Quote of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on December 1, 2008 by Allahpundit

“Someone close to me in our family has a learning disability, which has been a handicap and a sorrow to her, and my lifelong experience of children and adults with learning disabilities, including many with Down’s, as they have grown older has given me a different perspective. I am convinced that it is a grave misfortune for babies to be born with Down’s or any comparably serious syndrome. It’s a misfortune for their parents and their siblings as well. Sad observations over decades have convinced me: a damaged baby is a damaged family, even now…

There are some strange contradictions surrounding the question of abortion. People who reject abortion as always wrong are consistent and one cannot argue with them. But anyone who thinks abortion is acceptable under some circumstances, and who yet disapproves of what’s emotionally seen as ‘eugenic’ abortion, is in an untenable position. After all, people accept abortion for certain ‘social reasons’, and what more powerful ‘social reason’ could there be for an abortion than the virtual certainty that the foetus would be condemned to a life of frustration, disappointment, dependence, serious illness and poverty, to the great sorrow and hardship of its family?”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

End of story. You have to take care of yourself first.
jim m on December 2, 2008 at 9:47 AM

By your reasoning, if/when my kids become too much of a financial burden, I need to either sell them off to more capable providers, kick them out on their own, or kill them. It would be a tough decision, but for my own betterment (I want that new Mercedes after all, and gosh darn it, I deserve it!), I need to get rid of both of them.

God gave you a brain to make a choice, and you can choose to end a human life (again, you must think that life begins sometime after conception if you don’t equate abortion to murder), but if you believe in God, then you are guaranteed that there will be consequences for your decisions. Does it matter when you abort a child, is 12 years OK? My oldest daughter has Cerebral Palsy, she could possibly become a burden that I don’t feel I can handle, should I eliminate her once I reach that point? Where is the mark off point, and is it subjective?

General question for those that don’t believe life begins at conception:

When does a human life begin?

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Crux Astralis
I’m also 38 with AS and ADHD.
I was diagnosed in my early 30′s
My teenager-the future US Marine-is AS as well.
My motto is a quote from Joe Walsh:
“Lucky I’m insane after all I’ve been through…life’s been good to me so far…”.
Barb in Chi-Town.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 2, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I’m completely pro-life. 100%. That said, if abortion becomes illegal again, what would you do with a doctor who still performs them? How about the woman who has one? What would be the penalty? I’m not suggesting anything here, just curious.

Buford Gooch on December 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM

My suggestion would be heavy fines, heavy enough to convince people of the value of adoption, which is free and sometimes pays.

We currently have the ability to determine that a baby will have Down Syndrome in the womb. Let’s suppose in 2 years they discover a way to fix the baby in the womb.

Is it ethical to do so?

cryptojunkie on December 2, 2008 at 1:19 AM

Well, is it ethical to cure someone with Downs after birth? I don’t see why the answer would change before birth.

It is a disorder, and I see no reason to consider it unethical to cure any disorder.

For instance, I had a friend many years ago who was too sick to carry the fetus, if she had tried to do so they both would have perished. But instances such as this are relatively rare.

Terrye on December 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM

That is tragic, and that’s really the only reason that makes sense for me. There’s no reason to be a martyr when your baby will die anyway.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Just as a side note, I’d be willing to bet that any parent here would sacrifice themselves (eagerly) if it meant saving their child’s life. The idea that we have to take care of ourselves first is a fairly immature perspective.

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM

When does a human life begin?

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:23 AM

When it is most convenient for those with the power to destroy it.

spmat on December 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Again, as a gay dude

SouthernGent on December 2, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Around here, you’d be known as “artistic”, mon frere ;)

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:42 AM

The idea that we have to take care of ourselves first is a fairly immature perspective.

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM

If a child dies, you can have another child. If a parent dies, the child’s life is in that much greater jeopardy.
Sometimes, life is cruel, and the decisions needed to survive it are not warm and fuzzy.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Call me selfish and proud of it.

jim m on December 2, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Then never have children. Parents can’t be selfish even if their children are biologically perfect.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM

If a child dies, you can have another child. If a parent dies, the child’s life is in that much greater jeopardy.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM

You’ve got to be kidding.

How is the child in any more danger if the child was about to die before the parent sacrificed him/herself?

And kids aren’t like puppies. You don’t just go out and get a new one if you lose one.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM

General question for those that don’t believe life begins at conception:

When does a human life begin?

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:23 AM

I agree that life begins at conception – I’d be very interested to hear any biologist argue otherwise.

Your question is still interesting to me, however, as I think it rests entirely on the definition of “life”.

I happen to define “life” as “that which consumes and transforms resources to support its unique existence” – a standard which certainly encompasses the fertilized ovum, with its unique DNA.

If we then agree on the principle of an inalienable right to life, then we logically cannot separate this right from the new human life created at conception.

That it is only a cellular blob is no excuse – destroying it is still denying its right to life. That people can think about doing so with all the consideration of stepping on an ant is horrifically callous.

Yet we destroy life all the time – justifiable homicide – so my real question is, when is an abortion homicide justifiable, if ever?

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM

I was speaking purely from a reproduction/species continuation viewpoint – cold and clinical.

Personally, I’d go to the bleeding edge and leap for my kids.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I’m completely pro-life. 100%. That said, if abortion becomes illegal again, what would you do with a doctor who still performs them? How about the woman who has one? What would be the penalty? I’m not suggesting anything here, just curious.

Buford Gooch on December 2, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Let’s use an analogy. Say that it is legal in Louisiana (playing to stereotypes here) to have sex with your 13 year old daughter. In the other 49 states, its illegal. If a federal law was passed for such an act, what should the penalty be if someone committed it in Louisiana where it was previously legal? –> In my book, it would be jail time.

If a doctor still performs abortions, he would be no different than a doctor that agreed to kill a woman’s husband during an operation so that she could receive his life insurance. The doctor is taking one life in order to benefit another, regardless of the reasons.

If a woman gets an abortion, then she falls under the same penalty. Would she get jail time for killing her children if they were 2 and 3? Then, why wouldn’t she get jail time for killing an unborn infant? What penalty would a person that shot a pregnant woman get if they killed both the mother and fetus? Wouldn’t they be charged with two counts of murder?

The whole argument pivots on the stance that the fetus is a human life and should be protected and has individual rights apart from the mother’s. I think the only caveat would be when both lives are endangered, you have to save the one that is most likely to survive, usually the mother’s.

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 10:59 AM

I was speaking purely from a reproduction/species continuation viewpoint – cold and clinical.

Personally, I’d go to the bleeding edge and leap for my kids.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Good to know I misunderstood. It seemed too… malicious.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM

A good childhood friend of mine is a special needs teacher. When I first heard she was going into this field my response was “huh?” as she was never known to be the most patient person that has graced this earth.
Having seen and heard how these children truly light up the lives of those around them with their innocently brutal honesty and continued wonder at the world, I got why she chose that career.

Nathan_OH on December 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM

I think the question “When does life begin?” is a misleading one–there is a continuity of living from the parent to the gamete to the embryo that passes right through conception. There is also a natural survival odds that could cause conceptual problems as well.
The actual question is at what point do we legally grant the right to live. There can be all kinds of reasoning for this, religious or otherwise, but that is the question. Once that is established, an abortion of a fetus that has been granted that right is homicide. As such, the next question is under what circumstances that homicide is justified. If the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then it can be justified as self defense. What about other circumstances?

Count to 10 on December 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM

If a child dies, you can have another child. If a parent dies, the child’s life is in that much greater jeopardy.
Sometimes, life is cruel, and the decisions needed to survive it are not warm and fuzzy.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Actually, I can’t have more kids (well, I guess if I were to pony up enough money I could have that operation reversed), but in reality, you can’t replace a child, just like you can’t replace a parent. I’d agree that if the mother and infant’s lives were in danger that the mother should be saved, but in all other cases, I’d say that the baby needs to be delivered. I suppose I might be a wee-bit flexible in my stance with the “morning after” pill, to me that could still be a contraceptive…

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Abortion should be illegal, but killing your teenagers shouldn’t be /joke

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I suppose I might be a wee-bit flexible in my stance with the “morning after” pill, to me that could still be a contraceptive…

Geministorm on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Technically it is. It’s just a highly concentrated birth control pill, and more often than not it simply prevents fertilization.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Count to 10 on December 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Your “continuation of life” is all very fuzzy and hippy and luvvy-duvvy, but biologically incorrect.

There is a blazing bright line dividing one life from another – DNA.

We do not ‘grnat’ the right to life…..it is inalienable and endowed by our Creator. Our very existence is our inseparable right to life.

Technically, all abortion, at any stage, is homicide (meaning “human death”, not “murder” as dumbass medialand would have you believe) – so when, if at all, can it be considered “justifiable homicide”?

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Esthier:
It depends on the disorder.
While my AS has caused me some grief over the years-it has also brought me joy.
I truly believe that many of my most engaging “quirks” wouldn’t exist if I were “normal”.
If I were offered a cure tommorrow I’d turn it down.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM

More or less disguised was a strong tone of moral disapproval of anyone who feels that the birth of a Down’s baby is a misfortune, to be avoided if possible. Hardly anyone now dares to say so.

Then let me be clear: looking upon the birth of a baby with Down’s Syndrome as a “misfortune” is a moral outrage.

We, all of us, are created in the image of God. That makes life sacred. Anyone who is without imperfection may cast the first stone.

God have mercy on us that we even have to have this discussion.

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I was not aware it prevented fertilization, I thought it prevented implantation by inducing a menstrual miscarriage.

The “morning after” pill is a challenging one for me. Right now I am comfortable with its widespread use, as it does not technically kill the fertilized ovum, but rather tilts the field in favor of having a far too inhospitable environment for the pregnancy to continue – which is a naturally occuring risk anyway.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:19 AM

If I were offered a cure tommorrow I’d turn it down.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM

“If A.D.D. Is A Gift…Can I Return It For Something Else?”

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Technically, all abortion, at any stage, is homicide (meaning “human death”, not “murder” as dumbass medialand would have you believe) – so when, if at all, can it be considered “justifiable homicide”?

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:14 AM

“Prochoice” is a euphemism for muder.

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 11:24 AM

I was not aware it prevented fertilization, I thought it prevented implantation by inducing a menstrual miscarriage.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:19 AM

From what I understand, it does both, depending on the stage the fetus is in at the time.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Call me selfish and proud of it.

jim m on December 2, 2008

How about vile and narcissistic, does that work for you?

SKYFOX on December 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

The actual question is at what point do we legally grant the right to live. There can be all kinds of reasoning for this, religious or otherwise, but that is the question. …

Count to 10 on December 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM

That is the deception, not the question. At what point do WE grant the life of a Paramecium to live after it undergoes sexual reproduction? By that same authority WE grant all life the right to live, we should apply that to human life.

See the problem here? We have no right to define when life begins. It begins with conception in sexual reproduction, and follows the unboken line type of argument you provided for asexual reproduction such as budding. (Parthenogenesis is an unusual exception, but I digress)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Well, if it does prevent fertilization then it is no more an abortion agent than a condom is.

“Prochoice” is a euphemism for muder.

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 11:24 AM

“Pro Choice” is as semantically void as “Pro Life” – both are stupid labels, adopted by people with a need to thoughtlessly join a herd.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

I have two children, Esthier. Would you want to have had the government sterilize me before we had them because I feel this way?

I’ll take honest, vile and narcassistic SKYFOX.

jim m on December 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM

jim m on December 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM

LOL….you stick to yer guns bud ;)

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

We had a woman in our town that had 5 abortions in 3 years. Abortion is not a form of birth control. There is a family in our church with a Downs boy, about 18 or 19, and he is the kindest young man you could ask for. Our 2 year old grandson loves him to death (not really, of course).

TimothyJ on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Well, if it does prevent fertilization then it is no more an abortion agent than a condom is.

That’s been my stance, but I do believe if the fetus is far enough along that it can also, as you mentioned, prevent implantation which likely crosses the line for some people.

Either way, I feel it’s far preferable to abortion and think most could live with that compromise.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Abortion is not a form of birth control

Agreed. I remember some case where a serial-abortion piece of trash was given the option of sterilization by a judge.

A challenging ruling, but one I felt was wise.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Abortion is not a form of birth control.

TimothyJ on December 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM

If people agree that there’s nothing wrong with abortion (I’m not saying that’s you), then I see no reason for it to be anything else.

I have two children, Esthier. Would you want to have had the government sterilize me before we had them because I feel this way?

jim m on December 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM

The government? No. That was simply advice, something I’m sure you’ve learned on your own with your children if you’re a competent father, which I have no reason to doubt.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM

You can’t fix stupid!

PappaMac on December 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM

If people agree that there’s nothing wrong with abortion….

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Now there is the rub of the whole situation in a single statement. Not everyone agrees. Some have a very nuanced view, as in it is OK one time as a goof, but not to use it as a replacement for the pill or a condom as birth control. Some view it as only under certain circumstances, some as never ok, and the whole spectrum in between.

Ultimately, we have no right to make this decision, but the courts have made rulings on this anyway. (i.e. there is no abortion right, and if anyone wants to argue, I would suggest that they find this right in a mainstream religious text, or the constitution)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM

True, but of those who agree that it is OK to have an abortion if you don’t want the child you’ve conceived, regardless of the reason, then I don’t see how those people can then say it shouldn’t be used as contraception, even though many of them do.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 11:53 AM

*shrugs*
No one ever said that humans were consistent, logical or always rational.

This is the group I was talking about first. I believe they know it is wrong at the core of their being, but wish to have it available as a “doomsday scenario” fix for themselves or their children.

Is this inconsistent? Yes.
Is it insanely hypocritical? Yes.
Do they care? No.

Take it for what it is, you’ll never find an intellectually satisfying answer.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Take it for what it is, you’ll never find an intellectually satisfying answer.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Good point. Of course it won’t stop me from trying to get one from them.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Of course it won’t stop me from trying to get one from them.

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM

And I would wholeheartedly encourage you that it shouldn’t stop you. I was just commenting because I know quite a few who believe what I described, and was trying to pass along what I know of their thought process. Who knows, you may help a few folks see the light through the process of trying to get a sensible answer to the question.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Wow. Having a child with severe autism I well understand the burden, both financial and emotional, but seriously the “just kill them and be done with it” attitude masking as humane and kind makes me puke. So the one LD person she knows is miserable… not like normal people are ever miserable .. and that justifies aborting those who are “less than perfect”. Sort of sick.

darcee on December 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Esthier on December 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM

My approach is just different; I tend to go for the jugular. As a biologist, life begins in a very clearly defined moment. That is conception for a sexually reproducing species. If it applies to seaweeds, protists and everything else, why draw the distinction differently with humans?

The honest answer to that question can be very informative.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Come on Christian soldiers, speak up:

If God exists and abortion is morally wrong, do the consequences of having an abortion fall only on the decision maker or are more souls held responsible for the act, i.e. sins of the father visited upon everyone for the rest of time, etc?

dk on December 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM

To be truthful, I think most people don’t believe there IS a right and wrong that’s independent of what’s comfortable for them.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM

dk on December 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Is common sense too difficult to deal with?

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM

To be truthful, I think most people don’t believe there IS a right and wrong that’s independent of what’s comfortable for them.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM

OK, I think that is a fairly circular thought process. (Not an uncommon scenario on this topic) Answer this question honestly…where does the definition for what is comfortable in this belief system come from?

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM


Is common sense too difficult to deal with?

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Well, not everyone is a marine biologist. Come on professor, humor me.

dk on December 2, 2008 at 12:58 PM

For most people, what feels good. Yesterday Drudge linked to a study which found that high school kids are as dishonest as the day is long. But they think very highly of their morality (although I’m sure they’d think badly of someone else who was as dishonest to them as they are to everybody else). I think that’s what most people are like.

And to be honest, if all worldviews are equal, there’s nothing else TO believe. That’s what multi-culturalism is. To us, it’s wrong to kill infidels. To another culture it’s not. So a religiously neutral state couldn’t side with one over the other, unless one pleads that there is a natural law. But the natural law of the animal kingdom is survival of the fittest. So how can we know what the natural law is? We can’t even say it’s something bred into our consciences because our consciences are so warped as evidenced by the study of high schoolers.

I guess what I’m saying is if there’s such a thing as evolution from a lower life form to a higher, we’ve DEvolved from moral beings to animals.

Yes, it’s circular. That’s all you have in a society that’s half human, half animal.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM

I conversed once with a really fun, nice guy who was a strict materialist – believed that only what has mass and location really exists. Anything else was simply believing in unsubstantiated myth.

I asked him if he believes that love is real. He said he knows it isn’t but chooses to live his life as though it is, because he couldn’t exist without it. It’s a necessary lie.

The government says that science has to come up with secular answers. Even if biogenesis required an intelligent force, or at least laws of nature that came from somewhere, science in the schools would have to say it wasn’t real. They’d have to spend their whole lifetime denying the reality of what is vital to everything they see, and trying to find a different answer that would fit. Their loyalty has to be to materialism, not to reality or truth.

It’s a dead end road. Like saying love doesn’t exist but I couldn’t exist without it and I exist. It has to be circular. There’s a false hypothesis screwing everything up – that only the material world is real.

I think that’s what has seared our consciences collectively. So we can’t say that a human life was created by a Creator who obviously (by virtue of it having been made) intended it to exist. Therefore it would be stealing from the Creator to take what is His. That’s the reasoning of the Declaration of Independence. But our government can’t say that today. We’re sworn to have a strictly materialist government. But there is no documentable, materialist right and wrong to be found. All we have is “My guess is as good as yours and I’m stronger than you so I rule.”

I hope this makes sense. I’m posting on the fly today.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM

To be truthful, I think most people don’t believe there IS a right and wrong that’s independent of what’s comfortable for them.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

gippergal1984 on December 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM

I guess what I’m saying is if there’s such a thing as evolution from a lower life form to a higher, we’ve DEvolved from moral beings to animals.

Yes, it’s circular. That’s all you have in a society that’s half human, half animal.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Ah, I think I took what you were saying earlier as more of a laissez-faire approach. You are right about the degradation of the society.

To throw DK a bone too by humoring him…

The morality of our culture has eroded to the point that if a judgment isn’t brought down upon our nation, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the likely scenario, not an original sin type of scenario as DK was trying to state)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM

My point of view does not make me a heartless eugenicist.

Yes, it does.

urbancenturion on December 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM

I’m wondering if Obama’s election is God leaving us to choke on our own vomit. If it is we certainly deserve it.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I still believe that we’re going to find the original first page of the bible one day – the one that reads “any similarity to characters living or dead is purely coincidental”

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 1:30 PM

What do you mean, Limey Geek?

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM

What do you mean, Limey Geek?

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Just riffin’ on the whole “fiction of christianity” thing….once we can shake our civilization free of religion, maybe other societal dementias will fall away and free us to think more clearly about frauds like Obama.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM

So should we abort babies that show genetic predispositions to depression or ugliness? Both of these qualities can cause pain and suffering.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Don’t blame Christians for Obama. Every Christian I know sees through his bull.

Doppleganker on December 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Are you a materialist? Believe that only what has mass and location exists?

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Doppleganker at 1:55

But Jeremiah Wright says he’s a Christian. Have to kill any God who doesn’t hate whites, but he’s a Christian… Sigh.

Being “Christian” these days has nothing to do with Jesus called Christ who was killed under Pontius Pilate. It’s basically the religion of “Get along now boys and girls”. Bleh.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Are you a materialist? Believe that only what has mass and location exists?

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I’m not any kind of “ist”

I’m an ornery git.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM

lol. Fair enough. These are ornery times.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM


The morality of our culture has eroded to the point that if a judgment isn’t brought down upon our nation, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. (This is the likely scenario, not an original sin type of scenario as DK was trying to state)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Actually, I’m not insinuating an “original sin” scenario at all. My question is simple, if a moral price is to be paid for aborting a fetus, who pays?

dk on December 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM

These are ornery times.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Amen to that ;)

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Point Number 1

Re:

After all, people accept abortion for certain “social reasons”, and what more powerful “social reason” could there be for an abortion than the virtual certainty that the foetus would be condemned to a life of frustration, disappointment, dependence, serious illness and poverty, to the great sorrow and hardship of its family?

Then why not just kill them now? This is the point that is missed (or, more accuartely, ignored by the pro-choicers). To the opponents of abortion, a human being is killed when an abortion is committed. It matters not whether it is prenatal or post natal…it still kills a human. thus, morally, it is the same to kill after birth. So, if it is just looking too hard for them (is it really “them” you are thinking of?) just do them in now. This, incidentally, is the position British and, more and more, North America is moving towards. Late-term abortions? Okay. Abortion survivors? According to Pres. Obama, okay. Up to seven months after birth? According to some ethicists, okay.

Point 2

Re:

My point of view does not make me a heartless eugenicist.

Sorry. You don’t get to make this judgement. This is a judgement you are not permitted to make about yourself…others will decide.

Blaise on December 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM

“Pro Choice” is as semantically void as “Pro Life” – both are stupid labels, adopted by people with a need to thoughtlessly join a herd.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Pro Choice is a euphamims for murder, semantically void or not.
signed/ Thoughtless Herd Joiner.

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM

if a moral price is to be paid for aborting a fetus, who pays?

dk on December 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM

This wasn’t clear from your earlier statement. The nation pays. It is not an unusual notion that justincase voiced:

I’m wondering if Obama’s election is God leaving us to choke on our own vomit. If it is we certainly deserve it.

This would be a judgment from a certain point of view. It is biblical to have the nation abandoned to their own depravity, and this is the interesting part… one of the most common signs of depravity is an embracing of homosexuality.

It is interesting to note that across the nation there is a rise in political agendas favorable to homosexual groups. To my thinking, this lends credence to the notion that Obama’s election is the beginning of judgment.(Before someone jumps, this is not a doom and gloom statement, just an observation)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM

This, incidentally, is the position British …

Blaise on December 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Pssst. *Whispers* this is a quote from a British paper

Hint:
foetuses = British spelling of fetuses.

Sorry. Had to.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Stupid British and their stupid insertion of extra letters to make them seem less stupider than the rest of us.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM

It is interesting to note that across the nation there is a rise in political agendas favorable to homosexual groups. To my thinking, this lends credence to the notion that Obama’s election is the beginning of judgment.(Before someone jumps, this is not a doom and gloom statement, just an observation)

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM

I think you are quite right. The Old Testament records the judgements God gave to kings and nations. Why do we suppose we would be exempt?

davidk on December 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Stupid British and their stupid insertion of extra letters to make them seem less stupider than the rest of us.

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Or is that really stupid Americans and their stupid removal of letters that should be there to make them seem less stupider than the rest of us?

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM


This wasn’t clear from your earlier statement. The nation pays.
Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Sorry for the lack of clarity earlier. Ok, if the nation pays, does that mean that every indivual who stands before God must answer for every aborted fetus or is the price you’re referring to an earthly one and not a spiritual?

dk on December 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM

I’ve just gone cross-eared

LimeyGeek on December 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM

But Jeremiah Wright says he’s a Christian. Have to kill any God who doesn’t hate whites, but he’s a Christian… Sigh.

Being “Christian” these days has nothing to do with Jesus called Christ who was killed under Pontius Pilate. It’s basically the religion of “Get along now boys and girls”. Bleh.

justincase on December 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM

I’m sorry, I was talking about Christians – not black nationalist hate mongers and pacifists. Please don’t lump me in with those people who haven’t read the Bible.

Doppleganker on December 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Okay, maybe they’ve read the Bible. But they obviously aren’t able to study it within historical contexts or they wouldn’t be able to twist it to fit their personal agendas… It’s kind of like the people who read the passage “judge not lest you be judged” and then interpret that to mean that we are not to discern right from wrong. I kick those people in the shins… In my head…

Doppleganker on December 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM

dk on December 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM

I can only answer this from a Christian perspective, but here goes…

-does that mean that every individual who stands before God must answer for every aborted fetus –

No, every individual who stands before God must answer for every decision they made. So, if an individual hasn’t had an abortion, but does nothing to change the situation i.e. voted for people who support abortion, they do have to give account for that. Now, if you have faith in Jesus, you are pardoned for that, but you still have accountability to it.

or is the price you’re referring to an earthly one and not a spiritual?

Actually, it is both, but I was focusing on the earthly.

In the earthly sense, when a nation is turned over to its depravity, there is a severe decline in the social structure, which begins to tear the nation apart at the seams. There are many paths, but embracing things such as abortion, homosexuality, or any of the multitude other things that usually are labeled as “wrong” will lead to the destruction of a society. Even from a non Christian perspective this makes sense. Stating that embracing ideas that do not produce longevity of the society by fostering families and growth are destructive is pretty much common sense. As a society falls apart, personal freedoms are one of the first things to go.

In the spiritual sense, there is an oppression that sets in. It is evidenced in the erosion of religious freedoms, particularly with Christianity. Christian pastors are the target of the backlash from proposition 8 in California, but why? The claim is that there is religious intolerance of homosexuality. If you look at the Quran, there is intolerance of homosexuality. Jesus said to hate the sin, but love the sinner. This is not a nuance difference.

However, for a better understanding, for starters I would suggest reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Bible.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM

And for statements like the ones I just made, some consider me a pariah.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM

And for statements like the ones I just made, some consider me a pariah.

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM

I would be willing to bet that it doesn’t matter.

Doppleganker on December 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM

AP- Change the picture in the front page. Please put in bold who exactly said this quote. I was expecting a heartwarming story about Sarah & Todd Palin, not this

right wing chicky on December 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Doppleganker on December 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Nope. :D

Marine_Bio on December 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Ah, yes. The standard atheist argument for abortion. Never heard that one before. A Down syndrome baby can be detected in the first trimester. I don’t have problems with abortions in the first trimester for social reasons. Besides, some parents aren’t cut out for the constant emotional drainage that will occur. Sorry, but its not an “untenable” position because EVERY issue has a CONTEXT. Babies aren’t made and raised in a vacuum. I love it when leftists try to make conservative issues black and white, but leftist issues are always shades of gray. Life is complex- duh!

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3