Sissy, my friend, I truly enjoy watching you speak out of both side of your mouth. You come in here day after day and lecture us on "personal responsibility". And now, when confronted with a possible "real world" application of "personal responsibility", you turn on a dime and state for the record that hey, "personal responsibility" ain't such a big thing after all, let the poor woman avoid consequences for her actions.

You're getting all "Scott Ballard-ish" on us, Sissy!

You've tried your best time and time again to equate abortion with murder....and the best you can do is an illegal alien argument? *chuckle* More appropriate would be "An illegal alien runs over somebody with his car. The mechanic who serviced this car and the gas station attendant who filled up his car should be punished. The illegal alien should not".

Thank you for showing us all how utterly flexible your belief systems are!
___________________________________________________
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Sissies!

The courts basically treated the women as victims and punished the doctor. For some reason, this seems lost on the pro-choice movement who I guess is trying to deflate pro-life arguments with the punishment angle. I don't really think most of the anti's care about the punishment at this point for the woman..it's the doctor who they see as performing murder on the unborn as well as doing harm to the mother.

Simply put, the pro-life crowd wants abortion to be made illegal and the punishment for violating that isn't the issue right now. The battle to get abortion made illegal is an uphill battle in and of itself. You ban doctors from performing abortions and there will be a lot less doctors performing abortions. That's pretty obvious.

"The courts basically treated the women as victims and punished the doctor. For some reason, this seems lost on the pro-choice movement who I guess is trying to deflate pro-life arguments with the punishment angle."

Nuk, if a girl or woman inserts a wire hanger into her body, takes all of her birth control pills at once, or finds other chemical means to induce miscarriage, HOW DO YOU GO AFTER A DOCTOR? Yes nuk, a lot fewer doctors, and alot MORE wire hangers.

Nuk, if people want to make something a crime, they must be willing to punish criminals. Where is my logic askew?

Cheers, and this is not personal at all for me. I'm just trying to understand your argument.

Kevin "Hack" King

My argument isn't even that abortion should be illegal/prohibited, it's more of an opinion on how the pro-life/.anti-abortion folks view punishment and the abortion issue, as well as my opinion that going after DR's would be the main means of enforcement as Git stated.

I was going to address the wire-hanger/self-induced abortion part in that post, but edited it out. Guess I should have left it in:) I can't see giving a mother who in some way causes an abortion herself prison time, nor do I think even most of the anti's would desire that kind of punishment. It would be pointless to me to punish a woman who chemically-induced an abortion or went to someone for one.

One thing you also have to consider about illegal and dangerous abortions.....the pro-choice crowd often cites that as a reason for legal abortions, but it works both ways. The "more" illegal and dangerous the abortion i.e. coat hanger or some wanna-be doctor doing it, the less likely that women attempt to do it. I'm not saying none would ever, but the more dangerous and the more hassle, the less women will do it, with or without criminal punishment.

I do look at abortion as killing. Not "murder." Now, is it the same to me as killing an out-of-the-womb person? NO it isn't and it's not really close to that. If I did see that as being the same, then I see no other way to view abortion as illegal/wrong in almost EVERY circumstance, including rape and incest. Even if the mother's life was in real danger would be a tough issue to decide.

I have more of a problem with Roe v. Wade and how it was decided by the Supreme Court and thereafter than I do legal abortion.

"...but the more dangerous and the more hassle, the less women will do it, with or without criminal punishment."

The pro life stance is to overturn R vs W, and force doctors to stop performing abortions. Is that correct?

And when there are no doctors, it is your HOPE (as you cannot know what rape and insest victims will do) that women won't take matters into their own hands. But IF they do, there should be no punishment.

Is that correct?

Kevin "Hack" King

Ideally to me, R vs W is overturned, not just due to the abortion issue but the concept of legislating from the bench that it definitely furthered, and then the states deal with the issue. Congress is kept out of the interstate aspects of a person crossing state lines to obtain an abortion, much like how one can drive from a "dry county" in one state to a wet county in another state to buy booze. Prosecute doctors who perform it where it is illegal. No punishment for those who take matters into their own hands.

I asked this question earlier. As near as I can tell, you have a tremendously faulty grasp of logic because as any first year philosophy student can tell you, if you believe that killing a fetus is equivalent to murder than you must agree with Peter Singer that Mr. Green Jeans should bury a chicken carcass with full military honors and oh, by the way, your question just isn't FAIR! It's STUPID!
...or something like that.

Your interpretation here borders on the Dollaresque. Surely, you did not misunderstand this profoundly.

One more time:

To suppose that you can conjure an argument against the pro-life position by observing that, if it were true, consistency would call for the punishment of poor, distraught women, is to commit to a fallacious line of argument. Indeed, it smacks of the argumentum ad populum.

Here's my objection in two steps:

(A) The pro-life view stands or falls with the question of whether the unborn are plausibly thought to be the bearers of rights.

(B) Whether the unborn are plausibly thought to be the bearers of rights is UNRELATED to concerns over the punitive implications of illegal abortion.

This latter disparity is what is illustrated with the animal rights position, Mr. Green Jeans, and the barnyard chickens.

So, one wonders what you would hope to accomplish by raising the question. It constitutes effective rhetoric only in the company of the wooly-headed (e.g., Dollar). Suppose that you extracted from some unsuspecting pro-lifer, "Well, gee. I reckon that we would have to lock women up and throw away the key." What, of any significance in seeking the truth of the matter regarding the gravity of what an abortion entails, would follow?

I offer this final explanation not really for your advantage, as you have yet to give evidence of even a glimmer of comprehension. But others looking over our shoulders might benefit.

I think the reason you are being so truculent is that you recognize the inherent fallacy of your own argument and your pride prevents you from admitting it to the likes of me. In any event, I categorically reject your premise that questions choose not to answer are "stupid" by definition.

Now that we've both gotten the ad hominem attacks out of the way, let's see if we can find some middle ground of agreement here.

I'd like to revisit my own argument and take it in a different direction. Perhaps that will be to your liking.

My core "givens":

1. If abortion is criminalized, then the act of getting an abortion is by definition a crime.
2. Crime is sanctionable by punishment under the legal system.

Baby steps here, mudbuddy. Can we at least agree on the above two statements? Simple yes or no will suffice. Peter Singer optional.

I accept (1) and (2). Yep, I do.

But it won't get you anywhere. You're running down a dead end, barking up the wrong tree, have your horse before your cart, and counting your chickens before they're hatched all at the same time.

You tell me how my (A) and (B) are related. That is, explain how "If abortions were illegal the girl next door would go to jail" makes any headway whatsoever in assessing the proposition, "Unborn humans have a right to life that is unjustifiably violated by abortion." THAT'S the issue. THAT'S what you have to address.

If you can make the connection, then you've got me. If not, then, once again, your question is simply not relevant.

(Meanwhile, perhaps you can take in my reply to Hack).

Patience, my friend.

Oh, before I go further, I'd like to simplify our argument for purposes of discussion. Can we agree that for this exercise that a "fetus" is, for our intents and purposes, a non-viable 5 week old fetus? I'd like to avoid the added complexity of a viability argument. Can we stipulate to this?

Assuming that you do agree to the above, can we then ask who is the "injured party" in the crime of an abortion?

1. Is it the fetus itself?
2. Is it the state, acting on behalf of the fetus?
3. Is it the woman, for "criminally disposing" of her "property"?
4. Who else might have standing here in a criminal case?

I've got to go fix dinner but await your answers.

Stipulate away.

Your line of questioning at least in part invites an entirely different debate. It is, in fact, closer to where the debate ought to be. Here' however, is how I would answer.

(1) If the fetus qualifies for personhood, then it follows that we owe direct moral duties to the fetus itself. (I'm going to paste in a couple of paragraphs from an essay that I just wrote, distinguishing between direct and indirect duties. See below.)

(2) Not morally, of course. But is this how such things are interpreted legally ("the state versus so-and-so," where the state is named as plaintiff)? Richard? (My interest is first and foremost in the issue of moral or natural rights, not whatever civil rights are awarded on the basis of natural rights.)

(3) Injured? Only if she is not viewed as competent and is, in some way, victimized by other parties implicated in the abortion.

(4) Abortionists?

Direct versus Indirect Duties

Here, I’ll understand C to be anyone not identical to B—including A.

Alright, we're making a bit of progress here. I'm hoping your future responses won't have as much cut and paste, I'm looking for a conversation, not a dissertation.

Also, where this conversation "ought" to go will be driven by mutual consent, I suspect.

Now then, to your remarks...

You wrote "Warren argues that all and only persons have rights, fetuses are not persons, and so fetuses do not have rights". That is my opinion as well. Leaving out the MORAL standpoint of this position, can we agree that from a LEGAL standpoint this position is both viable and defenseable?

I've read your post three times, which truthfully was twice more than I wanted to, to determine the exact point of correlation between the "termination of a fetus with no rights" and the "murder of an infant with presumably all rights granted a person". I could not see the connection. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I was, however, taken aback by the broad statement defining so-called "indirect rights": The needless destruction of a viable infant inevitably deprives some person or persons of a source of great pleasure and satisfaction, perhaps severely impoverishing their lives". Are you substituting "non-viable fetus" for "viable infant" and expanding this class of rights to encompass them?

Finally, I am not sure how your discourse on animal cruelty is germane to this discussion. Man, as a rule, asserts a right to absolute dominance over "lesser" species. Man kills for sport and for food, among other things. Yes, we (as man) have developed a moral boundary that states that torturing an animal is not permissible, yet the fact that we do not torture, say, bunny rabbits, does not preclude us from killing rabbits to make rabbit stew.

Expanding on that notion a bit, Man also does not have an altruistic motive in deciding which species live and die, either. Humane societies regularly euthanize unwanted pets, often for mundane reasons such as lack of facility space. Is that "fair" or "right" from an animal's viewpoint? Probably not. But an animal has no say in the matter. I submit that a fetus lacks a similar standing.

Is there such a thing as "hedonic reasoning", if not, give me the by line on that phrase in your next publication.

I've had little problem following your argument. I understand how you have adroitly proven their falsely worded arguments. It's just that I have found my liberal friends to reason "hedonically".

Bill Clinton was the King at feeling other's pain, because for a liberal all laws are mere traditions and practices that are ever changing. You've heard of the living, breathing, and evolving constitution coined by Al Gore? (Super Delegates is another example of where liberal's 'feel' like they need a way to change the electorate's decision, if they don't "feel" like the voter's chose the right candidate.)

Well, for Liberals arguments are how we "feel" about a particular matter at any given time. Right now, with little regard to the unborn child, who have no lobby, it's easy for them to become immune to the injustice. They 'feel' for the serial killer, because they can experience the pain he/she is going through at the hands of a ruthless government. All they want to hear on any tough issue, is a bumper sticker slogan that makes them "feel" comfortable with this obviously difficult problem.

So its a woman's Right to choose. Pro-Choice is how its labeled.

Actually, I've minimally researched the inconsistency that we have in the criminal law arena of our justice system. In most states, a woman who takes hard drugs, which injures her child can and is punished for her crime against the unborn child, --once the child is born. I had a small child as a client years ago, who had fetal alcohol syndrome and I could have choked the white trash mother to death for what she did to that child.

