The Nature of Evil

betsy · February 25, 2011

Why can't a fetus be carried to full term, born, and offered for adoption? We're just talking 9 months here. What is wrong with that?

I bet because it's the woman's right to do what she wants with her body. NOT IF she has another human being inside that body! That human being has the right to be protected from harm!

So we're back to the only solution for this feminist dilemma - like Hitler's FINAL SOLUTION: have the fetus declared as a non-human!

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

betsy · February 25, 2011

One of the early pioneers of talk radio here in Canada was the late John Michael.... a sort of libertarian, but socially liberal talker who made a good living working in St.Catharines and Niagara Falls for decades. Whenever I happened to be listening, I recall him frequently saying:"don't read to me, don't tell me what the bible says, don't tell me what the CBC or the Globe & Mail say, I want to hear what YOU have to say," and that point was made both towards liberal opponents and like-minded conservatives who called in. In the same vein, if you want to debate an issue, debate your points, instead of doing the internet equivalent of posting talking points from dubious agenda-driven sources.

You're the one who keeps on quoting this Susan Jarvis Thomson....the violin-player...taken from "dubious agenda-driven sources."

You're the one using a lot of talking points!

If you're going to use an analogy....why don't you make up your own?

Talk about talking points, bringing in Sarah Palin is like the Liberals bringing in George Bush to strike down Harper. :lol:

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · February 25, 2011

betsy, if a woman is raped, should she carry her attacker's seed inside of her for 9 months?

betsy · February 25, 2011

As for your sources, pro life, conservative feminists is an oxymoron, since the leaders of this movement, like Sarah Palin, have been worse form women's rights in their actual terms in government than conservative men. These women are like gay Republicans trying to be accepted at CPAC, after continually being kicked in the teeth by all of the conservative organizations there. Or black republicans, who abandoned their people to ingratiate themselves with well-heeled Republicans, who can reward them with easy money and playing token so that Repubs can say 'see, we got one too.'

Well I'm not influenced by Sarah Palin. My belief is my own...and that it is pro-life.

And, after posting a previous response condemning all feminists as "feminazis"....something I guess you heard on Limbaugh's show....you're now walking it back to say that women who call themselves feminists, but work against the rights of other women, are the okay feminists.

Never heard or seen Limbaugh's show. The first and only time I came across the word "Feminazi" is on this forum sometime ago. It just happened to occur to me...."what an appropriate name!"

These highly selective historical articles are not worth much consideration from the outset, since they mention that early suffragette and feminist leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opposed abortion,

But it did state a fact. They opposed abortion.

without bothering to mention that during their time, abortion was illegal, as well as dangerous to the pregnant woman, and most of the abortions were self-administered.

We know it was illegal then. In fact, that bit of information only shows my assertion how the fetus was protected by our society...and that the status of the fetus had diminished over the years....and now it had been proclaimed that he is considered no longer human!

This is not the same thing as a modern medical clinic, but because your source is propaganda, they don't bother to mention that fact!

So, what's your take on Bernard Nathanson? He's among the few top leaders who turned from pro-choice to pro-life! He actually became an activist for pro-life....going to the extent of writing books and documentaries. It's like an atonement, for what he called the "barbaric age" he helped ushered in to this society.

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

betsy · February 25, 2011

betsy, if a woman is raped, should she carry her attacker's seed inside of her for 9 months?

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights!

Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

betsy · February 25, 2011

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights!

Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

Let me guess:

So the woman can say: "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it! My body, my choice!"

cybercoma · February 25, 2011

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights!

Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

So is that your stance, that a woman ought to be able to procure an abortion up to 3 months?

WIP · February 25, 2011

You're the one who keeps on quoting this Susan Jarvis Thomson....the violin-player...taken from "dubious agenda-driven sources."

You're the one using a lot of talking points!

If you're going to use an analogy....why don't you make up your own?

Talk about talking points, bringing in Sarah Palin is like the Liberals bringing in George Bush to strike down Harper.

That's Judith Jarvis Thompson, and I didn't quote her; I was responding to another post that referred to a thought experiment she created to explain the abortion dilemma called "The Violinist," and it wasn't posted by cybercoma devoid of his own thoughts on why he wants it given consideration.....and that is my beef with many of your posts that just copy and paste pages from websites that reinforce your beliefs. It's the same as your previous posts on evolution, that quote pages from creationist websites, without any of your own thoughts that might indicate whether or not you have actually read them yourself. And copy and paste spam doesn't answer questions that are directed at you on the topic.

WIP · February 25, 2011

Judith Jarvis Thomson's retort to modern contraception and female responsibility is that her example still makes it morally permissable to have an abortion if a woman is raped. The arguments being made here by betsy and others make it seem as though it would be wrong in those cases as well, although it hasn't been asked directly.

I guess the main point is that even if a fetus has a right to life, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has a right to the means of sustaining life, if that is provided by another person. The Violinist analogy is strongest when dealing with the issue of rape, but less so in consensual situations.

The other example Jarvis gives is that of "people seeds" floating through the air like pollen. You open your window to let air into your home, but you put up screens on all the windows and door to keep these "people seeds" form floating into your home and embedding themselves into your drapes or carpet. Unfortunately, one of the seeds has a tiny hole in it that you could not see with the naked eye and one becomes implanted in your carpet. Does this "person plant" suddenly have the right to use your home?

I remember reading the People Seeds and Expanding Child thought problems awhile back....interesting take on the issues of consent and responsibility to avoid accidental pregnancy. One difference with the problems and the real life examples is that the violinist, people seeds, and expanding child, are all strangers and not biological offspring. Parents have special obligations to their children according to the law, and there is going to be a grey area regarding whether some obligation can be walked back prior to birth, especially in the cases of late term abortion. Should it be permissible to abort a 24 week old fetus because it has been determined to be the wrong sex, or have minor birth defects like club foot?

betsy · February 25, 2011

So is that your stance, that a woman ought to be able to procure an abortion up to 3 months?

My personal belief is not the issue.

This is the issue:

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights!

So I ask you...

Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

betsy · February 25, 2011

That's Judith Jarvis Thompson, and I didn't quote her; I was responding to another post that referred to a thought experiment she created to explain the abortion dilemma called "The Violinist," and it wasn't posted by cybercoma devoid of his own thoughts on why he wants it given consideration.....and that is my beef with many of your posts that just copy and paste pages from websites that reinforce your beliefs. It's the same as your previous posts on evolution, that quote pages from creationist websites, without any of your own thoughts that might indicate whether or not you have actually read them yourself. And copy and paste spam doesn't answer questions that are directed at you on the topic.

So you posted Judith Jarvis Thompson's "thought experiment." Whether you "explained" it or whatever....at the end of the day, you still used her and her "thought experiment" in this forum! Why? Because it supports your argument.

So why is it okay for you to bring in dubious "thought experiment creations" by dubious apparently pro-choice activists....and you have beef that I bring up some HISTORICAL FACTS to support my argument?

And who are you to say what my thoughts are or are not? You sound kinda like a child crying "Foul!" "Foul!" because he cannot give a head-on rebutt to the real issue!

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

betsy · February 25, 2011

I guess the main point is that even if a fetus has a right to life, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has a right to the means of sustaining life, if that is provided by another person.

The Violinist analogy is strongest when dealing with the issue of rape, but less so in consensual situations.

Boy, if you were raped....would you wait 3 months to get rid of that life? It's normal procedure for a raped woman to get to the doctor for evidence of rape....AND to be "cleaned" out! Pronto! Not 3 months after!

Little miss violin player must be doing her dusting once every 3 months or so! Talk about ridiculous analogy. Come up with your own!

The parallel between Hitler's 3rd Reich and Feminist's Abortion fits so well....because there is indeed a parallel. Not a made-up one!

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

betsy · February 25, 2011

That's Judith Jarvis Thompson, and I didn't quote her; I was responding to another post that referred to a thought experiment she created to explain the abortion dilemma called "The Violinist,"

Okay, enough of Ms Thompson. I want to know your take on Mr Nathanson. He is, after all, much much relevant to the issue at hand, since he was one of the founding members of this "holocaust" in modern times. He used the term "holocaust," btw.

betsy · February 25, 2011

Feminists and supporters make so much hullabaloo on "It's my body! It's my choice!" But ironically....

Betty Friedan, credited with reawakening feminism in the 1960s with her landmark book, The Feminist Mystique, did not even mention abortion in the early edition. It was not until 1966 that NOW included abortion in its list of goals. Even then, abortion was a low priority.

It was a man -- abortion rights activist Larry Lader, who remains active today -- who credits himself with guiding a reluctant Friedan to make abortion an issue for NOW. Lader teamed up with a gynecologist, Bernard Nathanson, to co-found the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws, the forerunner of today's National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

So a man is the "brains" behind this diabolical scheme! It's a man who manipulated, schemed, persuaded, convinced Ms Friedan.

Feminists cannot even rightly claim, "It's my thought!" "My idea!" :lol:

What a farce!

Edited February 25, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · February 25, 2011

I remember reading the People Seeds and Expanding Child thought problems awhile back....interesting take on the issues of consent and responsibility to avoid accidental pregnancy. One difference with the problems and the real life examples is that the violinist, people seeds, and expanding child, are all strangers and not biological offspring. Parents have special obligations to their children according to the law, and there is going to be a grey area regarding whether some obligation can be walked back prior to birth, especially in the cases of late term abortion. Should it be permissible to abort a 24 week old fetus because it has been determined to be the wrong sex, or have minor birth defects like club foot?

Since we've moved away from the laws and legal decisions, where betsy had originally taken the argument, then I will give you my opinion. Should it be permissable to abort a 24 week old fetus because it has the wrong sex or minor birth defects? I think I agree with Dr. Morgentaler when he says, "every child should be wanted." Abortions should be on demand and it should be a decision that the mother alone makes about her own body.

Your point is leaning precariously on being moot, since the vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. The very few abortions that are done after that are done so because there is a high chance of the mother dying or the baby having severe defects, rather than simply wanting to abort the child based on sex or a minor defect. I don't know of that actually happening, or any doctor that would actually perform a late-term abortion for those reasons. I believe there is a point somewhere after conception, but before birth that a child could be an autonomous person and the decision to abort ought to only be made in the most extreme cases. Like I said, though, abortions on demand are typically not carried out that far into the pregnancy. Normally, someone that doesn't want to be pregnant will not remain so for 6 months.

Oleg Bach · February 25, 2011

Rape creates intergenerational dysfunction...it destroys potential..My mother was raped by a Nazi officer during the war..eventually she ended up in a prison labour camp near Berlin...as the war ended she went with my dad door to door asking German woman for clothing...she would also ask if their husband was on the Russian front....seems dear old mum would shoot the lady if the answer was yes...I guess she wanted revenge - when the rapist returned he would find his own raped by a bullet..My father finally had to take the gun away from dear mum...I suppose revenge of sorts had a healing effect...It just shows you how evil rape is and how it breeds more evil...This buisness about carrying the "seed" of a rapist...is speculative and a silly argument in regards to abortion..It might me that one one hundreth of on percent of rapes end in a woman getting pregnant...It is a non-starter when it comes to this argument.

It is like saying that a falling snow flake may end up on the tip of a pin - well one might...and a billion others won't...As for the nature of evil - evil is anti-nature...and rape is not a natural event...it is a thought out and contrived bit of bull shit ....much like many of our other evil things.

Oleg Bach · February 25, 2011

ALSO: The biblical tree of knowledge of good and evil was actually THE TREE OF HUMAN IMGINATION....One can imagine all sorts of dark things...evil is the loss of control of this gift of imagination...and thinking something is entertaining...actually manifesting something nasty into the physical world is what evil is...It really serves no purpose and it madness....When mankind ate from the tree of good and evil....choices were granted - decisions...to be good or bad...It might have been better before we had free will or choice..but then this adventure might not be as fun...it's all about control of the human mind and imagination...some people loose it...we should teach our children that self control is important...we do not do that anymore.....we live in a world where jerks will say "It's all good" - well sometimes it is not!

Oleg Bach · February 25, 2011

Feminists might say "it's my body - it's my choice" - well it is also my body that is involved in this process..why do I not have rights over what is produced out of the male body?

cybercoma · February 25, 2011

Feminists might say "it's my body - it's my choice" - well it is also my body that is involved in this process..why do I not have rights over what is produced out of the male body?

When you have a fetus growing inside you, you'll get the choice. Until then the choice is up to the person that has to use her body as an incubator.

pinko · February 25, 2011

When you have a fetus growing inside you, you'll get the choice. Until then the choice is up to the person that has to use her body as an incubator.

If Oleg is a man such an event would be highly improbable and perhaps impossible.

cybercoma · February 25, 2011

If Oleg is a man such an event would be highly improbable and perhaps impossible.

Well then he certainly doesn't have to worry about whether or not he wants to allow another human being to grow inside of him for nine months. The woman he impregnates does. She gets to decide what she wants to do with her body, not him.

Edited February 25, 2011 by cybercoma

pinko · February 25, 2011

Well then he certainly doesn't have to worry about whether or not he wants to allow another human being to grow inside of him for nine months. The woman he impregnates does. She gets to decide what she wants to do with her body, not him.

Can't argue with that.

betsy · February 26, 2011

Since we've moved away from the laws and legal decisions, where betsy had originally taken the argument, then I will give you my opinion.

What??? :lol:

Therefore you don't have an answer to the real issue of this discussion?

This is the issue:

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was at that time considered human...and had rights! Aborting the baby after 3 months was illegal. It was to protect the baby! That was his right!

So I ask you...

How come the fetus is now not considered human at all until it's born and completely out of his mother's body?

<singsong> Somebody's avoiding the obvious.....<singsong>

It's okay, you don't have to answer.

I just don't buy those pickaninny justifications and rhetorics about dah body and dah choice. It's just simply feminist issue (not even the idea of a woman apparently; ended up relying on a male to come up with that idea....really).

Sadly, that's what this is all about....and babies are dying for this!

Edited February 26, 2011 by betsy

cybercoma · February 26, 2011

Who says a fetus is not human until its born? What is it if not human?

I not only said a fetus is human, but I allowed for it to have personhood.

edited for the not-so-nice things I said.

Edited February 26, 2011 by cybercoma

betsy · February 26, 2011

I not only said a fetus is human, but I allowed for it to have personhood.

Good. That you acknowledge the fetus is human, therefore abortion is murder.

The parallel between the atrocious mass murders of Hitler's 3rd Reich and the Feminists' abortion is undeniable.

What made this present day atrocity much more evil is the fact that society (by changing the status of a fetus from human to non-human), gave mothers the full right to have the babies in their wombs butchered.....just so they need not be inconvenienced for 9 months!

Edited February 26, 2011 by betsy