Sunday, June 06, 2010

Today's anniversaries

Click on the links for more information on each case:

  • 1907: Woman dead; midwife blamed: On June 6, 1907, Mrs. Julia Williamson, age 29, died at her Chicago home from complications of an abortion performed there that day. A midwife named Emily Redemski was held by the coroner's jury, but acquitted by a judge for reasons not given in the source document.

  • 1963: The death of a poster child: Geraldine "Gerri" Twerdy Santoro is the woman in the infamous photo used by abortion advocates to illustrate the horror of illegal abortion. How did she end up dead on that motel room floor?

  • 1984: Child left motherless by safe, legal abortion : A chronic asthma patient, 27-year-old Sheila Hebert went to Delta Women's Clinic in Baton Rouge for a safe and legal abortion on June 6, 1984.

  • 2000: Sudden abortion death in Brooklyn : Nicey Washington was 26 years old when she underwent a safe and legal abortion at Ambulatory Surgery Center in Brooklyn, New York, on June 6, 2000.
  • 69 comments:

    Rupert said...

    The very title of your blog is a misnomer, The term 'real choice' means allowing people to have a choice of ALL the available options. Not just some, as dictated by those with a particular point of view. You don't agree with abortion, so don't do it. Others do believe in abortion, so let them do it. You have absolutely no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to attempt to limit other peoples' choices.

    GrannyGrump said...

    I said it's the reality of "choice" in America. These are real stories of real women. Now, you can think that killing babies and playing Russian roulette with women's lives is a good and beautiful thing. But you'll be wrong.

    Rupert said...

    Julia - may have died because a doctor didn't perform the procedure.
    'Gerri' - no access to safe, medical abortion.
    Sheila - could have had the same result from any procedure such as dental care, cancer treatment or, maybe even, childbirth.
    Nicey - cause not yet identified.

    Not very convincing arguments. No-ones 'killing babies', pregnancies are being terminated.
    Russian Roulette is what occurs when all available services and support are not available. So you are wrong!

    And as I said earlier - you have absolutely no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to attempt to limit other peoples' choices.

    Kathy said...

    Rupert is absolutely right. I say if people want to kill and rape him, who are we to limit their choices? It's their choice after all! Do you agree, Rupert?

    Rupert said...

    How about comparing apples with apples Kathy, rather than some emotional, intellectually dishonest, unrepresentative comparison.
    And actually, if someone did want to rape and kill me, you couldn't limit their choices. But they would have to deal with the outcomes of an act which is illegal.

    GrannyGrump said...

    Rupert, you said that people's choices mustn't be limited. Which means that you think all laws are wrong, and that fraud, arson, rape, child molesting, shoplifting, keying people's cars, driving drunk, etc., are all just choices and shouldn't be restricted.

    Or is the right to have your fetus shredded the only choice you think ought not to be restricted?

    Rupert said...

    So typical, grab something and run screaming hysterically with it.

    Of course I meant in regard to womens' legal right to choose abortion if it is their least-worst option.

    It is legal, some women choose it, you have absolutely no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to attempt to limit that.

    No, choosing to have your fetus shredded isn't the only choice I think ought not be restricted. How about gay marriage, gay adoption (less abortions!), not allowing my tax dollars be used to support church based activities.

    Kathy said...

    "It is legal." So what? In Russia under Stalin's reign it was legal for him to kill millions of people through forced work, starvation, and outright murder. Didn't make it right.

    "Some women choose it." So what? Susan Smith chose to strap her two toddlers into their car seats and push her car into the lake with them in it.

    Why do we "have absolutely no right whatsoever, under any circumstances, to attempt to limit" abortion? Your statements do not support the end. To quote Spock, it is illogical.

    Increasing gay adoption will not reduce abortion. Right now there are hundreds of infertile couples wanting to adopt for every newborn that is put up for adoption. There is no lack of adoptive couples for newborns. Your statement would be true if aborting women were making the choice between killing their child before birth and abandoning it on the street knowing no one would take care of the baby after birth. That is not the case; many couples would gladly adopt newborns, but far too many of them end up in an incinerator or as biohazard waste.

    Kathy said...

    Oh, also it was legal to kill Mormons in Missouri until 1976. Did that make it right?

    Rupert said...

    Once again you cite examples which have no correlation whatsoever to the topic. Comparing apples with oranges.
    Stalin's pogroms have nothing to do with womens' right to choose abortion. And they weren't actually 'legal' the way that abortion is. So a sub-heading of apples v oranges!
    Infanticide has nothing to do with womens' right to choose abortion - they are completely different circumstances, acts and outcomes.
    In what way does my statement not support the end? Not yours maybe.
    How it is illogical? Just because you disagree with it?
    Women obviously choose abortion because they have no desire to carry a fetus for 9 months. That's their choice.

    GrannyGrump said...

    How are abortion and infanticide so different? They're both killing babies. Why should it be bad to kill bigger babies but a right to kill itty bitty ones?

    Rupert said...

    Abortion is the termination of a fetus. Infanticide is the killing of a living, breathing person who has been born. Significant difference.
    Or maybe you want to go back to the biblical 'spilling of seed on infertile ground'?

    GrannyGrump said...

    It's still her baby. You can play semantic games all day if you want but you can't talk away reality.

    Rupert said...

    I'm not the one playing semantic games. That is your reality not mine, or that of many others. There is a difference.
    You are quite rightly entitled to formulate your position based on your beliefs and your feelings, so am I.
    I would defend your right to not have an abortion if you did not wish to do so. You have no right to prevent those who do.
    It is a personal position, a personal choice and a personal belief.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Rupert, I disagree with you--I would NOT defend Christina's right to not have an abortion.

    Right-to-lifers should be forced to have abortions. If they want to be able to make their own decisions, they must respect other people's rights to make THEIR own decisions.

    Support mandatory abortions for right-to-lifers!

    Kathy said...

    Rupert, a fetus is a living being just as much as a newborn. Even OC believes that!

    Rupert said...

    The problem is Kathy, you bring your beliefs to the argument. They apply to you, not me, not others.
    What on earth makes you think you are right and others should follow your path?

    Kathy said...

    Oh, yes, far better to bring someone else's beliefs into the argument. I'd better not say anything I believe; in fact, I should say things I disbelieve!

    And, no, when I say that a fetus is a living being, that is not merely my opinion -- it is scientific and medical fact that from the moment of conception, there is an entirely new and genetically unique human being alive.

    I don't believe that innocent people should be murdered, before or after birth. I think others should follow that path for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. I don't want someone else to choose to end my life, so I would expect to treat others the same way, including the pre-born.

    Rupert said...

    There you go, running off with the emotive hysteria again - 'I'd better not say anything I believe; in fact, I should say things I disbelieve!'

    The point I was making is that your beliefs do not make you right. You believe that abortion is bad, so don't have one. I'm not going to force you. I believe that abortion is not bad, so women can have one if they wish. You can't force them not to.

    No, it is not a scientific and medical fact that it is a human being. There remains conjecture as to this amongst the scientific community.

    'I think others should follow that path for a variety of reasons....' - do you realise what a self-important, prejudicial statement this is?

    I don't think people should lead their lives based on an imaginary friend in the sky. If I become non compos mentis, I hope like heck someone else will choose to end my life!

    Kathy said...

    I don't believe abortion is merely "bad" -- it is murder. Even OC believes that it is taking the life of an innocent human being; he just considers it justifiable homicide.

    If it is not a human being, what is it?

    In saying "I think people should follow that path," I was merely answering your question. It was not self-important, it was giving you the answer you asked for!

    I also don't think people should lead their lives based on an imaginary friend in the sky. I do believe people should lead their lives based on morals and teachings handed down to us from the God who created us and the entire universe, and who knows much better about what is right for us than we do, just as parents know a whole lot more than their young children.

    I hope you have a living will established to provide for your murder in the event you become mentally incapacitated.

    Rupert said...

    OK, you believe abortion is murder, I don't. There is no valid reason why society should follow your interpretation, based as it is on your imaginary friend in the sky.
    It is a potential human being.
    Your god is your imaginary friend in the sky. It's what you use to fill the gaps in your life, knowledge and intellectual maturity. There is no proof of any god, society created it for means of power, wealth and control; particularly of women and their fertility. See the link?
    If you can't work out for yourself what is 'right' for you to do, then you obviously have shortcomings in a number of areas.
    Asking others to extinguish my life once I am no longer a fully sentient being is not murder.

    GrannyGrump said...

    Rupert, if you want to kill somebody, isn't it incumbent upon you to prove that the person deserves to die? "They're wee teensie weensie and I just don't think they're people, really" ought not to be adequate justification for taking a human life.

    Kathy said...

    Yes, there is a valid reason why abortion should be considered murder: it is the intentional killing of an innocent human (and I might add, "who does not wish to die," because you want to die if you become incapacitated even though you presumably have done nothing worthy of execution).

    There is actually quite a bit of proof for God -- not least of which is the admitted impossibility of life arising by chance. Even Richard Dawkins has said that the universe is so grand and majestic and awe-inspiring, that it nearly forces people to believe in a God who created it... but he refuses to believe in God. Probably for the same reasons you do.

    Rupert said...

    Oh no! Attacked by two at once! I knew I should have checked in earlier, but I was busy with my insurance agent who, by the way along with my solicitors in two states and my accountant, all know of my wishes regarding termination. Soylent Green anyone?

    Seriously though, GG - no, not if they have requested it. Choice. Size has nothing to do with it, it's the stage of development.

    Kathy - that is your interpretation, not mine or other peoples - again. Actually, no, there is no proof of god. 'god of the gaps' is about as near as it gets and that's just because people of faith look for any loopholes or opportunities to say 'must be god'. The facts are that any answers which are found, have ever been found, and ever will be found; come up with evolution. Never god or a creator, ever. All claims of god and faith are self-supporting suppositions and distortions of the truth. Your references are about as independent and truthful as Answers in Genesis, Uncommon Descent or the Creation Museum. Where do you get your knowledge from, Ken Ham?

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Kathy, unwanted fetuses are NOT innocent. They are guilty of being inside another person's body where they are not wanted.

    This entitles that other person to kill them.

    If something is inside your body, then you are entitled to kill it, no matter what it is.

    GrannyGrump said...

    OC, as usual you're forgetting that the woman PUT THE BABY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. She has a lot of damned gall to turn around and kill it for being where she put it. You might was well argue that a kidnapper has a right to kill his hostage because she's in the trunk of HIS car.

    Rupert said...

    GG, while I don't quite agree with OC, well actually I do but I think it could have been better expressed, well actually no, it was quite clear and not offensive.

    Not sure if I'd give any credence to 'guilt' or 'innocence' of a fetus though, they aren't really applicable terminology.

    '...the woman PUT THE BABY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE' - really? Did she buy it and insert it? Brew one up in the kitchen? Borrow one from a friend and insert it? I think you'll find a MAN put it there at least as much as she did.

    How much 'damned gall' is there on behalf of the rapist who put it there? Or the abominable father? Or the paedophilic priest? So she's stuck with it?

    And that's what this is all about. Men dominating and controlling women through their fertility. From the genital mutilations, through to banning of contraception, right up to preventing abortions even when the mother's life is at stake - men controlling women.

    Your little analogy is about as relevant as usual.

    Kathy said...

    Rupert, give me some US stats on the number of women who conceive through rape; and the number of women who abort because of rape. I think you'll find that 99% or so of conceptions occur due to consensual sex, so it is an accurate statement to say that she put it there, through her sexual actions -- her acceptance of the man as a good and valid sexual partner.

    It's actually pretty funny that the feminist line is that men are "dominating and controlling women through their fertility" when prior to the "Sexual Revolution," women dominated men through their refraining from sexual activity -- i.e. saving sex for marriage. By keeping their legs firmly closed until marriage, women dominated society by making men behave in such a way as to make them a good marriage candidate in order to get sex. Women trained men in the years leading up to marriage to act in a certain way, and they were more likely to continue acting in that way after marriage.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    GG it doesn't matter how it got there. As long as it's in your body, you're entitled to kill it, no matter what it is and no matter how it got there.

    That's part of what we mean by the word "your" in the phrase "your body".

    Rupert said...

    OK Kathy, lets discount rape, incest and pedophilia.
    Two intelligent, self-aware, sentient human beings choose to have sex for pleasure, love, fun, whatever. There is no intention to conceive. But it happens anyway.