Anyway, in the law, specifically Criminal law, the Constitution requires that we prove the scienter, which is a knowingly wrongful act, to prove the crime. However, in no other examples of which I am aware, can a person commit a crime, such as the injuring of an unborn baby, and then, after fully completing the criminal act, immediately have the crime dissolve into thin air by having an abortion.

No other completed criminal act, of which I am aware, also gives the offender the opportunity to destroy the evidence and to walk away blameless.

This may be hard to follow, but its true. So, the liberals of this and other blogs, attempt to use their "feel" good logic to defeat the rights of the unborn, when in fact, they are merely deflecting the argument in its entirety.

We have laws made by man to protect our civilized society, to help it survive and to help it procreate, which is ultimately why we are here in the first place to do. I find no logical reasons why the laws would not or should not afford punishment to fit the crime, however, society dictates what the crime and punishment should be, and often society gets it wrong, very wrong.

I'm just very concerned about the MORES that society arguably "accepts" as normal, and that lasts for generations and even centuries, which are predicated upon the "feel" good logic of liberals.

Women are incompetent to vote, or to have any real rights to property. They are nothing more than Chattel. That was the rule of law, and still is, in most of the world, since the beginning of time.

Slavery was societies way of "explaining" the right of the slave holder over the non-rights of the typical black African. (Slavery has been with us from the very beginning of time, but since we are in America arguing, I'll only mention African Slaves.) Obviously, one could "feel" that the ignorant and backward tribes people, --who wear little if any clothes and pray to the Sun God, are not "at" our own level of sophistication. Heck, we're doing them a favor by taking them out of the jungle and giving them three square meals a day. Shoot, we taught them to read, gave them medical care, and put a roof over their heads. They were ignorant heathens, until we freed them from their non-viable society. Their cultures were always fighting each other and killing each other like animals. So what "rights" did they have for American Society to respect?

The litany of societal mores goes on and on, all predicated upon a "bumper sticker" logic that diminishes the rights of the inferior of our species. Whether its a women, a group of backward and uncivilized Africans, or an unborn child, there will always be people who can justify their ideals with their logical argument found on the bumper of their VW van. Right next to Vote Democrat, No War for Oil, Bush Lied-Our troops died, and Global Warming is real.

So Muddle, my advice to you, find a way to make it a snappy four or five word slogan, or hold your breathe until you pass out, because you haven't come up with an argument that "feels" good yet. Intelligent? Consistent? sure, but it doesn't really "feel" right to them. So work on your bumper sticker, and know that in another 100 years, people may very well look back on our time, and shake their heads and wonder what we were thinking, as we now do on slavery issues, and on sexism.

Jeremy Bentham, the "father of utilitarianism," is famous for his so-called "hedonic calculus." He thought that ethics could literall be reduced to a number-crunching science if we can but identify "hedons" or units of pleasure. One experience can be more pleasurable than another, right? So doesn't it stand to reason that the more pleasurable ones involve more of some--thing (akin to the decibels involved when someone cranks up the volume in obedience to Skynyrd's, "Turn it up!")?

I could bore you with the details of how the hedonic calculus was supposed to work.

But instead, I offer this photo of Bentham in his "booth.".

It seems that one of Bentham's last request was that his corpse be preserved and kept on his college campus to be brought out for display on special occasions. It's still there. Unfortunately, as you can see, at some point the head went sour, so the head on the shoulders is wax (or something similar). The actual, rather hideous, head may be seen between the p-hilosopher's ankles.

Remember the 60s tune, "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport"? It had a line, "Tan me red when I'm dead, Fred"--with the refrain, "So we tanned his hide when he died, Clyde, and that's it hanging in the shed."

Must have been about JB.

Richard,
I agree with your analysis of why dems feel that they need "superdelegates" to overthrow the wishes of the unwashed.

However, I'm willing to bet at least half of the dems that have voted in the primaries to date wish they could have a "do-over" primary now that the true nature of Barack has been unmasked.

-------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing personified

Hell, let's make this easy.

I'll play.

I think that consistency calls for the pro-lifer to advocate life sentences, and, possibly, the death penalty, for all girls 12 and older who seek abortions.

Now what?

Your move.

Seek an abortion? or Have an abortion?

Let's make it as harsh as possible.

So....

For the sake of argument, I am granting that if unborn humans qualify as persons, and, therefore, as the bearers of rights, including a right to life, then abortion is outright murder. As such, any woman seeking an abortion should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Anyone succeeding should be charged with murder. If found guilty, it's the guillotine (resurrected specifically for the purposes of beheading wayward women).

Now, what can follow regarding the most fundamental twofold question: (a) Do unborn humans have rights, and, (b) if so, does the unborn right to life trump whatever rights of the woman are brought into competition with that right?

You just can't there from here.

There is simply a disconnect between the two issues, and for two separate reasons.

First, the more basic reason is that the issue of the metaphysics of personhood is impervious to whatever conclusions we draw regarding appropriate punishments, however harsh.

Second, as Professor Marcus Singer--my former UW-Madison ethics prof, maintained in discussing "Institutional Ethics," there is always an "inference gap" between any judgment to the effect that a given institution (slavery, factory farming, abortion) is immoral, and any practical conclusion about what actions one ought to take. "Slavery is wrong" does not directly and immediately entail "All slaves should be released," as it is possible that even greater wrongs may be incurred. So, when the dust settles, even the strong conclusion, "Abortion is murder," does not, without further ado, entail anything about how violations should be punished. (And so my ex hypothesi admission above really is uncalled for.)

is being lived out by all of us on this issue, like we live it out every month or so. I'm bailing like Jeff C., the only truly smart one of us on this; smart because he ain't touchin it.

Cheers. Breakfast Thursday or Friday?

