The Nature of Evil

ToadBrother · March 13, 2011

Single motherhood no longer bring any stigma and shame!

More to the point they don't bring an angry father with a shotgun to the father's house.

In fact single motherhood is now norm.

This is likely a very large distortion. Not all single-parent families start out that way.

So many different types of birth control devices became widespread.

So many $$$ spent on sex eduication!

Birth control devices given as freebies!

Seems to have worked. Birth rates in the industrialized world are far lower than they were a century ago.

You guys cheered and welcomed the morning-after pills. After all, it's an abortifacent....especially made for those who forgot to take precaution, those who threw precaution to the wind, rape case, incest cases, etc..,

I'm a little confused by htis. You throw rape and incest on the same line with silly people. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a victim of rape is the same as someone who had a careless one night stand? Or perhaps you're suggesting all women have condoms handy for their rapists to use. Please clarify.

And yet, it's true all those are not enough. Which only prove what I've said previously, that abortion is now no longer just about mothers' health at risk. Abortion became just another birth control method. That's what you guys want to achieve.

Killing a fetus comes so easily just like squashing a bug. That's the "value" of life.

Could you please provide some statistics on what percentage of abortions would qualify as "birth control". Since this would essentially mean women who have multiple abortions, this would be quite helpful.

So let's throw that "self-important" title directly where it appropriately belongs. As for bigotry, it's not the conservative right who de-humanized the fetus in the same way that Hitler de-humanized the Jews!

As I already explained to you, fetuses have never been viewed as people in our legal traditions, so the situation is not at all equivalent. Doctors who performed abortions were not charged with murder, mothers seeking abortions were not charged with murder or with being accessories or with conspiracy to commit murder. Stillbirths do not get birth certificates, which infants that survive even a brief time after birth do.

I know you've come across what you must certainly view as a potent analogy, but it's just plain garbage.

Edited March 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · March 13, 2011

So when other posters call you out on your discrepencies and you get tired of them showing that you are contradicting yourself, you are going to respond with 'whatever' ?? Is this the nature of evil?

Indeed it is. The true nature of evil is people following particular beliefs in spite of reasoned arguments that their beliefs at best don't make sense and at worst are dangerous. The irony of the thread is that betsy herself is the nature of evil. Good intentions wrapped in blind (to reason) faith in particular ideals that have no rational validity.

cybercoma · March 13, 2011

Although this is an American study and its a few years old now, it clearly shows that women who have abortions, especially multiple abortions, are already using other forms of birth control and are adults 30 or older, rather than the stereotypical pregnant teenager.

According to the 2006 Guttmacher Institute report Repeat Abortion in the United States, women having a second or higher-order abortion are substantially different from women having a first abortion in only two important ways: They are more than twice as likely to be age 30 or older and, even after controlling for age, almost twice as likely to already have had a child. (Among all women having an abortion, six in 10 are mothers.)
Just as with women having their first abortion, however, the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time period in which they became pregnant. In fact, women having a repeat abortion are slightly more likely to have been using a highly effective hormonal method (e.g., the pill or an injectable). This finding refutes the notion that large numbers of women are relying on abortion as their primary method of birth control. Rather, it suggests that women having abortions—especially those having more than one—are trying hard to avoid unintended pregnancy, but are having trouble doing so.

Read more: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100208.html

ToadBrother · March 13, 2011

Unless you can point to women or their doctors imprisoned for first-degree murder for aborting a fetus.

Heck, I'd settle for manslaughter charges, or even negligence causing death.

In the Common Law, once the quickening hard occurred (the fetus was moving) it was against the law, but prior to that it was not considered a viable, reasonable being. Canada's Criminal Code prohibitions stem from the Common Law views on abortion, but again, even where, after the Common Law viewed the fetus as a reasonable being, aborting or leading to the abortion of a child (ie. violence against a mother) was not a murder charge, demonstrating that even when abortion was unlawful, that the death of the fetus was not equatable to the death of a person.

Yes, abortion was illegal, though what exactly constituted an illegal abortion really wasn't dealt with until relatively late in the development of Common Law jurisdictions. What Betsy, and many pro-lifers peddle, is a falsified legal history, but one which not even the most impressive twisting of the law or legal history can make consistent.

If abortion was, as they seem to indicate, an act of murder prior to its decriminalization, then why hadn't in all the history of Common Law a consistent set of rules for punishing those that caused, intentionally or unintentionally, abortion at any stage of pregnancy (ie. before or after the quickening) and why weren't acts of abortions classified as murder, and why were in utero deaths not registered as births, even by the Church in the Middle Ages (which was generally responsible for tracking births, in many cases these records barely mentioned infants that died after birth).

Abortion laws as we know them are artifacts of the mid and late 19th century. Prior to that, the best the legal system would do is to classify abortion after the quickening as an unlawful abortion, and even then it had its own particular criminal classifications.

Edited March 13, 2011 by ToadBrother

betsy · March 13, 2011

Heck, I'd settle for manslaughter charges, or even negligence causing death.

Six men and six women convicted Peterson Friday of the first-degree murder of his wife, Laci, and the second-degree murder of the fetus she was carrying. The couple had planned to name their son Conner. The jury also agreed on a “special circumstance” that calls for capital punishment — namely that he killed another person — the fetus — while committing a felony — the intentional and premeditated killing of his wife.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Anyway...the fetus need not be specifically described as a human to be considered a human. It goes without saying, after all what is the offspring of a human if not a human.

The first wave Feminist Movement obviously thought of the fetus as a human. Their quest for the right to their body did not include abortion as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. There is that instinct to protect the fetus.

The first wave of feminists, in contrast to the second wave, focused very little on the subjects of abortion, birth control, and overall reproductive rights of women. Though she never married, Anthony published her views about marriage, holding that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband; the American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband.

Of primary importance to Anthony was granting to woman the right to her own body which she saw as an essential element for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, using abstinence as the method.

In her newspaper, The Revolution, she wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, she wrote, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism

The second wave of Feminism also tried to follow the first wave it seems. Apparently abortion was not even mentioned. It was only when Larry Lader convinced a reluctant Friedan to make abortion the issue simply because all feminist demands (equal education, jobs, pay, etc.) hinged on a woman's ability to control her own body and procreation.

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).

Lader suggested to the NOW leadership that all feminist demands (equal education, jobs, pay, etc.) hinged on a woman's ability to control her own body and procreation.

Dr. Nathanson, who later became a pro-life activist, states in his book, Abortion in America, that the two were able to convince Friedan than abortion was a civil rights issue. Later he admitted that they simply made up the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions, which had been a major point in their argument.

The development of ultrasound in the 1970s led him Dr. Nathanson) to reconsider his views on abortion.[4] He is often quoted as saying abortion is "the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States". In 1984, he made the documentary The Silent Scream, which showed an abortion from the perspective of ultrasound. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions.

Referring to his previous pro-choice work, he wrote in his 1996 autobiography Hand of God, "I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age."[4]

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Feminism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

Why did the development of ultrasound lead Dr Nathanson to re-consider his position on abortion. He even went on to describe abortion as "the most atrocious holocaust" in the history of the United States.

This was a very dramatic turn-around, to say the least, for someone who was one of the founders of abortion.

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

betsy · March 13, 2011

Although this is an American study and its a few years old now, it clearly shows that women who have abortions, especially multiple abortions, are already using other forms of birth control and are adults 30 or older, rather than the stereotypical pregnant teenager.

STATISTICS

In Canada, 20% of women who obtained an abortion between 1975 and 1993 had had at least one previous abortion. An analysis of data on 1.2 million abortions shows that the proportion of abortion patients undergoing repeat procedures increased from 9% to 29% over the 19-year period. The proportion was above average (22-28% for all years combined) among women who were in common-law marriages, those aged 25-39 and those who had previously had children. In 1993, 27 women per 1,000 who had ever had an abortion underwent another one, while 13 women per 1,000 who had never had an abortion obtained their first one; among teenagers, the repeat rate was four times the rate of first abortions (81 per 1,000 vs. 19 per 1,000). During the study period, the repeat rate rose sharply among women younger than 25 but fell among those aged 30 and older.

In 1993, fewer than 2% of abortions were obtained by women who had had three or more previous procedures, suggesting that abortion is not widely used as a primary method of birth control. (Family Planning Perspectives, 29:20-24,1997)

In Canada, restrictive criminal code provisions were liberalized in August 1969 to allow induced abortion if the continuation of a pregnancy would be likely to endanger the life or health of the woman. The law required that the procedure be performed in a hospital after being approved by a committee of at least three physicians. In January 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the liberalized law, and since then, no new abortion legislation has been enacted.

Both the number and the rate of abortions in Canada increased rapidly during the decade following the liberalization of the abortion law, declined until the mid1980s and resumed an upward trend in recent years. In 1993 Canadian women obtained 104,403 abortions in Canada or in the United States; the resulting abortion rate was 15.3 procedures per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Of these procedures, 29% were obtained by women who had had a previous induced abortion.`

This experience fits a general pattern, in which the legalization of abortion results, at least initially, in increasing numbers of women terminating pregnancies, but in growing numbers doing so two or more times.2 The growing number of repeat procedures causes concern because people fear women may be relying on abortion as their primary means of fertility control. Others fear that even minor adverse effects of abortion on women's health or on the outcome of later pregnancies might be cumulative with multiple abortions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_199701/ai_n8748633/

Please take note of the statements which I highlighted. Obviously abortion is being abused and used as a mean of birth control. Repeat abortion is getting higher.

And if you are concerned about the health of the woman....what about the repercussions of repeat procedures? This makes the reasons for legalizing abortion seem a sham or a farce! In the meantime, you advocate the killings of fetuses....for what? Something so shallow like this?

bush_cheney2004 · March 13, 2011

Although this is an American study and its a few years old now, it clearly shows that women who have abortions, especially multiple abortions, are already using other forms of birth control and are adults 30 or older, rather than the stereotypical pregnant teenager.

..and the beat goes on. Will the real Canadians please stand up with some Canadian data? Anybody?

Yea betsy!

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

cybercoma · March 14, 2011

betsy, the article I posted is more than a decade ahead of the study you posted and from the same journal to boot (which changed names).

cybercoma · March 14, 2011

..and the beat goes on. Will the real Canadians please stand up with some Canadian data? Anybody?

Yea betsy!

Here's some Canadian data for you:

Results: Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%); differences are even greater for births to younger teenagers. A lower proportion of teenage pregnancies are resolved through abortion in the United States than in the other countries; however, because of their high pregnancy rate, U.S. teenagers have the highest abortion rate. The age of sexual debut varies little across countries, yet American teenagers are the most likely to have multiple partners. A greater proportion of U.S. women reported no contraceptive use at either first or recent intercourse (25% and 20%, respectively) than reported nonuse in France (11% and 12%, respectively), Great Britain (21% and 4%, respectively) and Sweden (22% and 7%, respectively).
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

bush_cheney2004 · March 14, 2011

Here's some Canadian data for you:

Cool...get to the part where Quebec sends its third trimester abortions to Kansas!

Edited March 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

betsy · March 14, 2011

betsy, the article I posted is more than a decade ahead of the study you posted and from the same journal to boot (which changed names).

Well here's the latest breakdown from the same journal.

January 2011

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6] At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, about one-third will have had an abortion.[5]

Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%. [6]

Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25-29 obtain 24%. [6]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

And here's from UK:

According to Department of Health statistics released late last month, 89 girls aged 17 or under who had an abortion in 2009 had had at least two previous abortions. The figures also showed that for the first time, more than a third (34%) of abortions were repeat abortions.

More than 1,000 women or girls have had at least 5 abortions, with 214 having 6, 70 having 7, and 48 having 8 or more.

Overall, the number of abortions committed in England and Wales fell from 195,296 in 2008 to 189,100 last year, a slight drop of about 3.2%.

In recent years, Britain’s abortion rate, which has climbed steadily since legalization in 1967, has alarmed even some pro-abortion MPs and has earned the country the nickname “abortion capital of Europe.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10061407

Both stats indicate that abortion is being used a birth control method. Furthermore, Canada stats are no longer accurate.

•There is no legal requirement for the collection of data on induced abortions performed in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down such a law in 1988. This has resulted in incomplete reporting with some clinics not reporting the abortions they perform.

Because of these problems, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) "has estimated that as of the 2000 data year the Therapeutic Abortion Survey database represents approximately 90% of all abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents." vi

Moreover, Statistics Canada even admitted that their statistics for the number of abortions in 2006 must be used "with caution." That’s because they can’t provide the number of abortions that year for New Brunswick, Manitoba, and British Columbia saying the information is "too unreliable to be published."vii All of this tragically indicates little to no change in behaviour towards abortion.

Finally, it is interesting to note that a government agency that can accurately count the number of privately paid for toilets in Canada,viii cannot count the number of publicly-funded abortions.

http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/challenges-stats.html

It makes you wonder why record-keeping is not enforced! I bet there's something ugly they don't want us to see.

Edited March 14, 2011 by betsy

ToadBrother · March 14, 2011

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Yes, California has a relatively recently passed fetal murder charge.

Anyway...the fetus need not be specifically described as a human to be considered a human. It goes without saying, after all what is the offspring of a human if not a human.

The issue is precisely that. Common law did not recognize a fetus as a person. The designation came at birth, not prior. Even where there was cause for saying a fetus was killed, the charge was not murder.

Even in California, stillbirths do not get birth certificates.

The first wave Feminist Movement obviously thought of the fetus as a human. Their quest for the right to their body did not include abortion as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. There is that instinct to protect the fetus.

It's irrelevant what the "first wave". Modern Southern Baptists do not believe in slavery, even if the SBC was founded in the defense of slavery. I think you get the point.

Edited March 14, 2011 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · March 14, 2011

I think you get the point.

Now why would you think that?

bloodyminded · March 14, 2011

..and the beat goes on. Will the real Canadians please stand up with some Canadian data? Anybody?

No. We use American citations as chum to lure you in, so we can watch you make up all sorts of outrageous falsehoods.

GostHacked · March 14, 2011

No. We use American citations as chum to lure you in, so we can watch you make up all sorts of outrageous falsehoods.

Trollin the troll .... nice!!!

Oleg Bach · March 14, 2011

Do have to disagree here.

I am not exactly sure what went through Hitler's mind, but I doubt he felt what he was doing was 'evil'. In his mind, he probably felt his actions were morally justified.

He was of course wrong/immoral/evil, but he himself probably thought otherwise.

That's the core of this problem - People believe they have to fight and destroy evil..this in itself is evil and fuels the fire...Hitler probably thought that all Jews were evil and should be destroyed...where in fact little pockets of evil exist in all different groups....Look at Hitlers henchmen...all of them looked like inbred village idiots ....yet people admired and followed these guys...Rulling number one...if a person looks like a f**king goof...they usually are. Why do people not trust their own good perception? Christ said it best..."Why do you doubt?" - He meant why do you doubt what you see with your own eyes...If it looks like a rat - it is a rat...if it looks like a crazed deviate - then it is one - evil is easy to recognize....One must master the recognition of it in order to be master over it. If it smells like shit...it is shit.

betsy · March 14, 2011

I'm a little confused by htis. You throw rape and incest on the same line with silly people. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a victim of rape is the same as someone who had a careless one night stand? Or perhaps you're suggesting all women have condoms handy for their rapists to use. Please clarify.

Why would this be confusing? I'm stating a fact. The morning-after pill is an abortifacent. Why shouldn't I mention various cases why women get pregnant? Pro-choice debaters here had mentioned cases of rapes and incests.

Whether it's by rape or sheer negligence....what the morning-after pill's supposed to accomplish remains the same. Prevent a pregnancy.

Edited March 14, 2011 by betsy

betsy · March 15, 2011

Born Alive Rule
The "born alive" rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". American courts have overturned this rule, citing recent advances in science and medicine; and in several jurisdictions feticide statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include fetuses in utero. Abortion in Canada is still governed by the born alive rule, as courts continue to hold to its foundational principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_alive_rule

Edited March 15, 2011 by betsy

betsy · March 15, 2011

Feticide
Feticide or foeticide is an act that causes the death of a fetus.[1] In a legal context, "fetal homicide" or "child destruction" refers to the deliberate or incidental killing of a fetus due to a criminal human act, such as a blow to the abdomen of a pregnant woman.[citation needed] As a medical term, feticide is destruction of a fetus,[2] for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion.[3] Feticide does not refer to the death of a fetus from entirely natural causes, such as the miscarriage of a pregnancy.[citation needed]

In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[4][5] These laws do not apply to legal induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion.[6]

In 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of 68 existing federal crimes of violence. These crimes include some acts that are federal crimes no matter where they occur (e.g., certain acts of terrorism), crimes in federal jurisdictions, crimes within the military system, crimes involving certain federal officials, and other special cases. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide

Edited March 15, 2011 by betsy

BubberMiley · March 15, 2011

..and the beat goes on. Will the real Canadians please stand up with some Canadian data? Anybody?

Since when do you require data? I thought one's anonymous word was good enough!

But I agree...yea betsy!

ToadBrother · March 15, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_alive_rule

In other words, any changes to the old Common Law principles are relatively new innovations. There was little in the way of Common Law protections for fetuses.

And I'll wager none of these states still issue birth certificates for stillbirths.

betsy · March 16, 2011

If I understand correctly, those of faith believe that Satan/Lucifer/etc was a cherub made perfect in God's image, but because Lucifer was so beautiful it went to is head and corrupted himself to the extent that he wanted to be God. Of course God would have none of that, so he threw out his once perfect creation, along with 30% of the other perfect creations and cast them into hell. And thus Lucifer began a war for the souls of mankind. And from this we have Satan spreading evil. Like evil is something you can catch.

Just only recently, I was trying to answer the query of a 5-year old boy. It goes along like this.

God must let Satan/Devil do his evil work on earth for a reason known to God. Who knows, maybe through Satan God will know who remain faithful to Him (God) and those who aren't.

There is a reason why Satan is still around....because as all Christians know Jesus is going to come back, and when He does, that's when the Devil's gonna get it big-time!

To my amusement the 5-year old boy started whooping and cheering and started doing Kung-fu Panda moves! :lol:

Anyway, sn't there a parable about the separating or "gleaning" (?) of the wheat (something like that...can't think of the exact passage).

Edited March 16, 2011 by betsy

betsy · March 16, 2011

I am having difficulty in actually understanding the Devil as the source of evil in mankind. I've actually read the bible passages pertaining to Ol Luci and I have concluded that I must have some kind of reading comprehension disorder because I can't get past the circular logic. I even have gone to Christian sites to read about scripture interpretation and I just can't make the leap from the words to the interpretations put on them by biblical "scholars".

If I understand correctly, those of faith believe that Satan/Lucifer/etc was a cherub made perfect in God's image, but because Lucifer was so beautiful it went to is head and corrupted himself to the extent that he wanted to be God. Of course God would have none of that, so he threw out his once perfect creation, along with 30% of the other perfect creations and cast them into hell. And thus Lucifer began a war for the souls of mankind. And from this we have Satan spreading evil. Like evil is something you can catch.

Now apparently because mankind has free will, he can choose to reject evil and if he doesn't voila he is corrupted and assigned to hell upon death. that sounds suspiciously like a threat to tow the line and/or get absolution before you kick the bucket or you're gonna burn in hell for all of eternity. Seems a tad harsh if your major sins consist of life long masturbation,stealing some candy from a baby, some pre-marital sex and saying G@DD@MN frequently.

I must be missing something from your post....because that seems so straight forward to me.

I don't know what circular logic you mean. Can you please explain how it is circular to you?

cybercoma · March 16, 2011

Why would this be confusing? I'm stating a fact. The morning-after pill is an abortifacent. Why shouldn't I mention various cases why women get pregnant? Pro-choice debaters here had mentioned cases of rapes and incests.

Whether it's by rape or sheer negligence....what the morning-after pill's supposed to accomplish remains the same. Prevent a pregnancy.

It prevents pregnancy by expelling the fertilized egg, which you consider a person.