Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington
February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3

Comments

Thanks for explaining, and for verifying my understanding.hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

hazel
Stephen, then it is murder when the embryos that are grown for a few cell divisions in vitro are then discarded? I assume, therefore, that in vitro fertilization is not acceptable. Do I understand correctly?
Yes, and yes.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Stephen, then it is murder when the embryos that are grown for a few cell divisions in vitro are then discarded? I assume, therefore, that in vitro fertilization is not acceptable. Do I understand correctly?hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian
It is not a change of subject. Both invitro and the IUD prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo in the womb. They are either both murder or they are not.
In that context, both invitro and IUD qualify as murder, but not in the same way. The first involves simple act of killing one human life that is not wanted. The second involves the attempt to create a new life that is wanted by destroying many other lives that are not wanted. Meanwhile, you have evaded numerous points all along the way. You claimed that contraception reduces abortion rates, but as I stated, IUD's, which is a universal strategy for contraception, are really abortifacients, which means that IUDs do not decrease the rate of abortions at all, they increase it. The so-called "studies" that you alluded to, which refer to IUD's as contraceptives, are not based on science because they misuses scientific terms to get the results that they want. Indeed, even when one leaves the subject of IUD's and starts discussing the pill, contraception always leads to abortion. The majority of women who seek an abortion are already on contraceptives. They don't want children, and when contraception fails, they want to kill the child. These are all facts. Your willingness to accept them as such is irrelevant.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

ET
As if I don’t have enough to worry/ think about. I am starting to dislike you, StephenB, LoL! ???? ????
Education is a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion and frustration, and a whole new series of questions at a higher and more important level. Few people want to go through the process in the beginning, but for those who persist, the final prize is the truth.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB
You have changed the subject yet again.
It is not a change of subject. Both invitro and the IUD prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo in the womb. They are either both murder or they are not.Brother Brian_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

FWIW, Stephen, I brought up the subject of IVF at 111, so my comment was in large part Brian's stimulus for mentioning that topic.hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian
but is it an abortion if the fertilized egg in a petri dish of an invitro clinic isn’t implanted? You will have to do some serious selling before you can convince me of that.
You have changed the subject yet again. I will address the new subject when you provide a reasonable response to the old subject. The issue on the table is whether or not an IUD is an abortifacient, which it clearly is.
You will have to do some serious selling before you can convince me of that.
Facts do not need your acceptance in order to be true. [a] It is a fact that an abortion is the purposeful killing of an embryo or fetus any time after conception, and [b] the mechanism of an IUD, which I have already described, kills the living embryo and is, therefore, an early abortion. It doesn't prevent life (contraception) it ends life (abortion). I am amazed that you cannot understand the difference.
Well, to be honest, you haven’t convinced me that an IUD preventing implantation is an abortion.
Anyone can disengage, stick his fingers in his ears, and say "I am not convinced." It requires no intellectual exertion at all. What matters is that my argument is unassailable, you cannot refute it, and our reading audience knows it.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Interesting conundrum. Is it conception or implantation, that is the key? I have always looked at the soul as the key issue. Is the soul there, at conception? Or is the soul waiting for the mother's embrace (ie implantation)? An acceptance of the body, so to speak. As if I don't have enough to worry/ think about. I am starting to dislike you, StephenB, LoL! :D :cool:ET_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB@121, but is it an abortion if the fertilized egg in a petri dish of an invitro clinic isn’t implanted? You will have to do some serious selling before you can convince me of that. Well, to be honest, you haven’t convinced me that an IUD preventing implantation is an abortion.Brother Brian_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Stephen writes,
Human life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception. Contraception prevents the embryo from coming into being; Abortion kills the embryo that has already come into being.
Thank you: that is a clear distinction.hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Hazel:
is it an abortion if implantation doesn’t occur?
Of course it is an abortion if implantation doesn't occur. Human life begins at fertilization with the embryo's conception. Contraception prevents the embryo from coming into being; Abortion kills the embryo that has already come into being.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

I understand that religious issues are involved, but my interest here (the only reason I joined the thread) is to understand what people believe, not why. In particular I am interested in the issues involved in IVF, because of the discussion I had with my doctor friend. I am also interested in the bigger question of where people believe personhood starts, as well as whether contraception of any sort is OK. Where does conception start: at fertilization of implantation? Does it start in a test tube? And you say that you think KF and Stephen would consider preventing implantation an abortion, while others might think that an abortion only would take place about implantation. You're probably right about their views, but maybe not. So I'm interested in whatever views anyone wants to express, which so far have been ET and Ed. Edit: I see Stephen posted while I was writing this: I'll see what he has to say. ... I see: he has explained why he considers the IUD an abortifacient. I had read about that, so I understand what he is saying. Also, even though he wasn't explicit, I think this means that his position is that a fertilized egg that is not yet implanted has personhood. Perhaps Stephen will offer his thoughts on IVF?hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Hazel
My understanding is that IUD’s prevent the sperm from reaching an egg, so no fertilization occurs. From that point of view, how is that an abortion, I wonder.
The IUD has many contraceptive qualities, but it also acts as an abortifacient. Among other things, it irritates the endometrium (lining of uterus) so that the developing fetus (blastocyst) cannot survive in that environment. So it is stupid (and dishonest) to say that IUD’s decrease the abortion rate when, in fact, they kill babies in the earlier stages of development, which is the same thing as an early abortion. The baby killers, *and their enablers,* withhold that information (lie by omission) so that people will think that an IUD is a mere contraceptive. Baby killers *and their enablers* will say or do anything to protect their bloodthirsty habit of murdering unborn children. As we discovered on this site, they will cite references that manipulate data and cheat on definitions to make false arguments. Meanwhile, they ignore the findings of true scientific reports because it doesn’t serve their anti-life agenda.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Hazel, the problem is that this topic sets off religious triggers. For example, even if the IUD only prevented fertilization, this would go against Catholic teachings wher contraceptives of any sort is wrong. And then there are others like KF and, presumably, StephenB who hold the view that full human rights start at conception. As such, preventing implantation is considered to be an abortion. But that raises the whole issue of where human rights come from. That could make for a whole other thread.Brother Brian_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

I read a bit about that. First, there are hormonal and copper, which are different. Second, the primary action keeps the sperm from reaching the egg, but if fertilization occurs, it can prevent implantation. So two issues: first, there is no way of knowing which of those occur. Second, is it an abortion if implantation doesn't occur? This goes back to the broad question: from various perspectives, when is there a person? Is an embryo in a culture in a laboratory with four cells a person? Or does personhood start when an embryo is implanted and begins to grow because it is being nourished by a mother? Or at the moment of fertilization? What guidelines or perspectives enables one to answer these questions?hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Hazel@115, Modern IUDs typically have two modes of action. The first is to act to prevent viable sperm from entering the fallopian tubes. The second is to prevent implantation if fertilization does occur.Ed George_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

My understanding is that IUD's prevent the sperm from reaching an egg, so no fertilization occurs. From that point of view, how is that an abortion, I wonder.hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

hazel- That is a difficult question because it is all artificial. It may be unnatural but I don't think that makes it wrong. Personally I would rather have medical people doing things to help people who are already here. I would tell those couples that they can adopt.ET_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian to ET:
Yes. It is very convincing. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Citation/2017/05000/Worldwide_Abortion_Rates_and_Access_to.2.aspx https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.self.com/story/abortion-rates-birth-control-trump-administration/amp
Obviously. you do not know the difference between real science and abortionist propaganda. The baby-killers you allude to (all of them) refer to abortifacients like IUDs as contraceptivess. In fact, IUDs are nothing less then early abortions since they prevent implantation. Abortions dishonestly counted as contraceptives will always reduce the abortion rate. It's all part of the baby-killers' big lie. It has nothing to do with the fact that contraceptives increase the abortion rate, which has already been documented. I am losing patience with your inability to grasp the point.StephenB_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Hazel@111, I know a couple that has fertility issues and have tried three rounds of in vitro, unsuccessfully. Each failed round was very costly and very emotional. But they are currently making there fourth attempt. Each attempt produce six to eight fertilized eggs, only three of which are implanted, the remainder discarded. Personally I see no problem with this. Although I suspect that there are two other possible opinions from others here. One would think that invitro is “unnatural” and therefore wrong. The other would be that the parents must commit to having every embryo implanted or not undergo the procedure.Ed George_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

