is, because there's no other answer he is prepared to give.

So no, there's no point missed. Thanks for playing.

MarcusFenix said...

Also, one could point to the Naperville fertility clinic as an example of such protests as were mentioned before.

It's also worth mentioning that fertility clinics are mostly an unregulated and wide open field. Even HuffPo makes notice of the fact:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/fertility-clinics-regulation/50be0957fe34445415000440

ignorance_is_curable said...

You are using Bad Logic. On this page we ARE in the midst of Debate. And so you are NOT outside the Debate, attacking him here.

MarcusFenix said...

Yet, I'm not trying to engage him IN the debate in that way. You do know it's possible to engage, and not engage, in separate posts, yes?

I've engaged him 3 times already, for weeks on end. He's lost all 3 times. Stating that he is unreasonable is simply fact at this stage.

You're still welcome to your opinion on the matter.

ignorance_is_curable said...

"You do know it's possible to engage, and not engage, in separate posts, yes?"


Of course. But unless you SPECIFY you are posting outside a Debate, anything you say against someone else can be used against you.

MarcusFenix said...

Well, since the implication wasn't obvious, then yes...please feel free to work with the idea that the observations you're stating are bad logic are, for all intent and purpose, outside of the debate process.

JDC said...

Before I forget, I should mention that I found the Facebook page for his book. It has nine likes.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Living-Book-On-Abortion/129556628876

Timothy Griffy said...

So, two years ago, pro-lifers finally got around to protesting a *proposed* fertility clinic. But still no general rumblings about fertility clinics destroying unneeded prenates.

It seems to me that cjvg's point still stands. Fertility clinics routinely throw out prenates with the trash by the dozens, perhaps hundreds, every day. For no other reason than the client doesn't need them anymore and the clinic needs the space. And unlike abortion, there isn't even a *potential* conflict of rights. Yet the "pro-life" community isn't nearly as up in arms about this as they are about an individual woman having an abortion.

Compare this with gun control advocates. Sure, they want to regulate guns based on the number of murders, suicides and accidental deaths caused by guns each year. But when a mass shooting happens....

LN said...

Dunno if my comment will be approved" on that site, but I was directed to "Russell"'s website as a source for his ridiculous claims, I saw your (very long) comment, and it made my day. I will not be engaging him anymore, he's a complete loony who thinks he is an authority. Thank you for the revelation :P

MarcusFenix said...

Likely not...sometimes he just approves it all willy nilly, but...there's no telling.

And you're welcome. Typically, with him, my posts do tend to run on, but...thank you for the compliment, and you're welcome.

MarcusFenix said...

I'd bet that the like count is prolly close to the number of copies it sold too. ;)

Who would pay for a 20 dollar paperback book of his, when 2 ply Charmin is SO much cheaper?

JDC said...

Keep in mind, this is the same book that no one on Amazon has felt the need to review even though it has been out for almost five years. They must just be awestruck by its brilliance or something. :)

Stormii said...

I am genuinely interested. I didn't think about how kids can be used as free labor, that's an interesting angle.

MarcusFenix said...

Well, not that i *always* follow this advice, but...my mother did tell me if you don't have something nice to say........

Maybe others took that advice to heart? :)

Mirable said...

Oh yeah...forgot to mention. In the absence of a social safety net, a large family = old age social security for the parents. Look at Brazil as an example of this. The economy is improving, the middle class I'd growing. Where 6 kids used to be the average for every woman, they are now getting their tubes tied after the 2nd or 3rd kid. Higher standard of living = smaller families.

JDC said...

Good news. I looked and it seems that your comment there was approved.

Stormii said...

Sorry I'm late in replying to this. Anyhow...

I already said this before, but it can take more than pro-lifers to help the earth.
-----

There is a limit to everything but I'm not proposing we breed recklessly. I just don't think that we kill humans (even new humans).

-----
"fundamental definitions" is good and all but it only works with humans but how can we tell this to extraterrestrials?
-----
While that is true and your actions may be admirable - you can't count on the whole population acting the same way.

----
A common default in person hood fine but like I said before this could include all members of that species - including embryos.
----
The pro-life stands that a embryo is a growing, human and therefore should be treated as a person for this fact. This is unlike a corpse because they are alive already.

---
An embryo is already essentially "turned on". Like said previously, its already alive and growing while a robot isn't.

---
Again, like stated, we know nothing about these creatures or how they view their offspring - again your viewing them through Earth-like ideals and we cannot rely on Earth's humans to study how Aliens may be. But, I'll bite. Say they are like this R-strategist, would they have such a need to make many offspring if most of them didn't die? I think not and that's how we helped humans (on Earth) to not reproduce so much but love their babies earlier.
I never said Humans were immune to Malthusian Catastrophe - I believe I already said something about this.

---
I doubt you can call my argument flawed when if one uses your arguments that it could be used to justify murder of any human being at any stages. Though no argument is perfect.

---
Its not just the empowering of women but humans overall. Lowering the birth rate is fine, my only problem is that we should kill any humans while doing so.

----
Sorry my answers are so short but I do feel like we exhausted all these points before and we're talking in circles.

MarcusFenix said...

TL;DR

and why follow me, unless you're the stalker type? SMH.

Mirable said...

Mr. Fenix, I have seen you spend days, even weeks, debating people. You put hours on end into crushing Mr Russell Crawford with your superior intellect.


Why won't you deign to do the same to Mr. Timothy Griffy here?

MarcusFenix said...

Couple of reasons...and i'm actually responding to him now, if that helps..and yes, "crushing" is the appropriate term.

1. Because he's just riding the fence, mostly. The entire bottom of his last post was IF this and IF that...but he's never outlined what he actually thinks. IF he has one position, then i can debate it. I'm not going after 12 different *if* points, just because he can't be bothered to make a direct statement.

2. Perhaps its because i'm weary of having do so with Crawford, and know how much of a rabbit hole it is, and don't really want to devote that much time to someone else, given #1.

3. You, I, and likely other people, have better things to do sometimes?

Mirable said...

You might find this to be interesting:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6089477

Romanian orphans, left to stare at a white wall day after day after day, from the moment they were born, did not develop properly. Their grey matter failed to 'grow', and their brains are substantially smaller than children who receiver proper nurturing. They also have problems bonding with people due to the complete lack of nurturing.

A woman that I know of loves being pregnant. She has two kids so far. However, she HATES raising her kids. So basically, her current kid is left alone most of the time, in his crib, with zero stimulation. He is having severe problems now, because his brain is not developing properly due to the fact that he is suffering severe neglect.

But hey, she's totes pro-life, having all those babies, loves being pregnant, loves all the attention she gets while pregnant, so having the kid, but neglecting it, is totes ok right?

Timothy Griffy said...

I am preparing a response. However, something occurred to me while reading the links that supposedly destroy the bodily autonomy argument. Roger Olson in his "Why I Do Not Believe in Absolute 'Body Autonomy" made this point:

"[W]e have to realize that when we are debating abortion in the pluralistic, public square (which is usually the case unless the context clearly indicates otherwise) we are debating the role of government power in relation to abortions."

I have always been assuming we are debating the role of government power in relation to abortions. Some of your statements seem to equivocate on that point. We could probably shortcut a lot of the discussion if I knew for certain what we are arguing. So is this strictly a moral discussion, or are we really talking about the role of government power here? If you are saying that abortion is morally wrong but legally permissible that changes the whole nature of this debate.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Over at the debatepolitics site, I encountered one pro-choicer (don't recall the handle, though) whose major beef with pro-lifers was exactly the carelessness they exhibit toward human life AFTER birth. It's one of the reasons why I like the "if YOU want them born, YOU pay ALL the expenses for 18 years" argument.


That is, since THEIR arguments are fundamentally short-sighted, it can't hurt to get them to think more about the long-term consequences of what they want. And the more directly those consequences impact them, the better.

Coyote said...

Out of curiosity--how exactly would you respond to pro-choicers which don't consider human infants to be persons (and thus support painless elective infanticide in at least some cases)?

LN said...

Not much to be done there.

Coyote said...

What exactly do you mean by this?

That it is harder for anti-abortion people to exploit any possible holes in their reasoning when it comes to this?

LN said...

Yeah, if one holds to the position that you have to be oh so developed and they're willing to throw human infants under the bus, then it's harder to push for consistency for a fetus. Not many people would ever say that they don't care if babies are slaughtered though...

Coyote said...

"Not many people would ever say that they don't care if babies are slaughtered though..."

Agreed, though for the record, I was talking about *painless* infanticide here. Some people who support painless infanticide might view it as not much different than painlessly killing, say, a pig or a chicken or whatever.

However, I am curious about this scenario:

-If someone is unsure whether it is best to draw the line for personhood at conception/fertilization or at several months/a year/whatever after birth, how exactly would you try convincing this individual that drawing this line at conception/fertilization is *better* than drawing this line several months/a year/whatever after birth?

Susan Lindgren said...

I agree. Sin is sin is sin. If I steal something from the store, lie to my boss, cheat on my husband, think horrible thoughts about someone else, have an abortion or murder my neighbor - it is all equal in Gods eyes. They have different consequences here in earth. Some consequences cause your life on earth to be almost unbearable and some do not. And no matter what sin you do commit today, any one of them will cause you to deserves forever in death, unless you believe that you are a sinner and that Jesus died for your sins. We should never shame a women with hell because each of us deserve that same hell, according to God's definition of sin. We should only try to stop them from going through with a sin that has been proven to cause more personal harm here on earth than good. But even if you have only ever just lied to someone, or have been too proud to realize that you are a sinner, and don't believe in Jesus and what be did for you, you are in a much worse state than any woman that commits abortion.