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

Zachriel:
Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional,
No, it isn't. That is the dumbest thing ever. The sad part is Zachriel and its ilk actually believe that trope.Virgil Cain_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of ‘science’? No, but that doesn't address the misrepresentation in the edited video. bornagain77: Excerpt: People deliberately killed to provide ‘specimens’ for evolutionary research Sure. While most were from graveyards, some were "fresh". People placed a low or negative value on aborigines (with the value system predating Darwin). Scientists created demand. It was the market system at work.Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Zach, so is murder OK with you as long as it is done in the name of 'science'? Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors Excerpt: People deliberately killed to provide ‘specimens’ for evolutionary research In a previous Creation magazine we related evidence that perhaps 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the ‘missing link’. US evolutionists were also strongly involved in this flourishing ‘industry’ of gathering specimens of ‘subhumans’. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races. Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand, to try to prove that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved ‘savage’ ones. A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas. http://creation.mobi/darwins-bodysnatchers-new-horrorsbornagain77_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

harry: unwanted children are “tissue” to be parceled out and sold for a profit.
Nucatola repeatedly clarifies that there is no profit motive. She says: “This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community.” Nucatola also makes clear at several points that the tissue donation helps medical researchers and is something many patients seek: “I think every one of them is happy to know that there’s a possibility for them to do this extra bit of good in what they do. And I think patients respond most to knowing the types of outcomes that it might contribute to, so, for example, Alzheimer’s research, Parkinson’s research.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-huppke-planned-parenthood-video-20150715-story.html
Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

StephenB: So, you think value is subjective and humans have no inherent worth. We're rather fond of humans; however, others may find humans valuable only as a foodstuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIufLRpJYnI StephenB: I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them. All you have to do is plug the vat into an electrical outlet. It is entertaining watching people squirm to avoid the obvious implications of their position, especially those who claim to put such stock in absolute notions of truth. Don't feel you have to respond to the question if it makes you feel uncomfortable, especially if it means you are just going to try to avoid the obvious implication. We all already know the answer. The baby comes first. StephenB: I said that zygotes are humans and that killing a zygote is killing a human. Actually, what you said was "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person." The question is when a developing human acquires the moral status of a person. Those who engage in black-and-white thinking can't conceive of shades of gray, even when they themselves see shades of gray while squirming to avoid the implications of their own multi-toned sight. See below on incongruity. StephenB: Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi’s assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter? Sure it's a problem. As we said, we're rather fond of humans — even if they are white on the right side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A harry: In my own personal experience I have many times witnessed a transformation in a person’s views on abortion after their becoming aware of its gruesome, inhuman brutality. Sure. That doesn't justify the misrepresentation in the video. harry: At the same time they came to a realization of the utter dishonesty of the propaganda that is so prevalent in the mainstream media. He says with his mouth full of dishonest propaganda. The gruesomeness in the video should have been sufficient to make your point. It isn't necessary to misrepresent the facts, but the misrepresentation continues to bounce around the right wing echo chamber. harry: Most adult humans reject child killing as soon as they understand that that is what is going on. Most adult women in the West are aware of what happens with an abortion, but still support legal access in at least some circumstances. That includes women who have had abortions. jcfrk101: Your hypothetical situation is created in a manner that force people to make moral decisions in ways that will never occur. It's a thought-experiment, but it certainly could occur. While you might want to save both, you have to save one first, and the fire is spreading quickly. jcfrk101: Also as other have pointed out, the logic you used to justify abortions (50% of embryo’s spontaneously abort) is deeply flawed. We haven't justified abortions. We've merely pointed out certain incongruences in those who take a strident position against abortion. 1) Humans spend a great deal of time recovering and disposing the remains of the dead, but ignore the millions of incidents of early pregnancy loss. 2) Fertility clinics endanger large numbers of embryos in the hope of creating one baby. Very few would shut down fertility clinics. 3) The thought-experiment, which shows just how hard people will squirm to avoid the implication that they value babies far more than blastocysts.Zachriel_{July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Zachriel Also as other have pointed out, the logic you used to justify abortions (50% of embryo's spontaneously abort) is deeply flawed. Humans face a 100% mortality rate, it doesn't make murder and more acceptable.jcfrk101_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Zachriel Your hypothetical situation is created in a manner that force people to make moral decisions in ways that will never occur. Most will never know that the embryo's will not survive, you have forced the God view and created an unreal scenario in which moral decision are never made. Saving both the children and the embryo's would be the moral decision, and given that no one would really know whether or not choosing one over the other would result in death, we would never have to make that choice. Save both, the order is irrelevant to morality since in real life such knowledge of the future does not exist.jcfrk101_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

You can read the full transcript of the interview at http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf Here's an excerpt from pages 50-51 of what the Planned Parenthood person was saying: "But I really liked babies, believe it or not. And I said ok, I’m going to be a pediatrician. I don’t know if you know much about pediatrics, it’s really treating moms. It’s not really treating kids, and the kids you do treat, they’re sick, and it’s very depressing and I said there’s no way I can do this. ... And on that day, there was patient that was transferred to me, from an outside clinic, who had had a D&E, dilation and evacuation, late second trimester abortion, she was bleeding. ... And she actually bled to death. ... I probably had a very different reaction than most people would, which was well I do D&Es all the time, and I don’t ever have complications. And I think I’m pretty good at them, I need to keep making sure that there are lots of people doing these D&Es safely so there’s not another patient like this." She found it depressing to treat sick kids, but didn't have any problems with killing them before they were born, or selling their body parts. After reading all 60 pages, I was reminded of the subtitle of Hannah Arendt's book on Adolph Eichmann: the banality of evil. There was a lot of discussion of the day-to-day mechanics of the abortion business, as well as the sociopolitical environment. It also included some self-serving rhetoric about altruistic motives of workers in the industry, and "selling" clients on the idea that the remains could be used for beneficial medical research.RalphDavidWestfall_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
That would be the majority of adult humans ...
In my own personal experience I have many times witnessed a transformation in a person's views on abortion after their becoming aware of its gruesome, inhuman brutality. At the same time they came to a realization of the utter dishonesty of the propaganda that is so prevalent in the mainstream media. Most adult humans reject child killing as soon as they understand that that is what is going on. They are still normal humans because of a faithfulness to the basic morality that is built into all of us. Unfaithfulness to that basic morality turns one into something less than fully human, deadening the instinctive reaction humans have to protect the young of their own kind. Many women who have had abortions are victims of this poisonous propaganda -- victims in the truest sense of the word. Many of them are now among the most fervent and effective Pro-Lifers, fully human, fully alive and doing all they can to protect children and other women from being victimized by vicious propaganda that must make Josef Goebbels smile from midst of the flames of Hell.harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
Not directly. Value is subjective. Your “What it is” presumably refers to objective qualities.
So, you think value is subjective and humans have no inherent worth. Duly noted.
So, given the choice, what would YOU do; save the baby, or a vat of frozen embryos?
I would save the baby since there is a good chance that the embryos in the frozen vat will die anyway even if I rescue them.
Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional, not a conclusion.
I said nothing about rights. I said that zygotes are humans and that killing a zygote is killing a human. That is not definitional. It is a scientific fact. Now to my questions: Obviously, you support the killing of the zygote and the fetus. How long after conception does a child have to live before you will defend its right to live? Since you think that it is reasonable to kill a fetus on the grounds that it is not fully developed, do you also think it is reasonable to kill a two year child on the grounds that it, too, is not fully developed? Since you think value is subjective, and since the Nazi's assigned no subjective value to the lives of Jews, why would it be a problem if the former killed six million of the latter?StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. Not directly. Value is subjective. Your "What it is" presumably refers to objective qualities. So, given the choice, what would YOU do; save the baby, or a vat of frozen embryos? StephenB: A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. Whether a zygote is a person with rights is definitional, not a conclusion.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
Sure we do. From the incongruence pointed out about.
Please address the substance of my arguments: The value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. You support the killing of a developing embryo on the grounds that it is not fully formed, which is an irrational argument since even a ten year old child is still developing. We can safely assume that you support the murder of the unborn fetus as well. How old does a child have to be before you would object to its murder?StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

StephenB: You have no evidence to support that claim. Sure we do. From the incongruence between early pregnancy loss and how death is otherwise treated. From the acceptance of fertility clinics endangering numbers of zygotes in the hope of producing a single child. From the answers and non-answers to the thought-experiment. harry: And that is how most people who by their immorality have rendered themselves less than fully human respond to babies being brutally dismembered. That would be the majority of adult humans, who you say are "less than fully human". Nearly everyone would save the baby before any number of frozen embryos. That's because they see the baby as a person, but the frozen embryos only as possibilities.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

harry,
The reality is that “human” is all any of us are, and that is what we are from conception onwards. The reality is that all that makes us human is present from conception onward.
If all you mean by "human" is a biological member of the species, then yes. But if you mean "human" as a "person" then I disagree. "I" as a person was not present at conception. The things that make "me" me were not present. There were no thoughts, emotions, feelings, consciousness, sentience, memories, etc.goodusername_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
The mother does not have to justify anything, it is her legal right.
So, when the Nazi's had the legal right to kill Jews, they didn't have to justify anything? That is your argument?StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
That’s how most people view the question, as shades of gray, with a late term fetus having a higher value than a blastocyst. Fertility clinics routinely risk the loss of several fertilized eggs in order to produce one viable baby.
And that is how most people who by their immorality have rendered themselves less than fully human respond to babies being brutally dismembered. Normal people, upon discovering the reality of what is being done to innocent children, have an entirely different response. Some claimed there were shades of gray in the issue of American slavery. That didn't change the fact that American slavery was inherently wrong and needed to be brought to and end. Nor do your lame remarks about shades of gray change the fact that the state pretending to have the authority to sanction the killing of innocent humanity is inherently wrong and "legal" child-killing needs to be brought to an end.harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
Unlawful and premeditated , the victim could be a nazi war criminal and it could be murder.
The willfull killing of an of an unborn child is always unlawful insofar as it violates the moral law. If the state's civil laws do not recognize the moral law against murder, then the state is guilty of murder.StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Harry: After babies are born they still require the bodies of others to survive. Sure,but not necessarily the mother. All children require others to survive Of course but they do not require to be inside those other's bodies. That doesn’t justify ripping the arms and legs off of children and crushing their heads, and selling the body parts that haven’t been destroyed. The mother does not have to justify anything, it is her legal right. Just as you don't have to justify refusing to donate your kidney or blood to another person. It is illegal to sell body parts for a profit beyond reasonable costs, but yes it is better for some good to come from bad.velikovskys_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
We’re not making an argument.
There is a good reason for that. You have no argument.
We’re just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby.
You have no evidence to support that claim. In any case, the value that people assign to a thing has nothing at all to do with what it is. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being, so killing it is killing a human person. However, it seems evident that you also support the killing of a developing embryo on the grounds that it is not fully formed, which is an irrational argument since even a ten year old child is still developing. More importantly, I used the word "fetus," because I anticipated your response. We can safely assume that you support the murder of the unborn fetus as well. How old does a child have to be before you would object to its murder?StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
A special class of human life which requires the use of another’s body to survive.
After babies are born they still require the bodies of others to survive. All children require others to survive. That doesn't justify ripping the arms and legs off of children and crushing their heads, and selling the body parts that haven't been destroyed.harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Stephen: An murder, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life. Actually according to the Merriam-Webster 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought Unlawful and premeditated , the victim could be a nazi war criminal and it could be murder. An abortion, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life since its objective is to end the life of the human fetus. A special class of human life which requires the use of another's body to survive.velikovskys_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB: What your argument against it? We're not making an argument. We're just pointing out that the vast majority of people assign a lower moral value to a blastocyst than a fully developed baby. Axel: The answer is simple enough, Zack: The crying baby, since a) it’s capacity for feeling pain would be so much the greater; So if you knew the baby were anesthetized, then you would save the frozen embryos? Most people would still save the baby. Axel: b) because we respond emotionally, and instinctively so, to such cries. Humans have the ability to think, and therefore do more than react to simple instinct. Axel: It becomes more complicated when the scenario you have conveniently omitted to address, obtains, i.e. instead of zygotes, babies that are either fully-formed or sufficiently formed, but clearly (through our visual monitoring of them in the womb) showing emotions, are the alternative to the crying baby. That's how most people view the question, as shades of gray, with a late term fetus having a higher value than a blastocyst. Fertility clinics routinely risk the loss of several fertilized eggs in order to produce one viable baby.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

'Here’s a simple thought-experiment. There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?' The answer is simple enough, Zack: The crying baby, since a) it's capacity for feeling pain would be so much the greater; b) because we respond emotionally, and instinctively so, to such cries. It becomes more complicated when the scenario you have conveniently omitted to address, obtains, i.e. instead of zygotes, babies that are either fully-formed or sufficiently formed, but clearly (through our visual monitoring of them in the womb) showing emotions, are the alternative to the crying baby. Again, the primal compassion in response to the crying and the immediate awareness of the baby's already having successfully exited the womb should prompt its rescue as the priority. You may well say, hey, that's a fine thing, to allow your thinking to be swayed by your emotions in such a crisis. However, it is the very scenario when it is reassuring that out humanity (our mammalian kind of response) should assert itself. Read the parable of Lazarus and the hapless stumbling compassion of the street-dogs, the dumb beasts, who licked Lazarus' sores. One sovereign consideration for the Christian is that there are situations in which, if our spiritual life is fairly well-developed, we will find ourselves in situations in which we can only act in faith and hope for the best, since the situation is too knotty and complex to be certain about the best course to take. Which is why the rigid, Pelagian legalism of the Pharisees was anathematized by Christ. In a state of anxiety, even panic, that such an emergency as you describe would be likely to engender, it seems likely that one would be prone to act on a primal sense of compassion, aroused by the 'extra-uteral' baby's tears and wailing, which, in turn, would hardly be likely to be condemned by Christ; indeed, cerebral and philosophical musings might betray a psychopathic disposition. However, while an atheist might feel smug that the most elementary zygotes would not sense pain (according to our understanding), he has already given the game away, that the pain suffered by a baby being dismembered or even removed from the womb by suction doesn't figure at all among his considerations. You lose. Likely, eternally. What goes round, comes round. ' Incidentally, I know the Greeks use to be ultra smart, but since when has Greek been the definitive language, Zack?Axel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

SB: Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder. Zachriel
Clearly, not everyone agrees with you. Mere assertion is not an argument.
An murder, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life. An abortion, by definition, is the taking of an innocent human life since its objective is to end the life of the human fetus. If the objective is to save the life of the mother, then it is not an abortion, since the loss of the fetus's life would be incidental and not the primary objective. Therefore, abortion is murder. What your argument against it? Do you support a procedure the objective of which is to end the life of a fetus? If so, then you support murder. Do you have a counter argument?StephenB_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Almost every human being places a much high moral value on living babies than on a blastocyst, or a thousand blastocysts.
Not. Even. Wrong.Virgil Cain_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Clearly, not everyone agrees with you.
The people who disagree do so with only by using mental gymnastics and inconsistencies. Theirs is a very subjective position not grounded in anything but their personal feelings.Virgil Cain_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Irrelevant to the question of murder. Abortion is clearly murder. Clearly, not everyone agrees with you. Mere assertion is not an argument. harry: Most people would instinctively respond to the cries of the baby. Sure, but that's not the question. The question is what would you do? Do you save a thousand silent blastocysts or one live baby? The answer is clear. Almost every human being places a much high moral value on living babies than on a blastocyst, or a thousand blastocysts. harry: Regardless of the etymology of the Greek word used in Luke, “with child” has always meant just that The source we provided suggested "with child" dates from the twelfth century.Zachriel_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Life is a developmental process that starts at conception and continues until death.Virgil Cain_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, As for your thought experiment: Most people would instinctively respond to the cries of the baby. What our instincts direct us to do does not change reality. The reality is that human life begins at conception. The reality is that "human" is all any of us are, and that is what we are from conception onwards. The reality is that all that makes us human is present from conception onward. None of the nutrition and hydration we process after our conception adds "humanity" to us. At conception we are already as human as we will ever be; if we aren't fully human then we will never be human. If it is wrong to kill you or me, it wrong to kill the newly conceived child. Of course, you won't even admit it is objectively wrong to kill you or me. Regardless of the etymology of the Greek word used in Luke, "with child" has always meant just that, which is why it was always used to accurately describe the state of a pregnant woman.harry_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

There’s a fire at an fertility clinic, and there is precious little time before the entire building is engulfed in flames. Down one hallway, there’s the soft purring sound of an incubator with a thousand frozen embryos; down the other hallway, the cries of a newborn baby. Which do you choose to save?
I would have the staff save the frozen embryos and incubator while I saved the newborn baby. :cool:Virgil Cain_{July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply