Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tucker Carlson challenges Planned Parenthood

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

. . . 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) . . .

[youtube stRoVNaY31Q]

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

Comments
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? KFkairosfocus
March 21, 2017
March
03
Mar
21
21
2017
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
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.EricMH
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
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.EDTA
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
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.Vy
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
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.Armand Jacks
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Some useful reading that will help rebalance us, post Club of Rome: http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/JULIAN_AND_THE_LIMITS_TO_GROWTH_NEO-MALTHUSIANISM.pdf Also, glance at: -- nah, let the above do it . . .kairosfocus
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
EMH, well summarised. KFkairosfocus
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
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.EricMH
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
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'!rvb8
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
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.harry
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
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...EDTA
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
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!rvb8
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
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?harry
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
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?)JoshRob
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Andrew:
Abortion ends the natural state prematurely and artificially.
So does insulin, bypass surgery and your dentist. Should we make those illegal as well?Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
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? Andrewasauber
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
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?Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
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.Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
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.Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
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.Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
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.Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
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.EDTA
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
RVB8, mass killing of the innocent is holocaust, period. KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
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.Physteach
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
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. Andrewasauber
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply