Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Pro-Death crowd is back.

I was going to write about another subject but a series of comments I received pushed that idea back for a day. They were all directed at one of the columns with regard to abortion. As anyone who reads this column will know, I am an unashamed proponent of life. I know (which is far stronger of a stance than mere belief) that life begins at the moment of conception. There is far too much science that proves this. The question is really when do any rights of humanity become endowed upon this life?

That question I posed is enough to send many of the pro-death crowd into a screaming frenzy because if what we now call the de-humanizing terms of zygote, fetus, etc, is recognized for what it really is, what they now see as a fundamental right becomes rather an act of legalized murder. What is really interesting is that many of this group will also stand vigil protesting the execution of a serial killer whose primary target was children.

If anyone will notice, I have not once said that an abortionist or their “patient” does not have the right to do what they do, yet these comments fairly shrieked that accusation attempting to shame me into silence. One comment was not allowed to be published because it used profanity, in spite of the prohibition for that sort of language clearly posted in the comment box. Apparently some folks can write but not read.

Throughout all the columns on this subject my single push has been to inject honesty into the discussion; honesty based on actual science and biological evidence not politically correct terminology. The problem, as exhibited by the comments, is that at least one side of the discussion cannot deal with such honesty, so I will, with glee, express it yet again.

I want a member of the pro-death camp to answer this question honestly and without rancor: what is the result of human conception if it is not human? I can almost guarantee that not one of them will give a well-reasoned answer because the only correct answer is “human life”. There are stages within the growth of this life that it has yet to achieve sentience and there are stages where it is completely reliant on the mother for sustaining that life, but if not human, what is it?

You see, when the rhetoric is broken down and the discussion is brought to fundamentals there is no room left for semantics and this is what really bothers the fanatics on both sides. Where abortion is concerned, most of the fanatics live on the left but not all of them. Those who shoot abortionists are just as wrong as those doctors who violate their oath by hiding behind contracts. The Hippocratic Oath as translated from the Greek is,

“I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”

There is no room in the oath, if it is followed honestly, to perform an abortion. If the comments to my blog are read, you will see that the writers did not bother to do any research, they simply reacted because I was disputing an article of their faith. They call for tolerance, but react with intolerance when someone disagrees with them. The comments give ample evidence to that, but if you will notice, I published them…except when profanity is used.

For those who didn’t pay attention in school, profanity is the four-letter dialogue you commonly use when your mother isn’t listening.

6 comments:

Bob Beers said...

Well, my point is yet made again. The commentor with the gutter vocabulary managed to post a vitrolic tirade minus the profanity. A casual reader will note the arugument posted is not reasoned, misses the subject, relies soley on emotion and is cowardly enough to hide their identity. I was going to mention the hate, but why dwell on the obvious?

Anonymous said...

I have held back writing to you for many reasons, and I cannot contain myself any further. It's a good thing you won't post profanity, because if I could say everything to you I want, you'd have to make sure anyone reading was over 18.

First and foremost - ABORTIONS ARE NOT LEGAL PAST 12 WEEKS!!!! This was an 18 week old fetus WAY out of the embryonic stage where there is room to debate it's "humanity."

Second, Ainjil and Jon did not only not choose to abort, they chose to get pregnant in the first place. As another reader put it - apples and oranges.

And third, if a woman chooses to abort her child, that is a choice that only she can make (whether you agree with that ability or the choice is irrelevant), NOT ANYONE ELSE!!!

You make it like doctors are running around finding women that will make unfit mothers, strapping them down, and forcing abortions on them. That's what William Keck did. Yeah, let's change the abortion law, so that anyone that doesn't think someone should have a baby can at any point SHOOT THEM AND ANYONE ELSE IN THE VICINITY WITH AN AK. That sounds like a great amendment to the current standards. Did you know he intended to kill Jon's 3 year old son? And by a change in plans missed the opportunity? What about that? Should anyone that kills a child be protected abortion law? Because if the KILLER an 18 week MURDERED fetus should be protected under abortion law, shouldn't Casey Anthony?

I wish Ainjil would go after you for this. I wish you could understand what your stupid, arrogant, words put her through. This has nothing to do with abortion. This is you continuing to attack and victimize a woman that has lost everything and suffered more than you will ever know, in your plush house, with your plush family, and your plush position in the community.

Maybe someone should have stabbed your mother in the stomach with scissors and saved us all the grief.

I could go on forever, but I doubt you'll post this, and I doubt even more that you'll care at all what damage you've done.

I will post this as anonymous, but only because it's easier. My name is Samantha Keen aka Spacecadet702. I am not ashamed of my words. Just ashamed of my previously elected officials.

Bob Beers said...

As readers will see, the left is incapable of debating this topic without resorting to name-calling. My entire point has been missed by this girl and that proves my point.

To correct an error in her tirade, partial-birth abortions are performed past the with month. President Obama refused to vote in favor of making them illegal. Such a decision would not have been necessary if the proceedure were outlawed past 12 weeks.

Anonymous said...

Name calling? I don't see any name calling in my post... Paranoid much?

MY entire point was missed by you. This has nothing to do with abortion. Oh, wait... Didn't I say that? "This has nothing to do with abortion. This is you continuing to attack and victimize a woman that has lost everything and suffered more than you will ever know..." Wow. I did.

I got your point. Abortion is bad, fetus murder is fetus murder... Whatever.

And yet, you still can't seem to comprehend that while it wasn't the point that you made, it's that it was incredibly inappropriate and crude that you would use this particular situation to illustrate your point. "These people should be lining up behind Billy Keck as a champion of abortion rights. He did what they have marched in the streets for. He delivered Angelique Keck from having to experience the horror of childbirth and the eventual punishment of a baby." Can you really still not understand how horrific it was for her to read that statement?

I expected a little more from a man that seems to have too many words in your reply. Good job using one inaccuracy to attempt shirk off my entire post. (By the way, "the with month" and "proceedure?" ??? Wow...)

It's obvious that you refuse to admit that you did anything that could even be perceived as in poor taste, and if you didn't get it the first time, I don't think you will this time. No need in beating a dead horse. I really don't care what you may have to say in response to this. Quite frankly, I think that you like offending people because you crave the attention, even if it's negative, and I think it's sad. I really don't care to indulge you any more than this. I hope you sleep well tonight. I promise you the family and friends of William Keck's victims will not.

Samantha

Anonymous said...

Wow. I made a reasoned comment as you requested. It was in your blog referencing catholics getting what they wanted. Now the entire blog is gone. Or course I may just be getting senile.

Let me try again. In a discussion, words must not be defined in a circular manner. So the first thing you must do is to define human and life in a way that is not self referential - that is does not use the word human. You do not do that. Then you ask "what is the result of human conception if it is not human? "

Well, lets just go with really simple things, and be a little self referential and circular. A human is some form of life that, born of a human that if more or less left alone, has survived, or will, some time in the future survive, on its own. Now it is clear that, even by this exceedingly nebulous definition, a lot of the products of conception are not human. These blobs are natures / gods mistakes. Often they are spontaneously aborted. If they make it to term they can not survive without extensive, often lifetime life support, and sometimes no matter what, they die shortly after birth.

The anti choice people take the position that people can not "play god" unless it consists of almost god-like efforts to keep something breathing just because it was the product of a human sperm and egg. Oh... And almost NONE of these people are adopting or contributing to the care of these throw away children. Their attitude seems to be: You must keep them alive, and care for them, and preferably out of my site.

By no known logically consistent method can one define a fertilized egg as human. It is not even a blueprint since fertilized eggs can develop in many different unique ways, for example resulting on one twin that is gay or trans-gendered, and another that is straight.

A fertilized egg is no more a human than an acorn is a tree. It is, at best, a set of strong suggestions as to how a human may be created.

While the government can say that a fertilized egg is a human, this makes no more sense than regulating sex among consenting adults, or stating that PI is exactly 3&1/7
We not not come very far from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
when legislators, thinking that because they can make laws makes them gods, really thought that they could legislate reality. You can not.

In reality calling a fertilized egg a human does not make it so, no matter how clever your verbiage or your position in society, or your ability to make law.

More here
www.dnusbaum.com/lifechoice.html

Bob Beers said...

Mr. Nusbaum continues to argue around the point. Perhaps he is missing it entirely due to his pro-death blindspot. If the product of human conception is not human, then what species is it? He has, and it is typical of the left to do so, decided that those who do not fit the elitist definition of human are not. This is of course gross scientific error. A species begats its own species, regardless of the circumstance of birth. Within the womb of a lion grows a lion cub. Within the germanating arcon grows an oak sapling, and within the womb of a human female grows a human child. Period. An d no amount of equivicating can change that reality.

What bothers people like Mr. Nusbaum is that admitting the truth opens the door to their greatest fear, a spreading of morality.