Call Congress

Comments

29 responses to “Call Congress”

1. 

   Dog Gone

   November 1, 2009

   Mitch writes:

   “and would not be impressed by the pro-infanticide aspects of Pelosi’s novel.”

   Having read the bills, the links to which were kindly provided to me BY Oberstar, it certainly seems that both Oberstar and I have read the bills that are being combined into one final bill a heck of a lot more thoroughly than Bachmann has. Not a surprise; she has yet to propose any worthwhile legislation, has some of the highest expenses of any representative in Congress, and a very unimpressive attendance.

   DO, by all means, share with us the page or pages on which the supposed ‘Pro-Infanticide” occurs please, and the links to it. I’d REALLY like to see the language that is being MIScharacterized this way.

   I haven’t seen such language ANYWHERE, and I doubt it exists.

   Particularly as there is quite adequate legislation already in place prohibiting ANY federal funding of abortions or ‘infanticide’. So why is it that the conservatives / Republicans are so eager to EXPAND government with anti-abortion redundancy? Why, isn’t that a lot like the expansions of government that took place in the last administration, in spite of the repetitions about being committed to small government?

   And don’t get me started about Hatch trying to slip another $50 million or so into a health care bill to fund that stupid, worse than useless abstinence only sex education. Yeah, smaller government. Right.

   More like hitting hot button subjects with misinformation to gain support.

2. 

   Dog Gone

   November 1, 2009

   Mitch writes:

   “and would not be impressed by the pro-infanticide aspects of Pelosi’s novel.”

   Having read the bills, the links to which were kindly provided to me BY Oberstar, it certainly seems that both Oberstar and I have read the bills that are being combined into one final bill a heck of a lot more thoroughly than Bachmann has. Not a surprise; she has yet to propose any worthwhile legislation, has some of the highest expenses of any representative in Congress, and a very unimpressive attendance.

   DO, by all means, share with us the page or pages on which the supposed ‘Pro-Infanticide” occurs please, and the links to it. I’d REALLY like to see the language that is being MIScharacterized this way.

   I haven’t seen such language ANYWHERE, and I doubt it exists.

   Particularly as there is quite adequate legislation already in place prohibiting ANY federal funding of abortions or ‘infanticide’. So why is it that the conservatives / Republicans are so eager to EXPAND government with anti-abortion redundancy? Why, isn’t that a lot like the expansions of government that took place in the last administration, in spite of the repetitions about being committed to small government?

   And don’t get me started about Hatch trying to slip another $50 million or so into a health care bill to fund that stupid, worse than useless abstinence only sex education. Yeah, smaller government. Right.

   More like hitting hot button subjects with misinformation to gain support.

3. 

   Dog Gone

   November 1, 2009

   Infanticide, by the way, is different from abortion or miscarriage. It refers to the killing of a baby / infant / newborn after it is born; it does not refer to any form of death in utero.

   I would have thought Bachmann, as a lawyer, would have been familiar with the correct terminology.

   Give the deplorable infant mortality rate of the US under our status quo, in comparison to other developed and industrialized countries, ESPECIALLY those with some form of national health care, it seems ludicrous to posit that we are looking at getting any worse with the proposed health care legislation.

4. 

   buddhapatriot

   November 1, 2009

   It refers to the killing of a baby / infant / newborn after it is born
   And a baby, infant, newborn are just “nonviable things” before they’re born, right?

   it does not refer to any form of death in utero.

   I dunno- “in utero” or not, it doesn’t make things like fetal alcohol syndrome any less tragic.

   I would have thought Bachmann, as a lawyer, would have been familiar with the correct terminology.

   I think Criminal Law may be a bit different than Womyn’s Studies. Besides, were crimes against gay people only hate crimes after Obama recently signed into law saying that they were? So now it’s impossible to be cruel to animals unless it’s specifically spelled out in our legal code? Fer sure?

   Give the deplorable infant mortality rate of the US under our status quo, in comparison to other developed and industrialized countries,

   Uh, right- because we actually make an effort to save prematurely born infants. Can you take a wild guess as to why we might have a more “deplorable” infant mortality rate than, say, the Nederlands?

5. 

   swiftee

   November 1, 2009

   Whooweee…DG luvs her some baby killin’, don’t she?

   No matter how long, or how convincingly a lefty can maintain a facade of rationality, there is *always* some nasty bit of lunacy swimming around their kool-aid addled brainpans…otherwise they’d have run screaming from the Democrat party at the first opportunity.

6. 

   Mitch Berg

   November 1, 2009

   DG,

   With all due respect, I disagree:

   Infanticide, by the way, is different from abortion or miscarriage. It refers to the killing of a baby / infant / newborn after it is born; it does not refer to any form of death in utero.

   Miscarriages are (largely) unavoidable, so that doesn’t really apply here.

   I believe human life begins at conception – because a fertilized egg, left to its own devices, will turn into a human being even without medical help 3/4 of the time. I oppose abortions (other than the rare case when the mother’s life is in danger – and those are rare). I believe this because it’s the only rational position.

   “Er, huh? MItch? The “only” rational position”. Yep.

   Pro-choicers take the “faith-based” position that life doesn’t begin until…er, when? 22 weeks? The beginning of labor? Until Mom says it does (in the case of partial birth abortions)?

   So given that pregnancy is intended – by God, biology, remorseless fate, Vishnu or whatever you believe in – to end in a live human being most of the time, and that the entire process of reproduction is intended by (fill in list above) to create human beings, then yes – abortion is Infanticide.

   Calling it any less strips it of any moral weight – which is just what some “feminists” want, but I won’t sit still for that kind of debasement, either of life or of the language.

   (And I acknowledge in advance that the above is Rew/Fecke bait. Bring it).

   I would have thought Bachmann, as a lawyer, would have been familiar with the correct terminology.

   She’s a tax lawyer. And more to the point she’s even more pro-life than I am.

   Give the deplorable infant mortality rate of the US under our status quo

   What BP said. Tack on the many, many social issues that bear on and inflate infant mortality – including the overwhelming majority of teenage pregnancies, which are frighteningly prone to complications, and which are encouraged by the whole “pro choice” ethos.

   , it seems ludicrous to posit that we are looking at getting any worse with the proposed health care legislation.

   The bulk of this nation’s health care problems are already caused by government interventions, both in the market and in society.

7. 

   Kermit

   November 1, 2009

   My 2 cents worth on abortion: I agree with Mitch. Life begins at conception. Any other viewpoint requires a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty. Abortion is not always wrong, just like other forms of killing are not always wrong. But using my money to pay for the execution of inconvenient babies is disgusting, immoral and evil.

8. 

   Dog Gone

   November 2, 2009

   Buddha patriot wrote:
   (DG)”It refers to the killing of a baby / infant / newborn after it is born.

   (BP)”And a baby, infant, newborn are just “nonviable things” before they’re born, right?. ”

   So you apparently don’t understand the difference in meaning in words BP? zygot, morula,blastula, conceptus, fetus, newborn. They have different meanings indicating thins like stages of development, which does have a serious impact on discussions of viability, BP. There are stages early in a pregnancy where the above are not viable outside the womb, with or without medical intervention. So, yes, sometimes unviable, sometimes viable. I’d be more than happy to compare our levels of knowledge about this any time.

   But the discussion seems to err from my point – Bachmann doesn’t know what she is talking about. Neither she nor Mitch is identifying anything in any of the current pending legislation which addresses EITHER abortion or infanticide. She is just whipping up an unfounded frenzy, or trying to, given her track record for crazy has seriously undermined her credibility in most segments of the electorate.

   (DG) “it does not refer to any form of death in utero.”

   (BP)”I dunno- “in utero” or not, it doesn’t make things like fetal alcohol syndrome any less tragic.”

   And this relates to Bachmann claiming Infanticide in the health care reform bills….how?

   Mitch wrote:

   (DG) “Give the deplorable infant mortality rate of the US under our status quo”

   What BP said. Tack on the many, many social issues that bear on and inflate infant mortality – including the overwhelming majority of teenage pregnancies, which are frighteningly prone to complications, and which are encouraged by the whole “pro choice” ethos. ”

   Or, Mitch, if you look at independent studies of public health issues, you might be surprised to find how much those complications track back to things like the conservative position on abstinence only ignorance in place of comprehensive sex ed that provides accurate information, not scientifically and medically flawed and selective info.

   Mitch also wrote: “Uh, right- because we actually make an effort to save prematurely born infants. Can you take a wild guess as to why we might have a more “deplorable” infant mortality rate than, say, the Nederlands?”

   And your basis for the incredibly flawed ideas about the Nederlands comes from what information? How about this for a factoid Mitch. The Netherlands have a teenage pregnancy rate of 8 per 1,000 teenage girls between the ages of 15 to 19; that’s pregnancy, regardless of the outcome of live birth, miscarriage, etc. The comparable US rate during the period of abstinence only sex ed under the last administration was 96 per 1,000.

   There are fewer of those complicated births due to age, and other complications. And I have been utterly unable to find any suggestion much less verifiable information that the Netherlands makes less of an attempt to save the lives of the prematurely born.

   where is that language in the health care reform bills that indicates there IS ANY proposed infanticide, abortion, or lack of care for newborns or babies prematurely born? that “pro-infanticide” statment you concluded with? Still waiting for it. I’m guessing you went with unsubstantiated rumor and not actual data here.

9. 

   Dog Gone

   November 2, 2009

   swiftee Says:

   “November 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
   Whooweee…DG luvs her some baby killin’, don’t she?

   No matter how long, or how convincingly a lefty can maintain a facade of rationality, there is *always* some nasty bit of lunacy swimming around their kool-aid addled brainpans…otherwise they’d have run screaming from the Democrat party at the first opportunity.”

   No baby killing has been documented, it is the unsubstantiated accusations that I object to Swiftee. And it is a big jump from saying ‘show me where’ to asserting someone is pro baby killing.

   Guess you’d rather throw mud than provide facts; not very strong support for your position is there?

   I’m registered as an independent on my voter registration, and I have voted far more often Republican, than Democrat in my life.

10. 

    Dog Gone

    November 2, 2009

    It is NOT a position based on rationality, it is a position based on faith. Nothing wrong with that so long as you don’t confuse the two.

    Ah, ah, DG. Read more carefully. My point is that the pro-infanticide position is based on irrationality.

    If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin? When it’s “viable?” A “fetus” isn’t “viable” until it can pay its own rent and do its own cooking and laundry!

    Seriously, though – tell me when “life” begins! Not just at birth, but at the cutting of the umbilical (to safeguard partial-birth abortion)? That’s absurd irrational – “fetuses” delivered prematurely have survived and thrived and grown up to be perfectly normal humans after twenty-odd weeks! So if a “fetus” can not only be “viable” but perfectly normal at 25 weeks, and the line is being pushed back further and further into the second trimester every year, then what “rational” (let’s use the term “empirical”) limit do you place on it?

    There is none! And since there is no rational, empirical measure for when “life” (to say nothing of “viability”) begins (even allowing for the absurdity but, for most of us, moral imperative of trying to empirically measure the presence of a soul), then what is the rational answer?

    Err on the side of life, that’s what.

    I can’t find any biblical source that indicates life begins at conception. Or in early Christianity;

    Also absent from the Bible and the minutes of the Council of Nicaea – references to “Neonatal Intensive Care” and “In-Utero Microsurgery”!

    it didn’t become the policy in the Roman Catholic church until a good ways along historically either.

    With all due respect to my many Catholic friends and family members, my anscestors fought and won a perfectly good Reformation so that we wouldn’t have to be theologically bound for all etnernity by the dictates of the Roman church.

    If you assume that the existence of a soul in a body requires some significant part of that body to exist — in other words, losing a finger, you still have a soul, losing other body parts, you still have a soul present.< /i>

    Why do we presume that existence of a soul requires a “part” of the body? Why – and by “why”, I mean “why, morally and ethically, to say nothing of theologically” – would we presume that something as unempirical as a “soul” would need any physical structure more defined than a fertilized egg that God, nature, Confucius, biology or remoreseless fate designed and intended to end up as a human to exist in?

    So if you presume…
    a) that souls exist (and I do), and…
    b) that there’s no way to measure their presence, and that…
    c) the soul doesn’t reside in some specific part of the body built for the purpose (and good lord, we do have to hope the appendix and tonsils aren’t intended for that purpose, don’t we)?
    …then the question is “how much development do we assume a human needs to be considered a human?”

    Lose your head, or other neurologically necessary life sustaining parts, like your head……..no soul there anymore. The notion that the soul exists inside the body, as opposed to flittering around near it, tends to correlate to concepts, even among many religions, of their being a certain amount of sentience, awareness, and other qualities that do track to levels of cellular differentiation.

    Which is bad news for coma patients, if you take it to the logical not-that-extreme…

    So personally, I am much less inclined than you are to believe that there is a soul present at conception. It is a larger leap of faith than perhaps you have considered. But in any case, it is a belief, not a fact, not a basis of knowledge.

11. 

    K-Rod

    November 2, 2009

    Kool-Aid addled, indeed.

    Swiftee provided the shovel; nice hole you keep digging, DG. 😆

12. 

    buddhapatriot

    November 2, 2009

    And this relates to Bachmann claiming Infanticide in the health care reform bills….how?
    My point is that most social workers probably don’t refrain from intervening in cases of pregnant women who are ingesting recreational drugs or alcohol because of “this very private decision between a woman and her doctor”.

    So you apparently don’t understand the difference in meaning in words BP?

    So you apparently don’t read your own posts, DG? Your command of medical terminology is all very nice, but you acknowledged that babies/infants/newborns are just that whether they’re born or not, and I simply called you on it. But since we all live in a Post-Modern, Deconstructionist world, why quibble about mere “words” and their “meanings”?

    By the way, your running interference for the Dutch medical establishment kind of proves our point about the slippery slope of allowing abortion and euthanasia.

13. 

    Mitch Berg

    November 2, 2009

    DG,

    Guess you’d rather throw mud than provide facts; not very strong support for your position is there?

    Swiftee is an old friend of mine (of almost as long standing as you and Peev), and is an orthodox Catholic and one of the most princpled pro-lifers I know (to the point that he is even more anti death penalty than I am).

14. 

    K-Rod

    November 2, 2009

    That and he is too chicken of the 1 in a billion odds of being wrongly sentenced to death, mITCH. 😉

    Swiftee nailed it when he called DG out:

    “No matter how long, or how convincingly a lefty can maintain a facade of rationality, there is *always* some nasty bit of lunacy swimming around their kool-aid addled brainpans…otherwise they’d have run screaming from the Democrat party at the first opportunity.”

15. 

    Dog Gone

    November 2, 2009

    Even within Christianity, in the 4th century, St. Augustine did not believe the soul came into the body at conception. In the 16th century, Pope Gregory XIVth believed the soul did not ‘attach’ until ‘quickening’ – when movment like kicking could be detected.

    So, if you would care to discuss the history of beliefs in Christianity about the soul entering the body, I’d be delighted. If you would care to discuss the comparative definitions of the soul from either the perspective of different Christian theological traditions OR comparative religions, I’d be delighted. If you would care to discuss the advances in understanding of what has previously been regarded as intagibles, such as thought and emotions and personality / the essence of what makes each of us an individual, as it relates to our emerging understanding of biochemistry and brain function, I’d be delighted.

    Swiftee making the statement, regardless of how principled an orthodox Catholic he is :”swiftee Says:

    November 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
    Whooweee…DG luvs her some baby killin’, don’t she?

    No matter how long, or how convincingly a lefty can maintain a facade of rationality, there is *always* some nasty bit of lunacy swimming around their kool-aid addled brainpans…otherwise they’d have run screaming from the Democrat party at the first opportunity.”

    fails as argumentation supporting his position, and replaces facts with his insults adding nothing of value to a discussion. I would argue that Swiftee has NO justifiable basis for his insult, and that you Mitch should be capable of recognizing that someone who disagrees with you – or Swiftee – can also be a principled person.

    Im still waiting for the wording, the page, the section, of the health care proposals that address any form of abortion or infanticide.

    Like calling it death panels when it pertains to health care reform, but not when private insurance does the exact same thing, there is an essential dishonesty in these arguments that apply a double standard and sensational terminology in place of reason.

16. 

    Kermit

    November 2, 2009

    Hmm. Doggie claims “I’m registered as an independent on my voter registration”. I’vr been a registered voter in Minnesota for 30 year. There is no affiliation on the registration. Is she living in a different state?

17. 

    Dog Gone

    November 2, 2009

    FYI, I was also brought up a protestant (Lutheran) with the understanding that religious assumptions were something to be questioned, not just the assertions of the Roman Catholic church. That included a knowledge of the early church before the Reformation split; as well as tracking the divergence of beliefs about a variety of subjects, including when the soul becomes part of an individual.

    Well and good – and I don’t disagree. But the argument is only half about the “soul” – a concept that is rejected by many parties to the debate anyway (albeit emphatically not by me).

    My question in my previous post still holds – and is not particularly religious in nature. What do “we” know about the origins and beginning of life?

    Because I hear plenty of liberals say with straight faces “I know life doesn’t begin until birth” (that’d be our friend Jeff Fecke, who inadvertently sums up much of what I find so abhorrent about the abortion debate).

    You would have people assume there is only one correct, agreed upon concept for that.

    No, I would convince people that my belief is right. Big post coming on this tomorrow, BTW.

    You would compel others to accept your belief as fact, instead of recognizing it as a belief and allowing others to have a different but equally sincere and life affirming concept.

    “Compel” is such an authoritarian word. “Convince” works better for me.

    I would argue that is not rational, and that it violates the separation of church and state by imposing one set of religious beliefs into law over others.

    But you’d be mistaken. I’m not arguing “church” at all. I’m asking (as noted in my previous comment) for a definitive stance on when “life” begins, regardless of ones view of “souls”.

    And if you say “that’s an absurd question”, then you see why I believe my case is more rational – since we don’t know when “life” begins, then much better to err on the side of preserving it until we DO know.

    Beyond that, what Bachmann says is in the health care reform care proposed legislation just isn’t there.

    It may be, it may not. And it’s irrelevant; the left has stated that it needs to be in there. And they will fight to put it there. And given the current makeup in Congress, it may well make it.

18. 

    Mitch Berg

    November 2, 2009

    So, if you would care to discuss the history of beliefs in Christianity about the soul entering the body, I’d be delighted. If you would care to discuss the comparative definitions of the soul from either the perspective of different Christian theological traditions OR comparative religions, I’d be delighted.

    I’d be interested enough – but Christian tradition means “what Christians believed 600-1500 years ago” in some of the cases you refer to. And being a militant Protestant, I may take a Pope’s theological beliefs into account as such (and I may not!) – but certainly not as science.

    And all of them operated at a time when life was cheaper and medical science much less advanced (obviously) than today.

    But it’s interesting to note that ultrasound shows a “fetus” “quickens” long before the mother can actually feel it.

    If you would care to discuss the advances in understanding of what has previously been regarded as intagibles, such as thought and emotions and personality / the essence of what makes each of us an individual, as it relates to our emerging understanding of biochemistry and brain function, I’d be delighted.

    We’re getting warmer…

    There is enough evidence to suit me that the combination of things – DNA? – that makes us individuals is present when the egg divides into two.

    Here’s a question for you: Why SHOULD I believe that life begins at any time other than conception? You know – because we discussed it in the past two weeks! 🙂 – that I believe the shadow of a doubt about the innocence of a convicted murderer puts the morality of the death penalty in grave doubt. Since we’re a lot less sure, in empirical terms, about when “life” begins or even what defines “life” than we are about the integrity of our judicial system, and since I believe innocent human life is even more valuable – literally sacrosanct, in fact – make the case for me. Why, in absolute, empirical, black and white terms, should I believe that life begins at any time other than conception? What is the empirical, black and white case for this?

    That should keep you busy!

19. 

    Dog Gone

    November 2, 2009

    Mitch wrote:

    “I’d be interested enough – but Christian tradition means “what Christians believed 600-1500 years ago” in some of the cases you refer to. And being a militant Protestant, I may take a Pope’s theological beliefs into account as such (and I may not!) – but certainly not as science.”

    It speaks to the development and progression of theology, with the earlier thoughts being closer to the original thinking of the faith / religious tradition.

    You might be surprised to find that – at least so far as I can track it – pretty much the protestants early on followed the Roman Catholic thought on the issue.

    The first formal definition of “immediate hominization” – the term for this concept of the soul being present at conception – was 1869, under Pius IX, when abortion first became the same kind of offense as murder, subject to excommunication. 1869 is a far cry from 600 years ago or 1500 years ago; it is a mere 140 years ago. And there is even less agreement among protestants than there is among roman catholics on the subject.

    I’ll be delighted to get back to you on the other items — but I ask one thing of you in turn. YOU find me the supposed language, including the page number and the bill version, that asserts anything that is pro-infanticide. For now, I need to finish up some other writing; however ToE has been working on something that should be up soon on Penigma on the subject that I think may address a number of these issues as well.

    And let me add tht as one of those who was around when both your kds were born, one of the things which I admire about you is that as far as this issue goes, you not only put your money where your mouth is, you have put the way you live your life “where your mouth is”. I was always impressed with the utterly stunned, gobsmacked, delieriously happy expression on your face that was pretty much stuck there once you became a Dad. Even when doing the not-so-fun things like changing diapers. I considered writing something about that on Bun’s birthday, but thought she might be embarrassed enough already.

    I trust that while I may have a more complex / complicated view of the topic, you have never found me any less principled than Swiftee.

20. 

    Dog Gone

    November 3, 2009

    Mitch wrote:
    “Which is bad news for coma patients, if you take it to the logical not-that-extreme…”

    Not at all. Having had sentience, having had sufficient brain function to be alive, is sufficient. Even sleep alters the state of consciousness. When your brain has deteriorated so far that it is decomposing…….then we get into a more difficult area.

    A signficiant part of this discussison can also encompass how we currently define death. Not that long ago it was purely determined by heart and lung function; now it is determined by brain function or brain death, even when the heart no longer beats without assistance, or breathing takes place only with assistance. Life and death, two sides of the same coin?

21. 

    Mitch Berg

    November 3, 2009

    YOU find me the supposed language, including the page number and the bill version, that asserts anything that is pro-infanticide.

    This is what I’m talking about.

    The left wants it; given their control of the White House and (for the next year) Congress, they’ll get it, or at least take a mighty run at it.

22. 

    Dog Gone

    November 3, 2009

    So?

    Here is the part that is pertinent..” Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother. ”

    First of all, this is still NOT providing me with the language in the actual bill.

    There has been a HUGE amount of misrepresentation, that became second hand and further, and the greater the number of intermediate steps from the original langague, typically the greater the misunderstandings.

    Show me the language. Since you got your original explanation from Bachmann, and you have sufficient access to her to get her on your radio show, perhaps you should ask her for the page number, the section, the actual language.

    But from this source at least it would appear far from anything resembling infanticide.

    You apparently would try to prohibit private funds for certain reproductive decisions (not only abortions), not just control public funds. SO…..how again, is this LESS government, and less intrusion into people’s lives, their bedrooms, les coming between patients and doctors interfering in their medical decisions that you claim for conservatives to be against???????

23. 

    Dog Gone

    November 3, 2009

    So, let’s return to your defense of protestant beliefs and your own statements that you apparently agree there is no mention in the bible that the soul becomes present at conception. Why is that significant?

    Here’s why.

    There are five fundamental principles in protestantism, which would include I believe your own faith of Presbyterianism derived from John Calvin. 1. No Roman Catholic papal authority; 2.Only the Bible – scripture alone; the Bible is the ultimate authority for all matters of religious belief and practice 3. Interpretation of the Bible according to individual conscience – which means what is there, not adding to or making up anything that is NOT there. (Also one of the reasons there are so many different versions of protestantism, including all the variations on presbyterianism) 4. Salvation is by faith alone; (not innocence or guilt); 5. Priesthood of all believers; not one of the principles that pertains particularly to this discussion.

    So however much you wish to assert that the soul is present at conception rather than any other stage, that is an assumption, not supported by the ultimate source for the Christian belief. Absent proof that you are correct, and absent proof in the Bible, it is an opinon but not one that should be imposed on the conscience and thought and right to interpretation of another believer. If you want to argue theology. I believe I’ve already addressed the inconsistencies in this area in Roman Catholicism. I’d be perfectly happy to move on to other branches of Christianity, including the Eastern Orthodox churches. And then we can get into the other Abrahamic religions if you like, and move on from there to the non-Abrahamic religions, on the subject.

    There is nothing like a unity of belief in religion(s) as to when the soul enters the body but a surprising amount of overlap in the concept of the soul, which I find particularly interesting — and suggestive.

    And from there we can move on to….oh, philosophy, ethics, science — if you like. I find the theories of what constitutes our souls particularly engrossing. And the science………yes, I do love discussing that aspect of this topic. Be prepared to do your homework!

    The ultimate point being that there can be an honest difference of opinion, and it is ONLY opinion that you are trying to enforce on others. There are people who disagree with you who can be informed, ethical, moral, EQUALLY PRINCIPLED and thoughtful.

    Care to continue? I figure it is time that I demonstrate again why it is you have found me an interesting and challenging friend, all these years, LOL. My co-admin “Thoughts of Eternity”, whose I think at least as intensively Roman Catholic as Swiftee, refers to me from time to time as one of his favorite heretics, but at least he has found me sufficiently knowledgable for a good exchange on this subject.

    We may need to start another topic heading?

24. 

    K-Rod

    November 3, 2009

    It is most certainly a human life.

    Unique DNA that is specifically different than the mothers DNA.
    Check.

    Living dividing cells, a human life form that won’t fully develop for about 20 years but will continue to develop unless a force or circumstance kills it.
    Check.

    Yes, dog-nagit, it is most certainly a human life.

    At what point do you feel the government should protect that innocent life?
    18 days?
    18 weeks?
    18 months?
    18 years?

25. 

    penigma

    November 3, 2009

    Despite my better judgment.. I’ll bite – KR, where in law does your definition of life exist, for that matter, where in science? When a mass of cells has ‘potential’ but no vaibility outside the host organism, we refer to that as a parasite in the reality based world.

    Oh, and just as an aside..should the government fail to protect less than innocent life, KR?

    Once again – let’s stay in the realm of what actually IS the law rather than what we simply desire it to be.

    Life begins at a point which has been the subject of this thread and comments. Infanticide was the term thrown about, suggesting that people who don’t agree with right-wingers are in favor of murdering children (murder, not just kill, murder, with malice and intent to kill babies — not fetuses- born children).

    I suppose if you want to start a discussion at the extreme end, and phrase things as uncivily as possible, well then I guess it means you only have to move a little bit from that extremity to appear to be ‘reasonable’, but the question is, why start at the extreme at all? Why phrase things so objectionably and unskillfully and inaccurately?

    I have a question for all of you – should an impregneted egg fail to adhere to the uterine wall – which happens commonly – did God assign a soul to that egg? You said it is at CONCEPTION that life begins. So please, clarify, is God simply assigning souls to embryos/eggs which have/had NO chance of ever being born? If so.. why? Do you truly think God is psychopathic, or that he has this ‘assembly line’ of souls, some of which, due to original sin, never have the chance to live nor seek redemption or know and accept Christ? State of Grace is a Catholic invention to explain this paradox, but it’s not in the Bible and not accepted by many protestent denominations – so please, enlighten all of us how “I knew you before you were in the womb and I named you” equates to life beginning at conception, and if it does, why would God toss away so many souls which are condemned simply by the mere fact of human biology?

26. 

    Mitch Berg

    November 3, 2009

    I have a question for all of you – should an impregneted egg fail to adhere to the uterine wall – which happens commonly – did God assign a soul to that egg?

    We don’t know! We have no idea! That’s why it’s best for us humans to leave impregnated eggs on the uterine wall where they belong!

    So please, clarify, is God simply assigning souls to embryos/eggs which have/had NO chance of ever being born?

    I”d have no earthly idea. And either does anyone else. Which is a big chunk of my point; we have no idea when life begins. Either do “pro-choice” people. “Pro-choicers” positions on when life begins are all, invariably, no exceptions, arbitrary – and usually driven by ideology. The pro-life position (note that I don’t mention religion at all), knowing that any attempt to say when “life” begins at this point is entirely arbitrary, says “why chance it?”

    State of Grace is a Catholic invention to explain this paradox, but it’s not in the Bible and not accepted by many protestent denominations

    I”m a militant presbyterian protestant, so Catholicism is irrelevant.

    Indeed, for purposes of this argument, my religious beliefs are irrelevent.

    All of you pro-“choicers” out there, answer this if you can:

    When does science say life begins?

    State your answer in empirical terms.

    Get on it!

27. 

    penigma

    November 4, 2009

    Mitch,

    First, I asked first – second, you again mistake me for someone who responds to your orders. When you get promotoed to God-hood, let me know, til then, do like normal folks and say please.

    Mitch asked..Here’s a question for you: Why SHOULD I believe that life begins at any time other than conception? You know – because we discussed it in the past two weeks! ”

    Because to believe it begins at conception is to consign God to irrationality and psychopathy. Assigning souls to zygots (good word there), is the act of an irrational and unloving God. There is no biblical support for such a position, there is no scientific agreement – and Mitch, let’s use the current MEDICAL SCIENCE view – measurable brain activity and/or heartbeat – with both being generally seen as points of measure of death when they are no longer present. The obverse then therefore, measureable brain activity and/or heartbeat (if not separately sustained), would be ‘life’ – you know, what Bill Frist attempted to claim was present with Terry Schaivo – even though her brain was, oh, gone?

    If your belief in life beginning at conception is NOT religiously based, upon what IS it based?

28. 

    Mitch Berg

    November 4, 2009

    Pen,

    For starters, it wasn’t an “order”. It was a question, and a challenge.

    Which, kudos to you, you took a swing at.

    Because to believe it begins at conception is to consign God to irrationality and psychopathy. Assigning souls to zygots (good word there), is the act of an irrational and unloving God.

    Perhaps, but that’s not what I said.

    Not feeling qualified to second-guess The Almighty, I’ll just say I have no idea when life begins, or when a “soul” is created. Either do you. Either does anyone.

    More on that in a bit.

    There is no biblical support for such a position,

    Right. And indeed, there is no biblical support for any theory as to when life begins!

    there is no scientific agreement – and Mitch, let’s use the current MEDICAL SCIENCE view – measurable brain activity and/or heartbeat – with both being generally seen as points of measure of death when they are no longer present. The obverse then therefore, measureable brain activity and/or heartbeat

    OK, that’s a start. Sort of.

    Now, Pen, since you invoke scientific measurements (or as you call it, “MEDICAL SCIENCE”, apparently believeing that capitalization makes your point even better), then you’re saying the definition of life depends on a measurement – brain activity – which is entirely dependent on the sensitivity and accuracy of fetal EKG meters. And they don’t provide a hard beginning – merely a measurement that crosses the threshold of their sensitivity.

    But here’s an absolute fact; heartbeats are detectable three weeks after conception. Since a heartbeat is controlled by the brain stem, that means right? – that there has to be brain activity at that point – right?

    So, due to MEDICAL SCIENCE, you would support the idea that life begins has objectively begun three weeks after conception. Right?

    Of course, NARAL actively fights for the “right” to abort “fetuses” with not only brain activity and sustainable heartbeats – they want it for “fetuses” who just haven’t made it out the birth canal yet; for “fetuses” that are minutes and inches and a snipped umbilical away from being actual humans by any definition anyone this side of Andrea Dworkin would buy into.

    If your belief in life beginning at conception is NOT religiously based, upon what IS it based?

    Again, I didnt’ say it’s not religiously based. I’m saying I don’t need religion to support the case.

    It’s partly religion, partly observing that science doesn’t know when life begins (remember, Pen – “data” does not equal “conclusion”), partly knowing that trying to “Measure” life empirically is entirely dependent on the type, accuracy and sensitivity of ones’ test instrumentation, and partly because while I don’t know when a soul tees up, I do believe that a fetus is intended to be a human – that’s why the entire process exists in the first place, to create more humans.

29. 

    K-Rod

    November 4, 2009

    Only a moron would claim a conceived human life form developing on the uterine wall is not alive.
    Pernicious Peevee, you are an idiot.

    Now run along back to Peni’sBlog like a good Obama worshiper.
    BTW, are you a Liberal Fascist or a useful idiot? I’m thinking the latter but I could give you the benefit of the doubt.

    ….

    So, taking into account there can be heart and brain activity as early as 3 weeks:

    At what point do you feel the government should protect that innocent life?
    18 days?
    18 weeks?
    18 months?
    18 years?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.