Kevin "Hack" King

I'm in. If I am not butting in that is. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

You refuted my arguement how? When it comes to blogging, I'm begining to think it is apparent as to who the real sissy is.

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

I'd say you're both due a pride smack down. Good grief! You pee on his bushes, he spits on your car. You key his car. He torches your house. You kidnap his kids. Where does this BS between you two end? Honestly? We are in an intellectual vacuum now, and for no good reason. Somebody wake me when it's over.

Kevin "Hack" King

This has definitely gotten out of hand. An "intellectual vacuum" lends itself to the growth of Republicanism, something I am quite sure that neither a Democrat like me or an Independent like Git would consider a good thing.

I tell you what, I'm willing to forgive 86.5% of all the personal insults hurled at me by Git Real, on the spot, right here and now. We can negotiate the remaining 13.5% once he makes restitution for the bushes of mine that he has ruined with his incontinence.

In return I will ask Git's forgiveness for all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I have chucked in his general direction of late.

As a token of good faith, I'll remove my sig line going forward.

sheds a lone tear, like the Native American on the horse looking out over western New Mexico.

Kevin "Hack" King

He reminded me of those students of lesser light who occupy the desks before me. I offer an example to illustrate. No discernible effect. I ask, "Does this make sense?" Glazed eyes. I offer another illustration. A bit of drool appears at the lips.

I laid out a detailed argument--step-by-step--showing why the question is simply a red herring. It is as lame as insisting that the animal rights people, before being taken seriously, must tell us what punishment Mr. Green Jeans will receive for butchering the chickens and how many years Aunt Bea will get as his accomplice for frying them up and serving them on a platter.

The question in that context is simply whether non-human animals are the kinds of things that ought to be afforded rights. In all of the literature on animal rights and animal liberation, NO SERIOUS WRITER ON EITHER SIDE pursues the line of "argument" that our snarky friend here thinks important. The reason is simple: it is not to the point.

Neither is it to the point in the abortion debate. One does not settle the question of the metaphysics of peronhood and the scope of the moral community by chasing off on such tangents.

Our friend Basmati is always good for a smartass line or two. He assumes the posture of the person who supposes that anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid, ignorant or wicked. That often serves to disguise the fact that there is really no substance to one's position. (The preacher's note next to the weakest point in his sermon outline reads, "Pound pulpit here." Basmati's note: "Hurl insult here.")

Help me with this thought process.

1) Somehow, the US DoJ files suit against A WOMAN seeking to have an abortion.

2)The supreme court rules Roe vs Wade was improperly decided.

3)Southern states, Utah, and North Dakota make abortion illegal

Now what, Muddle?

Is interstate travel to receive an abortion in California illegal? Is doing a "self-help" abortion illegal?

If these are illegal practicies, you must be willing to put pen and ink to laws structuring crime and punishment. You can't just cross the bridge when you get there can you, Muddle?

Kevin "Hack" King

There is a context in which such a question would have to be discussed.

My point is that it is decidedly NOT the context in which Basmati is trying to present it: as if a harsh answer here would somehow count against the pro-life position itself.

Frankly, as I said in one of the earliest of replies to Basmati, the question, from a practical standpoint, is hard as hell. The world is a messy place, and often this is because we mess it up.

One group of people moves in and steals the land from another group of people. Time passes, and a generation or two or three of the newcomers have made their lives on that land, having established nice suburban neighborhoods with basketball hoops and Tupperware parties.

Someone wakes up to the injustice that was done to the original occupants. "The RIGHT thing to do is to GIVE THE LAND BACK to those people!" But, oh, this is absolutely unthinakble. A mess. The Tupperware parties continue.

Look, the first and foremost issue is this: are pro-life people correct when they say that the unborn have a right to life, and that that right is unjustifiably violated by many or most abortions? Yes or no. If yes, then, indeed, our laws ought to reflect the reality. But perhaps the "Tupperware parties" would continue there as well (please indulge me the metaphor) due to the residue of decades of easy access to abortion by the women and girls next door who, as a rule, do not intentionally set out unjustifiably to violate anyone's right to life.

The legislators would have to hash all of that out. For good or ill, pragmatic considerations would most certainly enter into the deliberations.

But Basmati's question is emphatically the wrong question to ask when the discussion is ultimately over the question of whether there is such a thing as a "fetal right to life."

I asked a straightforward question. There was no "gotcha", there was no "do you still beat your wife" aspect to the question.

But you didn't like the question, so you attempted to recast the question on terms more favorable to your position, and then answered the question YOU made up to "prove" me wrong.

That's intellectually dishonest, Muddle.

If a cop were to pull you over for doing 55 mph in a 35 mph zone and ask you if you knew how fast you were going, I suspect you'd attempt to recast his question by alluding to deterministic naturalism and Jungian proto-ergonomics and lots of other very impressive 10 dollar worlds. You'd throw in a gratuitous reference to Peter Singer and finish your lengthy discourse with a very impressive proof that 1+1=55 and therefore cannot possibly be 1+1=35.

Very impressive, yes, but absolutely irrelevant to the current situation.

___________________________________________________
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Sissies!

It is not that it is an "unfair" question.

It is not merely that I "do not like" the question.

It's a stupid question and it betrays your inability to get to the heart of a matter.

I even offered an argument (I'll leave it as an exercise for you to retrieve it) that showed that your assumptions result in a reductio ad absurdum. As I recall, the amazing result was that Women ought not to be punished for having abortions, taken together with a set of impeccable premises that you and I share, entailed Unborn humans do not have a right to life.

It is absurd to suppose that there would be such an entailment. And so the "argument" lurking behind your question is equally spurious.

You never actually lifted the hood to tell me what, specifically was wrong with the argument. False premise somewhere? Invalid form?

So how much time do you think that Mr. Green Jeans should get if Peter Singer is correct on the moral standing of chickens? We have not determined that chickens do not have moral standing by agreeing together that Mr. Green Jeans is a nice guy who would not flourish in prison, or by our grieving over picturing Aunt Bea being frisked by Barney before sharing a cell with Otis.

You've just got the whole thing bassackwards.

I don't think anyone should get any jail time for cooking or eating chickens. I feel it should be legal to cook and eat chickens. If, however, you are a person abusing animals at a processing facility, you should be subject to current animal cruelty laws on the books, as they are written. That is why Mike Vic is in jail. Now, can you return the favor and answer any of my questions mate?

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Sniffles:
You also have muddle pegged!
However with the cop stopping him thing, I think, he instead of what you said he would say, he might do this:

Constable, I do appreciate your attention to your duties! Obviously you selected me for this honor instead of those other peons who just passed me and flew out of sight, due to my apparent intelligent nature! I appreciate that very much. I will make every attempt to converse with you on a level you can appreciate.

Although the constable gave muddle a lift to the station house, he did allow him to pull his vehicle off the road first.

Sometimes I suspect that you, like "Lilly," are really just a ruse. There's a much smarter person behind the facade known variously as "Dollar" and several other names. It is hard to imagine anyone being so obtuse as to assume that, because they cannot understand a point being made, it must be so much nonsense.

Oh, sorry. Words like "obtuse" don't work with you. I'll translate.

You make fun of things you are incapable of understanding and thus make an ass of yourself.

They are trying. don't let 'em. I see your clinched fist from out here in Oklahoma. Relax the hands. Go strum the guitara un poco. This is a battle of ideas, and tempers only dillute the focus. Although it DOES feel good to vent and call an arse an arse.

Kevin "Hack" King

Never has "advice" been so appropriately named (stooge).

From the other side of the tracks

$$$$ is $marter (but not wiser) than he pretends, but he's every bit as annoying as we know him to be. He's jealous that he never made it into the Eggheads Club. When he was "tripping," he hit his head really hard, and he's been cracked ever since.

What evidence do you have of the "smarter" than he/she seems? The only evidence I have available is what appears on this website, and I'm not seeing anything resembling smart. I see tiresome and shrill ramblings unsupported by anything other than the frequency by which they appear.

"richer".
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thank you for articulating that arguement the way you did. Basmati's question has nothing to do with "the point" at all. Your reply is definetly worth bookmarking in regards to this issue.

Happy post resurrection day. I enjoyed the blog you posted linking to your friend. I bookmarked his work and intend to follow thru with reading some more of his writings. The word "historocity" jumped right out a me yesterday. I had never noticed or utilized that word before and it was thrown at me twice in one day. I shall now ponder

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

Git,

Here's a broader menu of material from Bill Craig.

He is widely regarded as the premier Christian apologist of our time, and a first-rate philosopher. Bill's philosophy Ph.D. was earned at the University of Birmingham (UK), and then he turned around and got himself another doctorate--this one in theology--at the University of Munich.

This guy's list of publications in the most prestigious journals takes up more pages to print than the pages of all of my actual publications put together. (Well, a slight exaggeration, but you get the point.) He is a highly regarded expert on Big Bang cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, theological issues reagrding the nature of God (issues such as foreknowledge and free will and God's relation to time), as well as issues regarding the historicity of the person of Christ.

You may read a number of his papers--some highly technical--on the website linked below. Also useful are the various debates posted there, with full transcripts. Bill has debated some of the most formidable atheists and skeptics of our day, and the nice thing about these debates is that no "spin" is placed on them by anyone. You may read what Bill said, what his opponent said, and then do your own assessment.

I see that there is also a link to his own new website, which I have not really explored.

LeaderU is, generally speaking, a great resource. Browse around a bit.

William Lane Craig's Virtual Office

I will place Mr. Craig in my arsenal.

Browse around? Me? Not way man. I never have time to browse. LOL!

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

and what about health care for these "new humans" after they are born up to the age 18? Are you going to spring for protection of the "born" as well as the "unborn"? Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Did you think you were replying to me?

rather than replying, muddle. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

"You are never a personal, mean-spirited attacker." -- He doesn't use your tactics, you mean?

"a phone set-up" -- Like undercover police work to catch drug dealers, murder-for-hire killers, terrorists, pedophiles?

"Undercover operations can gather intelligence that would otherwise go unknown."

"Many modern criminal activities are only vulnerable to this investigative technique."

(Source: National Executive Institute Associates (NEIA) whose members are graduates of the FBI's National Executive Institute)

"Undercover Police Ride Wide Range of Emotion" (undercover transit police officers in NYC) -- Interesting reading

...................

**The debate is NOT the method used, which is just a side issue to deflect from the more important question: Is accepting money to target the killing of "black" children moral?**

"PP does not actually perform abortions."

Although it will involve your providing proof of your claims and the sources for your assertions, I'd like to see how you know this to be true. But, your assertion deflects from the real issue. It's a weak attempt at political spin.

The FOCUS here is NOT the Republican political party; however, arguments can be made for which party is much more complicit and the failure of both parties in this area.

**The FOCUS is on the morality of the actions of an "administrative assistant" of Planned Parenthood and whether PP has a "racist" agenda.**

Your Obama impersonation wasn't so good. Even he eventually came around to "condemn[ing]" Wright's words, although he tried the tactic of using others' wrongs, real or imagined, to justify, or at least excuse, Wright.

**Do you condemn the words of the Planned Parenthood administrative assistant, which are a lot more offensive than Imus's words because they reflect the attitude that it is right to end the lives of "black" children?**

You have another chance to express any of the outrage that you routinely spew at Republicans, especially the President of the U.S., at the KKK attitudes lurking at PP.

