The Day the Music Died

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 16, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In the age of on-line entertainment and instant information it was, perhaps, possible to live without knowing about the carnage going on around us, but the video of evolutionist Deborah Nucatola casually and callously explaining the crushing of innocent babies and harvesting their young bodies leaves us forever without excuse. Between gulps of red wine and bites of salad we learn that “a lot of people want liver” and that “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver …” We are also told how to play games with the law so the harvesting of human body parts can proceed efficiently: Read more

Comments

StephenB: Obviously, you did not read the article. One should always watch out for the ellipses in polemics.
…abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus.

As abolitionists, this is what we mean when we use the term abortion: abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus.
In other words, he is proposing a special definition contrary to standard usage. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy leading to the death of a fetus. StephenB: Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. Please avoid redefining words as a substitute for sensible discussion. StephenB: Based on the information you gave me, the doctor recommended the direct killing of the baby, which is, indeed, an abortion. To prevent grievous harm or death of the mother, they recommend an abortion. To echo velikovskys' question, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of a fetus leading to the fetus's death to save the mother’s life?Zachriel_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Planned Parenthood claims they're not profiting from this sick business, then this second sting video surfaces today. Planned Parenthood Abortion Doctor Haggles over Payments for “Intact Fetal Specimens” in New Video - July 21, 2015 https://stream.org/planned-parenthood-abortion-doctor-haggles-payments-intact-fetal-specimens-new-video/bornagain77_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

That’s very nice, but contrary to how people actually use the term. We provided medical, legal, and common usage above.
Obviously, you did not read the article. We are discussing the ethics of abortion, not the physical nature of the procedure. Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. You cannot raise rational objections about something you know nothing about.
A woman has severe diabetes. The chance of carrying to term are very small, and the likelihood of serious injury or death for the mother are very high. The doctors suggest she consider an abortion.
This condition can be treated during pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant to the definition of abortion. Based on the information you gave me, the doctor recommended the direct killing of the baby, which is, indeed, an abortion. There is no medical condition for which an abortion is the only solution.
The woman wanted the baby, but the fetus developed severe hydrocephalus. The fetus had little chance of survival, and if it did survive, would have lived a short painful life. The woman chose an abortion.
This condition is also treatable. In any case, you are making my point. An abortion is the purposeful direct killing an innocent human being. If the killing is indirect, or incidental to a medical procedure, then it is not an abortion.StephenB_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Virgil: I don’t water ski. Whoopsie. Neither could the guy who ran over you with his skis.velikovskys_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Stephen: If the purpose is to save the mother, then it cannot, at the same time, also be to terminate the fetus. Only if the purposes were mutually exclusive, I would guess. The purpose of a hammer generally is to drive nails, if the reason I am driving nails is to build a house, is the purpose of the hammer no longer to drive nails? The purpose of riding a bike is both transportation and exercise, cannot it not be both at the same time? The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the fetus. I agree, no matter why it is done. It is a tool. Just curious, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of fetus to save the mother's life? The purpose of a medical intervention is to save a life or preserve health for the sake of preserving life or health. The purpose of an abortion is to kill a baby for the sake of killing the baby, So it is not an abortion if it is for the sake economic considerations? Rape? not for the sake of preserving health. If the objective is to preserve health, then it is not an abortion. If the objective is to kill the baby, then it is an abortion. The proximate objective of the procedure is to terminate the fetus in either case. It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction We don't,you do. A gun is a gun whether I use it the save a life or the kill an innocent person. An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby. Getting rid of the baby is the life saving procedure, The purpose of the medical procedure is to save a mother–not to get rid of the baby. The purpose of the medical procedure remains the same, why the medical procedure happens is where the intent , morality lies.velikovskys_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

velikovskys:
Do you feel like you are a murderer working in a place that results in the killing of so many unborn children?
You are misinformed. What murders do you think take place?
What about the arm and leg you broke in the water skiing accident the week before?
I don't water ski. Whoopsie.Virgil Cain_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain: I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself. velikovskys: What about the arm and leg Super bat-healing. Having gently wrapped the sleeping baby in his black, flame-proof cape, he launches a bat-hook, which bounces off the walls, around the corner, and down the corridor, attaching to the vat of snow babies. Then, as the flames engulf the fertility clinic, he crashes through the third story window to the outside, making a perfect three-point landing. The retracting bat-hook pulls the vat down the hall and out the window, where the vat's fall is broken with a well-placed bat-spring. He places the baby, unaware of how close it came to a fiery death, in a bat-cradle, while using a portable bat-battery to provide power to the vat. The baby smiles and coos as it wakes to see his savior. The caped hero disappears into the night.Zachriel_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Virgil: I work there and taking care of that baby was part of my daily duties, as is monitoring the embryos. That sounds reasonable. Do you feel like you are a murderer working in a place that results in the killing of so many unborn children? I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself. What about the arm and leg you broke in the water skiing accident the week before?velikovskys_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

A woman has severe diabetes.
And she didn't know that before having sex? Really?Virgil Cain_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Christopher Kaczor The Ethics of Abortion That's very nice, but contrary to how people actually use the term. We provided medical, legal, and common usage above. A woman has severe diabetes. The chance of carrying to term are very small, and the likelihood of serious injury or death for the mother are very high. The doctors suggest she consider an abortion. The woman wanted the baby, but the fetus developed severe hydrocephalus. The fetus had little chance of survival, and if it did survive, would have lived a short painful life. The woman chose an abortion.Zachriel_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB
harry: Enough of Zachriel’s endless gainsaying and sophistry. We shouldn’t let one who won’t even admit there is such a thing as behavior that is objectively wrong entertain himself this way. SB to Zachriel: I appreciate your silly responses since they continually provide me with teaching moments.
You were right. You have done a splendid job of taking advantage of the many "teaching moments" Zachriel's silly remarks have provided you. Very well done.harry_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

I chose to "save" the frozen embryos. But it was a very hot day that day, and they all ended up perishing.Mung_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Christopher Kaczor The Ethics of Abortion: "Although this definition of abortion ["termination of pregnancy"] is used sometimes in the medical community, it is certainly too broad. If abortion is simply “the separation” of the fetus from the mother,” then every cesarean section is also an abortion. If the human fetus does not die, then an abortion properly speaking has not taken place but rather a botched abortion, an attempted abortion, or a failed abortion. The common usage of the verb “abort” indicates as much. If the captain aborted the mission, the mission is over. If the captain tried to abort the mission or failed to abort the mission, that mission may continue. Properly speaking,abortion is intentionally killing the human fetus." and from a review of "The Ethics of Abortion: "Abortion is commonly defined as the “termination of a pregnancy” (or a “termination of a pregnancy prior to viability”). This may suffice in certain limited contexts in which only the medical aspects of pregnancy are under discussion. However, in the normal usage of the term, when the moral aspect of abortion is under discussion, this definition is inadequate. The simple reason is that the moral aspect of abortion is not whether or not the pregnancy is terminated prematurely. Rather, the question is whether or not the life of the unborn child was intentionally taken by the pregnancy-terminating procedure in question." and again, "This difference in definition becomes particularly relevant when discussing situations where the life of the mother is in danger. ...there are morally justifiable ways of ending life-threatening pregnancies without resorting to performing an abortion. If a mother has an emergency C-section to save her life, this is not an abortion (in the moral sense), even if the baby dies. On the other hand, consider a hypothetical scenario in which the mother in a life-threatening condition elects to have an emergency C-section just before the normal time of viability, and the child happens to live. Did the doctors just perform (and botch) an abortion? Or did they perform a life-saving medical procedure that resulted in the saving of two lives? No one using the term in the normal sense would say that the doctors performed an abortion in this case. Hence, the need to specify a different definition of the term when discussing abortion in normal contexts. Now consider another hypothetical scenario where a woman undergoes Dilation & Extraction (also known as “partial birth abortion”) a week before she is due for delivery. At this point, the unborn child is viable. Yet, using the definition of abortion as the “termination of a pregnancy prior to viability,” such a procedure is not an “abortion,” since the unborn child was viable when the procedure was performed. Yet, no one using the term in the normal sense would say that the woman did not have an abortion. Hence, once again, the need to specify a different definition of the term when discussing the morality of abortion. ...abortion is the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus. Defining abortion as the “termination of a pregnancy,” when discussing abortion in a moral context, defies common usage of the term, as well as common sense. What this means is that the usual life-of-the-mother scenarios cannot rationally be used to justify the continued legality of abortion, since there are morally justifiable lifesaving procedures that can be performed to save the life of the mother that are not abortions by this normal and common-sense definition."StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
The purpose of the procedure is to terminate the fetus, the reason why it is preformed is to save the life of the mother.
If the purpose is to save the mother, then it cannot, at the same time, also be to terminate the fetus. It was the life of the mother, not the death of the fetus that prompted the action. An abortion is different. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the fetus.
The purpose of the medical procedure is the same,to terminate the pregnancy,for whatever the reason for it being preformed.
The purpose of a medical intervention is to save a life or preserve health for the sake of preserving life or health. The purpose of an abortion is to kill a baby for the sake of killing the baby, not for the sake of preserving health. If the objective is to preserve health, then it is not an abortion. If the objective is to kill the baby, then it is an abortion. Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."
Your definition does not specify that if you have a good reason a deliberate termination of pregnancy is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. It is true that the moral implications of having an abortion are different.
It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction. An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby. The purpose of the medical procedure is to save a mother--not to get rid of the baby. The issue is apriori intent. Why are we doing this? SB: Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or “collateral damage?” The former defines abortion; the latter does not.
In the case of the mother’s life exemption the termination is not incidental, it is required.
The killing of the baby is incidental precisely because it is required. It is incidental because it has become suddenly required against the wishes of the doctor and mother--not because it was intended all along. If the killing of a baby is incidental, it wasn't originally intended, which means that it is not an abortion. The original purpose, which was to save both the woman and the baby, is now compromised because new and immediate medical facts require the doctor to do something he had not intended to do. With an abortion, the intention was to kill the baby all along.StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

velikovskys:
Why were you carrying someone else’s baby around? You often pickup up babies just in case of fire breaks out?
I work there and taking care of that baby was part of my daily duties, as is monitoring the embryos. I can easily save the baby and the embryos all by myself.Virgil Cain_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Stephen: The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. It is not to end the life of the baby. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the baby. The purpose of the procedure is to terminate the fetus, the reason why it is preformed is to save the life of the mother. The purpose of the medical procedure is the same,to terminate the pregnancy,for whatever the reason for it being preformed. The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Your definition does not specify that if you have a good reason a deliberate termination of pregnancy is not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. It is true that the moral implications of having an abortion are different. Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or “collateral damage?” The former defines abortion; the latter does not. In the case of the mother's life exemption the termination is not incidental, it is required, without deliberate termination of the pregnancy the mother dies.velikovskys_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. "An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/abortion.html Laws often provide exceptions on prohibitions to abortion to provide for the life and health of the mother; for example, Kentucky law, which states "Abortion after viability unlawful except to preserve life or health of woman". It's also how the term is used in normal discourse; for example, this survey result, "11% would prohibit all abortions, 14% would allow abortion only to save the life of the mother and 28% would allow abortion only in cases of life of mother, rape or incest." StephenB: Abortion is never necessary. It's amazing what you can conclude by changing the definitions of words. StephenB: you don’t attach the same value to a baby as a fully developed human for the same reason. Not sure how you reached that erroneous conclusion.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
While abortion is a loss of a potential human baby, we don’t attached the same value to a blastocyst as to a baby.
We already know that you don't attach the same value to a blastocyst as a baby because it is not fully developed. We can also surmise, though you are too timid to admit it, that you don't attach the same value to a baby as a fully developed human for the same reason. That is why I asked you how long after conception a baby must live before you will defend its right to live. You were afraid to answer. The reason is evident: You support the killing of anyone who doesn't meet your subjective standards for who deserves to live. And, of course, you assumptions are all wrong. A blastocyst is not a "potential" human being; a blastocyst is a real human being. Human life begins at conception, a biological fact that you find most inconvenient. You use the word "potential" to justify the killing of an innocent human being.StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

StephenB: A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Zachriel
Now you’re just making up definitions to suit. Of course it’s an abortion.
I appreciate your silly responses since they continually provide me with teaching moments. The purpose of a medical procedure is to save a life or health of the mother. It is not to end the life of the baby. The purpose of an abortion is to end the life of the baby. From the dictionary: Abortion-- The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Do you understand the difference between purposeful and deliberate killing as opposed to incidental killing or "collateral damage?" The former defines abortion; the latter does not.
Abortion is sometimes necessary.
Abortion is never necessary. Nevertheless, you support abortion even though you know that it is the purposeful murder of an innocent human life.StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain: It wouldn’t matter as when this fire broke out I was in the room with the embryos and had the baby with me. Why were you carrying someone else's baby around? You often pickup up babies just in case of fire breaks out? I merely opened the door and called all the people running by to assist me in the rescue. The people ignore you since heavy smoke has filled the hallway and the fire claxons are too loud to hear you, it is getting hotter, the sprinkler system has malfunctioned, the halls are now empty, do you give up or try to save one?velikovskys_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

StephenB: A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Now you're just making up definitions to suit. Of course it's an abortion.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB: I know the baby is likely to live for decades, so I save it first. So you'll save the baby first. StephenB: If I had the same assurance that the embryos would be born and live for decades, I would save them first. You have been provided that assurance many times. We know this because blastocysts are created for the very purpose of making babies. So you'll save the vat first. Not so straight then. StephenB: It is clear that you support abortion, and yet you claim to be fond of all humans. While abortion is a loss of a potential human baby, we don't attached the same value to a blastocyst as to a baby. Abortion is sometimes necessary, or the least bad choice.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

franklin
no one can assure you that the infant you just saved
I am assured by the odds. The baby will probably live for decades.
but you made your choice regardless of the numbers of lives you might have saved…
Quite the contrary, I wrote,
If I did have that assurance, that is, if I knew they (the embryos) would be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born, I would save them first since saving a thousand lives is better than saving one.
I can add to that. If, as it turns out, 50% of frozen embryos are normally implanted within a year and 50% of those implanted result in delivery, then I save the embryos first. Clearer than that I cannot be. Meanwhile, tell me this: Why do you support abortion? Assume that we are not talking about rape or incest. (A medical procedure to save the life or health of the mother is not an abortion since the purpose is to save the mother. Under those circumstances, the death of the baby is incidental and was not intended. An abortion is the purposeful taking of a human life. It's purpose is to end life, not to save life).StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

velikovskys:
Which one do you leave for an unknown probably person to save?
It wouldn't matter as when this fire broke out I was in the room with the embryos and had the baby with me. I merely opened the door and called all the people running by to assist me in the rescue.Virgil Cain_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Zachriel <blockquoteSorry. We thought you gave a straight answer, I did give a straight answer. I know the baby is likely to live for decades, so I save it first. If I had the same assurance that the embryos would be born and live for decades, I would save them first. Clearer than that I cannot be. Look who will not give a straight answer SB: So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb? Zachriel
Abortion is rarely the best option.
That is an evasion. It is clear that you support abortion, and yet you claim to be fond of all humans. Why do you support abortion if you are fond of all humans? Look at who will not even answer a question SB: How long after conception must a baby live before you will support its right to live? (Asked at least 5 times). Zachriel
-----No response-----
I have already answered your question. It is time that you answered my questions.StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain: velikovskys- If you read what I posted they both can be saved at the same time. This? " You save one and have someone else save the other. The probability that you are the only person left is too small to even consider." Which one do you leave for an unknown probably person to save?velikovskys_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB: … no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process …
So? no one can assure you that the infant you just saved (over thousands of viable human blastocysts) does not suffer from a terminal illness which will kill it before puberty.....but you made your choice regardless of the numbers of lives you might have saved...franklin_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

StephenB: ... no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process ... We responded to that concern. At least scores of the blastocysts will live a long and productive life. That's why they are frozen in a vat. StephenB: I didn’t save the vat first, I saved the baby first because no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born. Sorry. We thought you gave a straight answer, rather than continue to squirm. You see gray, but can't acknowledge its existence. Notice how jcfrk101 directly answered a slightly reframed question. StephenB: So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb? Abortion is rarely the best option. harry: If they are Christians, they probably also want to ask themselves if they are remaining open to God’s plan for populating Heaven with their descendants. Nice in theory, but not in practice. The vast majority of women use birth control at some time in their lives.Zachriel_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
Actually, we look fondly upon the promise of expectant human babies.
I think you mean the "expected" human babies. It is the mother who is expectant. So, does this mean that you are against abortion since you are fond of all babies in the womb?StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB barely makes it out of the fire with the vat. He tries to explain to the gathering people why he chose to save the vat of blastocysts first, leaving the baby.
I didn't save the vat first, I saved the baby first because no one can assure me that the embryos will be implanted, survive the developmental process, and be born. Meanwhile, my perennial question persists: How long after conception must a baby live before you will support its right to live?StephenB_{July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply