Most Effective Rhetoric and Actions

Randall Terry, founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue , issued a press release about the murder of the abortion doctor, George Tiller.

The comments he used show the mentality of one of America’s leading pro-lifers.

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.   I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.” – Randall Terry

No sense of grief for the murder of another person.Terry shows no sense of grief for the senseless murder of Tiller, in fact he seems quite indifferent, as if it was a bug. There is no effort made to denounce violence against those Terry disagrees with, in fact he seems almost dismissive of the murder that was committed.

Here is yet another example that when Terry, or most other people who are against choice, call themselves “pro-life”, they are not really pro-life in any sense of the word. They are “pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies”, plain and simple. The hypocrisy really is never ending…

Advertisements

About Rodibidably

Jeff Randall is a frequent volunteer for free-thought organizations, including the Center For Inquiry – DC. Having been blogging since January 2008, he decided that a community of bloggers would be an interesting new experience (or at the very least a fun way to annoy his friends into reading his posts more frequently). Since finding out about about the existence of, and then joining, the atheist/skeptic community in 2007 he has been committed to community activism, critical thinking in all aspects of life, science, reason, and a fostering a secular society.
This entry was posted in Debate, Politics, Psychology, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Most Effective Rhetoric and Actions

  1. Anonymous says:

    I think you’re wrong, I don’t know how to say that nicely.

    If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right, then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.

    More and more people are realizing the humanity of the baby in the womb. It is also becoming more apparent how much the pro-abortion argument erroneously stretches science and ethics to fit an arrogant ideology akin to those of very dark times in human history.

    I hope you will stay open to sound reasoning and not let the quote at the head of this page become a haughty obsession.

    • Rodibidably says:

      I think you’re wrong,
      That’s your right… But WHAT exactly am I wrong about? Am I wrong that it is despicable for Randall Terry to make those comments? Am I wrong that somebody who claims to be pro-life and murders (or condones murder) is a hypocrite? What EXACTLY am I wrong about?

      I don’t know how to say that nicely.
      No need to say it nicely, or for that matter rudely. Just say it, like you did.

      If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right,
      As it stands now, the government does not believe this to be true.
      As it stands now, science does not believe this to be true.
      As it stands now, I do not believe this to be true.
      If however it is shown that a group of cells are a “living human person”, then that argument can be made. Until then, it’s not an argument, so much as it is cheap rhetoric…

      then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.
      Now that’s just being rude…

      More and more people are realizing the humanity of the baby in the womb.
      Well that is debatable. In fact, based on numbers I’ve seen the percentage of people who want to keep Roe v Wade as it stands has increased in the past few decades, but I’d be interested in seeing your figures to back up this claim.

      It is also becoming more apparent how much the pro-abortion argument erroneously stretches science and ethics to fit an arrogant ideology akin to those of very dark times in human history.
      I’m interested in this science you believes backs up this statement. All of the science I have seen has shown that embryos, blastocysts, etc are not “living human persons”.
      What science do you have that contradicts this view?

      What science do you believe is being distorted by those you disagree with on this point?

      Do you understand that NOBODY (and I do mean NOBODY, not one single person in fact) on either side of this issue is “pro-abortion”. Every single pro-choice person I have ever heard from wants less abortions. In fact I think it’s safe to say that everybody is in favor of reducing the need for abortions, and thus reducing the number of abortions.

      I’m also curious what this “arrogant ideology” you refer to is. It’s a neat term, but it really has no meaning, until you define it…

      I hope you will stay open to sound reasoning and not let the quote at the head of this page become a haughty obsession.
      I’m ALWAYS open to sound reasoning. But reason must be backed up by evidence.

      by Anonymous
      BTW, I don’t bite, you’re welcome to post your real name…

  2. Chuck Gallucci says:

    What EXACTLY am I wrong about?
    If it’s true that what’s in a mother’s womb is merely a blob of tissue then you would be right that Randall Terry’s comments were despicable and you would be right that somebody who claims to be pro-life and murders (or condones murder) is a hypocrite.
    But that was not your final conclusion. Your conclusion, based on this short quote taken from Randall Terry, is that pro-lifers “are not really pro-life in any sense of the word. They are ‘pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies’, plain and simple.” That is shallow rhetoric.

    If however it is shown that a group of cells are a “living human person”, then that argument can be made. Until then, it’s not an argument, so much as it is cheap rhetoric…

    Cheap rhetoric? Does it occur to you that you are a group of cells too? Any atheist knows that. That’s science. And it seems to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that you believe the “group of cells” in a mother’s womb instantly, magically becomes a “living human person” when his/her head pops out of the mother’s vagina. You are better than that, my friend.
    Science doesn’t “believe” anything (c’mon you’re starting to sound religious now). Science does, however, tell us that a unique human life begins at conception. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88b0
    And as soon as you divorce “human life” from “human person” you wipe away the right to life of whole categories of humanity, as did Hitler, as did our government with regard to slaves.
    You and I both know that we can make a list of things that the government is wrong about.

    Now that’s just being rude…
    I’m not trying to be rude. I don’t mean it personally, it’s just true. Don’t you agree? If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.

    I’d be interested in seeing your figures to back up this claim.
    Could you likewise provide your figures? I know the recent Gallup poll shows that Americans identifying themselves as pro-life has risen to 51%. And I also know that only 22% believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, which is what Roe v Wade allows for. So the large majority of Americans, provided they understand Roe v Wade, oppose it. But my point wasn’t about public opinion on the legality of abortion, my point was exactly what I said. More and more people are realizing the humanity of the baby in the womb. Technology is really opening a window into the womb. Women are more likely to bring their child to term when they see their ultrasound. Why do you think that is?
    As a side, why is it that we are repulsed at the graphic images of abortions? Is it just because its gross, like looking at someone’s vomit? Or does it disturb us at a deeper level of our humanity, like looking at corpses, recognizing where we’ve come from and where we are inevitably going?

    I’m interested in this science you believes backs up this statement.
    Could you tell me what scientific process occurs from the time the baby’s head is inside the womb to when it is outside the womb that makes it ethically acceptable to cut its spine and kill it? Or crush it’s skull and suck out its brains? Or dismember it one limb at a time? Or burn it with a saline solution? I, nor anyone I know, has seen this science. But we have seen the science that shows us that that same body which comes out of a mother’s womb had its unique, human beginning at a moment called conception. I am likewise interested in the science you believe backs up your statements.

    Do you understand that NOBODY (and I do mean NOBODY, not one single person in fact) on either side of this issue is “pro-abortion”.
    I’m glad you brought this up, and I’m hoping you can help me understand your position better. Why is it that NOBODY is pro-abortion, that everyone wants less abortions? If its just a removal of a “group of cells” as you say, why this sense that we should reduce abortions? I remove “groups of cells” all the time when I blow my nose, clean my ears, clip my nails, get a haircut, and take a crap. These are all good things. I only conclusion is that you are unsure of your position on abortion. Please do explain.

    I’m also curious what this “arrogant ideology” you refer to is
    Simple, “my liberty is more important than your life,” is the arrogant ideology I’m referring to. Our founding fathers were being specific when they ordered our inalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, Property.”

    I’m ALWAYS open to sound reasoning
    I sincerely believe you. I’m also aware that we (including myself) can sometimes let pride affect our hearing. My name is Chuck Gallucci. I’m pro-life, anti-capital punishment. I rationally believe in more than science (as is understood in scientism), and I believe you want to too. Pleasure to correspond with you.

    • Rodibidably says:

      If it’s true that what’s in a mother’s womb is merely a blob of tissue then you would be right that Randall Terry’s comments were despicable
      No. His comments are despicable because he showed indifference towards the senseless murder of another human being. The fact that this person did something Terry disagreed with is irrelevant. Another human being was murdered, and Terry was dismissive, indifferent, and frankly despicable.
      I disagree with many people on many things. I would not be happy if any of them were murdered in cold blood. I would argue that the murder of anybody (even those you disagree with) is a bad thing, and not something to be treated as an opportunity to make a political statement.

      and you would be right that somebody who claims to be pro-life and murders (or condones murder) is a hypocrite.
      ANYBODY who claims to be pro-life, and yet condones murder is BY DEFINITION a hypocrite. If you can’t see the hypocrisy, I’m not sure we’ll make any progress in discussing any topic.

      But that was not your final conclusion. Your conclusion, based on this short quote taken from Randall Terry, is that pro-lifers “are not really pro-life in any sense of the word. They are ‘pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies’, plain and simple.” That is shallow rhetoric.
      A person who takes it upon themselves to murder other people is no pro-life (or support, in any way, those who murder). If they claim to be pro-life while still supporting the murder of people, they are, as I said, “pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies”.

      Cheap rhetoric? Does it occur to you that you are a group of cells too? Any atheist knows that. That’s science.
      There are many differences between a blastocyst, and embryo, and a living human. I understand your position is that as soon as the sperm breaks the egg wall it’s a human, but that is not what science shows.
      Personally my view would be that once the spinal cord and brain are formed and working, that is when I personally would consider it to be human. But I’m not a medical professional, and I would be willing to defer to those who have a better understanding of human anatomy than I do as to what legally constitutes a human.

      And it seems to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that you believe the “group of cells” in a mother’s womb instantly, magically becomes a “living human person” when his/her head pops out of the mother’s vagina.
      Ok, I’ll correct, you. You’re wrong. Read above.

      You are better than that, my friend.
      I’,m not sure I’d say “better”, but you’ve certainly constructed a nice straw-man idea of my beliefs without ever inquiring as to what my beliefs are.

      Science doesn’t “believe” anything (c’mon you’re starting to sound religious now).
      When I say “science believes” it’s typically understood as shorthand for “the best science available shows (X)”. This is a fairly common expression, and one which I would expect others to pick up on. Science obviously is not a living breathing being which holds beliefs, etc. It is a system of understanding the world around us.

      Science does, however, tell us that a unique human life begins at conception.
      Actually, it does not show that. It shows a group of cells form at conception. Until those cells multiple many countless times and form a spinal cord, brain, and other things which constitute a human, those cells are indistinguishable from many other species.

      Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88b0
      My father was a “pro-life” doctor (quite a well known one at that). I believe I’ve heard all of the relevant “medical testimony” against abortion. However the video you linked to does not really give medical testimony (this makes the opening bit a bit misleading), it the opinion of some people with no collaborative evidence.

      And as soon as you divorce “human life” from “human person” you wipe away the right to life of whole categories of humanity
      I’m not sure I get what you’re saying here. I am making the point that early term pregnancies are not yet human. Not “human life” or a “human person”. I’m not “divorcing” anything.
      But as I said, I’m willing to defer to those with a better understanding of the subject as to what legally should be considered a human.

      , as did Hitler,
      Seriously, you’re gonna Godwin this early in a conversation? How can I take anything you say seriously after you do that?

      as did our government with regard to slaves.
      You mean those same people who used the bible to justify slavery. They did not use science, they used prejudice and religion.

      You and I both know that we can make a list of things that the government is wrong about.
      Yes, and this is relevant how?

      I’m not trying to be rude. I don’t mean it personally, it’s just true.
      I’ll take you at your word, but it comes across as rude and condescending.

      Don’t you agree? If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.
      If somebody is willing to follow the evidence, and change their opinion when shown the evidence, then I’d disagree.
      If however somebody is unwilling to change their views based on the best available evidence then perhaps this would be a fair assessment.

    • Rodibidably says:

      Could you likewise provide your figures?
      I’m still waiting on yours…

      I know the recent Gallup poll shows that Americans identifying themselves as pro-life has risen to 51%.
      I’d want to see evidence of a rise, (since this is what you’ve claimed). You’d need to show previous results that had lower numbers, and more recent results that show significantly higher numbers.

      And I also know that only 22% believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, which is what Roe v Wade allows for.
      Well these polls are often skewed by how they are worded. I’d want to see the specific wording, and EVIDENCE of this.

      So the large majority of Americans, provided they understand Roe v Wade, oppose it.
      They may want a modification of it, your figures (even if correct) do not show they would want it struck down.

      But let’s say for a moment that you’re correct, and the majority of people want something. Should that be how all laws are made? There was a time in the not too distant past when the majority of Americans would oppose “mixed race” marriages. Does that means it was the best option?
      for more of my thoughts on this check: https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/tyranny-of-the-majority/

      But my point wasn’t about public opinion on the legality of abortion, my point was exactly what I said. More and more people are realizing the humanity of the baby in the womb.
      But you’ve shown ZERO evidence of this. This MAY be true, but without evidence, it’s nothing more than words.

      Technology is really opening a window into the womb. Women are more likely to bring their child to term when they see their ultrasound. Why do you think that is?
      Because they form an emotional attachment. Does this mean that blankets should never be thrown away, because some child may possibly form an attachment to a blanket?

      As a side, why is it that we are repulsed at the graphic images of abortions?
      I’d have to ask others for their opinion.

      Is it just because its gross, like looking at someone’s vomit?
      For some people perhaps.

      Or does it disturb us at a deeper level of our humanity, like looking at corpses, recognizing where we’ve come from and where we are inevitably going?
      If this is the case, you’d expect people not to be repulsed when we see a dead animal. But that’s not what we see.

    • Rodibidably says:

      Could you tell me what scientific process occurs from the time the baby’s head is inside the womb to when it is outside the womb that makes it ethically acceptable to cut its spine and kill it?
      Since I never made this claim, I can’t really give you an answer.

      And what’s the purpose of the more graphic descriptions? They obviously are not intended to help make a rational argument, or a scientific one. Do you feel that all of your arguments should be based on emotion? Even when you’ve referred (in passing) to science, you’ve failed to show any evidence of that reported science you have to back up your views.

      I, nor anyone I know, has seen this science.
      Ok, and since I never made this claim, nor do I agree with this claim, how does refuting this claim make ANY DIFFERENCE to me?

      But we have seen the science that shows us that that same body which comes out of a mother’s womb had its unique, human beginning at a moment called conception.
      SHOW ME THIS SCIENTOIFIC EVIDENCE.
      You really don’t seem to understand the concept of evidence, do you? When you make a claim, you should be able to back it up with evidence, as of yet, you’ve failed to even TRY to do this.

      I am likewise interested in the science you believe backs up your statements.
      As before, when you show me your evidence, I’ll be happy to do the same. But as it was you that made the first scientific claims, and claim of evidence, I’ll wait for now.

      My guess is you have no science to back up your views. And given science that disagrees with you, you’ll wave it off as coming from “pro-choice liberals” or some such nonsense.
      But feel free to show me I’m wrong.

      I’m glad you brought this up, and I’m hoping you can help me understand your position better. Why is it that NOBODY is pro-abortion, that everyone wants less abortions? If its just a removal of a “group of cells” as you say, why this sense that we should reduce abortions? I remove “groups of cells” all the time when I blow my nose, clean my ears, clip my nails, get a haircut, and take a crap. These are all good things.
      I can say for myself it is because I see any medical procedure as risky. I would prefer better use of contraception, and better access to children for those looking to adopt.
      In an ideal world, people who have unwanted pregnancies would have the option to have an abortion, but also have the knowledge that if they choose to carry to term, that their child will live as part of a loving family with a parent (or parents) who want them (as opposed to the foster care system, orphanage, etc).

      I’ve never heard a single person claim that they want MORE abortions, and I’ve heard many times from the pro-choice side that they want LESS. But if you want the reasons for WHY, you’d need to ask others, because I am not aware of anybody’s motivations, other than my own.

      I only conclusion is that you are unsure of your position on abortion. Please do explain.
      Then you’d reach the wrong conclusion.

      Simple, “my liberty is more important than your life,” is the arrogant ideology I’m referring to. Our founding fathers were being specific when they ordered our inalienable rights as “Life, Liberty, Property.”
      Well that would depend on the definition of life, wouldn’t it. And as I understand the science, life does not begin at conception.

      I sincerely believe you. I’m also aware that we (including myself) can sometimes let pride affect our hearing. My name is Chuck Gallucci. I’m pro-life, anti-capital punishment.
      Well being catholic, you should be both of those.
      But tell me, did you support the war in Iraq?
      Do you feel that Tiller’s murder (in ANY POSSIBLE SENSE) is a “good thing”?

      I rationally believe in more than science (as is understood in scientism), and I believe you want to too. Pleasure to correspond with you.
      These are good things.

    • Rodibidably says:

      BTW Chuck,
      I updated the original post with a video.
      Can you tell me that any of those people depicted in this video are not pro-life (by the typical understanding of the pro-life movement as being against all abortions)?
      Can you ALSO tell me that they are not hypocrites?

      Now you do not seem to fall into the same camp as them (as far as I can tell), but perhaps you can see that people like them are not doing “your side” any favors either.

  3. Chuck Gallucci says:

    ANYBODY who claims to be pro-life, and yet condones murder is BY DEFINITION a hypocrite. If you can’t see the hypocrisy, I’m not sure we’ll make any progress in discussing any topic.

    The pro-life position is that abortion is murder. If this is true, which is really the important point, then you condone murder, not of one man, but an entire category of people. Are you following me? I understand you’re not convinced yet that abortion is murder, I am. And this is the stasis of this discussion, this is why I’m biting my tongue as you keep accusing others of hypocrisy, this is why I too am not sure we’ll make any progress in discussing any topic. I’m hoping we’re both trying to hone in on the truth, or at least come to a better understanding of each other’s underlying position.

    Your initial conclusion was that “when Terry, or most other people who are against choice, call themselves ‘pro-life’, they are not really pro-life in any sense of the word. They are ‘pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies'”

    Now you’ve qualified it by saying “If they claim to be pro-life while still supporting the murder of people, they are, as I said, “pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies”

    Fine. I’m glad that got clarified. Now, again, if abortion is murder, you have classified yourself among these, and might I say, demonstrated that you are clearly a hypocrite, even worse, a hypocrite accusing others of hypocrisy. This is why I said “If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.” Which you first interpreted as rude, but now I think you understand what I was saying, as you have said, “If however somebody is unwilling to change their views based on the best available evidence then perhaps this would be a fair assessment.” Good, ’cause I’m not done.

    There are many differences between a blastocyst, and embryo, and a living human.

    No, your categories are messed up. A blastocyst and an embryo are both a living human, as is an infant, an adolescent, and an adult. These are stages of the development of a living human.

    I understand your position is that as soon as the sperm breaks the egg wall it’s a human, but that is not what science shows. Personally my view would be that once the spinal cord and brain are formed and working, that is when I personally would consider it to be human.

    So let me get this straight. You understand my position is that a unique human being begins life at fertilization? Good. Then you make the preposterous claim that that is not what science shows. THEN you give me your ‘personal view’ of when you ‘personally would consider it to be human’? I’m claiming to have made a scientifically sound statement, and you respond by saying it’s not scientific, and then proceed to give me your non-scientific personal view? (by the way, the brain and spine are developed and primitive brainwaves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks and 2 days after fertilization, which is mid-1st trimester, [Borkowski and Bernstine, 1955, 363 (cited by Bernstine, 1961, 63 &66; O’Rahilly and Muller, 1999a, 195; van Dongen and Goudie, 1980, 193.); Hamlin, 1964, 113.]).

    I believe you are fleshing out the straw man I constructed for you. Do people who think snapping the formed spine, which you believe makes them human, fall under those who condone murder? Interesting.

    But I’m not a medical professional, and I would be willing to defer to those who have a better understanding of human anatomy than I do as to what legally constitutes a human.

    I can guarantee you there were Nazi scientists who had a much better understanding of human anatomy then you or I, and it was an indifferent and hypocritical society that allowed them to carry out countless horrendous acts. I suggest you not wrap an appropriate comparison in the term “Godwin” so you can throw it away easily.

    you’re gonna Godwin this early in a conversation

    “[Godwin’s Law] does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.”

    I am more concerned with validity than impact.

    When I say “science believes” it’s typically understood as shorthand for “the best science available shows (X)”… Science obviously is not a living breathing being which holds beliefs, etc. It is a system of understanding the world around us.

    That’s my point, science does not say what is right and wrong. It’s a system that allows us to understand the world around us. Science lets us understand how a nuclear bomb works, it doesn’t press the detonation button, nor make an ethical judgment about it.

    My saying, “Science doesn’t ‘believe’ anything (c’mon you’re starting to sound religious now). Science does, however, tell us that a unique human life begins at conception. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88b0” was a response to your saying, “As it stands now, science does not believe this to be true” which is itself not true.

    the video you linked to does not really give medical testimony

    Did you miss the part about world-renowned geneticist, Jerome Lejeune testifying in 1981 before a US senate judiciary subcommittee about the beginning of life? He said, “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

    You keep asking for evidence. I have to ask, do you only want evidence which is pleasing to you?

    I mainly posted that video because it has many references to some great resources. One in particular is called “The biology of Prenatal Development,” distributed by National Geographic. It has dozens of endorsements by professionals and educators in many related fields, it has 195 citations from almost as many journals and publications. If you want science, I highly recommend it.

    Until those cells multiple many countless times and form a spinal cord, brain, and other things which constitute a human

    Didn’t you say that was your “personal view”? Could you please supply some evidence of that statement?

    those cells are indistinguishable from many other species.

    This, also, is plainly false. Those cells are indistinguishable from 0 (zero) other species. Human fertilization occurs when a woman and a man each combine 23 of their own chromosomes through the union of their reproductive cells.

    “The zygote’s 46 chromosomes represent the unique first edition of a new individual’s complete genetic blueprint. This master plan resides in tightly coiled molecules called DNA. They contain instructions for the development of the entire body. DNA molecules resemble a twisted ladder known as a double helix.

    The rungs of the ladder are made up of paired molecules, or bases, called guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine. Guanine pairs only with cytosine, and adenine with thymine.

    Each human cell contains approximately 3 billion of these base pairs.

    The DNA of a single cell contains so much information that if it were represented in printed words, simply listing the first letter of each base would require over 1.5 million pages of text.”
    [Guyton and Hall, 2000, 24 & 34; Watson and Crick, 1953, 737; Lodish et al., 2000, 103 & 456.]

    By the way, haven’t you heard of the human genome?

    Please don’t posit false claims as evidence and then insist that your interlocutor supply you with true evidence.

    I’m willing to defer to those with a better understanding of the subject as to what legally should be considered a human.

    That’s scary. If you’re not sure “what legally should be considered a human” then why are we having this discussion at all?

    Our own president deferred as well:

    When asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

    His response, “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.”

    How do you govern a people when you don’t know who those people are?

    Ironic, that you believe human life doesn’t begin until someone has *grown a spine*.

    I’d want to see evidence of a rise…Well these polls are often skewed by how they are worded. I’d want to see the specific wording, and EVIDENCE of this.

    Have you heard of Gallup?

    But let’s say for a moment that you’re correct, and the majority of people want something. Should that be how all laws are made? There was a time in the not too distant past when the majority of Americans would oppose “mixed race” marriages. Does that means it was the best option?

    This is a great point, a point I’ve been suggesting.

    Because they form an emotional attachment.

    I would hope and assume that once someone realizes the humanity of the baby in the womb, considering how vulnerable they are to death by abortion, would experience some emotion.

    The blanket thing was lame.

    And what’s the purpose of the more graphic descriptions?

    Because it’s the reality. I’ll say it again, “to cut its spine and kill it? Or crush it’s skull and suck out its brains? Or dismember it one limb at a time? Or burn it with a saline solution.”

    This is happening. Do you want to have a meaningful discussion about abortion without actually talking about what an abortion is?

    And given science that disagrees with you, you’ll wave it off as coming from “pro-choice liberals” or some such nonsense.
    But feel free to show me I’m wrong.

    C’mon now.

    but also have the knowledge that if they choose to carry to term, that their child will live as part of a loving family with a parent (or parents) who want them

    How absurd that that same purple creature whose face sees the lights in that delivery room can be loved by his/her family yet brutally killed just moments before. What is love?

    SHOW ME THIS SCIENTOIFIC EVIDENCE….I understand the science, life does not begin at conception.

    “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Jerome Lejeune, Geneticist.

    “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at conception.” Dr. A.M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania.

    “Approximately 24 to 30 hours after fertilization, the zygote completes its first cell division. Through a process of mitosis, one cell splits into two, two into four, and so on.”
    [Hertig, 1968, 26; Hertig and Rock, 1973, 130; (cited by O’Rahilly and Muller, 1987, 12); Shettles, 1958, 400.]
    [Guyton and Hall, 2000, 34.]

    “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
    [O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]

    “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

    “The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”
    [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel — Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

    “Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

    Well being catholic, you should be both of those.
    But tell me, did you support the war in Iraq?

    Is this an ad hominem attempt? Please address my rebuttal.

    Do you feel that Tiller’s murder (in ANY POSSIBLE SENSE) is a “good thing”?

    Tiller’s murder was not a good thing. Nor were that of the innocent babies who entered his clinic. It is really a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today. Murder is not the answer. Abortion is not the answer.

    P.S. – It’s interesting how you append things to your original post after a thread has developed, a liberty I don’t have, and new viewers can’t know of. I think this is my last response. My best wishes to you.

    • Rodibidably says:

      The pro-life position is that abortion is murder.
      And somebody who calls themselves pro-life while being in favor of the murder of Tiller (or anybody else for that matter) is a hypocrite. That was the very point of my post.
      Obviously there are some pro-life people who are not hypocritical in this manner, but there are a large number who are. And those are the people I think should be called out publicly.

      If this is true, which is really the important point, then you condone murder, not of one man, but an entire category of people.
      You’re correct; IF this is true. But you’ve not shown any evidence that this is true.
      It’s also true that if I have an invisible flying pink unicorn in my basement, that I could make a lot of money selling it. Just because some hypothetical idea would lead to another conclusion does not make either one true.

      Are you following me?
      So far. It’s not hard. Your position requires little thought to understand.

      I understand you’re not convinced yet that abortion is murder, I am.
      So convince me.

      And this is the stasis of this discussion, this is why I’m biting my tongue as you keep accusing others of hypocrisy,
      Please answer yes or no.
      Is somebody who claims to be pro-life, and yet condones murder a hypocrite.
      You’ve failed to respond tho this point many times, even though it is the entire purpose of this post.

      this is why I too am not sure we’ll make any progress in discussing any topic.
      I doubt I’ll be able to change your mind, and I’m even more doubtful you’ll produce any actual evidence that will change my mind.
      But one does not always have to change the minds of others for a conversation to have value.

      I’m hoping we’re both trying to hone in on the truth, or at least come to a better understanding of each other’s underlying position.
      My purpose was to point out the hypocrisy of many pro-lifers.
      Your purpose may be to find truth or whatever.
      But I think we already both understand the other’s position, we just don’t agree.

      Your initial conclusion was that “when Terry, or most other people who are against choice, call themselves ‘pro-life’, they are not really pro-life in any sense of the word. They are ‘pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies’”
      And I stand by that.
      Please explain where I am wrong.
      Is somebody who claims to be pro-life, but supports murder a hypocrite. It’s a simple question, and it’s the entire point of this post.

      Now you’ve qualified it by saying “If they claim to be pro-life while still supporting the murder of people, they are, as I said, “pro THEIR choice as to who lives and who dies”
      Yes this is a clarification, but it was one which I believed was assumed.
      Some people TRUELY are pro-life. The abhor all death (people like Ghandi). These people are VERY rare.
      Most people who call themselves pro-life have instances where they support murder (death penalty, war, killing abortion providers, etc). These people are BY DEFINTION hypocrites.

      Fine. I’m glad that got clarified. Now, again, if abortion is murder, you have classified yourself among these,
      Again, this is a big IF, which you’ve made no attempt to prove.

      and might I say, demonstrated that you are clearly a hypocrite, even worse, a hypocrite accusing others of hypocrisy.
      I never claimed to be “pro-life”. Perhaps you don’t understand the word hypocrisy.

      This is why I said “If the pro-life position that abortion kills a living human person is right then you yourself sound like a self-conflicting fool, at best.” Which you first interpreted as rude,
      I still find it rude in the way you said it.

      but now I think you understand what I was saying, as you have said, “If however somebody is unwilling to change their views based on the best available evidence then perhaps this would be a fair assessment.”
      And I stand by that. It seems to me that this is an obvious concept.

      Good, ’cause I’m not done.
      Ahh, are we going to get to actual evidence now? Are we going to get past hypothetical and opinion finally?

      No, your categories are messed up. A blastocyst and an embryo are both a living human, as is an infant, an adolescent, and an adult. These are stages of the development of a living human.
      I’m going to sound like a broken record, but WHERE is the evidence.
      I’m looking for scientific studies showing what you’re claiming. Not the opinions of you or other people, but scientific evidence.
      You’ve shown nothing so far that would qualify as anything beyond opinion. As this post is long I’m hoping that perhaps you rectify this further below. But I won’t hold my breath.

    • Rodibidably says:

      So let me get this straight. You understand my position is that a unique human being begins life at fertilization? Good.
      Yup. I understand, but don’t agree.

      Then you make the preposterous claim that that is not what science shows.
      You’ve failed to show any different. Hell, you’ve failed to even TRY to show any different.

      THEN you give me your ‘personal view’ of when you ‘personally would consider it to be human’?
      I was giving you my opinion, so you have a better understanding, and can stop with the straw-man you were trying to pigeon-hole me into.

      I’m claiming to have made a scientifically sound statement, and you respond by saying it’s not scientific, and then proceed to give me your non-scientific personal view?
      You made an unverified CLAIM. Just because you say the claim is scientific does not make it so.
      If fact when one makes a claim that something is scientific, it has certain obligations, such as evidence. You’ve failed to show (or even attempt to show) any evidence, and therefore your “scientific claims” can be dismissed as either opinion, or an intentional attempt to be dishonest.
      If you actually get around to showing some evidence then I’ll take a look, until then, everything is your opinion (at best), and intentionally dishonest (at worst).

      (by the way, the brain and spine are developed and primitive brainwaves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks and 2 days after fertilization, which is mid-1st trimester, [Borkowski and Bernstine, 1955, 363 (cited by Bernstine, 1961, 63 &66; O’Rahilly and Muller, 1999a, 195; van Dongen and Goudie, 1980, 193.); Hamlin, 1964, 113.]).
      Ok… and?
      I never made a claim as to when those milestones as reached. What is the purpose of this exactly?
      Especially when many, (well most) medical professionals would consider 6 weeks to be quite early in the development of these:
      link

      I believe you are fleshing out the straw man I constructed for you. Do people who think snapping the formed spine, which you believe makes them human, fall under those who condone murder? Interesting.
      I’ve never claimed I am in favor of late term abortions.
      Again with the straw-man…

      Let’s clear this up once again.
      I believe that those who CLAIM to be “pro-life” who also condone murder (including that of Tiller) are hypocrites.
      I never claimed to be pro-life, so even if I condone the senseless slaughter of 2 year olds, that would not be hypocritical with anything I have said.

      Seriously, how f’ing dense are you? It’s almost as if you are arguing against somebody else’s comments, and attributing them to me.

      I can guarantee you there were Nazi scientists who had a much better understanding of human anatomy then you or I, and it was an indifferent and hypocritical society that allowed them to carry out countless horrendous acts. I suggest you not wrap an appropriate comparison in the term “Godwin” so you can throw it away easily.
      You obviously do not understand what Godwin’s law means.
      Sure you can quote the definition, but you don’t seem to understand the point.

      It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

      As well, as a catholic, are you SURE you want to be invoking Nazi’s into any discussion? Do you not understand the history of your church?

    • Rodibidably says:

      That’s my point, science does not say what is right and wrong. It’s a system that allows us to understand the world around us. Science lets us understand how a nuclear bomb works, it doesn’t press the detonation button, nor make an ethical judgment about it.
      Yes… and?

      Science does, however, tell us that a unique human life begins at conception.
      And the evidence for this is…?

      Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88b0” was a response to your saying, “As it stands now, science does not believe this to be true” which is itself not true.
      This video contained no science. No evidence. Nothing that makes a case, other than the opinion of a few people (some of who are scientist, true, but it was still nothing more than their opinion.

      Did you miss the part about world-renowned geneticist, Jerome Lejeune testifying in 1981 before a US senate judiciary subcommittee about the beginning of life?
      No I did not miss that part at all.

      He said, “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
      And yet he gives no information about that “plain experimental evidence”.
      Without the evidence to back him up, it’s still nothing more than opinion.

      You keep asking for evidence. I have to ask, do you only want evidence which is pleasing to you?
      No, I’m open to all evidence. You’ve just failed to provide anything other than opinion (your opinion and the opinion of others).

      I mainly posted that video because it has many references to some great resources. One in particular is called “The biology of Prenatal Development,” distributed by National Geographic. It has dozens of endorsements by professionals and educators in many related fields, it has 195 citations from almost as many journals and publications. If you want science, I highly recommend it.
      I will have to check that out.
      Kinda bummed that there are no reviews on Amazon currently, so I could get a feel for it.

      Didn’t you say that was your “personal view”? Could you please supply some evidence of that statement?
      It is my personal view based on the science as I understand it. As of yet, you’ve provided no science to attempt to alter my view.

      This, also, is plainly false. Those cells are indistinguishable from 0 (zero) other species. Human fertilization occurs when a woman and a man each combine 23 of their own chromosomes through the union of their reproductive cells.
      How long after conception do you believe a set of cells would have to be before you could distinguish various species?
      How long before (insert your favorite medical professional or biological scientist here) could distinguish?

      By the way, haven’t you heard of the human genome?
      Of course. I would expect that most people who pay any attention at all to the news cycle have at least heard in passing of the human genome project.

      Please don’t posit false claims as evidence and then insist that your interlocutor supply you with true evidence.
      You made the first scientific claims. As I’ve asked before, please supply the evidence to back up your claims, and than I shall do likewise.

      That’s scary. If you’re not sure “what legally should be considered a human” then why are we having this discussion at all?
      There are many topics where I personally am not the best job of what the latest and best available evidence is. In this particular case, I have a general understanding of the evidence, but as it is not in my field I am sure that the possibility exists for more up-to-date information of which I am not aware.
      There are also many cases in which one should defer to experts in a field.
      In the case of human development, I believe the decisions should be left up to experts in the field (medical and scientific experts), and not up to a layman in the field (such as myself).

      If you disagree with this train of thought, then I think you should pay more attention to your statements elsewhere in this thread about not letting one’s ego get in the way.

      When asked, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”
      His response, “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.”
      Do you believe that he should act as if he is an expert on subjects where he does not believe himself to be an expert?
      do you not believe that one should defer to experts in a given field?

      How do you govern a people when you don’t know who those people are?
      I’m not sure how you get this conclusion form that quote.