Misdirection and failing to address the real issue may fool the gullible, but I believe that most people will "use reason" and come to the conclusion that what this AA did was terribly wrong and may be indicative of a much larger problem at PP.

(Margaret Sanger, socialist founder of Planned Parenthood who supported the eugenics movement, who supported the eugenics movement, used Darwinian evolution to justify Planned Parenthood's Negro Project to solve the "Negro problem" in the U.S.)

Since you tried to shift the FOCUS off PP onto the GOP, can we count on you to support the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act and the Pre-Natally and Post-Natally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act?

"Republican Lawmaker Proposes Amendment to Defund Planned Parenthood"

The Pre-natally and Post-natally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act is "legislation which would require that families who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other condition, pre-natally or up until a year after birth, will be given pertinent information about the condition and connection with support services and networks that could offer assistance."

As far as the GOP doing "NOTHING," your spin has lost its punch. Surely you remember my answering your empty accusations before?

"President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003"

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

"President Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research"

Then, of course, there were Supreme Court appointments that were fiercely opposed by your party.

No, I believe that it's been your party that has done "NOTHING" positive in this area.

What has your party done, actions rather than empty words, to demonstrate that you "hate abortion" and to stop abortions done as a matter of convenience or for other "social" reasons ("having a baby would dramatically change my life")? (It dramatically changes the baby's life, too. But too few women think beyond themselves.)

Abortions done because of incest represent less than 0.5% of all abortions done; because of rape, 1%. What about the other 98.5% of abortions?

And then there's your lame musing, "government intrusion in those family decisions"...

What "family" decision? The mother can end the life of a child and the father or grandparents or other family members have NO RIGHTS. Of course, the child has no say in the decision to end his or her life or to be allowed to live and adopted into a family.

What about your party's opposing parental notification (keeping the family out of the decision to have an invasive medical procedure that ends the life of one its members) and any kind of limit on abortion, even infanticide?

If the government is not the means to stop infanticide, just exactly who is? If a family decides to kill one of its members, then should the government and we as a society just look the other way? Tell me again about your party.

__________________________

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. ~ Winston Churchill

__________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

It will be interesting to see how Hack will try to spin it and blame it all on Conservatives and Republicans.

------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama has the endorsement of the racist, hate group, the New Black Panther Party.

Would the head-spinning scene from The Exorcist be one that comes to mind?

I doubt your opposition ever actually reads and ponders your research and supporting links. I've noticed that the trend to responding to your arguements is to leap sideways as hard and far as your opponent can while hurling an unrelated spit ball at you from another angle. Well done! You are a tough warrior for the rights and lives of unborn children. Keep up the good fight for those who are not able and strong enough to fight for themselves. Yet.

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

From Git:

" I've noticed that the trend to responding to your arguements is to leap sideways as hard and far as your opponent can while hurling an unrelated spit ball at you from another angle."

Git, the IRONY is this ABORTION debate bled over from the TORTURE debate that you helped "leap sideways" to an ABORTION DEBATE.

There is sad irony there for all true "independent" thinkers.

Cheers, brother

Kevin "Hack" King

"Sideways leaps": Acceptable for "independents" and republicans. Dangerous in liberal hands.

Git, the IRONY is this ABORTION debate bled over from the TORTURE debate that you helped "leap sideways" to an ABORTION DEBATE.

In looking back through the earliest parts of this thread it does appear the first sidearm spitball was thrown by you when claiming your anti-torture position made you the real "pro-life" guy.

That opened the door to this comparison that I still need your help on. I answered your question on torture but I need you to 'splain what seems to be a huge gap in your logic.

The prior post question:

What I do find very hard to understand is how you can sit silently and never raise your voice in protest as over 4,500 human beings (btw-most ob-gyns would say children in that sentence) are killed in America every day in ways that make Gitmo look like a Sunday school picnic.

To my knowledge, we not pulling the limbs off live human beings in Gitmo.
We're not sucking out the brains of the Gitmo residents.
Nor do we dump burning solutions on their skin.

How come you are not equally angered by this?

This is the way to blog!

Always nice to hear from you 'cause I know it will be civil. If a non believer asked me to show them an example of a Christian interacting with others, I'd point them to your posts. You and Jeff C. somehow always stay above the frey.

At any rate, here is why you don't hear me protesting abortions. I believe abortion should be legal to the mother in the first trimester without qualification, and in the second trimester due to rape, incest, or special circumstances, and finally in the third trimester to save the mother's life. That is my opinion.

I view a developing human as not having rights that eclipse those of the fully grown human carrying it. I will never support a system of government that would make any woman of any age carry a baby to term conceived by any means.

Now, to the torture part. How can people who say they are "pro life" support torture and the death penalty? That confuses me.

Cheers
Kevin "Hack" King

Who made you God?

Who are you to deny any human his God-given unalienable right to life without due process of law (establishment of guilt for a crime deemed worthy of the death penalty)?

One can believe anything he or she wants, but when those beliefs lead to the deaths of others who are innocent, they are wrong.

"first trimester without qualification" -- Why?

The child is the same person, but at different stages of development, in the second and third trimesters as in the first, as well as after birth. Each one of us goes through stages of physical development, beginning with conception and culminating with puberty. There are various stages of psychological development as well. Why is a person at a later stage more valuable than one at an earlier stage?

"Psychology of Human Growth and Development" from "womb to tomb"

So, logically explain why "a developing human" (i.e., one before puberty, unless psychological development is a criterion) does not have the same right to life that a "fully grown human" has.

Logically explain why a baby during his or her second trimester of development has a right to life (except if his or her father committed rape or incest), but a baby during his or her first trimester of development does not.

What has changed about the baby or his or her environment that magically makes him or her worthy of protection now that he or she is larger in size? A one-year-old is larger than a newborn; a 19-year-old, than a 9-year-old....

How does a 4-inch journey down the birth canal suddenly convey rights on a person who had no rights moments before?

Is it ethical for a "white" person to deny personhood with its inherent right to life to a "black" creature? (He cannot be called a "person," but “a subordinate and inferior class of beings… [with] no rights or privileges,” because all persons have a God-given unalienable right to life.) If not persons, then the creatures, “regarded as beings of an inferior order,” could be considered products to be bought and sold. Fetuses are routinely referred to as “products of conception” that can be killed (therefore, it is a living human being) and their bodies sold for profit.

There is no ethically significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. (Ethics: Branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.)

Dr. Peter Singer is at least logically consistent:

"The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral difference. We cannot coherently hold it is alright [sic] to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however," said Singer, "is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very opposite, to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth."

__________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

YES you are! Thanks for all of your research.

Have a great day!

Even if it's a little cool.

Thanks for the kind words. You're so sweet. I just hope that you-know-who (Hate-boy $$$$$ Main Scream) doesn't retaliate.

Enjoy your day and grandkids.
SEE HERE for a laugh.

I doubt that they do read and ponder because, if they did, they would have to come to different conclusions or at least see the logical inconsistencies (as Dr. Peter Singer does).

But at least I know what I'm talking about (and am always willing to learn more). If I make a mistake (such as saying that Planned Parenthood doesn't perform abortions), I know that I'll be held to a different standard and be called a "liar" and lots of other names.
Whatever they do read might make them ponder, maybe a little? (Romans 1:20)

What’s really amazing is to watch children (and even teens and adults) touch a 10- or 12-week-old fetal model (1.25 in. – 2.13 in. from crown to rump). The look of awe on their faces is a joy to see when they realize how tiny they once were (that’s there’s someone smaller than they are might be part of it, too). The children want to know if they can have the “baby” (they never call it anything else) and are so happy when we say “yes.” A few mothers are offended but never the children. (Matthew 19:13-15)

"Postnatal Development -
The embryo then fetus develops in the uterus. After birth development continues for at least 20 more years." [Therefore, they are candidates for postnatal abortion?]

_________________________

At the event for middle school students, the Pregnancy Center's booth includes dolls [models] of fetuses and antiabortion literature.

"Pinellas County schools wishes to remain neutral on (the abortion issue)." [Abortion's never mentioned?]

"A lot of them couldn't believe that at seven weeks, you can see the little hands, nose, ears and feet."

Just curious.

Kevin "Hack" King

Planned Parenthood's Home Page:

"Learn about abortion methods and how to get abortion services."

Wilmington, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Charlottesville, VA; Roanoke, VA; and Columbia, SC, Health Centers

Chapel Hill, NC

Planned Parenthood of Alabama's Centers in Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile offer abortion services.

Downtown Atlanta Center, Gwinnett Center (Lilburn), Cobb Center, Savannah Center, Augusta -- Search by GA. Notice that the “Services” description is strangely blank.

Abortion referrals

Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services (Augusta)

“At Planned Parenthood, we provide abortion services up to 16 weeks.”

Then there is the “abortion pill” method (medical abortion – Mifeprex, or Mifepristone and RU-486), too. Who knows how many children’s lives are ended by that method and emergency contraception pills (which PP dispenses).

All Planned Parenthood offices provide abortion "counseling" where the option emphasized is abortion. PP does not provide statistics comparing the number of women "counseled" to the number of women who choose birth. There are very few adoption referrals.

Whether or not Planned Parenthood has corporate ties with the other abortion providers (and/or provides funding to them), I can’t say. PP may receive referral fees or "donations" in reciprocation for referring women to another facility.

“During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA] performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

“While the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006, it 'did not record a single adoption referral.' In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.”

[They lack the profit incentive. Since a vacuum aspiration (suction curettage) abortion takes only about 10 minutes to perform, they are very profitable: $400 X 5 per hr. = $2000 per hr. / 4/hr. = $1600. 1.3 million abortions/yr. = $520 million]

"Remember: it is your right to receive non-biased information about all of your pregnancy options." (If you believe that, then I have some ocean-front property in Utah you'd be interested in.) PP warns women about "dangerous" Crisis Pregnancy Centers, using misinformation and scare tactics (exactly what they claim CPS's do).

PPFA is an activist organization that does extensive lobbying (such as against Supreme Court nominees Alito and Roberts and abstinence education, which interferes with their profits from selling birth control, emergency contraception, abortions, STD treatment, etc.) while it is taxpayer-funded ($305.3 million in 2006).

“George W. Bush's War on Women: A Pernicious Web” (Now you can see why $niffy is such a staunch supporter in PP's fight against "anti-choice zealots.")

How PP can claim to be "neutral and objective" when they are liberal activists and profit financially from their agenda? (CPC's are non-profit and staffed almost entirely by volunteers and funded by private individuals.)

"Women's Right to Know" Law (GA) -- They circumvent the law (SURPRISE!) by very briefly mentioning the requirements when the appointment is made over the phone. So much for informed consent.

_______________________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

What a wealth of information. I actually think the information you linked us to may be beneficial to readers of the blogs and Citizen online. I had no idea you can get family care, disease prevention, and a host of other information. The clearly state that adoption and parenting counseling and information is available.

Maybe I am failing to see how an organization that provides legal services is the "enemy." Again, if you want abortion to become illegal, you are going to have to prod your anti-choice legislators into action. You don't close down wine vendors if you want wine to be illegal. You have to work within the law. I believe, as I've said MANY times before, you (pro-life/anti choice crowd) have set up perpetual arguments and fights that will not change law.