    Maybe contraception failed. Maybe it wasn't available because of a lack of availability due to the actions of fundamentalist. Maybe they didn't have enough knowledge, again probably due to the actions of fundamentalists.

    The point is the woman did not choose to 'PUT THE BABY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE'. So why is it 'damned gall' that she decides not to keep it?

    You really need to undertake additional anthropological investigations into what you claimed. Maybe some non-religious based texts would be useful. How naive!

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    "She put the baby there" is a good soundbyte, but it misses the point.

    She didn't "put" it there, because before it was there, it wasn't anywhere. She CREATED it there. As long as it remains inside her body, this entitles her to un-create it, to return it to the nothingness from whence it came.

    GrannyGrump said...

    But you abortion supporters are NOT just supporting killing babies that are there because of acts performed on the woman against her will. You're for abortions performed to kill babies that were conceived by women who knew full well they were doing a babymaking thing, who planned in advance that if they did create a baby, they'd kill it for having the audacity to exist in the place where she herself put it in the first place through her actions.

    Kathy said...

    Because it's a matter of biology that what creates babies (aside from assisted reproduction) is sex, so in choosing to have sex, she is making the tacit choice to accept the consequences (and I would say that the man is also making that tacit choice, although it's easier for a man to be a chicken and run away from his responsibilities than a woman... which is why it is much more incumbent on women to make good choices for their sexual partners). Much like a person who chooses to drink alcohol and then get into a car and drive -- if he kills someone, it doesn't matter if he was incapacitated due to the alcohol he imbibed, or that he didn't really mean to kill anyone, or that he's really sorry after it happened -- when he made the choice to drink and drive, he is responsible for the outcome.

    I'm not really sure why you're digging "fundamentalists" -- from where I sit, it seems that the fundies are the ones who are most preaching "sex = babies, and all methods of contraception can fail, so if you don't want a baby, don't have sex," whereas the other people tell them, "just put on a condom."

    Rupert said...

    GG - it's not 'killing babies' for a start. And secondly, are you seriously suggesting that women should not be able to have sex without risking having a baby? Can you even imagine the sociological impacts of such a concept? Your language is emotive and a distortion of reality.

    Kathy, what are we going to do with you. It is said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and you exemplify that statement. Do you seriously believe that sex is just for making babies? And no, they are NOT making a tacit choice to accept the consequences, that is cave-man thinking.

    And again with the totally irrelevant attempt at creating an analogous story! If a couple find themselves accidentally pregnant, they are responsible for the outcome. And one of the choices they have for dealing with the outcome is abortion.

    Your last paragraph makes no sense to me - are you saying the ones who go 'ah, babies - don't have sex!' are the fundies, or the ones who say 'there are methods of protection and there are choices available if they fail'?

    GrannyGrump said...

    Rupert, it's time we had that little talk that evidently your parents neglected: Where babies come from.

    Kathy said...

    No, I don't believe that "sex is *just* for making babies." However, sex is how babies are made (aside from artificial/assisted reproduction). It's just not that hard to understand this biological fact! Is it?

    If you don't understand the last paragraph of my previous comment, just read it again and again until you do, because it's not really that difficult.

    And, no, it is *not* cave-man thinking to say that if people make choices, they should think through the possible consequences, including the negative consequences. It's a sign of maturity, in fact! It is immature people who don't realize that when they do X that they are making tacit choices for other things that can and do happen after X.

    Rupert said...

    How droll GG. Maybe it's you who requires more information. About the fact that as intelligent, sentient beings we have various methods available to us which help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Kathy, I have clearly demonstrated the fact that I am fully aware of where 'babies come from', Surely that much is clear by my demonstrated knowledge of how we are able to both prevent and deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. Or do you just enjoy being disingenuous? This applies to you too GG.

    Each time I read your earlier 'last paragraph' it tells me that you think the 'fundies' are those who are preaching '...if you don't want babies, don't have sex...' - a positively medieval concept. I agree that these are the 'fundies' I was referring to. The ones who are also against contraception and extra or pre marital sex.

    My reference to 'cave-man thinking' was not in regard to peoples' knowledge of the potential outcomes. Most people are well aware (except maybe those whose knowledge has been stifled by certain elements) - 'cave-man thinking' refers to just accepting unintended outcomes despite the choices which are available.

    Surely it is immature people who choose not to rectify the situation if unintended situations arise?

    Kathy said...

    "If you don't want babies, don't have sex" is not a medieval concept; it's a biological statement.

    I daresay that you and I would have great disagreement about what it means to "rectify the situation if unintended situations arise." Your method of "rectifying the situation" would be to kill the baby. I find that appalling and loathsome.

    Rupert said...

    How antiquated! With contraception available, it does not have to be so. Even the catholic church espouses methodologies to avoid conception.

    Terminating a fetus is not 'killing a baby'.

    Rupert said...

    and by the way, contraception has been in use since before the supposed bible.

    Kathy said...

    How antiquated! With contraception available, it does not have to be so.
    With up to a 2% failure rate with perfect use of most forms of contraception and birth control, and an even higher failure rate "with typical use," even "with contraception available," it is still possible to conceive a baby from sex.

    Even the catholic church espouses methodologies to avoid conception.
    Though I'm not Catholic I am aware of these methodologies, and in fact use "natural family planning" or "fertility awareness method," and highly recommend it; but it has its drawbacks and risk of pregnancy, just like every other form of contraception or birth control. When two people are in a committed monogamous relationship and are strongly trying to avoid pregnancy, NFP or FAM has about the same success rate as any other method. If the people are more willing to take chances with getting pregnant, or if they are not in a committed relationship, the failure rate goes up, for what I would think would be obvious reasons.

    Terminating a fetus is not 'killing a baby'.
    It's not exactly ensuring him/her a long and happy life, now is it?

    and by the way, contraception has been in use since before the supposed bible.
    Duh. But I'm not sure how effective crocodile dung was, except to keep men away...

    Rupert said...

    Yes, failure does occur. That's when abortion is available.

    NFP and FAM are riskier than other methods.

    Terminating a fetus is not killing a baby.

    Duh, what about Egyptian spermicides? What about herbal contraceptives?

    Oh, and abortion has been around for as long as contraception. Again, it predates your bible.

    Kathy said...

    Yes, failure does occur. That's when abortion is available.
    No, that's when the people who were adult enough to engage in baby-making activity (i.e., sex) should be adult enough to raise the baby, rather than kill him.

    Terminating a fetus is not killing a baby.
    Just keep saying that, since it soothes your conscience, no matter how wrong you know yourself to be.

    Rupert said...

    No, its when people are intelligent and mature enough to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because they are not god-smitten.
    I'm quite comfortable with all this, you are the one who seems to have difficulty dealing with the reality.

    Kathy said...

    The reality is that a genetically unique human is being killed, and I have a problem with that. It is also scary to me that you are "quite comfortable" with it... but I daresay it's because you're no longer a fetus, so you're not vulnerable. It's a pity you don't look out for those who are.

    Rupert said...

    Kathy, I am not happy that it is a problem for you. And even less happy that you find it scary that I do not.

    Just remember that this is due to factors which make the whole issue emotive for you.

    If I had been aborted as a fetus, I daresay I wouldn't be too concerned about it. I look out for those who are alive amongst us.

    I am as worried about what happens after I die as I am about what took place before I was born - think about it.

    Kathy said...

    Yes, I should just be non-emotional about the murder of innocent humans. Kinda like Stalin -- he was a good guy, wasn't he?

    Rupert said...

    There is no murder going on here.

    Stalin? Apples Kathy, apples.

    Kathy said...

    How would you define murder?

    Rupert said...

    Murder is if you kill me or I kill you.
    We have our own complete respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems.

    GrannyGrump said...

    "We have our own complete respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems."

    So does a human fetus.

    Kathy said...

    What about if Christina kills you? Would that be murder then? Yes, I'm exaggerating to prove a point. What makes it murder? All animals have their "own complete respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems"; is it murder to kill them? [And I'm not totally exaggerating here, since many animal rights activists say "Meat is murder," and you may be one of them for all I know.]

    Why is it murder to kill you or me who have complete resp/gastro systems, but not a human (or animal) fetus?

    Rupert said...

    Yes, if Christina kills me that is murder.

    The respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems of a fetus are not self-supporting, they rely on the mother until birth.

    If a shark or a snake kills a human is that murder?

    Kathy said...

    So, it's murder to kill a shark or snake, since they have complete resp/gastro systems?

    Rupert said...

    No no, you misunderstand. Humans killing animals, whilst not always nice, is not murder. Any more than an animal killing a human is murder.

    Kathy said...

    So, your definition of "murder" is "humans killing humans"?

    Rupert said...

    Nice try Kathy :-)

    GrannyGrump said...

    Rupert, you don't seem to get that coming to prolifers with "But the fetus NEEDS its mother so desperately" doesn't make us say, "Oh! Gosh! You're right! The smaller and more vulnerable and dependent somebody is, the more okay it is to kill them!"

    It's the very vulnerability and defenselessness and helplessness and dependancy of the fetus, as of the baby, that makes it so abominable to kill it. You're going after the most helpless and vulnerable people, and trying to justify it on the grounds of their vulnerability and helplessness. That's going to make you seem like more of a monster to us, not less.

    Your ethos is "Might makes right". We disagree.

    Kathy said...

    I'm just trying to get an answer to my question. You defined murder based on the victim having a "complete respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems," but for some reason exclude animals. Why is it not murder for humans to kill animals, nor for animals to kill humans? Yet you believe that *something* is called murder, which with the exclusion of animals would then be limited to "humans killing humans." You seem to draw back from that definition, though. Why?

    Rupert said...

    GG, it's not about being 'small and vulnerable'. It is not about 'might is right'.

    It is murder when it is a self-supporting human being with stand-alone respiratory and gastro-intestinal systems.

    Animals aren't human and fetuses aren't self-supporting.

    Does that answer your question too Kathy?

    Kathy said...

    So, I guess that leaves children up to the age of 18 open to being killed without their killers being murderers, since they are hardly "self-sufficient."

    Rupert said...

    Kathy, you continue to deliberately misconstrue and misrepresent what I say.

    You know I meant 'self-sufficient' as in being able to respire and digest of their own accord. Not earn an income, drive or sign contracts.

    Kathy said...

    No, not necessarily. Some people would argue that parents should be legally able to kill their children up to the time of "self-awareness" which they define as any time between about 18 months and 3 years of age. This is partly due to their inability to be self-sufficient. Others argue that it should be legally permissible to kill those who suffer from some sort of major physical or mental disability, regardless of their age -- whether the disability is discovered in infancy, as the result of an accident as an adolescent or adult, or dementia or Alzheimer's as a senior citizen.

    So, when you do believe that there should be a cut-off time for legal abortion? About 24 weeks gestation) -- which is the time when over half of babies can "respire and digest of their own accord" outside the womb? Or would you extend the right to legally kill without murdering those who are on assisted breathing or who receive their nutrition intravenously?

    Why or why not? Oh, you also forgot to tell me why you limit the definition of "murder" to only humans -- why single out humans if we're just basically elevated apes?

    Rupert said...

    I'll answer your questions in reverse Kathy as I feel it may build a clearer picture that way.

    Killing of animals for food or safety reasons I accept. Hunting for pleasure I do not approve of but accept.

    I do not believe there should be a legal cut-off time for abortions. I may not always be happy about that but I accept it. It is rarely done without good cause. If it is done without good cause then I agree it needs to be looked into.

    I am a supporter of euthanasia. But that of course only applies to our own choices. If a person is legally classed as 'brain-dead' or similar then yes, the family should have the option of turning off life-support.

    Once a child is born I would generally consider them to possess the same status as you and I. There are of course cases where the same conditions may apply as for an adult who suffers a debilitating event.

    Kathy said...

    Why the big difference at birth? One minute after birth the baby is intrinsically the same as one minute before birth. The baby is neither more nor less human; he or she is only two minutes older. What is the logical reason for saying that killing a creature prior to birth is not murder, but killing the same creature after the birth is murder?

    What intrinsic value do humans have? And why do unborn humans not have that value? Why don't animals have intrinsic value, if humans are just glorified apes?

    Also, since you brought up euthanasia -- have you heard that there was a recent report from Belgium, I believe it was, in which nurses who performed "euthanasia" were questioned as part of a study and a significant percentage (I think it was 50%, but I'd have to find the report again just to make sure) said that they had killed someone, um, "euthanized" a person without consent from that person? The nurses said they were sure that the person wanted to die, even though the person did not tell them that. Does it bother you that some people may be being killed while they want to live?

    Rupert said...

    This is becoming like sparring practice Kathy! Not that I have participated, I eschew violence.

    No, its not intrinsically the same. There are numerous differences. One minute it is not in the world, the next it is. Understand?

    How many biblical references can you find regarding the various uses of animals? Who said we are just glorified apes? Not me. Anyway, we do not kill them except for safety or when hunters do so (which I disagree with).

    I assume a full investigation will be carried out regarding what you say took place in Belgium and any appropriate penalties applied.

    Kathy said...

    No, one minute the baby is inside his or her mother, and the next it is outside. It is at conception that "one minute it is not in the world, the next it is." That is, prior to conception, there are just sperm and an egg in existence, but when they join there is something there that wasn't before, due to the mixing and mingling of genetic material.

    Oh, I assumed you were an evolutionist, since you said "there is no proof of any god". Logically, if there is no god, then there is no being who could have created this universe and all that it contains, which means that it must have arisen entirely by chance and happenstance. This means that humans were not specially created but instead descended from a common ancestor along with all other life forms, so what intrinsic difference is there between Hitler killing millions of humans in Auschwitz ovens and you spraying bleach on mold? We're just rearranged pond scum, when it comes down to it, and not really that much different from the apes, except for less hair and more intelligent.

    Rupert said...

    So a fetus can see trees and animals? It can touch walls and furniture? It can smell flowers and food cooking? Yes, I know a fetus can hear things but that's not all the senses is it?

    Yes I am a person who knows of the truth of evolutionary law Kathy. And yes, there is no proof of god. Every scientific, physical and natural discover made continues to preclude the possibility of a higher entity. The 'god of the gaps' is rapidly disappearing. Can you name one evidential scientific discovery where the answer is god?

    That's right, we are descended from the same pond scum as other life forms. We have been lucky enough to have developed higher intelligence, self-awareness, sentience, language, writing, tools, transport etc. etc. This does mark us as different. Reality. That's the difference between us and mold.

    Kathy said...

    Rupert, my life is busy right now and will be busy for the next couple of weeks, so I may not be a regular correspondent on this, but will try to keep up the conversation.

    Do you really believe that being able to see trees and animals makes you a person? Or touching walls and furniture? Or smell flowers and food?

    Fetuses can see -- that's an old trick to get babies to turn to a better position (either from breech to vertex, or from facing the mother's front to her back) -- shine a bright light on the mother's belly.

    Fetuses can touch -- they suck their thumbs and play with their umbilical cords, and kick and push back when their mothers press on their stomachs. In fact, my older son would always do that, like a game -- I'd push on my belly, and he'd kick me, almost every single time.

    Fetuses can smell whatever is in their environment, which is basically amniotic fluid. They can also taste it. Amniotic fluid changes its smell and taste depending on what the mother has eaten. Babies just a few hours old can identify their mothers by scent, turning toward the pad soaked with their own mother's breastmilk, rather than another mother's breastmilk or any other substance.

    Fetuses can hear things -- I remember reading stories of babies who have been quieted by hearing songs or the voices of people they heard (primarily mother and father) in utero, when they heard them as newborns and infants. And studies like this as well.

    Fetuses have all their senses; but even if they didn't, if you say that they are sub-human because they can't see or hear, then you would say that born people who can't see or hear are not human either.

    Do you have proof that there is no god? Evolution presumes that there is no god -- everything is based on that presumption. That is not science. That is presumption. It leaves out one of the possibilities at the outset. I agree with you that IF there is no god, then everything must have made itself from nothing -- but that's the "non-god of the gaps" -- "well, we have no evidence of this, but we're here so it must have happened that way." What evidence do you have that life came from non-life? What evidence do you have that something came from nothing? What evidence do you have that there is no god? Why are there natural laws, instead of chaos, if everything is just chance and accident? Where is all the anti-matter that the Big Bang predicts?