      Ironic, that you believe human life doesn’t begin until someone has *grown a spine*.
      Again, with the insults? This is getting quite tiresome.
      I’m open to healthy debates, but when you constantly insult me and imply that I am a liar, it makes it hard to give a crap about anything you say.

      Have you heard of Gallup?
      Have you heard of posting links to back-up your statements?

      This is a great point, a point I’ve been suggesting.
      Excuse me? Please explain what you mean here, because it seems as if you’re either contradicting yourself, or admitting you are racist, and I can’t tell which one…

      I would hope and assume that once someone realizes the humanity of the baby in the womb, considering how vulnerable they are to death by abortion, would experience some emotion.
      So you’re not trying to argue based on facts, you’re trying to argue based on emotion…

      The blanket thing was lame.
      I believe it is an apt analogy, and one you’ve failed to respond to.

    • Rodibidably says:

      Because it’s the reality. I’ll say it again, “to cut its spine and kill it? Or crush it’s skull and suck out its brains? Or dismember it one limb at a time? Or burn it with a saline solution.”
      Again, the only purpose of this is to turn an intellectual debate into an emotional one. It has no place in discussing the scientific aspects of this debate.

      And it’s a cheap ploy typically used by those with no leg to stand on.

      C’mon now.
      Show me actual evidence to prove me wrong… I’m waiting. You’ve failed to do so as of yet.

      How absurd that that same purple creature whose face sees the lights in that delivery room can be loved by his/her family yet brutally killed just moments before. What is love?
      And this is relevant to a discussion of science and evidence how exactly?

      “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Jerome Lejeune, Geneticist.
      And what SPECIFICALLY is this “experimental evidence”?

      “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at conception.” Dr. A.M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania.
      Based on what specific evidence. I’m looking for a study of some type that shows this to be, not just the opinion of various people.

      “Approximately 24 to 30 hours after fertilization, the zygote completes its first cell division. Through a process of mitosis, one cell splits into two, two into four, and so on.”
      [Hertig, 1968, 26; Hertig and Rock, 1973, 130; (cited by O’Rahilly and Muller, 1987, 12); Shettles, 1958, 400.]
      [Guyton and Hall, 2000, 34.]

      And this shows that cells are a “living human” how exactly?
      It explains how cells divide, but says nothing of human life.

      Basically all of your quotes fall into these two categories.
      They either either the opinion of individuals (or in some cases small groups of people), but with no actual scientific evidence to back them up.
      Or they say nothing about humanity, but they describe the process by which cells form.

      Do you have any evidence? Any scientific studies? Any pear reviewed articles with results from experiments?
      Anything at all, other than opinion?

      Is this an ad hominem attempt? Please address my rebuttal.
      I already did that. And I’m asking you to clarify just HOW pro-life you really are.
      If you’re going to claim to be pro-life, I’m curious if there are exceptions to your stance.

      Tiller’s murder was not a good thing. Nor were that of the innocent babies who entered his clinic. It is really a sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today. Murder is not the answer. Abortion is not the answer.
      I’m glad you FINALLY responded to the point of the original post.
      And I’m glad we agree on this point.
      But then you seemed to have a hard time sticking to the point, and derailed yourself into more opinion with no scientific evidence to back it up.

      P.S. – It’s interesting how you append things to your original post after a thread has developed, a liberty I don’t have, and new viewers can’t know of.
      I appended the video because I felt it was appropriate not only to the back and forth between us, but to others who come across this post.
      I also don’t think it’s reasonable to expect others to read countless pages to find the link to the video.
      And I don’t believe the video changes in any sense what I said, or the point I was making in the original post.

      I think this is my last response.
      That’s a shame. I was really hoping to see some of your so called scientific evidence in your next post too… I guess I’ll never see it now.

  4. Chuck Gallucci says:

    I see the note you posted about updating your original post. Thanks.

    Not good practice, though. Could you not edit your posts and rather continue the thread?

    Its very disorienting. Are there any other changes?

  5. Chuck Gallucci says:

    But I’m not a medical professional, and I would be willing to defer to those who have a better understanding of human anatomy than I do as to what legally constitutes a human.

    My father was a “pro-life” doctor (quite a well known one at that). I believe I’ve heard all of the relevant “medical testimony” against abortion.

    Is there something deeper going on here? What’s your name by the way? I don’t bite.

    • Rodibidably says:

      Is there something deeper going on here?
      Such as…?
      I’m confused what you mean here…

      What’s your name by the way?
      I assume what you’re getting at is who is my father:
      http://www.truthtv.org/abortion/providers/former-abortionists/dr-joseph-randall/
      http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/randall.htm

      I don’t bite.
      Again, I’m confused here…

      • Chuck Gallucci says:

        I don’t care who your father is. I just think those two statements are curious.

        I asked your name and said I don’t bite because you asked and said the same to me. This is a friendly exchange, right?

    • Rodibidably says:

      I don’t care who your father is.
      Based on your comments when I mentioned my father, you seemed skeptical. If this was incorrect, I apologize.

      I just think those two statements are curious.
      What two statements are those exactly?

      I asked your name and said I don’t bite because you asked and said the same to me.
      I understand the request for my name, but the fact that you asked in response to a mention of my father would lead one to believe you did not believe my claim that my father was an anti-abortion activist.

      The “I don’t bite” comment sounds as if you’re questioning my honesty. Perhaps that is not how it was meant, but it certainly comes across as combative.

      This is a friendly exchange, right?
      We’ll see I suppose. So far you’ve managed to call into question my honesty, and insult me multiple times. I’m not sure how “friendly” I would call that.

  6. Chuck Gallucci says:

    Hey, I was just clicking around and saw the SQL posts. I’m a PHP/MySQL developer, too. Pretty cool. If you weren’t anti-life (and into all these other wierd philosophies) I think I’d like you.

    • Rodibidably says:

      If you weren’t anti-life
      I’m not “anti-life”…
      You can try as much as you’d like to brand me with whatever words you’d like, that doesn’t mean it’s in any sense accurate…

      (and into all these other wierd philosophies)
      What “wierd philosophies” are you refering to here?

      I think I’d like you
      Depends. I can be a bit of an ass at times… But I tend ot pull it off with charm.

  7. Chuck Gallucci says:

    You can try as much as you’d like to brand me
    See, this is what got me started. In your original post you did that same branding and have since been liberally using the word “hypocrite.” You seem very closed minded to me.

    I can be a bit of an ass at times
    Yeah, we all can.

    But I tend ot pull it off with charm.
    I gotta be honest, you sound like a fool to me so far. I’m hoping you’re not, like, 17 or 18, ’cause your “charm” kinda sounds at that level, and I’d feel kinda bad for thinking you a fool. I’m 28, and and had some pretty shallow understandings a decade ago.

    What “wierd philosophies” are you refering to here?
    Maybe another time and thread, otherwise this page will get way out of control. Sorry for bringing it up.

    I’m looking forward to your scientific response to my long post.

    • Chuck Gallucci says:

      Hey,

      I don’t want to be condescending. I really want you to hear the substance of what pro-life means and not my banter. This is an extremely grave issue that is much more important than either of our egos.

      • Rodibidably says:

        I don’t want to be condescending.
        Too late

        I really want you to hear the substance of what pro-life means and not my banter.
        I’ve heard it before. And it’s nothing more than opinion based largly upon an ancient text.

        This is an extremely grave issue that is much more important than either of our egos.
        I was not aware I had let my ego into this conversation in any way.

    • Rodibidably says:

      See, this is what got me started. In your original post you did that same branding and have since been liberally using the word “hypocrite.”
      I have used the word hypocrite to describe those who call themselves pro-life, while being in favor of the killing of Tiller (and others like him). That IS hypocracy. If you disagree, I’d suggest checking Websters for the defintion.

      You seem very closed minded to me.
      On what exactly? What “points” have you made, and backed up with evidence that I have dismissed?

      I gotta be honest, you sound like a fool to me so far. I’m hoping you’re not, like, 17 or 18, ’cause your “charm” kinda sounds at that level, and I’d feel kinda bad for thinking you a fool. I’m 28, and and had some pretty shallow understandings a decade ago.
      Again with the insults. How very “christian” of you…

      Maybe another time and thread, otherwise this page will get way out of control. Sorry for bringing it up.
      Well since you DID bring it up, I’d like an answer… It seems a tad disingenuous to make a statement such as you did and then back away without explaining yourself.

      I’m looking forward to your scientific response to my long post
      I will be starting on that shortly…
      I’m currently doing nothing other than watching my dog run around the yard, so I have a bit of time to kill…

  8. Chuck Gallucci says:

    I am at first dumbfounded by your self-conflicting responses. But I realize now that even if you could follow, with your own eyes, the human development process from single cell to adult, you will still not be convinced. You have been robotically chirping about “evidence” but you have very childish understandings of evidence and the nature of empiricism.

    I suspect you will continue to posit your interpretations and personal views as science, and then defer to someone with a better understanding. But you’ve made it clear that you will not defer to those who do not see things as you do.

    My conclusion of your great show of incongruity is that you are not seeking evidence, you are seeking meaning. And your rigid religion has dogmatically prohibited you from any such notion.

    Best wishes to you.

    • Rodibidably says:

      I am at first dumbfounded by your self-conflicting responses.
      Please feel free to point out some of these contradictions.

      But I realize now that even if you could follow, with your own eyes, the human development process from single cell to adult, you will still not be convinced.
      Seeing the process of cells splitting over and over would not tell somebody when human life begins.

      You have been robotically chirping about “evidence” but you have very childish understandings of evidence and the nature of empiricism.
      My understanding of evidence is more than OPINION. All you have provided is opinion. You don’t seem top understand the difference between scientific evidence and opinion. This is a problem.

      I suspect you will continue to posit your interpretations and personal views as science,
      I never claimed MY opinions are science. And I never posted them as science. I said my opinions are based on the science as I understand it.

      and then defer to someone with a better understanding.
      I think this is wise in most aspects of life.

      But you’ve made it clear that you will not defer to those who do not see things as you do.
      I have changed my mind multiple times in my life due to be shown evidence that conflicted with my previous views.
      You have shown no evidence, and thus you have failed.

      My conclusion of your great show of incongruity is that you are not seeking evidence, you are seeking meaning.
      No, I seek answers to questions. You have no answers, only opinion.

      And your rigid religion has dogmatically prohibited you from any such notion.
      And what religion is that exaclty?

  9. Pingback: A christian Fatwah by any other name is still a death threat… « Rodibidably

  10. Pingback: The Believer’s Brain – Russ Schaade | Thinking Critically

  11. Anonymous says:

    This is interesting.

    Rodibidably, may I ask for your definition of human life as you have used it in “seeing the process of cells splitting over and over would not tell somebody when human life begins”?

    May I also ask for your definition of evidence?

    Thanks.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I only ask because you have said, “I have changed my mind multiple times in my life due to be shown evidence that conflicted with my previous views.” But reading this thread gives the impression that you are not challenging your previous views and that you are only sheltering them.

    There is no scientific debate about what human life is.

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines human as “a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.” This can be genetically verified.

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines life as, “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.”

    The conceived organism of human parents meets these criteria. That’s already been shown in previous posts.

    Why have you said “but I’m not a medical professional, and I would be willing to defer to those who have a better understanding of human anatomy than I do as to what legally constitutes a human” yet you are clearly not deferring?

    You may still hold the position that the human fetus is not a person, but person is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

    Can you at least somewhat understand that anti-abortion activists might see deferring to “what legally constitutes a human” as what got Jews killed in the Holocaust and Africans killed in slavery. “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (emphasis added).

    My concern is that you are deferring in the wrong direction, that you have only given cursory consideration if any at all to the points made in this post. Do the points not at least seem reasonable to you?

    Cheers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s