Now, one quick question:

Why are so many "pro-lifers" for torture of human beings?

Kevin "Hack" King

"What a wealth of information."

See what you've been missing by not reading all of my posts and the links.

But you must have missed the following:

“While the PPFA reported carrying out a record number of abortions in 2005-2006 [264,943], it 'did not record a single adoption referral.' In the previous year, PPFA reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which Sedlak said amounted to one adoption for every 180 abortions.”

ZERO (0 = NONE) adoptions for every 264,943 abortions.

Parenthood isn't the plan!

"Legal" does not equate with ethical/moral.

Slavery was legal. Would you not have seen those who fought to keep slavery legal as the "enemy"?

The same goes for ridding society of undesirables: Jews, Gypsies, mentally and physically handicapped ... (Hitler)

"Comparing Abortion to Other Forms of Historical Genocide"

Planned Parenthood's Negro Project to solve the "Negro problem" in the U.S. -- Not the "enemy"?

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Crisis Pregnancy Centers receive so little support and so few work to end abortion because all too many people (both parties) are comfortable with aborting future welfare recipients and criminals, which is seen as an easy solution to ending the welfare cycle (although it isn't working) and teen pregnancy.

Also, there's little willingness to sacrifice on behalf of someone else today. "I don't want to be inconvenienced; so, I'll abort again and again." Or give birth and then flush the child or dump him into the garbage because he has no value and would interfere with my plans. Parents and grandparents don't want to be inconvenienced by a grandchild; they might have to curtail some of their retirement travel plans. They might be embarrassed. It's easier to hand car keys, money, & condoms to teens than to insist on responsibility and self-control and to take the time to parent. Maybe it's because parents have so little responsibility and self-control themselves. The licentiousness of the 1960s continues to affect society 40 years later, and until the underlying problems (which are primarily spiritual) are addressed, abortion will continue. Until the causes are addressed (which CPC's and abstinence programs attempt to do), then the weakest among us will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of "freedom" (the "new" paganism, which is really very similar to the old).

"You have to work within the law."

Are you saying that we don't? What work do you do to stop abortions and promote adoptions since you claim to "hate abortion"?

More than 48.5 MILLION abortions since 1973 = 48.5 MILLION DEAD CHILDREN. Not the "enemy"?

When will your actions correspond with your words: "We hate abortion"? You won't even bring yourself to condemn targeting "black" babies, but try to spin off on torture (which has been discussed over and over). You “can’t” understand because you choose not to. There are none as blind as those who will not see. There are none as deaf as those who will not hear.

22-Week-Old Blind Fetus Survives Abortion & Is Adopted

Though she was expected to be in the "vegetative state" after her experience [abortion procedures and forced premature delivery], her new family affirms that she sucks her thumb, laughs and interacts with those who come to visit her.

Her desire to live is contagious, her new mother said, and everyone who meets her wants to return to see her again.

[See "Attorney General for 107 counts of unlawful abortion" (PDF). Counts 50-107 in State of Kansas v. PP of KS: "Unlawful Late Term Abortion" & "Unlawful Failure to Determine Viability for Late Term Abortion" on a fetus, with a gestational age of 22 weeks or more.]

Remember the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that your party fiercely fought, while claiming to want abortions to be "safe" -- not for the child, of course -- and "rare," even though there are 1.3 MILLION a year?

_______________________

8-week fetus ("young one") -- Only 30-32 more weeks to go!

“Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.” (Feminists for Life)

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." ~ Herbert Sebastien Agar

“Now, one quick question:
Why are so many "pro-lifers" for torture of human beings?”
A completely unrelated topic, Hack, but I’ll answer anyway. I’ll assume you’re talking about the water-boarding of a few terrorist thugs which resulted in the extraction of valuable life-saving information. If you’re not talking about water-boarding, then I might change my answer.

First of all, how can you equate an interrogation technique that does no permanent damage to that of a life-ending abortion? If I had been captured in Iraq, water-boarded and released I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth. If my friend Hack had gotten shot done while flying his dangerously slow A-10 and had been water-boarded and then escaped I would have been ecstatic at his good fortune. If one of my sons got kidnapped by the terrorists that liberals are so concerned about and was rescued after only being water-boarded I would get down on my knees and thank God!

Secondly, it’s the life-saving information that concerns me, not the wellbeing of terrorist scum.

I could link you to some scenes of the aftermath of real torture, but post-abortion pictures nauseate me and just ate.

Maximus

Iraq out. You still think:

"I’ll assume you’re talking about the water-boarding of a few terrorist thugs which resulted in the extraction of valuable life-saving information."

Even after numerous experts, John McCain, the international community all tell you torture doesn't work. You, for some reason, believe that we only tortured three guys; we don't render? You think we were given life saving info from guys who would just as soon blow themselves up?

If you can get your hands on last week's Newsweek, with four kick butt Army soldiers on the front, they open up a wealth of information to us. They speak of the pre-Petreaus age when we "arrested any Iraqi with a beard." They quote orders to "shoot anyone using a cell phone" to thwart IED detonation via cell phone. But you and my GOP war cheerleaders always say Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were and are filled with bad guys. You say that even though we have released many, many "bad guys" with no charges or proof they ever did wrong. And these now free "bad guys" speak of being tortured.

How would we react to our liberators using these tactics? Why do you think we are still trying to win hearts and minds? This war will not stop until someone realizes it will not stop itself. And torture has not helped us achieve our goals nationally or internationally; it has just made us a state sponsoring torture.

Kevin "Hack" King

Maybe Hack was asking how you could possibly get a “planned parenthood” abortion when having an abortion is obviously not parenthood (notice how he didn’t capitalize pp)?

This is what I find most sickening, well maybe not most but very:

"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.

Maximus