Atheism Darwinist rhetorical tactics governance Media Manipulation, Agit-Prop &/or Lawfare Politics/policy and origins issues Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Tucker Carlson challenges Planned Parenthood

Spread the love

. . . on just what it is that we are killing in the womb:

>>“Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer?”

That was Tucker Carlson on his primetime Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” interviewing Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens Monday night.

Carlson was looking for the answer to a simple question – the most basic, yet profound, question of the entire abortion debate: What exactly is the little “something” with a beating heart, residing in a mother’s womb, that is destroyed during an abortion? Is it a human being, a clump of tissue or something else? . . . . Carlson’s question has been the moral and legal touchstone for abortion opponents for decades, and as Laguens demonstrated, one that is virtually always sidestepped by abortion providers and proponents . . . .

Finally, after multiple attempts, Carlson doubled down with Laguens even more earnestly: “I’ve let you repeat your talking points, which I’ve heard a thousand times. … But I want to take it just a level deeper, because I think it’s worth it. It’s a big deal to a lot of people. And people say, ‘Look, this is killing a life.’ A heart is beating, you can hear it at five-and-a-half weeks, and the majority of your abortions take place after five-and-a-half weeks. So I want to know if that bothers you at all. … Do you ever stop and think, ‘Wow, what is happening here, is a life being taken?’ People say a life is being taken. Do you think that?”

As the clock ran out on the interview, Carlson gave the Planned Parenthood chief still one more crack at the question: “Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer. … You can hear the heartbeat. Is that a human being or not? Is it separate from the mother or not? Different blood type, often different sex, different DNA. It doesn’t seem like a tumor. … What does that mean?”

True to form, Laguens, herself the mother of triplets, answered with yet more “abortion rights” talking points that totally avoided the question.

“With respect,” responded Carlson, “I know you’re smart, but you’re giving me a series of rehearsed and very childish answers and it’s just disappointing.”>>

Let us watch the segment: (u/d) . . .

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

There is one thing to be said about all of this, given the context of holocaust of our posterity under false colour of law, rights and the like: what are we doing to our consciences, minds, souls, posterity — and in the end, our civilisation? (If you can come up with a cogent answer that does not reduce to absurdity and/or march of folly to ruin, I would like to hear it: _______ .) END

69 Replies to “Tucker Carlson challenges Planned Parenthood

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Just what is it that we are killing in the womb, and how does a toll of 800+ millions in 40+ years not amount to the worst holocaust in history, under false colours of law and rights?

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    And some wonder why people went along with evil leaders of the past in committing atrocities. Well, there are some atrocities happening right now. Next time that kind of question comes up, ask the man in the mirror.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    News says:

    fyi, My own run-ins with Planned Parenthood:

    A tale of Planned Parenthood Part I We are all “the fetus” now

    and

    Live baby body parts defended by righteous rage bunnies

  4. 4
    News says:

    kairosfocus, what’s truly historic is that, facing widespread dissolution themselves, traditional media are beginning to rediscover the task of finding news instead of retailing approved talking points.

    That woman is probably in shock that anyone insisted on an answer that addresses biological facts, rather than narrative, spin and talking points.

    Note: Some media may survive the debacle engulfing, for example, the New York Times. But they would need to recover a sense of news. Philosophically, I suspect that most can’t do it.

  5. 5
    asauber says:

    Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer?

    Abortion is an inhuman procedure. The human response is to be in opposition to abortion. Dawn Laguens sounds like a robot because she’s killed off most of her natural opposition to dealing out death. There is probably some natural opposition left, but her culture demands she suppress it.

    Andrew

  6. 6

    The scientific fact is that human life begins at conception. Everything after that is a rationalization. If you can’t accept that abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being and depriving them of their entire life, you are not being intellectually honest.

    If you accept those facts and are still in favor of abortionism, you might be a brainwashed member of the progressive death cult.

  7. 7

    Proud of Tucker Carlson. Glad to be alive during this revolution against fake news and political correctness.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    Pindi says:

    WJM, how many conceptions end in miscarriages? Why does God allow so many innocent human beings to be flushed out of the woman’s body though miscarriage?

  10. 10
    SteRusJon says:

    These people are just so mentally contorted. In another piece News put up we learn that many holding the same worldview as that which this VP hold are in a tizzy about the the possibility humans might colonize other planets. In other news, there are moves afoot to grant rights to rivers. All the while they dismiss the very most vulnerable of the most impressive class of entities we know of in the entire universe -human beings- as if nothing at all.

    Mind-blown!

  11. 11

    Pindi asks:

    WJM, how many conceptions end in miscarriages?

    I don’t know.

    Why does God allow so many innocent human beings to be flushed out of the woman’s body though miscarriage?

    I don’t know.

    God “allows” a lot worse stuff to happen than miscarriages. What does any of that have to do with what we are talking about?

  12. 12
    SteRusJon says:

    Pindi,

    Leaving aside the category error of comparing God’s actions to our own, how, pray tell, does the pointing out actions of another justify our own intentional evil actions?

    Stephen

  13. 13
    Pindi says:

    My point was that given the regularity with which fertilised eggs and microscopic fetuses are flushed out of women naturally, perhaps God doesn’t see them as humans.

    And given that these “natural abortions” don’t get mentioned here I was curious as to how you see it. Seems like a natural disaster that is wiping out humans by the millions and should be dealt with with the same energy as the other “holocaust”.

  14. 14

    My point was that given the regularity with which fertilised eggs and microscopic fetuses are flushed out of women naturally, perhaps God doesn’t see them as humans.