I have a friend who is a doctor and runs an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic. One situation where this is used is when a couple has a known possibility of having a child with a genetic disorder. Multiple eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized with sperm from the man. Some of the cells are successfully fertilized, and begin to divide (but some don't). For successful fertilizations, the cells divide, and after there are about eight cells, genetic testing is done to see which embryos do not carry the genetic disorder. One or two of those embryos are then inserted into the woman, in which case one or both might attach and become a viable fetus, or they might not. I'm curious what people here think of this. Is the whole process OK in principle? Is discarding the embryos with the genetic disorder OK? Is it OK to implant the embryos knowing that the probability of each one becoming a viable fetus is not 100%, and is often much less than that? One's answer to this question probably depends wholly or in part to their answer to the question, "At what point does the embryo become a person? At the moment of conception in the test tube? After being implanted in the woman? Only if successfully attaching to the uterus and beginning to be nourished by the mother? Thoughts?hazel_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

So Brian just ignores all of the data that is contrary to its claim. How wonderfulET_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

PPPPS: Kindly note that my 800+ million figure does not include the silent IUD rate, and is based on a simple 40 year linear growth to 50 millions. Taking the Lancet figures and their 50 mn baseline from 1990 to 2014 already gives us 1.2 billions, and I have seen 1.4 billion as overall estimate. The figures from China in the toll are likely to be significantly understated and could push the rate to 70+ millions per year. We are here dealing with the central, corrosive blood guilt of our time and should expect that we will not be told the full truth. Just try to think on 14% of women globally using IUD's and what that implies for the silent abortion rate. Notice, how Planned Parenthood (for which Guttmacher is the research arm) describes IUDs:
IUDs are one of the best birth control methods out there — more than 99% effective. That means fewer than 1 out of 100 people who use an IUD will get pregnant each year. IUDs are so effective because there's no chance of making a mistake. You can’t forget to take it (like the pill), or use it incorrectly (like condoms). And you're protected from pregnancy 24/7 for 3 to 12 years, depending on which kind you get. Once your IUD is in place, you can pretty much forget about it until it expires.
kairosfocus_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

PPPS: Further information compiled: https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/worldwide_abortion_statistics/kairosfocus_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

PPS: Since it seems some statistics are needed to underscore the factual status of about one million abortions per week (thus roughly 50 millions per year), here is a result from Sedgh et al in Lancet:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498988/ Findings We estimated that 35 abortions (90% uncertainty interval [UI] 33 to 44) occurred annually per 1000 women aged 15–44 years worldwide in 2010–14, which was 5 points less than 40 (39–48) in 1990–94 (90% UI for decline ?11 to 0). Because of population growth, the annual number of abortions worldwide increased by 5·9 million (90% UI ?1·3 to 15·4), from 50·4 million in 1990–94 (48·6 to 59·9) to 56·3 million (52·4 to 70·0) in 2010–14. In the developed world, the abortion rate declined 19 points (–26 to ?14), from 46 (41 to 59) to 27 (24 to 37). In the developing world, we found a non-significant 2 point decline (90% UI ?9 to 4) in the rate from 39 (37 to 47) to 37 (34 to 46). Some 25% (90% UI 23 to 29) of pregnancies ended in abortion in 2010–14. Globally, 73% (90% UI 59 to 82) of abortions were obtained by married women in 2010–14 compared with 27% (18 to 41) obtained by unmarried women. We did not observe an association between the abortion rates for 2010–14 and the grounds under which abortion is legally allowed. Interpretation Abortion rates have declined significantly since 1990 in the developed world but not in the developing world . . .
Let me add a Sci Direct clip on global IUD use:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782413007336 Globally, 14.3% of women of reproductive age use intrauterine contraception (IUC), but the distribution of IUC users is strikingly nonuniform. In some countries, the percentage of women using IUC is [LT] 2%, whereas in other countries, it is [GT] 40%.
This implies that there is a huge, silent abortion rate pivoting on women being misinformed on what the IUD is using. The article's next sentence is thus revealing: "Reasons for this large variation are not well documented." Why, sure. WHO, 2016:
https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/news/abortion-rates/en/ A new study, undertaken by the Guttmacher Institute and WHO, has estimated that, worldwide, during the period 2010-2014, there were 35 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. This translates to over 56 million abortions per year. The study shows marked differences between the regions that are classified by the UNPD as developed (Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan) and those that are classified as developing regions. While, in the more developed regions the abortion rate has declined by 41% since 1990-94 to a current rate of 27 abortions per 1000 women, the abortion rate in developing regions has remained virtually unchanged for the past 25 years at a rate of 37 abortions per 1000 women. Nearly 88% of all abortions take place in developing regions. The continuing high rates of abortion, particularly in developing regions . . .
Now of course, I cut off in mid-sentence. The sentence continues with the agenda-serving talking points: " . . . clearly underscore the need to improve and expand access to effective contraceptive services." That sounds ever so reasonable. Why do I disagree (even though I think that contraceptives of appropriate kind and used responsibly have a legitimate value in actual family planning)? For one, as the US based Magazine, National Review notes:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/guttmacher-study-global-abortion-rates-misleading/ This spring, the Guttmacher Institute released a study on global abortion rates. It analyzes abortion data from 193 countries and six territories between the years 2010 and 2014. The study finds that global abortion rates have declined since the early 1990s and that the declines in developed regions of the world have been considerably larger than declines in developing countries. This study has been covered by a number of media outlets including NBC News, U.S. News and World Report, and CNN. Much of the attention has been focused on the cross-country comparisons. This study purportedly finds that abortion rates in countries with legal protections for the unborn are similar to abortion rates in countries where abortion is legal. Studies like this are very common. The medical journal The Lancet released similar studies in 2012 and 2016. The authors never explicitly state that pro-life laws have no impact. However, that is the spin the mainstream media eagerly applies while omitting any commentary from pro-life researchers. In reality, these studies are very misleading. According to Guttmacher, only seven developed countries have significant legal protections for the unborn. Most of the countries where the unborn are protected are developing countries located in Africa, South America, Latin America, and the Middle East. These countries typically have very high poverty rates and cannot be easily compared to industrialized democracies in North America and Europe. The media coverage of these studies fails to acknowledge this. Additionally, there is a body of academic research showing that the incidence of abortion is sensitive to its legal status. The best such study was published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2004. Unlike other studies, it looked at how changes in abortion policy affected abortion rates. It specifically analyzed Eastern European countries after the fall of Communism. Some countries, such as Romania, liberalized their abortion law while others, such as Poland, instituted legal protections for the unborn. The study held constant a range of economic and demographic variables and found that modest limits on abortion reduced abortion rates by 25 percent. [--> such limits are typically the result of pro-life concerns] Furthermore, abortion trends in the United States demonstrate that legalizing abortion increases abortion rates. Between 1974, the first full year of legal abortion in all 50 states, and 1980, the abortion rate in the United States increased by approximately 50 percent. Great Britain also saw substantial increases in its abortion rate after legislation legalizing abortion took effect in 1968. Additionally, a broad body of research shows that even incremental pro-life laws such as public-funding restrictions, parental-involvement laws, and properly designed informed-consent laws all reduce abortion rates.
In short, talking points to the effect that contraceptive availability is responsible for declining abortion rates in the US are highly misleading or ill-informed.kairosfocus_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

BB, I find it interesting that when you have been repeatedly presented with the actual global rate of abortions, about a million per week, you have repeatedly tried to talk about how rates are going down, as if that were a good answer. I have pointed out what the rate means in terms of the yardstick holocaust, i.e. that the abortion holocaust is running at one Hitler scale genocide every three months or so. Your answer is to resort to the fallacy and known agit prop technique of drumbeat repetition of what is at best a quarter truth: in the case of the USA, under the pressure of a steadfast stand on principle against abortion on demand on the principle of the right to life as first right, rates have declined. All this shows is that a good number of people have broken the spell of the dominant narrative pushed by the abortion on demand agenda. It does not show that there is an acceptable rate of holocaust under false colour of law other than zero, nor does it correct the terrible ratcheting precedent set by the undermining of consensus to protect innocent life. Notice, the latest headlined lawfare pushes have passed what is in effect infanticide under false colour of law, in New York, and there is a push to do so in Virginia, where it seems other states may have already done so. And, there is an obvious push to demonise those who stand up for life. KF PS: I see you are trying to counter a well established point made by SB. FYI, the fact is, IUDs do not prevent conception but interfere with implantation, effecting an early, silent abortion. Similarly, historically, too much of oral contraceptives acted in a similar manner. There is the so-called morning after pill. Likewise, given that many forms of sexual behaviour form as in effect habituating and addictive behaviour, getting caught up in such is not conducive to self-discipline or consistent responsible behaviour -- irresponsibility is a corrosive behaviour and character challenge. This means that especially with teens, methods of contraception that are fairly reliable under other circumstances are liable to fail, above and beyond the obvious problem of the failure rate of thin latex barriers or the like. Apparent protection that makes risky but enjoyable behaviour seem less risky is liable to increase exposure and carelessness to the point where protective effect -- which needs to be there in effect every time -- is undermined as a simple probability calculation I long since gave shows. BTW, this also holds for the unspoken part, the epidemic of dozens of sexually transmissible diseases that in significantly many cases are not protected against in any significant manner by use of condoms. Several are utterly debilitating, others are direct risks to life.kairosfocus_{February 13, 2019
February
02
Feb
13
13
2019
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

StephenB
I have already explained that contraception increases the abortion rate, it does not reduce it.
Yes. It is very convincing. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Citation/2017/05000/Worldwide_Abortion_Rates_and_Access_to.2.aspx https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.self.com/story/abortion-rates-birth-control-trump-administration/amp https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/us-abortion-rate-lowest-roe-wade-contraception-access https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/ https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/amp/ And, just for fun. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858476 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0738399194900329Brother Brian_{February 12, 2019
February
02
Feb
12
12
2019
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian
Education and ready access to contraceptives are generally accepted as the major cause of the reduction in abortion rates.
I have already explained that contraception increases the abortion rate, it does not reduce it. The evidence has been put on the table. Why do you continue to propagate your error?StephenB_{February 12, 2019
February
02
Feb
12
12
2019
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

KF
So, empty repetition on how abortion rates are going down (largely thanks to the sustained objection of the Pro-Life movement sustained in the face of decades of slanderous agit prop and lawfare
There is nothing "empty" about the abortion rate going down. You ascribe this to the pro-life movement in spite of evidence to the contrary. Education and ready access to contraceptives are generally accepted as the major cause of the reduction in abortion rates. The pro-life movement has played a smaller, although not insignificant, role.
Sorry, the acceptable level or rate of state-sponsored, media supported holocaust is: ZERO.
The fact that it is an unachievable goal is very relevant. If zero can't be attained then the best we can do is significantly reduce the rate.
Going further, it is massively evident, save to the willfully blind and obtuse, that marriage, family, sexual habits and individual identity are under assault and are disintegrating.
Yet marriage rates have stabilized and divorce rates have declined.Brother Brian_{February 12, 2019
February
02
Feb
12
12
2019
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply