Earlier in the week I was listening to a podcast discussion about the controversy Richard Dawkins inspired when asked what to do when pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby. His response was to abort and start over. The woman on the pro-abortion side defended the sentiment even though she said she personally thought the statement repugnant. In fact, she elaborated that there are many reasons she believed were bad reasons to abort, although she thinks there is no reason bad enough that would ever justify denying an abortion.
I’ve run into many people who would label themselves pro-choice who say they think abortion is wrong but would never want to prevent access to it. This has never made sense to me. Why do these people think abortion is wrong? Usually they recognizes that it ends a human being’s life. Put more simply, they believe abortion kills a human being, and that’s morally wrong, but wants mothers to have the ability to do it.
The host of the podcast threw out a few different scenarios to see if this pro-abortion advocate had a line they wouldn’t cross. He asked if she would oppose an elective abortion simply because the mother didn’t want to have a girl. He asked if sh would oppose it if, hypothetically, it could be determined that her baby would be gay. In both cases, she stood fast reiterating that she thinks those are poor reasons to abort, but the mother should do as she wishes. I would add to that: what if a woman said she wanted to get pregnant for the sole purpose of having abortions to kill the babies?
Some might argue that abortion is not a moral issue to begin with. But this can only be true if abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being. It would then stand to reason that abortion is not a moral issue. And I would agree with them that if abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being, then there is no need to defend the decision to abort and thus there is no bad reason by definition. However, if abortion does take the life of an innocent human being, then no justification is even possible, except of course to save the life of the mother.
However, I think we all can think of bad reasons. Like those asked of the pro-abortion advocate. The fact that there are poor reasons to justify abortion suggests that ending a pregnancy is not simply a mere medical procedure. Deep down I think everyone knows this.
So I have a question to those who would call themselves pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Though you support a woman’s right to abortion, is there any reason a woman could give that would not justify her seeking an abortion? Put another way, if a woman you knew confided in you saying, “I am thinking of having an abortion because _____________”, is there anything that would fill in the blank that would cause you to think to yourself, or tell your friend, “that is not a good reason, and you should not have an abortion”? And what makes it a bad reason?
Sifting Reality 
Now this will be interesting if you get any takers.
I am thinking of having an abortion because I want to punish the father and he REALLY wants this baby…
I am thinking of having an abortion because this fetus will be a girl and we REALLY want a boy…
I am thinking of having an abortion because I think this baby will be gay and God hates gay babies…
The point being, I can think of many frivolous or less legitimate reasons to have an abortion.
As many who support keeping abortion legal have pointed out, if the Left and Right could stop scrapping over criminalizing the abortion medical procedure, we could perhaps unite to reduce the number of frivolous or less legitimate reasons to have an abortion and thereby reduce the number of abortions.
~Dan
EVERY reason for abortion is frivolous. When it is nothing but “I’m pregnant and I don’t want to be pregnant,” it is frivolous. There is NO reason for abortion except selfishness.
If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex; simple as that.
Dan
For those reasons, you’re saying as a pro-womenshouldbeabletomakeallmedicaldecisionsforthemselvesandabortuonisamedicalprocedure person that if someone said those to you, you’d tell them not to exercise their choice to make their own medical decisions?
Oh, I’d likely counsel her to not make decisions so frivolously, if she were open to my counseling. I just wouldn’t criminalize her options for medical choices.
Just like the fella who wanted to drive a big ol SUV with the muffler taken off so he could drive as fast and pollute as much and as loudly as he wanted. I’d also counsel him not to do so.
And in both cases, I’m open to having reasonable regulations associated with both abortion decisions and driving decisions. But in neither case would I criminalize the option altogether.
~Dan
So driving with no muffler and abortion are moral parallels to you?
The parallel is where do we draw a line in telling people what choices they can make?
I gather that you like your personal liberty to make transportation choices on your own without others telling you what to do. So, too, other people want to make their medical choices on their own without you telling them what to do.
And, John, with millions dying, being maimed and otherwise harmed each and every year, it’s a bit dismissive of you to simply compare that to “so, no muffler…” The choice to embrace the personal auto is a choice that kills and harms millions and costs billions, yearly, so it’s no lightweight matter.
~Dan
Trabue, the problem is your logic. Abortion is not a medical decision – it is a moral decision. Just because their are people in the medical profession who do the murdering, that doesn’t make it a medical decision. When the Nazi doctors murdered the Jews, was that a medical decision?
Automobiles have never killed anyone. They have no ability to do so. Poor drivers, distracted drivers, drivers making poor choices, etc while operating motor vehicles are what kills people. The motor vehicle itself is an inanimate object.
And if you feel that motor vehicles are so bad, then perhaps you shouldn’t own one or ride in one. Put your moral standard into action.
As a matter of fact, I walk most places I go.
If you don’t want people to call you (gasp!) “brother,” perhaps you need to be a bit more respectful in how you address people (“fool” etc). Put your moral standard into action.
Love you,
~Dan
Trabue:
As a matter of fact, I walk most places I go.
If you don’t want people to call you (gasp!) “brother,” perhaps you need to be a bit more respectful in how you address people (“fool” etc). Put your moral standard into action.
Love you,
IF you EVER use a motor vehicle for transport, then you are a hypocrite. How about some consistency?
There is a big difference between identifying a person as a fool and calling someone a brother in Christ. But your illogical brain never understands rational arguments. I call you a fool because that is what your behavior and theology identifies you as, just as I can call someone a thief if they rob a drug store. There is nothing immoral about identifying a person by their behavior and beliefs. I also call you a heretic because of your theology, I call you a liberal because of your ideology. It is not immoral to identify people by what they are.
So quit your whining.
Try again with something morally comparable.
Who gets to decide what is “morally comparable…”?
Both actions are generally elective (both abortions and driving).
Both potentially take lives, both potentially in great numbers.
Seems comparable to me.
~Dan
The difference (one difference) is that driving WILL contribute to harm to others. Asthmatics, babies, the elderly, the poor and sick WILL suffer harm when most people opt for elective personal automotive driving. The air, land and water shared by all WILL be harmed. Other truly innocent bystanders.
With abortion – like with electing to end the life of a dying person prematurely – is at least made within the family and is not harming outsiders.
So, regardless if YOU think the comparison is apt, the comparison is there and some would disagree with your flippant dismissal of millions of lives as if they were garbage to be disposed of for your convenience.
And the point would therefore remain: YOU do not wish others to take away your personal choices, your personal liberty to decide about autos. So, on what consistent basis would you deny to others what you probably demand for yourself?
~Dan
I also think there are frivolous and less-than-healthy reasons for wanting to drive a car, wanting to drink alcohol and going to war or killing criminals. But I don’t want to criminalize any of those behaviors, either.
Glenn, you are welcome to your opinion about what constitutes frivolous reasons for yourself, but you don’t get to decide that for other people. Just like you appreciate the right to disagree about when to war, when to drive, etc, without religious people trying to criminalize the behaviors, I hope you can appreciate and be gracious enough to extend the same courtesy to others.
~Dan
Consider, Glenn, amongst some of us environmentalist zealots, we hold an almost (or perhaps actual) religious belief that any driving of personal autos is immoral. And we hold this view for not frivolous reasons. Automobile wrecks kill over 1 million people worldwide each year. Add to that the numbers of illnesses and deaths related to pollution that comes, in large part in places, from personal autos, and the injuries and fatalities are in the millions annually.
Serious damage to God’s creation, serious destruction to humanity. Nothing to sneeze at.
Now, I’m not amongst them, but there ARE those who’d like to just make a sweeping criminalization of personal automobiles because of the death and destruction associated with them, the damage to our collective health and God’s creation.
But people like me – folk who value personal liberty – would oppose people “taking away” your “right” (not an actual right, but you get the idea) to own and drive a car as much as you want, even though there is measurable harm that comes from our collective driving – and you know what? That harm is especially prevalent amongst the most vulnerable in the world – children, the elderly, the poor, the sick.
Religious and personal liberty are not things to be trifled with lightly. You no doubt are glad to be able to make the choice for yourself of whether or not to own a car and drive. Respect others’ rights to make their own medical decisions.
~Dan
Dan,
I should have known that you would have responded with abject foolishness to equate driving a car in any way, shape, or form with the murder of a child. That has to be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever seen in my entire life.
To compare drinking alcohol, going to war or capital punishment with the murder of innocent children is also abject stupidity, illogic, and foolishness.
What is or is nor moral is determined by God, not by a bunch of enviro-nazis.
And there is NO doubt that abortion kills a child. There is no reason to kill that child which has been put forward which is NOT frivolous. There has NEVER in the history of mankind been a “right” to murder an innocent child.
It is not a “medical decision,” it is murder.
You are an unteachable fool, as well as a CINO – Christian in name only. Not an ad hominem – an identification of exactly what you are.
John,
I should have known that heretic Trabue would chime in. Perhaps the post should have been addressed to anyone but him, since he has no rational argumentation.
Way to encourage respectful dialogue, brother Glenn.
~Dan
Trabue,
I never encourage dialog with a fool. The fool is always right in his own eyes and refuses instruction, making it a total waste of time. You have proven on blog, after blog, after blog that you are that fool.
AND I’M NOT YOUR BROTHER!!! Your abject disrespect for my requests that you not call me “brother” – a request made probably at least 100 times over the years of your foolishness – demonstrates your arrogant attitude.
You call me a fool. I call you my brother. And I am arrogant.
Got you.
~Dan
Trabue,
A fool is one like you who refuses instruction, refuses correction, and continues to twist God’s Word like a pretzel to support his unholy beliefs.
Your arrogance is the fact that you are always right, no one throughout history has it right but you do. Your arrogance is that you can do what you want and whine about being a victim when you are exposed to the world as a false teacher and heretic.
“Brother” means you have to be related to me by blood or by Christ, neither of which you are. You have demonstrated multitudes of times to multitudes of people on multitudes of blogs that you are NOT a Christian no matter how much you claim to be one (sort of like how the Mormons do). You are not my brother in Christ because you worship a false Christ who thinks murdering children and queers “marrying” are morally okay. Since I am not your brother in any sense of the word, I find it offensive to have you call me that. YOU offend me by blaspheming God on a continual basis.
But like every 4th grader, you refuse to quit calling my your brother because you love to insult me, love to offend me, etc all the while claiming to be following the Words of Christ.
Do NOT call me your “brother” — for once in your life do something mature and honor my request.
You are my brother, Glenn, if nothing else, as a fellow human on this planet. And, whether you believe it or not, I am your brother in Christ. It is good to be reminded that we are family, it makes it more difficult to demonize and tear down. So, I shall continue to accept you as my dearly beloved brother in Christ, no matter how much you tear me down.
But how about this? You quit childishly name-calling other people by ugly, mean-spirited, demonizing names like “fool”, and I will keep that you’re my beloved brother on the down low… what do you say?
If, on the other hand, you think it is okay to call complete strangers a “fool” for daring to disagree with your opinions, then surely it is no crime for me to call you a “brother…”? (“Insult?” “Offend…”?? You’re really offended by me calling you a brother?? Wow! You must easily have your feelings hurt!)
A little consistency, please.
~Dan
Trabue,
You fit the very definition of “fool” biblically, as noted base on your abject arrogance that you are correct and a 2000 years of Christians are in error, the fact that you refuse correction and are unteachable. Those attributes define “fool.” “Fool” isn’t an ugly name – it is a way to identify one’s behavior and teachings; such as the foolishness of putting driving an automobile on the same moral plane as murdering an unborn child.
We have demonstrated that you are not a Christian because you worship a Christ of your own making – just as the Mormons do. Your Christ approves of murdering babies, while the Christ of the Bible says murder is a sin. Your Christ approves of homosexual behavior and same-sex fake marriage while the Christ of the Bible says homosexual behavior is not only sin but also an abomination to the Lord, and the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. So your definition of Christ, just on those two issues (let alone a number of other issues where your Christ does not agree with the Biblical Christ), is in contradiction to the Christ of the Bible.
Therefore, you are NOT my Christian brother. You are NOT in the family of Christ.
I do not “tear” you down – I expose your folly and false teachings. I don’t “demonize” you – I identify you as a wolf amongst the sheep. Playing the victim by claiming “tearing down” and “demonizing” doesn’t alter the fact that you are a like Satan – a roaring lion looking for a real Christian to devour.
You are not a “complete stranger” to me; we have had hundreds of conversations over the years, and your ideology and false theology have been very apparent.
It isn’t my feelings that are hurt – I am offended for God and Christ that someone like you would take their Name in vain claiming to speak for them while totally contradicting what they say.
Now go back to the topic of the blog. It is a waste of my time to continue this dialog.
I call you brother as a kind symbol of respect and acknowledgement that we are on the same level. You fear that THIS hurts God’s feelings?
How about we let God worry about God’s Self and you can save yourself being offended “for God…”? God’s a Big God and can handle awful names like “brother,” I’m quite sure.
Thanks for the smiles, friend Glenn. You do brighten my day, whether you intend to or not.
Peace,
Dan
Trabue,
We are NOT “on the same level.” You worship a false God and false Christ and blaspheme them every time you claim to be a Christian. I’ve proven you worship a different God and different Christ.
God can be offended:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=314
I’m sure it blasphemes God every time you claim to be a believer while at the same time claiming God approves of perversion and murder.
The fact that you are smiling when you are rebuke for your foolishness just demonstrates you are unteachable and arrogant.
I am a man, Glenn. You are a man. We are on the same level in that regards.
No doubt, I am foolish, and stubborn and I certainly make mistakes. I probably shouldn’t be smiling, for instance, at how you get so worked up over a term like “brother…” Perhaps, one day, I will be a better man.
Pray for me, dear Glenn. (Do you mind “dear…”? You are dear to me, as a fellow human being, if for no other reason…)
~Dan
Trabue,
You call me “brother” as a way of taking the moral high ground, to show what a great Christian you are compared to me. But you have no moral high ground because your morals are corrupt – corrupt morals that sanction abortion and homosexual behavior, as well as government theft from those who earn their money so as to finance the so-called poor who find it more value to accept government “entitlements” than to actually get a job.
You will never be a “better man” so long as you worship a false God and false Christ. You wallow in your depravity and think it is holy.
I’ll politely thank you to let me speak for myself. I call you a brother because I view you as a brother – as a fellow human and as a fellow Christian – and because it does remind me, and all of us, that we are in this path of Life together, as equals.
I do happen to think that is the rational moral high ground, but I do not count you as a brother to appear to be taking the high ground, but to strive to take the right Path. You would not want me to do things that (at least to me) tear down and destroy, would you?
~Dan
Why is it that everywhere I look on the internet I end up finding an argument between Dan and someone else? And a run-on argument that quickly diverges from the topic of the original posting at that?
Dan is not a Christian, despite claiming the name. He holds to none of the essential doctrines, denies the bible’s authority, makes up his own Christ and loves to argue with people. It’s as if he is only interested in controversy.
I won’t waste my time with him. It’s a shame that he successfully hijacks so many posts’ comment threads and turns the issues into a tale about him.
As a point of fact, Perri, I hold to all the essential doctrines (unless you make the unbiblical human idea of sola scriptura an “essential doctrine,” which it isn’t) of Christianity and i do NOT deny the Bible’s authority (unless you mean that the Bible claims “authority” where it makes no such claims) and I follow the teachings of Jesus as found in the Bible. Including, for instance, the notion of not attacking fellow Christians, of not slandering, of not bearing false witness and of being prepared to give answers and doing so respectfully.
Why do these posts go off topic? Let’s see what happened on this thread: John asked a simple enough question, I answered the question directly and was promptly attacked off topic, repeatedly, by Brother Glenn. So, yes, these attacks by Glenn HAVE been off topic, but you can’t lay that on me.
If you truly think I am “not a Christian” why is it that you would opt to not waste time with me? Instead of making an off topic attack yourself, one full of slander and false witness, why not respectfully and gently approach me with your concerns?
Perhaps you haven’t read closely enough the Bible you claim I’m mistreating?
Respectfully,
Dan Trabue
The irony of it all truly is funny, Perri. Thanks for the laugh, at least.
~Dan
Let’s see, Trabue again claims innocence and claims I attacked him. I only stated that all reasons for abortion were actually frivolous and Trabue attacked my comment with this:
I also think there are frivolous and less-than-healthy reasons for wanting to drive a car, wanting to drink alcohol and going to war or killing criminals. But I don’t want to criminalize any of those behaviors, either.
Glenn, you are welcome to your opinion about what constitutes frivolous reasons for yourself, but you don’t get to decide that for other people. Just like you appreciate the right to disagree about when to war, when to drive, etc, without religious people trying to criminalize the behaviors, I hope you can appreciate and be gracious enough to extend the same courtesy to others.
He attacks my factual statement about all abortions being frivolous (always a choice by the mother who doesn’t want the child), and then starts making asinine comparisons with driving cars, drinking booze, going to war or capital punishment, and then says I should show courtesy to those who choose to abort! Oh, and don’t forget the strawman where he says “religious people” are trying to criminalize abortion. By making such idiotic comparisons Trabue took the string off topic, and in the comment at 11:21 he continued on his enviro-nazism to point out how wrong we are to suggest there is a moral component to abortion, while demanding that we respect the rights of those who want to make “medical decisions.” This sort of nonsense really needed rebutted, and it was Trabue — “Mr. Victim” who continued with off-topic foolishness, resulting in my exposing him for the CINO, false teacher, heretic and fool that he is. And yet he claims I took the post off topic even when I told him to get back on topic!!
Now the funny thing is that an essential doctrine of the Christian faith is Creation ex-nihilo , and yet Trabue denies that. Essential doctrine about the Bible means that it is taken literally as per the genre the passage is, yet Trabue relegates anything he disagrees with to myth, stories, etc rather than let the Bible speak for itself. I have proven that he makes up his own God and Christ.
Then he wants to know why we wouldn’t waste time with him if he isn’t a Christian, implying of course that we should try to convert him. However, it is a waste of time because he has proven to be unteachable. Which is why just about every real Christian blogger but John has banned him from their blogs!
Well, My end of italics got misplaced, so to read that comment, just pretend the italics stopped before the paragraph where I say, “He attacks my factual statement…”
Dan, I’ve read your arguments. In particular, the comments you recently posted at my blog, which I have replied to in e-mail with essentially this comment, and which will remain in moderation. I will respond one time, and Only one time. I will not open my blog to your ceaseless arguments in favor of homosexuality, abortion, and moral relativism, or the name calling I have seen in so many of your comments.
You say in your comment that
1. I believe in God the Creator of everything.
You do well. The demons also believe and tremble as James noted.
2. I believe in Jesus, the son of God who came to earth teaching the Way of Grace, who was executed on a cross and who rose again;
3. I believe that humans have a sin problem;
“Problem”? All humans who have not believed are dead in their sins. That’s more than just a problem.
4. I believe that God loves all of us and wants no one to perish;
It is true that He loves us and is not willing that any should perish. But he is also a Holy and Just God who will judge those who don’t believe, and He Will condemn them to hell.
The way you appear to portray Jesus though ignores His holiness and unchanging nature. God is Love, but He’s so much more. By ignoring his holiness and assuming He’ll wink at sin you appear to believe in “another Jesus.”
5. I believe that God invites us all to be part of the kingdom of God, to repent, turn from our sins and embrace the glorious gift of God’s grace;
6. I believe that the Bible is as scripture for us, that it is the inspired Word of God, and it is, as it teaches, profitable for teaching, correction and study;
This is contradicted by your own statements on numerous blog postings (yours and others). If I recall correctly you (and a few others) have argued against the authority of the Pauline epistles on Art Casper’s blog as well as others. You deny that the words as written mean what they say. You cherry pick through the scriptures, ignoring their plain words in many of your arguments. “as it teaches” ALL scripture is “inspired by God and profitable for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Not mere study, but “training in righteousness.”
As for your comment about where scripture does not claim authority… “All scriptuer is inspired by God” pretty much sums it up. Scxripture is the ultimate authority and there is no place where it does not claim it.
Further the doctrine of sola scriptura is supported by scripture itself. Noone can add to nor take away from the words of scripture. The traditions of men are only of worth when they agree with what scripture says. If they do not agree with what scripture says, they are invalid. There are plenty of false prophets about in the world today dreaming dreams, saying “thus says the Lord” when He has not spoken and contradicting the clear word of scripture. The only real test we have of any spirit says is whether what that spirit says conforms to the word of God and the gospel.
7. I believe that it is by Grace that we are saved, through faith in Jesus;
And that is the Only way we are saved. I would remind you though of the words of Jesus “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Furthermore remember the words of John, “Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning.”
You are able to state the specifics of the plan of salvation here, and make the claim that you believe. Very well. If you are sincere, I cannot gainsay it. The Lord will judge whether you are, and not I. Therefore I will retract my statement that you are not. You are however in serious error about a great many things.
I will not entertain your false teachings. One cannot continue in sin and claim to be a Christian. Nor can one endorse and approve of sin and be a faithful teacher of the Word.
“Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness,””
“For men will be lovers of self, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.”
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”
That describes quite accurately the many disputes I have observed between you and others. I won’t participate in that here or elsewhere.
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows this he will also reap. For one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
“Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
He that continues in sin is not saved. Teaching that you can continue in homosexuality, participate in “same sex marriage”, murder the unborn and the like and continue in those sins with impunity is teaching heresy. You advocate for each of these at this and other posts. Your history on your own blog, on Art’s blog, and on others demonstrates that you are a false teacher.
I ask you to consider this and repent, if you truly believe that Jesus is the Son of God as you say. Your words, actions, and teachings dishonor a holy and just God, and I am concerned for your soul. But I will not argue further with you. As Glenn has noted, time after time you have demonstrated that your are not teachable. Please, oh please prove me wrong and turn to sound doctrine and practice.
“Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness,”
This is so bizarre. This fella comes here and complains that I derail threads, then proceeds to write a 1000 word essay on the topic What is Wrong With Dan…?
Thanks for the thoughts and prayers, no matter if your opinions are mistaken, I appreciate the concern. I would just ask that you all reconsider this approach of hijacking other people’s threads (or even your own) to make scurrilous charges (especially out of the blue, unsupported, false and off topic) about a person, rather than tackling the content of their argument.
I’ll pass on this chasing down this crazy red herring/ad hom.
So, um, thanks, Perri. If you’d like to, you know, actually dialogue about an actual concern, feel free to approach me personally, rather than trolling someone else’s blog, just as a suggestion.
~Dan
Thanks for the thoughts and prayers, no matter if your opinions are mistaken,
See, I told you Trabue is always right. It doesn’t matter that Perri is 100% on target, as witnessed by so many of us.
http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/
We are all in error and Trabue is the one who is right.
I agree with Perri that Trabue is able to state the specifics of the plan of salvation here, and make the claim that you believe. But Trabue sounds exactly like the Mormons. Using all the same language as real Christians but defines everything differently. As the Mormons have a different meaning for God and Christ than what the Bible teaches, so does Trabue. And he is no more saved than are the Mormons.
I would just ask that you all reconsider this approach of hijacking other people’s threads (or even your own) to make scurrilous charges (especially out of the blue, unsupported, false and off topic) about a person, rather than tackling the content of their argument.
Which Trabue does on virtually every blog he trolls.
Funny. Seriously, I literally laughed out loud.
Any thoughts on the topic, fellas?
~Dan
Very serious, and your laughing just proves all of our points.
Just remember who took it off topic with comparing abortion with driving a car. Troll
It was an analogy, Glenn. It is not off topic to use analogies to talk about the topic.
What in the name of all that is holy do your false, unsupported and unrelated ad hom attacks on me have to do with the topic?
Absolutely nothing. Good God, y’all.
~Dan
There was no need for false analogies to respond to the topic of the post. You did the false analogies to promote your murdering agenda rather than address the topic. John’s questions were seeking bad reasons and good reasons for abortion. You did not address that except in your very first comment.
false, unsupported and unrelated ad hom attacks
the “attacks” were true, supported, and relating to YOUR off-topic remarks which began with your 11:00 AM attack on me with your stupid, inane, and asinine “analogies.”
Your response to John about the guy driving an SUV without a muffler were AFTER you gave me the horse crap analogies, which were indeed off-topic. You just continued with those stupid analogies with John, building on your own off-topic comment directed at me for having the audacity to say ALL abortions were for frivolous reasons.
Yes, Glenn, that is right. I have a murdering agenda and have no interest in polite, respectful conversation the way you do. Man, you sure pegged me.
You bring smiles to my face nearly every day, Glenn. Thanks for the laughs.
But to try to take you seriously, what analogies ARE acceptable and who gets to decide?
Has someone died and made you Analogy Dictator?
~Dan
Trabue,
Your agenda is to promote abortion. We all know you think abortion is fine and dandy. That is the agenda of “murder,” rather than you straw man of “murdering agenda.” Two different things.
There was nothing disrespectful about my response to your foolishness – it was plain and factual and to the point. There is no common analogy between abortion and driving cars. None. Murdering an unborn child is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, analogous to driving a car. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
Try using some common sense sometime. I know for you that is uncommon, because you rarely show use of it; but just try it.
So, who gets to decide which analogies are acceptable? Do we need to submit all proposed analogies to you for approval before trying to use it in a comment?
Love you, Glenn.
~Dan
People with common sense know what a true analogy is. There must be an equivalence somewhere besides just your say so.
I don’t need your queer love.
On a serious note: What is it, dear Glenn, that has made you such a hateful, angry, bitter person, striking out where a hand of friendship is offered? Have you been hurt that badly in your life?
I love you in Christ, Glenn. Embrace grace.
~Dan
On a serious note: What is it, dear Glenn, that has made you such a hateful, angry, bitter person, striking out where a hand of friendship is offered?
Well, that is a bald-faced lie. No one who has ever known me would say I am a hateful person. The only thing I “hate” are lies — which includes false teachings about the Christian faith. Angry? At what? Where is your evidence that I am angry? Bitter? about what? Where is your evidence? You claim that charges we level at you are unsupported and false witness, etc, yet you are the one who is guilty of such with this stupid attack. Hand of friendship? I don’t make friends with enemies of Christ.
Have you been hurt that badly in your life? As if that would have anything to do with me exposing you for the tool of Satan that you are?
You can’t love me in Christ because you don’t know Christ — you only know one you have made up to suit yourself.
I do not have grace for false teachers who lead others to hell.
I’m glad to hear that you aren’t, in real life, the way you present yourself here. Here, Glenn, you seem to take offense at the smallest of things – someone calling you “brother?” Someone saying “I love you…”?? You seem to be a very angry person at people who disagree with you and who consider themselves Christians and you do freely use many epithets to lash out.
Of course, I recognize that many people express a more emotional/distraught side of themselves writing online that they don’t exhibit in real life. I hope that is the case with you, friend Glenn. I wouldn’t want to see you hurt yourself with a bitter and angry heart.
Now, perhaps, we have done enough talking about something other than the topic?
God bless you,
~Dan
Trabue,
I present myself here the same way I do in real life. The problem is that you project all those attributes on people who call you out for what you are. I take no offense on a REAL Christian calling me their “brother,” but I take great offense at a false teacher calling me his “brother.” I take no offense at REAL Christians who show me Christian love, but I take great offense at one pretending to be a Christian and then saying he has the love of Christ.
No, I do not show anger to those who disagree with me. If I did, then I’d be angry quite often because there are a lot of Christians I disagree with on various topics. Disagreement does not mean anger. You again project what you think must be an emotion because the person attacks YOUR teachings — after all, how could a rational person disagree with Trabue? And I give the same type of epithets as did Christ and Paul when they addressed false teachers. That isn’t anger (are you sure you understand what that word means?)
Everyone has emotions on line and in real life. But for you to ascribe what YOU think are emotions is downright presumptuous. And I have never been distraught – never. you really need to quit projecting your emotions on other people.
Now, perhaps, we have done enough talking about something other than the topic? I told you to do that a long time ago, but you just keep harping your fake righteousness and victimhood. (try looking at yesterday, 1:42 PM where I asked you to return to the topic)
Dan, then you have no objection to being compared to Nazis and baby rapers because you have arms. After all, who gets to decide which analogies are good?
I’ll remind you of the context… John asked questions in the post, I directly answered those questions and suggested that if we quit fighting, we might be able to find some common ground. John asked me another question, if I’d counsel someone to not have what I consider a frivolous abortion. I answered…
I’d likely counsel her to not make decisions so frivolously, if she were open to my counseling. I just wouldn’t criminalize her options for medical choices.
Just like the fella who wanted to drive a big ol SUV with the muffler taken off so he could drive as fast and pollute as much and as loudly as he wanted. I’d also counsel him not to do so.
And in both cases, I’m open to having reasonable regulations associated with both abortion decisions and driving decisions. But in neither case would I criminalize the option altogether.
I made an analogy to address John’s question and to point out how we both value the notion of personal liberty. From that analogy, you and John started fixating on the analogy itself, rather than the point being made.
So, you only have yourself to blame for going off topic, so who is the troll?
~Dan
Back to topic then, ignoring the false ad hom attacks…
My point remains that there are behaviors that we all may disapprove of/question the morality of, but we don’t outlaw them all. And just as conservative motorists like John and Glenn appreciate others not trying to take away their “right” to drive, others appreciate conservative religious types not trying to take away their ability to make their own medical decisions without seeking the approval of some segments of the religious population.
Seems a reasonable place to stand, to me.
~Dan
My point remains that there are behaviors that we all may disapprove of/question the morality of, but we don’t outlaw them all. And just as conservative motorists like John and Glenn appreciate others not trying to take away their “right” to drive, others appreciate conservative religious types not trying to take away their ability to make their own medical decisions without seeking the approval of some segments of the religious population.
But your point had nothing to do with the topic. The topic was two simple questions: Is there a bad reason for abortion, and if so what would that be. There was no hint of criminalizing any behavior, nor taking away any legitimate right. (and again, abortion is NOT a “medical decision” — that is just crappola to justify murdering the child.) So rather than address the topic past your first comment, you decided to make false analogies and raise straw man arguments. If you going to make “points,” at least make them germane to the discussion rather than part of pushing your ideology into every article.
sigh…
I’d likely counsel her to not make decisions so frivolously, if she were open to my counseling. I just wouldn’t criminalize her options for medical choices.
Just like the fella who wanted to drive a big ol SUV with the muffler taken off so he could drive as fast and pollute as much and as loudly as he wanted. I’d also counsel him not to do so.
And in both cases, I’m open to having reasonable regulations associated with both abortion decisions and driving decisions. But in neither case would I criminalize the option altogether.
~Dan
Sigh. Are you really that dense?
Again with the straw man. No one suggest criminalizing the actions. You didn’t say what reason would make you think abortion would be frivolous, nor did you explain why it would be frivolous. You just go off on a tangent about something which was never raised.
You really can’t stay on topic, can you?
? You don’t want to outlaw abortion? Cool, me either.
John didn’t ask me what reason would make abortion frivolous.
~Dan
I never said I wouldn’t want to outlaw abortion. But that has nothing to do with the topic of the post. The topic of the post, the request for comments, was about the final paragraph. To whit:
I have a question to those who would call themselves pro-choice on the issue of abortion. Though you support a woman’s right to abortion, is there any reason a woman could give that would not justify her seeking an abortion? Put another way, if a woman you knew confided in you saying, “I am thinking of having an abortion because _____________”, is there anything that would fill in the blank that would cause you to think to yourself, or tell your friend, “that is not a good reason, and you should not have an abortion”? And what makes it a bad reason?
To say that there is a reason to not have an abortion would be to say, “what would you consider a frivolous reason?” Whether John used the word “frivolous” is irrelevant. That it would be frivolous is implied by the statement – “not a good reason” would be a frivolous reason.
So the question was, Is there a reason that you’d fill in the blank, is there a reason to which YOU would say, “that is not a good reason, and you should not have an abortion?” Then he asked why you’d think such a reason would be a bad reason.
Do you see anywhere in there where he mentioned making abortion illegal? No; that wasn’t the topic of the post. Was there any reason to make up foolish analogies about rights? No; that wasn’t the topic of the post.
Setting aside the word “frivolous”, here is exactly the question John asked of all of us. Please answer this question, without trying to draw analogies…
“Though you support a woman’s right to abortion, is there any reason a woman could give that would not justify her seeking an abortion? Put another way, if a woman you knew confided in you saying, “I am thinking of having an abortion because _____________”, is there anything that would fill in the blank that would cause you to think to yourself, or tell your friend, “that is not a good reason, and you should not have an abortion”? And what makes it a bad reason?”
And for the record, my answer to the question is that since abortion is murdering the unborn there are no reasons in my opinion that justify it and all reasons, other than preserving the life of the mother (which does not justify it, but comes the closest to doing so) are bad reasons.
Dan,
I’ve debated abortion countless times for countless years with countless people. I’ve dealt with morally bankrupt anti-lifers on this and many blogs. Believe me, I’ve been to the dark-side and waded through their cesspools of ignorance, indifference, and immorality.
And I must say, Dan, that your argument is about the stupidest thing I have ever read or heard from any anti-lifer anywhere. Even more amusing is that you think the two issues – environmentalism and child murder – are even remotely comparable.
You cannot make an argument such as you have and then claim to care for human life.
The point is not whether you agree the two topics are comparable – of course you don’t find the car/pollution problem to be a major concern – that IS the point. The point is, you don’t want others dictating to you their religious/moral values when it contradicts your ideas of personal liberty.
People are just expecting that you extend to others the same liberties you demand sneeringly for yourselves. In other words, people will expect you to not be hypocrites and to not place your values/concerns above theirs.
Thanks for making the point more clear, even while missing the point.
~Dan
The point is, you don’t want others dictating to you their religious/moral values when it contradicts your ideas of personal liberty.
Trabue, in your ignorance you don’t seem to understand that every law is imposing a moral value. By promoting abortion, you are dictating YOUR moral values on us.
The thing one must understand is that every moral issue gives you a choice as to whose moral values are the ones to rule. I’d rather the ruling moral values agree with God’s values rather than man’s.
Personal liberty, as you call it, can never be absolute. If that is the case, then anyone can kill anyone for any reason at all by claiming personal liberty. Personal liberty does not trump human life; personal liberty does not give the pregnant woman the right to murder her child and thereby taking away the child’s personal liberty.
“Personal liberty” claims cut both ways.
Indeed, it does, Glenn. So you are fine, then, with the anti-car types dictate their moral values on you? After all, according to some, God will destroy those who destroy the earth, so they are acting within God’s will to stop the destruction of God’s good creation. I guess you’re cool with that, then?
Very good. At least you’re consistent…
But of course, you are not cool with that.
~Dan
Trabue,
Only the foolishly ignorant believe that cars are damaging the earth. Listen to all the propaganda from the enviro-nazis rather than use common sense and you will be just like YOU!
And man cannot destroy the earth. God is in charge.
The quote is from “God…” (ie, it’s from the Bible.)
The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small– and for destroying those who destroy the earth.
St John, the Revelator (Revelations 11)
So, according to the Bible, one could say, God does appear to be concerned about those who’d destroy the earth. Just sayin’…
And again, I get that you dismiss the reality of the destruction caused by autos (what’s a few million painful deaths and dismemberments between friends?), but that’s the point, Glenn: People disagree with your opinions. People hold OTHER opinions.
Do you want them to inflict their views on you? Or do you want the personal liberty to decide for yourself about autos?
You want the latter, when it comes to autos and the deaths and destruction they cause to innocent bystanders, but you want to inflict your views on others when it comes to personal medical decisions for their own families.
Therein lies the hypocrisy.
~Dan
Trabue,
I think if you look at the context of Rev 11 you will see that the destruction of the earth is not literally destroying the planet, rather it is the wars, idolatry, immorality, etc which destroy the earth.
Again, you blame the tool (automobile) for deaths and injuries from crashes. The tool is not to blame – the drivers are to blame. Just like you liberals always blame guns for deaths from gunfire rather than blame the person who pulls the trigger.
I don’t “inflict my views” on any one. Yet you liberals force your views on us every….single….day. Look how much punishment is meted out to those who don’t want to sanction fake marriage, or even sanction homosexual behavior! Think about that the next time you claim we force our views.
Again, abortion is the murder of an unborn child. You can’t dismiss the truth by calling it a “medical decision.”
Now try again to show where I’m a hypocrite.
Glenn…
Only the foolishly ignorant believe that cars are damaging the earth. Listen to all the propaganda from the enviro-nazis rather than use common sense and you will be just like YOU!
They’re called “scientists,” Glenn, and calling them nazis doesn’t change the reality that research can show the damage done by automobiles.
Only the truly ignorant will deny science to assuage their conscience so they can opt to live like a hedonist.
~Dan
They’re called “scientists,” Glenn, and calling them nazis doesn’t change the reality that research can show the damage done by automobiles.
Only the truly ignorant will deny science to assuage their conscience so they can opt to live like a hedonist.
So the many scientists who disagree are not scientists, then? Only if they agree with the LEFT are they considered scientists?
Typical leftist drivel.
Can you find ONE scientist, Glenn, JUST ONE, who claims that there is research that shows that autos do no damage? Present even just one, then let’s talk.
In the meantime, that’s just crazy.
And regardless, the point is that some people DO think the research demonstrates that cars are destructive and would like to outlaw them/restrict them. You don’t want them to take away your “right” to drive. The analogy is apt.
~Dan
Can you find ONE scientist, Glenn, JUST ONE, who claims that there is research that shows that autos do no damage? Present even just one, then let’s talk.
In the meantime, that’s just crazy.
And regardless, the point is that some people DO think the research demonstrates that cars are destructive and would like to outlaw them/restrict them. You don’t want them to take away your “right” to drive. The analogy is apt.
Your analogy was stupid, irrelevant and illogical. I’m not continuing this off-topic discussion with you.
Dan DID answer part of the question…
“I am thinking of having an abortion because I want to punish the father and he REALLY wants this baby…
I am thinking of having an abortion because this fetus will be a girl and we REALLY want a boy…
I am thinking of having an abortion because I think this baby will be gay and God hates gay babies…”
He just never answered why he finds those reasons bad ones. His “point” about dictating moral values is off topic, unless he’s really arguing that even the three “bad reasons” he listed aren’t even really bad reasons because someone who would say they are bad reasons is dictating morality to the woman.
They are frivolous, that is my answer.
People should be free to make their own medical decisions, including decisions of life and death. But we should not make decision on death frivolously.
~Dan
So then, they are frivolous reasons, but there is no rational for their being frivolous. You have indeed answered only half of the question and added an off topic side issue. There was no question asked about whether one should or should not stand on moral principles or seek to impose morality on anothers choices for death. There was no question asking whether we should or should not choose death frivolously. The question you did not answer is “What makes these reasons bad reasons”?
Choosing murder in order to punish someone who desires life for another is not, in my mind a frivolous choice, but an evil one. Choosing murder in order to ensure only babies of a particular gender are born is not frivolous, and is in fact done in many places. It is not frivolous, there is a political reason for it, albeit an evil one.
Only your last reason is truly frivolous, because it is based on ignorance and false assumptions. The mother cannot know whether the baby will engage in homosexual behaviors or not, and God does not hate those who do engage in it, He hates the sin. He has forgiven people who have committed the sin of homosexual behavior in the past, but requires repentance. Your third “frivolous” reason for murdering the unborn is based not only in evil but foolishness.
I agree with you that these are all bad reasons for abortion. I do not agree that they are frivolous. If you want a frivolous reason (not that John asked for frivolous reasons) try this:
“I am thinking of having an abortion because this baby will be a girl and I hate the color pink.”
That’s both a bad reason and a frivolous one.
But the question of whether we should use moral reasons to restrict behavior was not in any way part of the topic of John’s post. By raising it you invited the controversy.
Perri…
they are frivolous reasons, but there is no rational for their being frivolous.
I offered a general reason: People should be free to make their own medical decisions, including decisions of life and death. But we should not make decision on death frivolously.
That is, if there are legitimate concerns (as defined by the family and their doctor), then an abortion is not a frivolous medical decision. If the decision is made not out of spite or hatred or some other non-medical, more irrational decision, that is frivolous.
I hope that clarifies it for you.
~Dan
Of course, here we move to coming to terms with “legitimate…” and “legitimate health care concerns…” and I’m sure people won’t agree on that.
I would politely suggest, though, that your side (formerly my side) could look at things like what I’ve said and, instead of saying, “He supports murder, he’s a killer!” you could say, “Hey, we have some common ground… they agree that there is such a thing as frivolous reasons for having abortion and maybe we could work together, Left and Right, to better reduce at least that portion of abortions from happening…”
Treating people who merely have differences of opinions – even on serious topics – as the enemy and evil will get us nowhere.
~Dan
I would wager that over 90% of abortions are for “frivolous” reasons. It has always been so. Dan’s “side” does not want to regulate away ANY reason, as he doesn’t have the moral integrity to face the fact that so many abortions are for frivolous reasons, all of which were preventable by virtue of abstaining from intercourse until such time as one is prepared to let a pregnancy run its course. I would be interested in seeing a list of “legitimate” concerns that could possibly justify the heinous act of abortion of a human being. Where the mother’s life is in danger is a given. I can think of no others.
Indeed, the very notion that one would suggest “frivolous” as a legitimate answer to the question is telling. Except for the most twisted and evil abortion supporter (most of them), there is no such thing as a frivolous reason, since the mere suggestion is an affront to women and their “choice”. But putting those wicked souls aside, no pro-life person commenting here would even put “frivolous” on the list as such being the worst reasons (however such could possibly be separated from any other) are a given.
Dan would “counsel” against abortion if the reason is frivolous, bad, what have you. My question is: Why?
If there is no moral issue in some cases (poverty, rape, or whatever else is a “good” enough reason), why would there be a moral question about any reason?
Aborting because of the race of the baby, for example. What would Dan say? “This baby should live”? Or is it that he just doesn’t like seeing people do morally benign things for the “wrong” reasons?
“I’m going to eat some watermelon because I want to deprive black people of at least one watermelon”. This is an utterly stupid and hateful reason to engage in a completely innocent act. There are perfectly good reasons for anyone to eat watermelon: hunger, love of watermelon. But Dan thinks there are perfectly good reasons to abort. But he would counsel against it if the reason is not noble(?). What would Dan say to the perspective watermelon eater? “That’s a terrible reason to eat watermelon! Frivolous even! Therefore, you should not eat watermelon”? Why not?
The reason to do something doesn’t determine whether or not the act is moral. Nor should it be cause for counsel either way.
I would disagree, and I suspect you would, as well. You no doubt think that a man killing his enemy is morally wrong. BUT, if his nation is at war and the man who is a soldier kills his enemy, his reason for killing is different and you probably no longer think it is morally wrong.
Am I mistaken?
Of course, reasons/motives make a difference (at least potentially) in whether or not something is immoral.
~Dan
That’s funny. I’ve cited intention many times in many past conversations with Dan with regards to killing and it didn’t fly. Now, it has merit?
Source.
So, Marshall, you agree with me, that reasons/motives matter and C2C is mistaken? Good, be sure to let him know.
~Dan
Don’t dodge. My point was that you now, for your the convenience of your defense of the indefensible, now agree with me. I don’t believe that C2C believes preserving the life of the mother, assuming that is ever really an issue anymore these days, is NOT a legitimate motive for aborting one’s child. I would wager that he was referring to all those “motives” that fall short of this one exception.
I repeat: Source. I have no context to base what you’re saying on. Of course, circumstances can matter. I can’t imagine having said anything to the contrary.
If I had to guess, you are either misremembering or just plain misunderstood my point, None of that is relevant here and now. You are the one dodging. Do you agree with me that motives matter? Who gets to decide which motives matter? On what basis?
Dodging, indeed.
~Dan
Taking a human life for personal reasons remains an evil Dan. You can call it a medical procedure if you like, but that doesn’t change that it’s still murder. I cannot agree that we’ve found common ground here. Yes, there are frivolous reasons for abortion. That doesn’t change the fact that abortion is a moral evil and that no reasons for it are truly “good”.
Rape? — no, it’s not a good reason for taking an innocent child’s life.
Incest? — again, no. The baby didn’t commit the sin.
To save the life of the mother? — it’s such a rare case that I can’t imagine the situation where the abortion is possible without the alternative of delivering the baby alive through surgery. The goal is the removal of the baby in either case… delivery alive is preferable to delivery in pieces, especially for the baby. I’ll admit that I’m not omniscient so I can’t say that it would never be the case that a woman’s life would be saved by an abortion where it wasn’t possible to deliver the baby live instead. Even so, it’s beyond my imagination.
But those arguments are outside the scope of John’s question.
I will accept that you are pro-abortion and that you believe that frivolous reasons are enough to disqualify the choice for abortion. You have therefore answered John’s question. I disagree with your answer on moral grounds, but since I am anti-abortion the question wasn’t directed at me and questions of morality, amorality, and whether or not abortion is murder are really side topics outside the scope of what was asked – unless and until a pro-abortion respondent uses them to explain why a particular reason for abortion is a bad one. Frivolity doesn’t fit that bill.
As a matter of fact, I am pro-life. I am just anti-criminalizing abortion. “Pro-abortion” is not the same as being opposed to criminalizing it.
And again, I would suggest we’d all make more headway if we could abandon the fundamentalist, “my way or the highway” approach and work together where we can find common ground.
But this is one of the problems of fundamentalism. Finding common ground is not their strength.
~Dan
As a matter of fact, I am pro-life. I am just anti-criminalizing murder. “Pro-murder” is not the same a being opposed to criminalizing it.
This is such an inane argument. So the question is, why are you pro-life? In what way can you maintain that facade without doing whatever is in your power to prevent the senseless killing of the unborn? Is it killing a human being in your mind, or is it not? If not, what possible point is there to being “pro-life”? If the child is a human being, how can you NOT support criminalizing abortion? You position shows an incredible lack of integrity and honesty.
And what is your likely response? “People should be free to make their own medical decisions, including decisions of life and death.” God, however, has no such right. God is to be restricted from making His own decisions regarding the life He brought into the world. Is anyone else picking up on this incredible disconnect? Dan grants undisciplined women the absolute sovereign authority he denies the only One who legitimately has that authority.
Marshalart is right.
By the way, Dan, you mentioned murdering your enemy. Murdering is always wrong. KILLING, however is sometimes necessary and just. And when killing is just, it’s not murder. I can’t kill someone who stands in my way for a promotion at work. That’s murder. I can kill a guy with a gun who is endangering the life of myself or others. That’s not murder.
So, in the case of a pregnancy actually threatening the life of the mother, I can understand it being arguably justified. In fact, I asked my wife what she would want me to do if she was unable to speak and that decision had to be made. Of course, I’d leave that decision to her.
Any other reason may just as well be called motive.
C2C…
KILLING, however is sometimes necessary and just. And when killing is just, it’s not murder.
So, since abortion is specifically, literally NOT murder, then it would seem to fit into your “When killing is just, it’s not murder.”
It appears we agree (I know, we don’t, but your reasoning is the same as mine).
Motive matters. As I said.
~Dan
This is blatant deceit, Dan. Abortion is legally not murder. But we are not talking about legalities, but realities. Unless of course you regard civil law as the absolute and sole dictator of moral behavior. While the Christian is compelled to respect civil law, the Christian is under no obligation to regard all law as moral or a reflection of morality. Thus, our use of the term “murder” is that which is at the basis of civil law, that the illegal taking of a life is due to that act being unjustified. We regard as justified only those instances where the life of the mother is at stake.
Killing the innocent is never just. Abortion is therefore not just.
Your source? Or should we just take your word for it?
Beyond that, car pollution contributes to the death and illness of innocents every year. Does that mean you are prepared to quit driving?
Beyond that, warring kills innocents, does that mean you want to criminalize war? Was the bombing of Hiroshima unjust, since it involved the deliberate killing of innocents. Murder of civilians.
Will you condemn that, too? Or will you opt to be hypocritical on the point?
~Dan
Perri’s source? How about Dan Trabue as a source, who constantly rails against the Lord for having ordered the annihilation of wicked peoples, including their children?
Also, referring to collateral damage, be it in war or by the dreaded automobile, in the same breath as the intentional taking of one’s own unborn is simply more deceit of a most willful and heinous kind. I condemn that first if I condemn both.
As a point of fact, in the real world, Marshall, you are bluntly mistaken. I do not rail against “the Lord,” I disagree with YOUR interpretation.
As always, I do not confuse Marshall with “the Lord.” You appear to do so.
Heinous, indeed.
~Dan
No need to consider any of my interpretations of that which is unclear. I speak only of that which is clear, which in this case referred to the clear OT reports of God commanding the annihilation of wicked peoples, including their children. You rail against the Lord in your suggestion that the report is not accurate, that it is somehow metaphorical with explanation for how. You allow for mere humans to decide whether or not another human can live under the guise of private “medical” decision making, but deny God His sovereignty in deciding when and how to take lives that belong totally to Him.
Again, FALSE. You can keep repeating a lie all day long but that don’t make your shit smell no sweeter.
I do NOT deny “god” anything. I DO deny that you speak for God, though.
Unlike you, I don’t conflate Marshall with God. You really shouldn’t either.
~Dan
Perhaps I should clarify. The deliberate killing of the innocent is not just. Driving a car or using an internal combustion engine is not the deliberate killing of anyone. while there are pollutants generated by it they do not directly kill anyone, but merely increase risk from environmental factors. There is no moral equivalence. I could ask you a similar question Dan. Are you prepared to stop using your computer which is manufactured using chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer”, thus contributing to the death of innocents? Or are you too a hypocrite?
As for war, and the killing of innocents, particularly when nuclear weapons are used, that is still not murder, although murders and other atrocities may happen during war. I’m not attempting to justify that. Once again you are twisting concepts to fit your moral relativism, which is essentially amorality and not any form of money.
Nevertheless we’re off topic again. Forget the word frivolous Dan. Are there bad reasons for abortion or not? If so why are they bad? Is there an objective way of determining that? If so, what is it? If not, why should we accept your definition of a bad reason, or a good one for that matter?
Dan,
Abortion is only literally not murder because it’s legally not murder. Killing a fetus IS legally murder when someone other than a doctor does it. Obviously, those on the anti-abortion side are going to use the word murder. We’re saying that it should be considered murder to intentionally kill human beings no matter their age.
The reasons women give to abort (kill a human) would be considered as motive in any other case, including cases involving fetuses! It’s not enough to excuse a man for intentionally killing the fetus in his wife’s womb to say that having a child would interfere with his schooling, is it?
And I think it should be classified murder to kill children in wartime. Shall we codify that?
Or do you all want the privilege to classify your sins as legal but want to classify the sins of others as criminal?
You all appear to be wholly missing the point, which is that you want your religious/personal liberties to make your choices but you want to deny it to others.
~Dan
“And I think it should be classified murder to kill children in wartime.”
But it already IS classified as murder if it can be proven that the intent was murder or willful negligence (as in the case of leaving a child in a hot car until it dies from the heat). Abortion is fully intended as it does not happen by accident (when it is called “miscarriage”).
So it is you who is, not missing, but dodging the point, regarding legitimate reasons for aborting. You also minimize the one overriding factor in determining both morality and law: is the unborn a person with unalienable right to life? If you believe from conception one is such a person, then you clearly have the right and duty to impose restrictions on others just as current civil law already does regarding the lives of those outside the womb. When will you demonstrate honesty, honor and integrity in this discussion?
Dan,
Not all death is murder. If a soldier intentionally kills an innocent, then yes, it’s murder. If it’s accidental, the innocent is as much murdered as the guy who broke his neck falling from a ladder.
So what do we do? Outlaw war? And what do you do when a nation unlawfully attacks? Call a lawyer? You stop them! Kill the killers and the killing stops.
Death of innocents in war isn’t analogous to abortion. Death in war would be more analogous to a cop accidentally shooting an innocent bystander while shooting at a crazed gunman in a mall. Abortion would be more like a father killing his wife because she spends too much money and talks too much while he’s trying to study. Or worse, he thinks she’s likely to do those things.
Indeed, not all death IS murder. A medical procedure called abortion is not murder.
Kicking a pregnant woman until her fetus dies IS considered murder.
Circumstances and motives matter.
I get that you don’t find them analogous. Indeed, they are not perfectly analogous. With war, we’re using tax dollars to actively kill other people, including innocent bystanders, sometimes. With abortion, it is a private medical choice. They are not the same thing.
But analogies are not comparing two exact same things, they are making a comparison between two similar things. In this case, you all want to outlaw the choices of others, but want to retain your own liberties in your particular choices. That IS the analogy.
I just don’t think you’re getting the point.
But you are correct, not all death is murder. And on that front, we are united in principle, if not application.
Let me ask you: On what basis do you think we should assign “murder” to the personal medical choices you disagree with, but not with the warring or polluting choices you agree with? What objective criteria makes the difference?
~Dan
“With war, we’re using tax dollars to actively kill other people, including innocent bystanders, sometimes.”
Another lie. Killing innocent bystanders is NOT why tax dollars are used for war. Tax dollars ARE used to kill innocent unborn. Which you support.
And we’ve already given clear and unmistakable distinctions regarding the purposeful taking of the life of the unborn, versus collateral damage from wars and other actions. It is crystal clear that honesty is not a concern of yours.
Sometimes, Marshall – as in the targeted and deliberate bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – actions in war are taken that deliberately, knowingly take innocent lives.
I’m not debating the legitimacy or not of those actions. I’m pointing out that you all are not consistently “pro-life,” as you are fine with having the freedom to make choices that WILL knowingly end and harm lives. The question remains: On what basis do you demand your “liberty” to take life-harming actions but not others, especially when those are medical decisions that only affect them and their direct family?
Another lie, indeed.
~Dan
The question remains: On what basis do you demand your “liberty” to take life-harming actions but not others, especially when those are medical decisions that only affect them and their direct family?
Another lie, indeed.
The question is NOT as you say – the questions John asked are the topic, not questions you want to interject so as to take over the post. And it is a bald-faced lie to call abortion a “medical decision.”
The only lies on this string are by you, who is just like the father of lies.
Again, Dan, you deceivingly deny the clear distinctions already drawn in discussions such as this (and do so now to avoid the questions presented by John’s post). Allowing for the unfortunate consequences of war in deciding to war against aggressors is in no way similar to allowing mothers to kill their own children. You try to equate unfortunate necessity with unjustified selfish choices. War is of the former, while abortion is of the latter.
Yes, yes, yes, a million times, YES. I get that this is YOUR opinion. But you don’t get to speak for every one.
Do you understand that?
I mean, why in YOUR pet sins it’s “unfortunate necessity,” but for THEIR choices it’s “murdering millions of children…”
You can’t have it both ways.
~Dan
You keep acting as if the unborn child isn’t an innocent human being. I draw the line at necessary killing. War is sometimes necessary and innocent people are in jeopardy. When a cop responds to a call in which it is necessary to kill a bad guy, innocent bystanders are in jeopardy. But, they’re in jeopardy already! There’s a bad guy intent on harming them. Shouldn’t he be stopped?
The unborn child is the innocent bystander. You know this is true. Why must you ignore it and act as if the mother is going in to have her tonsils taken out? Medical procedure? Come on.
And who gets to decide what is “necessary” killing? On what grounds? On what basis?
The asthmatic children tormented by pollution are innocent bystanders. The children and citizens of Hiroshima were innocent victims.
On what basis do YOU get to make the call but not others?
~Dan
Can I kill you if you interfere with my studies? No. But a woman can kill for the same reason?
C2C, I am not your loved one or family member. You have no grounds to make end of life decisions for me.
~Dan
Marshall…
This is such an inane argument. So the question is, why are you pro-life? In what way can you maintain that facade without doing whatever is in your power to prevent the senseless killing of the unborn? Is it killing a human being in your mind, or is it not? If not, what possible point is there to being “pro-life”? If the child is a human being, how can you NOT support criminalizing abortion? You position shows an incredible lack of integrity and honesty.
I am consistently pro-life. I consistently oppose the gov’t deciding to go in and take others’ lives, especially innocent bystanders.
I oppose the gov’t killing criminals.
I oppose the gov’t killing civilians in wartime.
I oppose a gov’t mandated abortion.
Consistent.
On the other hand, I consistently support the rights of people and families to make their own personal medical decisions, including life and death decisions.
I support people having the right to choose not to have heroic measures employed to possibly extend their lives.
I support people having the right to end their lives prematurely in cases of severe illness.
I support families being able to make that decision for loved ones unable to speak for themselves AND, to that end,
I support families making decisions about abortions.
Consistent. Honest.
That you disagree with my opinion does not make it lacking in integrity or honesty and, if you have integrity and honesty, you’d agree.
~Dan
Trabue continues to justify abortion by calling it, very deceitfully, a “medical decision.” It is no more of a “medical decision” that were the decisions of the doctors in Nazi Germany who stood and selected which Jew to send to the gas chamber and which one would go to labor or to be used for experiments.
Abortion is NOT a “medical decision.” PERIOD
Dan,
“I oppose the gov’t killing criminals.”
Only murderers are executed, and only the worst of them. This policy is a civil expression of the value of life recognized by the state (that is, the people). Life is deemed so precious that the only just response to murder is execution. Anything less demonstrates a lower valuing of the victim’s life. What’s more, capital punishment for murder is Biblical.
“I oppose the gov’t killing civilians in wartime.”
And I oppose people dying by slipping in the bathtub, but the unfortunate happens, particularly in wartime. To pretend that there are effective ways to avoid collateral damage with 100% certainty is inane and childishly wishful thinking. Mature and responsible people deal in the real world realistically.
“I oppose a gov’t mandated abortion.”
An empty and worthless (thus fraudulent attempt to stand for something) opposition. That’s like saying you oppose full contact chess, as if it happens. It’s a great thought if you live in China, but the gov’t here doesn’t mandate abortion. But support for the private decision of a mother to murder her child is somehow less problematic for you. “I don’t want the gov’t to force women to kill their children because only women have the right to decide to kill their children.” How noble of you, Dan!
Of what follows,
“I support people having the right to choose not to have heroic measures employed to possibly extend their lives.”
…does not fit into the discussion in any way. When one cannot survive without the aid of extreme measures, as my ALS afflicted father-in-law did, deciding to let nature take its course is not suicidal or self-murder. But like the next…
“I support people having the right to end their lives prematurely in cases of severe illness.”
…at least those about to die are not killing someone else. They are particularly NOT about to kill a totally innocent child. And we know how you feel about GOD killing innocent children. If it ain’t OK for Him, how could you possibly support it for us? So then this…
“I support families being able to make that decision for loved ones unable to speak for themselves AND, to that end,
I support families making decisions about abortions.”
…is the most heinous, because the victims are not allowed to speak for themselves. They are the most vulnerable to the whims of the living…totally defenseless, totally at the mercy of others who give no consideration to the natural survival instinct of the victim. Again, how freakin’ noble you are in your “consistency”. Hard to use the word “honesty” or “integrity” in any of this, yet dishonestly, you do.
Can I kill my 5-year-old son or daughter because taking care of them interferes with my studies? No. And why not? Who has decided to impose this restriction on me?
I think it’s odd that you would argue for some innocents and not all innocents. Are you playing devil’s advocate or something? Sheesh!
Is your position that there are a bunch of terrible ways people die from the intentional acts of others (abortion, pollution, war) BUT you wouldn’t presume to criminalize any of them because people should have the right to choose abortion, pollution and war?
I’m confused.
And on what basis does Glenn get to decide for everyone?
DO you all not see that this is the question you have to – HAVE to – answer IF you want to claim the moral authority to demand this? If you can’t answer it, then people WILL ignore you and then you will do, much like you do here, have your little circle jerks where you whine to fellow “true believers” about how you’re being ignored and how awful everyone is for ignoring you.
And then you’ll die and be forgotten.
Come, let’s be rational and disagree respectfully, as adults. Don’t consign yourselves to the trashbin of history.
~Dan
And on what basis does Glenn get to decide for everyone?
I never claimed such. Nice straw man.
DO you all not see that this is the question you have to – HAVE to – answer IF you want to claim the moral authority to demand this? If you can’t answer it, then people WILL ignore you and then you will do, much like you do here, have your little circle jerks where you whine to fellow “true believers” about how you’re being ignored and how awful everyone is for ignoring you.
We claim moral authority based on GOD’s Word, not on Trabue’s subjective belief system. And we don’t even have to address the issue here. THIS blog article was about two questions. You continue to take the string off-topic. I really think it is impossible for you to stay on topic.
On the basis that intentionally killing HUMAN BEINGS without just cause is wrong. I can’t kill ANY human beings with such puny reasons as are offered by women who abort. Not a stranger, family member, MY pre-birth children, STRANGERS’ pre-birth children. IT’S WRONG!
Who decides? The same people who decide that theft is wrong. Theft, by the way, is much less harmful than abortion. But, we’ve decided that it should be a punishable offense.
So, everyone who claims authority based on “God’s Word,” they are the ones who should be heeded?
But then, other people also appeal to “God’s Word…” or their sacred scripture… others who disagree with you. So on what basis do we go with your hunches about what God thinks and not others?
As to going off topic, that’s on you all, not me. I answered the questions directly. All I did was offer my reasoning for why it should be personal decision – one that you all agree with when it’s your “rights” that you’re concerned with. It’s just you don’t wish to extend to others the liberties you’d demand for yourself.
~Dan
I said “We’ve decided”. Nothing about God.
That was directed to Glenn.
As to what you said…
Who decides? The same people who decide that theft is wrong. Theft, by the way, is much less harmful than abortion.
Well, the people have decided. Abortion is not murder.There is just cause to undergo the medical procedure.
Am I mistaken?
If you’re just appealing to the “will of the people,” then you and I are on the same page, and the people have legalized abortion. And there are a minority (pretty sizable minority, but a minority) who disagree with the will of the people, but until such time as they can make their case, they’ve lost the argument.
~Dan
Well, the people have decided. Abortion is not murder.There is just cause to undergo the medical procedure.
Well, the people decided in Nazi-land the executing the Jews was not murder. You still have a problem between what is legal and what is morally right before God.
What is the “just cause” for murdering the unborn — just because the woman doesn’t want it? There is no “just cause” for murdering the unborn. And you cannot justify it by calling it a “medical procedure.”
I’m not appealing to the will of the people. And I don’t think you think that “legal” is the same as “moral”. And I’d be willing to bet that you agree with me that we should continue to strive to make certain immoral things illegal. Do I really have to bring out “Slavery wasn’t moral when it was legal”?
Killing humans in the womb is immoral. It is equivalent to killing a born human.
Please answer this: what is it about the human in the womb that negates its human rights?
C2C, I am of the opinion that a person can say to his family, “IF I have a terminal disease and the doctors tell me I will spend the last year of my life in pain and confusion. If it reaches that point, I want you to end my life. My life, in fact, will be over and just months of suffering death will be left. That is my opinion and my decision…” and I think that person should morally and legally be able to make that decision for him/herself.
I further think that, if the person held that opinion but lost his reasoning ability before opting to end his life, that the person’s family should be able to make that decision for him, as the ones who love the person and want what is best for him. I think that, too, is moral and should be legal.
That is, to me (and many others) a justified death, one chosen freely by the individual and/or his loved ones. It is not inflicting harm on innocent bystanders like your warring or pollution decisions. It is an end of life decision and one I think belongs to individuals and families, because they are choosing for themselves.
Now, the case for abortion, in my opinion, is closer to this situation. You have a loving family. You have a concerned, rational pregnant woman and her support network, ideally. And you have a fetus that can not speak for itself. As a point of fact, we do not know when a fetus/babe becomes fully a “person…” That is a philosophical/religious question that we simply can’t answer with authority.
I personally think that a 7 month old fetus is way too close to a person to treat lightly any abortion. On the other hand, is a newly fertilized egg a full person? With no brain and no heart, is that four week old fetus a “person…”? I don’t know the answer to that, I just don’t. God has not told me, science can not tell me, I just factually don’t know. None of us do.
So, given the uncertain, unprovable nature of the “time of personhood,” I would want to leave that decision to the loved ones involved as to what is best medically and personally for that woman, that fetus and that family.
I just don’t trust gov’t to make that decision. I’m always surprised at how trusting many so-called conservatives are when it comes to trusting big gov’t to make personal family and medical decisions on points we can not know the answer to.
~Dan
Ah, the fallacy of spitting “personhood” from “humanity.” This is a false division which has only come about in recent history so as to support abortion by claiming the child is not a person until it has reached some arbitrary standard. The same argument is used to determine that one who is elderly or in some other fashion mentally incapacitated is somehow no longer a person. In fact, the Nazis said that the Jews weren’t persons.
It is, of course, the same liberal nonsense which leads these evil people to want to give “personhood” to chimpanzees and dolphins, but not to unborn children.
“That is a philosophical/religious question that we simply can’t answer with authority.”
And that is both a selfish and cowardly position. It is also self-deceiving (as it fools no one else). A pair of humans (that is man and woman) cannot conceive of anything BUT another human being (though you’re clearly quite capable of conceiving all sorts of deceitful rationalizations). To question whether or not a person at the moment of his/her conception is anything BUT a person is a bare-faced lie. It is a question put forth in an attempt to justify the lack of self-discipline regarding one’s sexual urges and to abdicate responsibility for the child one creates as a result. Philosophical question my ass.
C2C…
I’m not appealing to the will of the people.
Who or what were you appealing to when you said…
Who decides? The same people who decide that theft is wrong. Theft, by the way, is much less harmful than abortion. But, we’ve decided that it should be a punishable offense…
I said “We’ve decided”.
Who is this “We” who have decided, if not the People?
And yes, I agree with you on the principle that majority does not make moral or that legal equals moral.
~Dan
Liberalism rejects the notion that God gives life and resents the notion that God controls death. So liberals would seize that power and make matters of both life and death into questions of human choice. We now understand why abortion and euthanasia have to be such major themes on the Left’s political landscape, in spite of the fact that polls repeatedly show that America is far from sanguine over the expanded practice of abortion. In other words, the Left does not endorse abortion to win elections; it endorses abortion because that is its very purpose. It is part of its religious principle, if you like.
We can also find the exception that proves the rule. The Bible does give society one measure of control over life: It authorizes capital punishment for certain crimes. If human control over life and death, generically understood, were the underlying principle in the Left’s position on abortion and euthanasia, then wouldn’t liberalism fight for capital punishment as a logical extension of their principle? Either society should have control over life and death or it should not. But instead the liberal position opposes the death penalty at every turn, even, if the criminal himself desires to be executed. This moral repugnance for imposing capital punishment is best explained by our hypothesis. The biblical model says that we should welcome new life and revere elderly life, but the lives of murderers should be taken. Liberalism turns this policy on its head: New life and elderly life, if unwanted, inconvenient, or medically challenged, should be taken while murderers should be spared.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “America’s Real War,” p.61
Well, I for one, don’t reject the notion that God gives life, but I don’t know that God “controls” death. I have no reason to believe that. God has not told me that, the Bible does not tell us that, this is this Rabbi’s and Glenn’s unprovable opinion, and he is welcome to it, but he really can’t demand that others must accept it, just ’cause he said so.
I know people like you tend to believe that god “sends tornadoes” to kill people and god uses rapists and murderers to damage and end life, but not everyone would buy into this belief. You are welcome to it, but I’ll pass.
‘Cause Glenn thinks so… is just not a compelling reason to me.
~Dan
Well, I for one, don’t reject the notion that God gives life, but I don’t know that God “controls” death. I have no reason to believe that.
So God didn’t control death when He established capital punishment?
I know people like you tend to believe that god “sends tornadoes” to kill people and god uses rapists and murderers to damage and end life, .
This is nothing less than libel against me. Typical for Trabue, who is the son of the father of lies.
Glenn, I don’t read the Bible the way you do. I don’t make the claim that “God established the death penalty…” I think that is a naive and disrespectful way of reading the Bible. Now, no offense. I used to read it that way, too. The more I read the Bible and strove to take it seriously, the less I could reconcile a “literalist/inerrantist” approach to the Bible as a serious, adult approach.
And you don’t think that God causes things to happen, that God is “in control” of all things, including how and when people die? Then I apologize, I misunderstood you. When you quoted the rabbi saying that liberals” “resents the notion that God controls death.” …that you were saying God controls how people die.
You don’t think that?
Good for you. Unfortunately, too many people do.
~Dan
Glenn, I don’t read the Bible the way you do. I don’t make the claim that “God established the death penalty…” I think that is a naive and disrespectful way of reading the Bible. Now, no offense. I used to read it that way, too. The more I read the Bible and strove to take it seriously, the less I could reconcile a “literalist/inerrantist” approach to the Bible as a serious, adult approach.
Yes, Trabue, we all know you have no respect for what the Bible says, especially when it disagrees with your socialist, liberal agenda. That is one of the many evidences proving that you are not a Christian, rather you are a heretic who thinks the entire Christian world for 2000 years, and the Jews for even longer, were all wrong and only you and your liberal ilk know the true understanding of the Bible.
And you don’t think that God causes things to happen, that God is “in control” of all things, including how and when people die? Then I apologize, I misunderstood you. When you quoted the rabbi saying that liberals” “resents the notion that God controls death.” …that you were saying God controls how people die.
You don’t think that?
God is sovereign over His creation; i.e., He is in control of everything. Being in control does not mean He is a puppeteer. Being in control means He also allows nature to take its course as well as allowing mankind to make free will choices. Sin corrupted the creation, of course, so that this is a fallen world where all of creation groans (Rom. 8:22), so that we have horrid weather conditions, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, famines, etc, etc. and man makes bad choices. God allows that. However, anytime God so chooses He can intercede in anything to further His purposes. He may intervene and prevent a death or He may intervene to take someone home early (do Ananias and Sapphira ring a bell?) So in that sense God does indeed control life and death. And I believe that every Jew and Christian throughout history have understood that.
But then, you, not being a Christian, seem to think God having people destroyed makes Him unworthy of worship or else the Bible is falsely interpreted and is really mostly just stories people made up.
And, no, not many people believe the stupid things you claimed. They are so few that the rest of Christendom think they are aberrant and false teachers.
That’s where we differ. If you though that a thing being alive and human was enough to have its human rights recognized and protected, you’d have to be anti-abortion. A human being deserves to live as long as possible simply because they’re human. You are a person because you are human. You’re the human you are because you were a human embryo. Same guy.
You say you don’t know when personhood starts. That’s fine. But certainly, God knows. Wouldn’t you rather err on the side of caution, just in case you’re actually supporting the killing of millions of persons? Isn’t it bad enough that you support the killing of millions of human beings?
I would prefer to err on the side of caution, that is my personal judgment. But I’m not speaking for God or for other people, who have to make their own decisions. And you don’t speak for God or for other people.
Fair enough?
And I do not support the killing of millions of human beings.
Isn’t it bad enough that you literally support the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings in war time?
Why can’t we discuss this without that sort of demonization?
C2C…
A human being deserves to live as long as possible simply because they’re human. You are a person because you are human. You’re the human you are because you were a human embryo. Same guy.
So, a newly fertilized egg is fully a human being fully having achieved personhood? Do you know this or it’s just your opinion?
And a person who has had an accident or illness and is braindead, that person is still really living? Do you know this or it’s just your opinion?
Of course, in both instances, it is your opinion, it is my opinion. And as important as these questions are, we simply can’t answer them authoritatively (Glenn’s pretensions to god, notwithstanding).
~Dan
Glenn’s pretensions to god, notwithstanding
More libel from the fool
There’s no demonization in saying that you support something. You do. That’s all.
And yes, it’s fully a living human being. Personhood is irrelevant unless you want it to be acceptable to kill that human being.
And YES! It’s terrible that innocents die in war! But war (at least as far as the good guys’ are concerned) is not about killing for the sale of killing. It’s meant to end killing.
And it’s not my opinion that even a fertilized egg is fully a human being. It just hasn’t had the chance to develop into an older version of itself. If your question was “is it fully an infant, a teen, an adult?” I’d have to say no. But these are terms we use to describe things that are already fully human at different stages of their lives.
I wouldn’t presume to decide when to assign a human being personhood. Too many bad things have come from that line of thinking. Black slaves weren’t deemed to be persons. Neither were Jews in Hitler’s Germany. And why not? TO STRIP THEM OF THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS! Not the least of which is to live. Does this not sound like what you’re doing to a certain segment of humanity?
C2C…
There’s no demonization in saying that you support something. You do. That’s all.
I don’t and your mouth is full of excrement. It is. That’s all.
Read and understand: I am not in favor of any innocent people being harmed. I do not support it.
Get it? Then there’s no need to repeat stupidly false claims. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
C2C…
And yes, it’s fully a living human being. Personhood is irrelevant unless you want it to be acceptable to kill that human being.
I get that this is your opinion. Naught else. You don’t get to decide for everyone, do you understand that? It’s a judgment call that we can not prove one way or the other. We the people – whom you appeared to cite earlier as the “deciders” have decided that the point is questionable enough that we have judged it best to leave it to individual choice.
Again, if you all weren’t so intent on cutting off your noses to spite your face, you might look to make alliances where you can find common ground, rather than calling those who disagree with you nazi killing supporters.
~Dan
Dan,
It isn’t my opinion that a human life begins at conception. It’s fact. It’s just true. Women aren’t aborting pregnancies. They’re aborting individuals’ lives. You ignore the truth.
You’re upset with me for pointing it out and act like it’s an ad hom attack. It’s not. I’m not saying you have evil intent. I’m not calling you a monster. I’m saying you are wrong to support the killing. You support it. Own it. Don’t get mad at me. If it bothers you to hear that you support it, change your mind.
First of all, I’m not upset with you. Referring to your words coming from your mouth/fingers as “excrement” was intended to be descriptive, not insulting.
And by all means, provide some authoritative documentation that a person IS a person as a one day old fetus.
But when you fail to do that (and you DO fail to do that, you can’t do it, there is no authority to which to appeal), perhaps you’ll dial down the silly histrionics. People do NOT, as a point of fact, “support the killing of millions of human beings…” that is a personal opinion, not a fact, and the opinion is factually mistaken.
It is this sorta grade school “debate” techniques – likening your opponent to nazis or killers – that makes you all seem like nutty delinquents and why you can gain no traction to make your case. If you abandon the “murder” and “killing” vitriol and look for common ground, you might find that people are open to reasonable regulations in a questionable process, but as long as you continue down the path of demonization and childish histrionics, you will be regulated as wingnuts to be avoided and no progress will be made.
Glenn, he is a lost cause. But I try to appeal to the more reasonable segments of the Right to approach these disagreements in a more rational and adult manner. We can find common ground, we are not “enemies,” just fellow citizens trying to do the best we can to do the right thing.
~Dan
Trabue,
I’m a “lost cause” because I refuse to bow to your asinine foolishness.
Person:
1.”an individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only…the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child
2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.
3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only.
These are the first three definitions found in Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language.” Upon conception a human life is in the process of growing through various stages which end in adult. It is a HUMAN life, and by Webster’s it is also a person. Human being = person. No stage of life discounted.
And Glenn, what is your evidence that a newly-fertilized egg has a soul?
A four week old fetus?
Hard data, please.
If you have none, then please quit insisting that people bow to your unproven demands.
~Dan
And Dan, what is your evidence that a newly-fertilized egg does not has a soul?
A four week old fetus?
Hard data, please.
If you have none, then please quit insisting that people bow to your unproven demands.
The scientific viewpoint on the issue. Many people try to claim that the unborn is just a blob of tissue, nothing more than a tumor. But it is a scientific and medical fact, based on experimental evidence, that the fetus is a living, growing, thriving human being, directing his or her own development. The unborn baby is never part of the mother’s body.
By the end of the second week of pregnancy, there is a distinct embryo present. The fetus has a developing brain and a rudimentary heart.
By the end of the third week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vetrebrae, developing eyes and ears, a closed circulatory system (separate from the mother’s), a working heart, the beginnings of lungs, and budding limbs.
By the end of the fourth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a developing nose, and a pancreas.
By the end of the fifth week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, a bony jaw and clavicle, developing eyes, ears, and nose, a closed circulatory system, a working heart, lungs, limbs, hands, feet, and a pancreas.
By the end of the sixth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primative cranium, ribs, a developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes, ears, and nose, lungs, lim bs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, and germs of teeth.
By the end of the seventh week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primitive cranium, ribs, femur, tibia, palate, upper jaw, developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes,ears, and nose, lungs, arms, legs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, germs of teeth, and the beginnings of muscles.
By the end of the second month of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw, clavicle, and palate, a cranium, ribcage, femur, tibia, forearms that can be distinguished from arms, and thighs that can be distinguished from legs, a developi ng nervous sytem, sympathetic nerves (meaning the fetus can feel pain), a closed circulatory system and a working heart, eyes, developing ears and nose, lungs, arms and forearms, legs and thighs, hands and feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid, germs of teeth, and developing muscles. –Gray’s Anatomy
Assorted facts:
After 9 weeks, unborn babies can feel pain, yet 48 per cent of all abortions are done after this point (US Department of Health and Human Services).
The fetus has his/her own genetic code, blood type, sex. The fetus receives food from his/her mother, yet has a separate and distinct circulatory system.
“The cell (a single-celled zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.” -The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology Keith L. Moore. 2nd Ed., Philadelphia W.B. Sanders, 1977.
“Each individual has a very neat beginning at conception…. [This is] not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” -Dr. Jerome LeJune, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s syndrome in 1981, in a testimony to a Senat e Judiciary Subcommittee.
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” -Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.
Since abortion was leagalized in 1973, the number of reported cases of child abuse has increased by 1,497 per cent, from 167,000 in 1973 to 2.5 million in 1991 (US Department of Health & Human Services).
USC professor Edward Lenoski from Heartbeat surveyed 674 abused children and found 91 per cent were from planned pregnancies. An average of 63 per cent of all pregnancies are wanted.
“Scientists have found hints of consciousness in 7-month-old fetuses and measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming during 8 months. They have pushed sentience back to the end of the second trimester and shown that fetuses can learn. Wit h no hype at all, the fetus can rightly be called a marvel of cognition, consciousness, and sentience.” –“Do You Hear What I Hear?” Newsweek Special Issue, Summer 1991
“After 28 weeks in utero, the fetus can hear…. By four months in a female fetus, all 5 million ova have formed. At 4 & 1/2 months, the fetus responds to a brush on its lips by sucking. By six weeks the brain is visible and electrically active; by eight, it has convoluted folds and shape of an adult brain.” –“Do You Hear What I Hear?” Newsweek Special Issue, Summer 1991
The following quotes are from pages 1 and 3 of The Developing Human: Clinically Orientated Embryology. 5th Ed. Moore and Persaud. 1993. Saunders Company.
“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male.”
“Although it is coustomary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.”
“Human development begins at fertilization.”
“Either the fetus is a person or not. Either we know what it is or we don’t. This leaves only 4 possibilities:
A fetus is not a person, and we know that. This has NEVER been any evidence to support this.
A fetus is a person, and we know that.Killing an innocent person knowingly is murder.
A fetus is a person, and we do not know that. Killing a person without knowing or intending to is manslaughter. It’s like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be a deer or another hunter.
A fetus is not a person, and we do not know that. If the hunter didn’t know for sure and shot anyway, it is criminal negligence, even if no one was killed.
Abortion might be three things– murder, manslaughter, or criminal negligence– each of which is not debated but instinctively condemned. –Choices, by Peter Kreeft
Dan, in Jeremiah 1:5 we find God telling Jeremiah “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Other than when the ass spoke to Balaam in Numbers 22 I don’t recall any case where God appointed a soulless being to be a prophet.
Oh, but that’s right. You regard the Old Testament as a series of Jewish myths and fables and not the word of God (don’t lie and tell me otherwise or I’ll dig up your own comments from other blogs.). I see that it is utterly pointless to argue with you. You will no doubt dig up some point from the law of sin and death which you will twist, accuse me of failing to follow and claim that thereby I am a hypocrite, utterly projecting your own faults onto others. I get that. It’s how you’ve argued everywhere I have ever read your comments.
I believe it’s well past time to take the Lord’s advice givent through Paul in Titus 3:10. I will have nothing more to do with you.
To clarify. I will have nothing more to do with you. I will no longer respond to anything you say, even with your own words.
And don’t you think I don’t count my blessings for that, Brother Perri!
The thing is, if you all want to make your case, to convince the People that we need to change our abortion policies, you need to reach out to people like me, and you’ll never do that in a bullying, demonizing sort of way – that only serves to push people away from you and to marginalize your cause. Again, it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
=====
So, all of those words, Glenn and Perri, to say that basically, NO, you don’t have any hard data that says if and when a “soul” begins. Citing a verse from the Bible and telling me what you think it means, in your own personal opinion, is not hard data. Citing scientists saying that a fetus is a living thing is not hard data to support that the soul begins at inception.
You have nothing but your opinion on that point. Can you at least admit that little bit of reality?
As to this, Glenn…
Dan, what is your evidence that a newly-fertilized egg does not has a soul?
A four week old fetus?
Hard data, please.
If you have none, then please quit insisting that people bow to your unproven demands.
I am always quite clear: I do not know when (or IF) a soul begins, certainly not authoritatively. Talk of a soul is philosophical, not a hard science. And because I do not know when a soul begins, I absolutely do not demand that people bow to my demands. That has never happened. I have never told anyone, “That fetus in your belly has no soul – abort it!” Instead, I leave it up to the individuals and their families to make their own philosophical and medical decisions rather than insisting they bow to my unproven, unprovable opinion.
So that sort of takes the wind out of your argument (such as it was), Glenn. Now, having demonstrated my consistency on that point, how about you: Do you have hard data that says when a soul begins? Or is it all completely your unproven, unprovable opinion? If it is only your opinion, on what basis should anyone bow to your bullying demands?
You got nothing.
~Dan
you’ll never do that in a bullying, demonizing sort of way
More throwing out of the victim card.
I absolutely do not demand that people bow to my demands.
You do it all the time, you liar. You foolish man. Go away now and troll another blog.
Glenn, I think Dan is not intellectually honest, that his approach to these sorts of discussions at least borders on the pathological, but I don’t think he’s worth getting so obviously irritated, because he’s not nearly as effective at propaganda as he thinks he is.
He’s ridiculous — literally deserving ridicule — and I don’t think it’s worthwhile to take his writing more seriously than he does.
I see that, very early on in this thread, Dan Trabue invokes religious liberty.
“Religious and personal liberty are not things to be trifled with lightly. You no doubt are glad to be able to make the choice for yourself of whether or not to own a car and drive. Respect others’ rights to make their own medical decisions.”
Reading a statement like this, one might think that Dan would believe that business owners should be free to conduct their affairs in accordance to their personal beliefs, and that the state should neither coerce companies to subsidize abortifacients for their employees nor coerce artisans to bake cakes that celebrate events that they cannot personally endorse, even if they’re quite willing to sell bagels and bread to all prospective customers.
You might think that, but you would be wrong.
“[Christian florists and Hobby Lobby] are NOT getting in trouble for exercising their religious convictions in trouble. You can do that all day long if you want.
“They are getting in trouble for illegal discrimination which results in harm to others.”
In the comment thread, you’ll see that he supports boycotts “to affect change in policies” even though they can and are even intended to cause financial harm to businesses and their owners. It’s almost as if the standard is his personal political agenda and not any consistent conception of rights and harm.
Or, who knows? Maybe it is much worse to refuse to bake a person a wedding cake, than it is to kill a person in the womb.
—
One line did strike me as ironic, from Dan on the subject of the destructive nature of the automobile.
“Only the truly ignorant will deny science to assuage their conscience so they can opt to live like a hedonist.”
Well, who’s trying to argue that, while she is in the womb, a child is not a human being?
Scientifically, when does human life begin, if not at conception? And what does abortion kill, if not a human being? If one denies that a fetus is human, what species is the fetus within a human mother’s womb? Or does one deny that she is a distinct and living organism, despite her having a distinct genetic makeup and developing both brain waves and a heartbeat within two months of conception?
The automobile is just awful.
“Serious damage to God’s creation, serious destruction to humanity. Nothing to sneeze at.”
Abortion? It’s just a “medical decision” and — seriously — it “is at least made within the family and is not harming outsiders.”
Because that’s the important thing: it’s far worse to have your lawnmower produce an infinitesimal amount of pollutants that might contribute to the asthmatic problems of some random stranger in your neighborhood, than it is to choose to kill your own child. It’s not as if the Ten Commandments includes a command that implies any particular duties to one’s immediate family, and it’s not as if our own consciences scream out against the act of filicide.
Since Roe v Wade in 1973, there have been about 1.7 million automobile fatalities in the United States, and about 55 million abortions, but it’s the automobile whose destructive nature cannot be reasonably denied.
—
John has already pointed out Dan’s inconsistency about the use of analogies. It’s fine to compare having an abortion to driving a car, but not to compare the 50+ million victims of abortion with the 10+ million victims of the Holocaust.
About the former, Dan asks, Glenn, “what analogies ARE acceptable and who gets to decide? Has someone died and made you Analogy Dictator?”
About the latter, well, it’s just lunacy.
“It is this sorta grade school ‘debate’ techniques – likening your opponent to nazis or killers – that makes you all seem like nutty delinquents and why you can gain no traction to make your case. If you abandon the ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ vitriol and look for common ground, you might find that people are open to reasonable regulations in a questionable process, but as long as you continue down the path of demonization and childish histrionics, you will be regulated as wingnuts to be avoided and no progress will be made.”
(Notice here how much name-calling uses to criticize name-calling — childish wingnuts and delinquents.)
A child is living and growing in her mother’s womb, quickly developing a beating heart and an active brain, kicking her legs and learning to recognize her mother’s voice: that mother decides that that warm and nurturing environment should be the scene of her death, and that she should never experience the world around her. The little girl is the victim of a procedure whose goal is not only to remove her from the womb prematurely, but to ensure that her death, an abortion considered a failure if its victim survives. She may feel pain, her limbs may be severed and her brains sucked out, and the tiny remains of that innocent human life will be discarded and probably incinerated like garbage.
We are outraged at this barbarism.
Dan is outraged at our outrage.
He is right about exactly one thing: one side does sound deranged.
Must not have closed the HTML link.
John,
I’m calling for Dan to be banned.
Every time there’s a discussion and Dan’s involved, he does all that he’s been accused of. Not to mention, he doesn’t play by his own rules. He makes ridiculous comparisons and rejects more clear comparisons as “ad hom attacks” against him.
He claims to be Christian while going against many major Christian beliefs.
As mentioned in this very thread (as well as in many others), he is unwilling to acknowledge truth, calling it “opinions”.
He will not take instruction when honestly offered in good will.
He is arrogant in his opinions.
And he will never change his mind on anything, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against his position may be. Instead, he acts as if the argument wasn’t what it was. Equivocation is his favorite attempt at argument… EVERY TIME! If I said the sky was blue, he’d argue that it’s my opinion, ant that it’s impossible to determine whether or not the sky is melancholy. I swear, I would not put it past him.
It’s up to you. But I’d welcome any other ideological opponent to him.
C2C,
How dare you engage in slanderous, libelous, ad hom personal attacks on Dan. He’d never do that to you. The next thing you know you’ll be calling him names and engaging in lord knows what other kinds of vile attacks. After this, he’ll probably head back to his blog and compose another screed about how mean conservatives are and how full of grace he is for all who disagree with his hunches.
OK, was kidding. There are times I agree with the sentiment. But you have to admit it’s kind of fun to watch the gymnastics he goes through demanding “hard” proof from everyone but himself and the incessant “you don’t answer my questions” complaints while ignoring multiple answers to his questions. But, hey, he’s sure got a lock on reality.
Seriously, Craig. How much of this thread alone was spent arguing how to argue? Sheesh! It’s exhausting. Dan is not on a search for truth. I’ve changed my positions after reading guys like you as well as what I would call hard leftists. Dan brings almost nothing to the table.
C2C,
Dan brings almost nothing to the table.
I disagree with you. Dan brings NOTHING to the table!
“A zygote may or may not have a soul. It’s unknowable. Therefore, kill it… Don’t kill it… Whatever!” Really, Dan???
It is irony of the highest order, is it not? This type of equivocation on something that is not really arguable flies in the face of Dan’s concern for “the least of these”. At the very least, to err on the side of life must be the default position of anyone who claims to be Christian with any concern at all for “the least of these”. For who else can claim the title of “the least of these” with more legitimacy than the unborn. Is there anyone more “least”?
And again, in a further example of irony (and Dan so loves the ironic as he claims we don’t even know it when we see it), Dan allows women to determine the fate of their “creation”, their unborn children, and by the most violent of means, while at the same time denying God in the OT from determining that entire populations, children and all, must be put to death for reasons HE determines are justified. Oh no. That won’t do. Only women have that sovereign authority. Not the Creator of all things.