    I’m not following your logic, Pindi. All humans die at some point. Is “how many die because of a particular cause” or “how many die at a certain age” a case we should make to define which sets of people should be granted full human rights protections?

    And given that these “natural abortions” don’t get mentioned here I was curious as to how you see it. Seems like a natural disaster that is wiping out humans by the millions and should be dealt with with the same energy as the other “holocaust”.

    I think the term “Holocaust” should be reserved for intentional acts writ large, not natural disasters. Perhaps “how we should deal with natural disasters” could be the topic of a guest post you submit. This thread, however, is about the deliberate killing of millions of humans.

  15. 15
    Armand Jacks says:

    WM:

    This thread, however, is about the deliberate killing of millions of humans.

    If I saw the deliberate killing of millions of human beings in my country I would stop at nothing to stop it. I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time posting comments on an obscure blog complaining about it. Or is it just possible that using terms like holocaust and killing and murder are just over the top hyperbole?

  16. 16
    rvb8 says:

    Miscarriage rates (God’s abortions) in women who don’t know they are pregnant are around 30-50%. That is, most women have miscarriages and simply don’t know they have been pregnant at all.

    Divine Design?

    But as to WJM’s asserion that life begins at conception; no it doesn’t. Or at least no life I want to live; a life of blind, soundless, unknowing ignorance.Like the person who is brain dead the fetus is completely unaware of its existance as its brain is incapable of that awareness.

    Life upon entering our world is the sensible point to say ‘human’. I will passionately add that abortion should be a last resort, and late term abortions are always, and should be distressful to the mother.

    Please, don’t give me your Catholic, ‘zygote equals life’ nonsense, it does not. It represents potential life.

  17. 17
    Pindi says:

    WJM, If there is an extant and ongoing natural disaster that every day kills millions of human beings, shouldn’t you be trying to stop that, as well the deliberate slaughter that is going on? At some point in time, inaction, becomes culpable. Everyone here who has children has no doubt had some of their own human beings who have been victims. Should we not be checking all occurrence of menstruation to ensure there are no human beings getting discharged at the same time? Then we could at least give them names and proper funerals. Or maybe we could even save them if they are still alive at that point. If rvb8 is right, there are almost as many human beings dying like this as there are being born!

  18. 18
    bb says:

    Pindi,

    Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
    Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

    -Job 4:17

    Would you indeed annul My judgment?
    Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

    -Job 40:8

    As God reveals in the second quote, your accusation is simply tu quoque and does nothing to justify the atrocity you support. The question still remains for those that support abortion. How can you support the slaughter of nearly 1 billion children? How is your side’s definition of humanity, to rationalize this twisted act, different than the rationalizations to excuse slavery, or kill Jews?

  19. 19
    Pindi says:

    bb, would you name a fertilised egg and hold it a funeral for it if you were aware it had been miscarried?

  20. 20
    SteRusJon says:

    Pindi,

    WJM is correct when he points out that “all are dying” (see I Cor 15:22 You would do well to read the entire chapter). This is all in accord with God’s intention. It has no bearing on our actions and their sinfulness.

    Regarding, “perhaps God doesn’t see them as humans”, that may very well be true. But, He has not deigned to inform us of exactly when it is that He sees them as humans if it is not at conception. In the spirit of the second greatest commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” I would not have appreciated being considered non-human by my mother for any amount of time after my conception. How about you?

    My view is that we should err on the side of love and leave the hard decisions to the God who knows the real answers to them.

    Regarding the point at which the combined sperm and ovum become human for the left’s purposes, it seems that the VP of Planned Parenthood is unwilling to deal with the issue in an honest and forthright way. It is intentionally avoided by her and others on the left. The same avoidance appears in their rabid fight against ultrasound-before-abortion legislation. They do not wish to see the life of the unborn. They dare not peer into that darkness of considering the real import of their stance. What opinions they my express have no definiteness. Peter Singer thinks you are not human enough until you are somehow better than a pig in some way or another. They pick some vague demarcation that suits their present needs if you can get them to commit at all. How’s that for a principled position in a debate that literally means life or death.

    By the way, my mother was told that after the birth of my next older sibling that she should definitely not have any more children, it could cost here her life. My mother loved me more than herself. She was willing to give her life, if need be, that I may have mine. I thank God, He did not require her to do so.

    Stephen

    PS. to all. I Cor 15:28 (NWT) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (Greek has the equivalent of “the all in all”)

    This is the verse in the Bible that looks farthest out into the future and specifies exactly what it is that God intends to accomplish with all our trials and travails and our successes and celebrations. No other verse sees further than this time when the abolition of Death occurs at the consummation of all of God’s workings as outlined in the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. It sums up God’s purpose to be attained through His Son. All other passages of the Bible address the waypoints in the process of accomplishing that purpose.

    Unapologetically, I say if your theology cannot be comfortably reconciled with this one ultimate fact, God “All in all”, then, your theology is, simply, wrong! If, on the other hand, you are anti-theological and none of the theologies you explicitly reject are fully consistent with this verse then you are rejecting falsehood, only, and have no idea what the true God is really like.

  21. 21
    bb says:

    Pindi,

    How is a fertilized egg not a new life?

  22. 22
    EDTA says:

    >Should we not be checking all occurrence of menstruation to ensure there are no human beings getting discharged at the same time?
    >[W]ould you name a fertilised egg and hold it a funeral for it if you were aware it had been miscarried?

    I don’t know how, in a practical sense, we could find this out. The medical/technological means for making such a determination in every possible case for every possible woman is beyond our capability. Furthermore, that loss of life is not one we directly, intentionally, selectively cause.

    I would however, name and hold funerals for those aborted that we did know existed, and intentionally terminated. How are we not more culpable in those cases?

    >Or at least no life I want to live; a life of blind, soundless, unknowing ignorance. Like the person who is brain dead the fetus is completely unaware of its existance as its brain is incapable of that awareness….Life upon entering our world is the sensible point to say ‘human’.

    I don’t see the logic in arguing that because we wouldn’t want to spend our entire existences at a particular stage of physical development, that therefore, we are moral in terminating life at that stage.

    I’ve read many arguments over the decades about why the line of demarcation should be at this point or that. None have been particularly compelling.

  23. 23
    SteRusJon says:

    Pindi,

    Your ridiculing question of bb is a bit over the top. But, if I knew that I had conceived and he or she was promptly miscarried, I would mourn the loss of my son or daughter and not slough it off as nothing more that a fingernail clipping. It is entirely conceivable that I would actually name my son or daughter. It is true that the sense of loss I would experience and the mourning that I would experience would likely not be as intense or as long-lasting as I would for the death my other children. None the less, I would grieve for the loss of a child, a child of mine that failed to reach his or her potential and whose lifetime was cut all too short.

    Oh, and, if I had his or her remains in hand, so to speak, I would handle them with more reverence and respect than I do fingernail clippings.

    Stephen

  24. 24
    bb says:

    SteRusJon,

    I appreciate your comment, but Pindi’s mocking question is only meant to evade the obvious truth of his position, and what he can justifiably be compared to.

  25. 25
    Pindi says:

    Thanks for your response SteRusJon.

    No, my question to bb is not meant to be mocking or to evade the truth. It is designed to show the ridiculousness of calling a fertilised egg a human being.

    EDTA, it is very easy to find out with the right equipment. sure it would be cumbersome having to get a doctor around with microscope etc, but for those who truly believe human beings are dying, surely it is a small price to pay.

  26. 26
    Vy says:

    Rehearsed, robotic answers meant to deflect from the question. Reminds me of CR.

  27. 27
    Pindi says:

    And bb @21, it is not whether it is a new life. Its’ whether it is a human being.

  28. 28
    Eugen says:

    Pindi’s reasoning?

    Natural abortions happen, we should be allowed to do abortions.

    Natural death happens, we should be allowed to inflict death on others.

    Natural disasters happen, we should be allowed to make disasters.

  29. 29
    bb says:

    Pindi,

    So you admit a fertilized egg is a new life. If that new life is the result of a human reproductive act, what species of life is it?

    It is designed to show the ridiculousness of calling a fertilised egg a human being.

    You answered the second question, but the initial question you evaded with your mockery……oops…….attempt to paint my position as ridiculous.

  30. 30

    AJ @ 15:

    If I saw the deliberate killing of millions of human beings in my country I would stop at nothing to stop it. I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time posting comments on an obscure blog complaining about it. Or is it just possible that using terms like holocaust and killing and murder are just over the top hyperbole?

    Have you forgotten that I have already responded to all this in another thread? I gave you a rather expanded explanation that involved available options, likely outcomes, a spiritual overview that guided the kind of response that was appropriate, etc. Just because I do not react the way you imagine you would doesn’t mean I don’t consider abortion the killing of a human life.

    rvb8 said:

    But as to WJM’s asserion that life begins at conception; no it doesn’t. Or at least no life I want to live.

    So, if you are not living the kind of life I would like to live, should I then have the right to terminate your life? There’s a problem with your logic.

    I will passionately add that abortion should be a last resort,

    One wonders, why? Why should it be a “last resort”, if before birth it is not a human being one is killing?

  31. 31
    SteRusJon says:

    Pindi,

    And my response to you was to demonstrate to you that some of us think it is ridiculous not think of the newly conceived as anything but human being. You are a callous rhetorician uninterested in the worth of opposing points of view and only interested in the point total.

    And by not engaging with me, instead pressing on as though your attempt was entirely unscathed, you perfectly imitated the VP in the OP by returning to your talking point instead of facing the issue head on.

    Now engage! Tell me how it is that my response fails to demonstrate that there are some of us out here that do believe, and emote based on that belief, that the fertilized human egg is a HUMAN BEING! Just because it is ridiculous to you does not mean it is inherently ridiculous.

    Your belief that a fertilized human egg is not a human being scores zero rhetorical points with me.

    Stephen

  32. 32
    es58 says:

    if you woke to find you had been medically attached to infant who would die if unattached before 9 months should it be your choice? Why or why not?

  33. 33
    OldArmy94 says:

    Abortion comes from the same rotten barrel as euthanasia, infanticide, and genocide. It exists and is supported enthusiastically by its proponents because it is the ultimate way for Man to assume godhood status. The control over life and death is the power of the gods, and make no mistake about it, abortion is a favored potion of the modern day Luciferian hordes.

  34. 34
    bb says:

    es58,

    attached to infant who would die

    What you wrote is beside the point and we can come back to it. But you accept the fact that the contents of the womb are indeed human life?

  35. 35
    rvb8 says:

    WJM,

    No! If you, WJM were not living the life I would like to live (and you most certainly are not), I would not have the right to terminate you. You are aware you are living and therefore have rights, the zygote does not. Nor for that matter do the brain dead, whom relatives regularly ‘extinguish’, if you like that kind of silly, emotive language.

    There’s no problem with my logic, the problem resides in your deliberately poor reading comprehension.

    My argument was that a fetus, and a person with inoperable brain damage are largely the same. Unfortunately for you we are indeed allowed to end their existance: You see? ‘Existance’, not ‘Life’.

    And yes, I don’t want to ‘exist’ (which people here seem to think is fine), I want to ‘live’; unlike a fetus, and unlike the braindead!

    Kairos likes to bring in the ‘holocaust’ as an appropriate metaphor, it is not, it is not even relevant.
    Why does the world view the holocaust as true genocide but merely winks at abortion? Even in Ireand where it is supposedly illegal, people turn a blind eye. Kairos would say it is the degeneration of morality. But we as a species have been aborting, and commiting infanticde (we still do on a large scale) for eons?

    The answer, like most answers is plain! Early pregnancy has never been regarded as a viable human. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church had a far more sensible position than anyone here and that was, life began at the ‘quickening’, when the fetus first moves.

  36. 36
    rvb8 says:

    SteRusJon,

    “But, if I new I had conceived and he or she was promptly miscarried..”

    Well, from your writing you are plainly a women. Therefore SRJ, the chances are very high you have had more than one miscarriage without knowing.

    This fact is very easy to varify in medical blogs. Now that you know this biological fact I suggest you set aside one, or several days per year for mourning God’s forgotten.

    I am not being flippant. Tell your church (I assume you go) this fact of massive miscarriages of egg/sperm zygotes, genocide, and see how much real sorrow you generate.

    As opposed of course to that morally superior, disgusting, (look at me, and how holy I am) sorrow, play acted outside abortion clinics.

    In those horrible vindictive abortion clinic shamings of girls, and women who enter, and are jeered, and spat upon, I am reminded of one of my favourite Biblical stories; that of Jesus succouring the women cought in adultery as the self righteous clergy, scream for her blood, spittal drooling from their screwed up, insane faces:

    “Let he who is without…etc”

  37. 37
    es58 says:

    The

    [–> looks like a mis-post, cut off at one word ED]

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, notice the re-labelling of miscarried pregnancies etc as “abortions,” as though that which is done by deliberate act of killing were of the same order as a naturally occurring death? That is a telling, 1984-style newspeak move and it points to what is happening with our civilisation. KF

  39. 39
    Physteach says:

    Abortion frustrates me, as it seems to do to many commenting on this post. The evil of deliberately killing another innocent, helpless human seems so inconceivable to many of us. Thus, it seemed natural when my wife and I found out we could not conceive to adopt. We were able to help the women in crisis, and we were able to love our children as best as fallen humans are able. I cannot imagine loving biological children more than the ones God has given us through adoption. We have offered to adopt more, but the women decided to keep their children, and we wholly supported their decision, and did what we could materially for them. Somehow, it seems that only love can overcome such intolerable evil.
    For those of you who read this post and are young enough to adopt, may I suggest you consider it as a viable alternative to the holocaust we see going on in our society? Adoption fees: $1000’s. Time filling out forms: hours and hours. The blessings that come through adopted children: priceless!

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    Of course, the pro-aborts in this thread have no problem with harvesting the non-human body parts of non-people who have no rights, either.

    Andrew

  41. 41
    Physteach says:

    The main defense supporting abortion always seems to fall back on the inhumanity of the baby. Yet, such arguments seem to have less and less validity as we look at the younger and younger ages at which neonates survive. In our own community we had a colleague whose wife gave birth several months early. Thankfully, we had the technology, and the baby had the love and support and now has progressed beautifully to a 3 year old running around the neighborhood with her friends.
    To argue that such was not fully human in the womb seems awfully illogical, especially when we are arguing not from knowledge, but from what we don’t know.
    I found the following Ted talk interesting:
    https://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born

    For those who have said that a baby isn’t alive, how do we deal with this learning, growing entity? Who is to say that it is not “alive?” Who is to say that it is not experiencing joy, pain, emotion, and everything those of us who are older experience. One cannot make that assertion scientifically. It is presumed.

    On a separate thought, I find it interesting that at least one of the issues with claiming the baby is not human is the same issue that is dealt with in the ID vs. evolution debate–the issue of information. That is, proponents of abortion always look at development as the line of demarcation to being human. But what if information is the basis (or one basis) for being human?

    Analogies always break down, but perhaps the following would illustrate my point. The people who read this blog are educated. Many have PhD’s. Suppose you were getting ready to print out your dissertation. Perhaps even your first few pages print out, and I hit the cancel button on your printer, and deleted the file of your dissertation. You may be slightly enraged, but I could calmly respond to you, “Don’t worry. It was not a dissertation yet. It was not fully printed out.” Somehow I don’t think my words would assuage your anger. The information for the dissertation was all present. Development was not the issue. The lost information was the issue.

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, mass killing of the innocent is holocaust, period. KF

  43. 43
    EDTA says:

    pindi @ 25,
    >EDTA, it is very easy to find out with the right equipment. sure it would be cumbersome having to get a doctor around with microscope etc, but for those who truly believe human beings are dying, surely it is a small price to pay.

    Given that this would require at least one microscope and lab technician for every 10 females on the planet, plus an incredibly intrusive collection process, I think it’s quite obvious that we don’t have such a capability at any cost.

    We shall have to call this silent miscarriage process a “natural evil”, and leave it at that. But what of the moral evil that we could stop?

    Eugen @ 28,
    I was about to remark of the similarity of the pro-abortion arguments here, and the quote attributed to Hitler: “Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel.” We were never intended to mimic nature’s baser behaviors. Rather, we should be striving to rise above its ways.

  44. 44
    Armand Jacks says:

    KF:

    RVB8, mass killing of the innocent is holocaust, period. KF

    As I have mentioned before, referring to abortion as a holocaust simply detracts from your message. Referring to the removal of a mass of unaware, unthinking, non-sentient tissue as a holocaust just doesn’t make any rational sense. But if you want to continue to do so and continue to be scoffed at by anyone who takes the abortion issue seriously, you are certainly free to do so.

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    AJ, all you are doing is showing precisely why the PP vice president refused to give a straight answer when asked, just what is it that we are killing in the womb. KF

  46. 46
    Armand Jacks says:

    KF:

    AJ, all you are doing is showing precisely why the PP vice president refused to give a straight answer when asked, just what is it that we are killing in the womb. KF

    Well, then she is incompetent. You are killing a mass of tissue that is, unthinking, non-sentient and not self aware. A mass of tissue that has the potential to develop into a fully formed human being that is self aware, thinking and sentient. I don’t see what is so difficult about that.

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    AJ, you here demonstrate how the first step to holocaust is typically to find some way to exclude the intended victims from the circle of humanity deemed worthy of life. With the Nazis, the phrase was more or less, life unworthy of being lived — Lebensunwertes Leben. Ponder what you have said, and where it points. KF

  48. 48
    asauber says:

    Armand,

    If someone had snipped your spinal cord from your brain stem back in the womb days, you wouldn’t be here trolling. You’d have been denied your destiny. So, its not a potential human’s life being ended, its a human’s life being ended.

    Andrew

  49. 49
    Armand Jacks says:

    KF:

    AJ, you here demonstrate how the first step to holocaust is typically to find some way to exclude the intended victims from the circle of humanity deemed worthy of life.

    The first step that you have indicated is very true. But in all the cases of real holocausts, all it would take was a cursory examination to demonstrate the falicy of the differentiating factors. European Jews in the 30s and 40s were thinking, rational, self-aware, sentient individuals. If you can demonstrate that first trimester fetuses have any of this I would gladly change my position.

    But in this thread and the other one, you continue to ignore the fact that I have said that I am in favour of realistic appraoches to minimize unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions. I have laid out the approach in detail, the grounds on which they are based and the evidence from real examples that they are effective. Rather than address any of my assumptions or any of the evidence I provided, you simply attack the fact that I am not in favour of criminalizing abortions in the first trimester. This in spite of the fact that my approach would reduce the abortion rate to levels lower than would happen by simply making abortion illegal.

  50. 50
    Armand Jacks says:

    Andrew:

    If someone had snipped your spinal cord from your brain stem back in the womb days, you wouldn’t be here trolling.

    I wouldn’t call what I am doing trolling, but otherwise you are completely correct.

    You’d have been denied your destiny.

    Since none of us have any guaranteed destiny, I would have to say that this statement is incorrect.

    So, its not a potential human’s life being ended, its a human’s life being ended.

    Oxford defines a human being as:

    A man, woman, or child of the species “Homo sapiens” , distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

    And Collins:

    a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child.

    So, I am afraid that I am going to have to stick with it being a potential human’s life being ended.

  51. 51
    asauber says:

    Since none of us have any guaranteed destiny, I would have to say that this statement is incorrect.

    There is a guarantee you won’t have a destiny if you are killed in the womb.

    You are weaseling around the issue, just like a troll would.

    Andrew

  52. 52
    Armand Jacks says:

    Andrew:

    There is a guarantee you won’t have a destiny if you are killed in the womb.

    You are weaseling around the issue, just like a troll would.

    The only destiny that any of us have is the certainty that we are going to die. How is it weaseling if you ask a question using a concept that I and thousands of others don’t believe exists?

  53. 53
    asauber says:

    Dear Armand The Abortion Troll,

    From conception forward, the natural state is Life. Abortion ends the natural state prematurely and artificially

    Are you still gonna weasel?

    Andrew

  54. 54
    Armand Jacks says:

    Andrew:

    Abortion ends the natural state prematurely and artificially.

    So does insulin, bypass surgery and your dentist.

    Should we make those illegal as well?

  55. 55
    JoshRob says:

    Ultimately, an argument in favor of abortions where there is no danger to the mother in bringing the child to term is an argument in favor of nihilistic hedonism (or, at best, shirking the immediate responsibility of one’s circumstances).

    People wanna have sex and kill the baby. There is such a “noble” pretense surrounding the subject, as if this were some wonderful thing to be fought for.

    The criteria are always established in favor of abortion not because of some sensible, self-evident definition of life, but because of indefensible, self-derived notions about sentience and which lives we do or do not have the right to end.

    Why can’t we go ahead and kill inconvenient newborn babies? Too extreme. That answer might suffice to object to Pindi’s earlier question about preventing or discovering “natural abortions,” too: too extreme. We all know the margins wherein the answer lies, so these sorts of questions are just wasting everybody’s time.

    The premises held by each side are irreconcilably removed from each other. Pro-life (my own stance) stands firmly for the sanctity of life and would rather err cautiously on the side of preserving a life we had no right to take. Pro-abortion stands essentially for terminating what they carefully specify as “not life” in order not to violate some kind of “rights” that they would apparently have if they lived. The material basis of such rights in the first place has never been satisfactorily explained, not to me at least.

    (Also, AJ conveniently argues with half of the preceding response. Insulin, bypass surgery, and dental work hardly terminate otherwise viable lives. Is it any wonder you’ve been called a troll?)

  56. 56
    harry says:

    Pindi @17

    WJM, If there is an extant and ongoing natural disaster that every day kills millions of human beings, shouldn’t you be trying to stop that, as well the deliberate slaughter that is going on? At some point in time, inaction, becomes culpable. Everyone here who has children has no doubt had some of their own human beings who have been victims. Should we not be checking all occurrence of menstruation to ensure there are no human beings getting discharged at the same time? Then we could at least give them names and proper funerals. Or maybe we could even save them if they are still alive at that point. If rvb8 is right, there are almost as many human beings dying like this as there are being born!

    So, since it is natural for human beings to be conceived and then to abort spontaneously (if that indeed happens at the rates claimed, and such claims are not just even more lying pro-baby-killing propaganda), the deliberate taking of the lives of very young human beings can’t be that big of a deal, is that it?

    And if that is really no big deal, then why is taking the life of any innocent human being a big deal? Why have there always been laws prohibiting murder when human lives are so often naturally and spontaneously aborted?

    Pindi, why have there always been laws prohibiting the murder of innocent humanity even though very young and very old human beings die by the thousands every day by natural means? Why bother to have laws prohibiting murder under such circumstances?

  57. 57
    rvb8 says:

    Physteach,

    well done! Your gesture was noble (adoption), but ultimately futile. God at present is visiting famine on 20,000,000 in the Sudan and Ethiopia, Somalia.

    Will you adopt another?

    Of course a baby born into starvation, misery, misogyny, and intolerance is still a ‘miracle’? It’s just hard to see why we need 7 billion miracles; so what am I suggesting? The mass extermination of fetuses? No! I am suggsting this.

    Until we have a society, (and not one from your position as middle class westerners), that can take care of all that are born on this planet, we must allow abortion.

    Also, as humans are generally depraved, selfish, and uncaring, (note the many starvations, genocides, and wars,which are ongoing), we must find ways to let WOMEN, control their reproductive cycles; this should be between WOMEN, and their healthcare providers, ONLY! Kairos, and other religious men are removed from this equation, as they have nothing, except their sperm, to contribute.

    Of course this is already the position we find ourselves in, in western society, (except of course in some enlightened US states.)

    Might I suggest that the anti-abortionists here, move to their consumate state, Saudi Arabia? There, aborton is indeed considered murder; won’t that be a happy marriage? You, and totalitarian Theism. It seems to be your ideal state as opposed to the holocaust in your country of birth.

    Before you win your battle and make abortion illegal, (you won’t win, even if you do win; abortion will remain, it’s part of human cuture, sorry!), consider what that win would mean.

    Backstreet abortions from doctors who aren’t doctors. Women vilified (as they already are in the States), for trying to make decisions pertinent to their lives. Sounds like the illimination of ‘free will’ to me. Millions (MORE!), of unwanted unloved children. (Well done, oh yea holier than thou.) Health care costs no one can afford, hospitals overrun, the middle class dessimated, need I go on!?

    And for what? So you can massage your morality? Go to hell!

  58. 58
    EDTA says:

    rvv8 @ 57,

    Thank you for your gracious and charitable reply to the group.

    I think we do agree on one thing though:

    >Also, as humans are generally depraved, selfish, and uncaring,

    Yep, you got that one right. But from your viewpoint, is there anything (beyond sheer force) that can restrain such a nature? And these very facts about human nature should lead us to agree that–from a purely human viewpoint–that there is a dystopian future ahead of us, for reasons unrelated to abortion even. Improved technology in the hands of the depraved won’t save us from ourselves.

    For a different take, I read an analysis many years ago of the 2000 US presidential election–you know, the one that the Supreme Court gave to GW Bush? The analysis concluded that abortion takes out far more babies destined to become Dem’s than babies destined to become Republicans. Those aborted babies would have been of age to vote by 2000. Abortion tipped the scales and GW ended up winning–but wouldn’t have otherwise. If there’s some liberal utopia out there waiting to be realized, liberals are killing off their own chances every day. You really must see the irony in that…

  59. 59
    harry says:

    rvb8 @57,

    Take a look at this Forbes magazine article:

    The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest

    There is vastly disproportionate amount of the goods of planet Earth in the hands of a relative handful of people. How did this redistribution of wealth take place? Well, a very typical situation seems to be that globalists corrupt the governments of the world, turning them into subsidiaries of their multinational corporations that serve the globalist agenda instead of serving the legitimate interests of their own citizens.

    This reduces entire populations to dire poverty. The globalists then blame this poverty on over-population — and God, and everybody but themselves — and then attempt exterminate the victim population using “legal” euthanasia, baby killing and (mandated where possible) coercive population control measures and fake vaccinations that are actually long-acting abortifacient drugs.

    See:

    Bad blood in the Philippines?

    Who’s Behind the Program to Sterilize Kenyan Women Without Their Consent?

    ‘A mass sterilization exercise’: Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in UN tetanus vaccine

    So, you have these folks who seem to have taken up Satan on the offer Christ turned down when He was tempted by Satan in the desert. These folks get the glory and treasure of the kingdoms of the world in return for worshipping the devil and doing his will. Satan’s work has, of course, the marks of Satanic activity as pointed out by Christ. Murder and lies:

    Murder on a scale that consists of the greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world, one that chiefly targets innocent children in the womb, but also targets the disabled and elderly with euthanasia

    Lies to prop up and legitimize the murder.

    You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
    — John 8:44

    So these enemies of the human race lie and murder on an unprecedented scale and thoroughly deceive lost souls like you.

  60. 60
    rvb8 says:

    harry,

    I’m not against your dislike of global industrial tyrants, they exist. But the problem is simpler; too many people on too small a planet.

    Again I do not suggest global neutoring, or global infanticide. I merely suggest that abortion can never be outlawed, even in countries where it is outlawed. Therefore the only sensible way forward is to make it legal and safe, as it already is in my country (thank God!), and many other western nations.

    EDTA, your analysis is flawed, and if correct, and you outlaw abortion, won’t that mean Democrats will once again out number Republicans as more poor, working class mothers are forced to have children they don’t want?

    Also, a point you miss, but is elegantly explained by Steven Levitt, in his book, ‘Freakonomics’: Roe became law in the early seventies and the US became a much safer place in the 80s, 90s, and today.That is because all of these single, poor mothers had access to safe cheap abortion. Those lost fetuses then failed to grow up to be the criminal underclass, you no doubt believe should be locked up.

    Fewer Democrat voters you say? Perhaps. Fewer underclass criminals? Definately. And what’s best about this, is that because these fetuses were never self aware, they were also never aware they were ‘existing’!

  61. 61
    EricMH says:

    Argument: millions die in miscarriages, so abortion is ok.
    Response: 100% of human beings die, doesn’t mean murder is ok.

    Argument: fetus is non-sentient tissue, so abortion is ok.
    Response: unconscious person is non-sentient tissue, doesn’t mean murder is ok.

    Argument: people don’t act like abortion is the holocaust, abortion is ok.
    Response: Germans didn’t act like murdering millions of Jews was the holocaust, the holocaust was not ok.

    Argument: woman’s body, woman’s choice, abortion ok.
    Response: fetus is alive, human DNA, own body, not mother’s choice to murder.

    Argument: mother in a tough situation, abortion ok.
    Response: mother of born child in a tough situation, infanticide not ok.

    Argument: helps women succeed, abortion ok.
    Response: abortion is greatest killer of women, period.

    Argument: reduces criminals, undesirable population, suffering, abortion ok.
    Response: executing homeless, those in poverty, those in pain not ok.

    Argument: abortion is a right.
    Response: fundamental right is right to life.

    Argument: illegal abortion results in coat hanger abortion.
    Response: murder should not be therapeutic.

    Argument: small difference between The Pill and early abortion.
    Response: agreed.

  62. 62
    kairosfocus says:

    Harry,

    You have a point about the danger of unchecked greed and the destructive power of selfish moneyed interests.

    For example the Trans-Saharan and linked Trans-Atlantic, kidnapping based slave trade precisely fits this description.

    However, we also need to bear in mind a point my Dad (a retired, leading Economist in my region) used to hammer home to me: poverty needs no explanation, it is wealth, its creation and the associated growth of widespread prosperity that have to be explained. And, scarcely less strongly, he emphasised that wealth is subject to a sort of entropy that works to bring it back down. Third, he pointed out that the first instinct of the wealthy is not so much to gain more as it is to protect what they have. (If you scroll up and look at the OP you will see a case in point and how that corrupted a sort of democracy in miniature; leading to ruin.)

    Widespread sustained growth, development and transformation by industrialisation (with feedback into what are now agro-industries and advanced mining) and the rise of high value services, now vastly enhanced by the global digital information revolution, are all key factors. In this context, I have come to take Austrian insights seriously, including the wider case of Schumpeter’s championing of the Kondratiev, 1 – 2 generation long wave view, and I have come to like Garrison’s synthesis of the Hayek investment triangle with a consumption vs investment production possibilities frontier view further tied to a loanable funds market view of macroecon. Blend that with the AS-AD view of how economies saturate and we can see how many economies are trapped in a matrix driven by poor governance culture, poor human resource capacity-building, and ill advised management of natural resources and hazards, leading to dangerous vulnerabilities and — often — being trapped in a low productivity, outdated economy on the wrong side of Schumpeter’s creative destruction. (Cf my pamphlet here and onward links, drafted in response to regional and local challenges.)

    In this context, I have come to value the seven mountains of influence picture championed in recent years by Wallnau et al, in light of the way a dominant worldview, ethos and power balance driven socio-cultural and policy agenda can drive the course of communities. This is how, BTW, marches of folly to ruin get set in and can become almost impossible to turn back until enough have gone over the cliff that the voice of a remnant can finally be heard.

    In that context, we must never underestimate the impact nearly half a century later of the thought of the Club of Rome and its early global models that were so parameterised that almost everything led to collapse. This further embedded a Malthusian perspective among global power elites; where such thought is already built in at the roots of the grand Darwinist totalising narrative. By the 1980’s when the Club’s visions were being falsified by growth and development (much as Malthus likewise missed the agri revolution triggered as an echo of the industrial revolutions of C18 and 19 which is why a world of 7+ bn is actually better fed than one half or a third its size, on the whole . . . ), the theme of anthropogenic climate change made a handy substitute.

    [I need to note that the pop of the world can be put in family-sized units on 1 – 2 acre lots in an area comparable to the continent of Australia, and that energy breakthroughs with fusion, molten salt reactors and pebble bed techs can open up solar system colonisation across this century. The issue is vision and agenda, not the potential we have.]

    You are right to be concerned at how global concentrations of power in the utterly untrustworthy, manipulative and ruthless contribute to agit-prop and media shadow show games that undermine genuinely sound development. And, undermine the spirit of liberty under just law undergirded by godliness. Where, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers is both inherently self-refuting (thus, necessarily false) and utterly amoral, undermining justice, honour, decency, respect for the quasi-infinite value of the individual human soul, and more. (Cf. here on.)

    In that context it is utterly unsurprising to see columns of ugly smoke rising all across our civilisation, pointing to a common, demonically dirty subterranean fire.

    Count one, the ongoing worst holocaust in history, the war on our posterity. Where it is no coincidence that the pivotal period for this is the 1960’s – 70’s, leading to 800+ million dead and rising at a million more per week, fed by the dehumanisation and de-valuing of the targetted. Koop and Schaeffer rightly long since warned that where mass abortion undermines the value of life, infanticide and increasingly coercive euthanasis will follow. Correction, are AGAIN following.

    Likewise, sexuality, individual identity, marriage and family are targetted for manipulation and perversion, sustained even as demographic collapse stares us in the face. With the vultures already gathering for the rising geostrategic storm. Let us never forget how the fecklessness of the West under the globalist elites . . . and I don’t doubt that honey trap games and tapes with implicit blackmail are a part of this, through Lolita island (or the like, e.g. in Thailand or the Philippines etc), trapping into pedophilia, and old fashioned adultery etc . . . has now brought the Persian Empire back from the dead, allowed it to span to the Mediterranean coast and just handed it US$ 1.6 bn raw cash to feed its longstanding terrorism and nuke ambitions.

    Education and media have been turned into agit-prop mush, the better to manipulate us.

    Science has been long since infiltrated, subverted and corrupted. (One lesson hammered home by the local volcano crisis is, science, politics and public information are a dangerously volatile mix.)

    And more.

    March of folly to ruin.

    Somebody needs to stand up to exert sound, visionary, even prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership.

    Why not us?

    If not now, then when?

    If not here, then where?

    It is time to stand stoutly as in olden time.

    KF

    PS: Someone imagining that mass abortion made the US safer needs to reckon with the other 60 millions slaughtered and with the impact of the aging of the boomers that shifted crime to the white collar varieties. A civilisation busily undermining life, family, truth and right is not safe, it is on a march of folly to ruin.

  63. 63
    kairosfocus says:

    EMH, well summarised. KF

  64. 64
    kairosfocus says:

    Some useful reading that will help rebalance us, post Club of Rome: http://mercatus.org/uploadedFi.....IANISM.pdf

    Also, glance at: — nah, let the above do it . . .

  65. 65
    Armand Jacks says:

    KF@62, I read through your comment and I see a solution in search of a problem. A problem that doesn’t exist. Your doom and gloom warnings simply do dot reflect reality.

    1) Violent crime has decrease over 50% since the early 90s.

    2) Crimes against property declined 50% in the same period.

    3) Abortion rates are now lower than they were since Roe v Wade was ruled on.

    4) Societal acceptance of homosexuality, same sex marriage and adoption, acceptance of different gender identical, etc. has not resulted in the dire consequences predicted by those opposed to them. On the other hand, this issue has made most of society aware of the intolerance of some aspects of Christianity.

    Most of the societal changes I have seen since the 60s have largely been positive. Admittedly, each change has resulted in some friction and growing pains, but they have been largely positive. But by far the largest change I have seen over they years is the shift from blindly accepting religious teachings to demanding that these teachings be explained and justified. In my mind, that not only strengthens society but also strengthens religion, if religion is willing to listen. Sadly, not all. Religious sects are willing to listen.

  66. 66
    Vy says:

    Why can’t we go ahead and kill inconvenient newborn babies? Too extreme.

    I wish. These Atheists & ex panderer-in-chief would beg to differ.

  67. 67
    EDTA says:

    Yes, outlawing abortion (if that were possible anymore) would tip the scales further towards the Left in the US. But outcomes are not what determine right/wrong for me on issues with an obvious moral component. I merely pointed out a glaring irony that when you kill off future followers, you hurt a movement.

    I have read Freakonomics, and am aware of the argument for abortion in terms of fewer criminals. Of course that is yet another ends-justifies-the-means argument, which sounds like utilitarianism–which itself can be used to justify society doing absolutely anything. But other causes have been put forth for the drop in crime seen since the 70’s; two that stand out are the removal of lead from gasoline, and plain old higher incarceration rates.

  68. 68
    EricMH says:

    Murder is a crime, and the number of murders has increased tremendously since the advent of legalized abortion. And this is a crime of an even grimmer sort, since it is carried out with the full approval of our justice system and society at large. To call this a reduction in crime is to define away the problem.

  69. 69
    kairosfocus says:

    Again, let us ponder Mr Carlson’s key question:

    after multiple attempts, Carlson doubled down with Laguens even more earnestly: “I’ve let you repeat your talking points, which I’ve heard a thousand times. … But I want to take it just a level deeper, because I think it’s worth it. It’s a big deal to a lot of people. And people say, ‘Look, this is killing a life.’ A heart is beating, you can hear it at five-and-a-half weeks, and the majority of your abortions take place after five-and-a-half weeks. So I want to know if that bothers you at all. … Do you ever stop and think, ‘Wow, what is happening here, is a life being taken?’ People say a life is being taken. Do you think that?”

    Glance at the thread above, apart from what boils down to brazen dismissal unsubtantiated in light of what we know, do you see any better answer than the PP VP’s evasions?

    What does that tell us?

    KF

Leave a Reply