Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset?

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

But let me say this. If you paid attention to what I was saying, you would have seen that I was arguing against LB. My argument structure was:

There are times when killing humans is licit, though it is always an evil.
If you (in the the sense of "you, my interlocutor", not you yourself) want to argue that one should never lie under any circumstances, how much more would you have to argue that one should never kill a person under any circumstances?
And if you argue that, then your suggestion that it is licit to abort a person who cannot survive outside the womb without major techno-med stuff needs to be reexamined. Not to mention the possibility of a just war and all that.

I think Saint Paul cared several whits if he caused an agitation. It's not always bad to cause one, and not always good, and maybe not always good not to care one way or another. Outcomes matter a little, and the purpose of fighting is to win, or else it's perverse, I think. I disagree with LB about the outcome of this action, but I don't think he's off the wall with his concerns. The question of injury to justice in a deliberative assembly is tricky, I think. Just as a solider in the middle of combat probably ought to think as much has he can ab out the outcomes of his acts of bravery, so a legislator needs to consider if stretching the parliamentary rules here might lead to his being unable to act somewhere else.

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

I'm inclined to think he did. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.

Are you now going so far as to say that I have been dishonest up to this point?

Man! With your breath who can get close enough to find out?

Did the measure then pass, or not?

Good question. Anyone know?

jw

Ok, you are not worth my time to reply to any more.

You clearly can't follow words that are written.

I said a BABY is one that can survive outside the womb. I also said a BABY's life begins at conception.

That is a no-brainer.

I said a FETUS, by MY definition, is an embryo that CANNOT survive outside the womb.

You are clearly more interested in antagonizing than in discussing, and I don't need to play that game with you. But if you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, then have at it.

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

Don't exactly know what you're getting at here, I quoted you verbatim from post #153. I copied and pasted your own words into the discussion between you and I.

If I didn't change your mind, are you saying that you are in disagreement with the Church? Please explain your position further.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

LOL!

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

Wow, I'm sorry about your friend. May God grant them eternal rest and may He give you comfort.

"JWinNC: Post originally to beezdotcom. If you don't like my analogy in post #215 then use the hypothetical in this post."

What hypothetical? The "lesbian thing" in the first paragraph?

And I must note that this is inaccurate:

"He was given the floor on the basis and premise that he would introduce a CP advocate about which there is no controversy or disagreement."

This has alredy been coverd in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors nad make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

jw

I think we're on relatively the same page here. As I said, I don't think anyone had a problem with HER, I think the problem was with HARVEY, and the way he got her on the platform.

Yes, false pretext was a misnomer on my part, because as you said, he presented the truth about part of her story. Just like Harvey himself said, he's not Paul Harvey, but there was "the rest of the story."

That's my only beef with the whole thing - and the whole system and the way it has become so full of animosity that people can't simply state the truth and be given equal floor time. Harvey should have been able to say "This woman has CP, she has overcome many obstacles in her lifetime, and she is an abortion survivor, and since that is apropos to our topic today, I'd like to have her open the session by singing the National Anthem." And that should have been allowed and welcomed and applauded in exactly the same way that it was. Harvey SHOULD have been able to tell the whole story up front, but sadly, in today's animous world, he knew he probably would be shut down if he did that.

The same way that you and I are able to have a civil discussion, why can't the two parties in our Govt do the same? Why can't two sides to a different issue do the same thing?

In other words, why can't people just behave like grown-ups? :-)

Gosh JW, this is really too long to reply to, but I think I can break it down.

1. I was not defining "life" in my definition. You are adding that word to the discussion. I was simply stating what my personal definition is between a "non-viable fetus" and a "baby." BOTH are LIFE.

2. I didn't say "with care" anywhere in my definition. You added those words to the discussion. As you said, it's a given that no baby can survive outside the womb, at any age, without care (for almost any species). My definition is whether it could survive, at all, under any circumstances, whether it be the best of circumstances, with the best of care, with the best medical advancements available of any kind, or the worst of care. Simply, whether it could survive, AT ALL. I didn't qualify it with any type, quality, or amount of subsequent CARE. You added that part.

2a. Because yes, I absolutely agree with you that "with care" changes the entire definition, and that's why "with care" is not in my definition. I know alot of 15-yr olds who couldn't survive without care. And we all know alot of 90-yr olds who can't survive without care. Etc.

3. To answer your question about whether a murder has been committed. As you know, "murder" is a legal term that implies/includes intention and forethought, etc. So your question is not specific enough to answer under the legal definition of murder. If you are asking if a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby, then my answer is yes, a human being (aka baby) has been killed. But many people will have different definitions of "readily available care."

These things are why it is so difficult to have a discussion on abortion, because every time you turn around, someone opens up a completely different can of worms, or another word or set of words needs to be defined by all parties involved, etc. It's not a simple topic, like whether the earth is round or not. :-)

I want to publicly apologize to Delphinium for my previous post.

Delphinium, please forgive me. I didn't mean to make a personal statement about you like that. I meant to say that your post was not worth replying to, not that you personally are not worth replying to.

Please forgive me for my rudeness.

This has already been covered in our discussion. He used the time that was normal and expected to introduce visitors and make announcements. He could have introduced you or I or anyone else at that time. He was NOT given the floor on the basis and premise you claim.

It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:

The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.

[change of topic - ding, ding, ding]

Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…

This is exactly the point at which he deviated from introducing her to turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP. Why can't you see that? He was gaveled to silence and rightly so.

"Representative Harvey, I will allow you to continue your introduction, but not for the purposes of debating a measure now pending before the House."

Exactly right. The time for debating pending legislation is when that legislation is under consideration. The proper thing for him to do was to wait for that legislation to come up and be recognized to speak on it. At that time he was perfectly entitled to recognize her and use her to put a face on the issue. It's done all the time. If he is such a minor member of that legislative body that he can't get recognized to speak then that doesn't give him special privileges to speak out of turn.

I don't care how inspired by God you are, if you are going to participate in the civil polity then you don't get to make up the rules for yourself. If you violate the rules, yes you can get away with it once, but: a) you shouldn't be surprised if you are never recognized to speak again, and b) you shouldn't complain if everyone else decides the rules don't apply to them either.

And maybe it gave him, and those here, some fleeting satisfaction at having made mad those with whom we all disagree (how Christian is that?). Acting like the rules don't apply to you actually hurts rather than helps the cause. If you demonstrate that you don't believe in the rules then who's going to trust you to obey the law going forward? As I said at the start, "This is exactly the kind of stunt that gives Christians a bad name." It becomes pretty hard to convice non-believers of the righteousness of the Christian faith when they see stuff like this.

---------------------------

As a technical aside, in utero oxygen is supplied by the umbilical cord. I don't see how the saline solution interfered with that. Unless he means there was lung damage that resulted in hypoxia after birth? In any event, as I said early on, it's not medically established that a lack of oxygen is connected with CP yet he states this as an established fact. I have a problem with that as well.

For those of you that don't know John Edwards made his first millions by suing an obstetrician with the allegation that a failure to perform a C-section resulted in oxygen starvation and CP. There were several net results
1) an obstetrician's practice was ruined
2) other obstetrician/gynecologists quit the obstetrician part of their practice resulting in less available health care.
3) C-sections skyrocketed in NC which increased cost was passed on to everyone
4) the incidence of CP remained unchanged

Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?

Bump and ping!

40,000,000

God forgive us.

It appears the resolution passed 24-11.

I could weep...

From what I can find, the Denver Post is reporting that the Senator was rebuked for his behavior...

They also describe the girl as a "pro-life advocate," not a CP advocate.

And nowhere do they report that the resolution passed, 24-11.

Therefore I'm disappointed to see anyone repeating this apparent canard. I wonder if they know they are keeping company with John Edwards?

Hate to say this, but Edwards did his homework!

From The Wisconsin Council on Developmental Disabilities about Cerebral Palsy:

CP often originates when oxygen is cut off to the motor cells in an infant's brain. The oxygen deprivation may occur just prior to birth, during a difficult birth, because of prematurity, infection or by a brain injury in the first two years of life. Once the damage is done it can not be changed, but early therapy and/or surgery may increase abilities.

Living and Aging with Cerebral Palsy

The Merck Manual is used in medical training. Their definition says:

Many different types of injury to the brain can cause cerebral palsy, and most often a specific cause cannot be identified. Birth injuries and poor oxygen supply to the brain before, during, and immediately after birth cause 10 to 15% of cases.

Merck Manual

From the Cleveland Clinic/causes of Cerebral Palsy:

Lack of oxygen to the baby's during development or delivery

Cleveland Clinic

If you believe that the fetus and the baby are both “life” and “human beings” then does that not immediately go against your original post #48? You are trying to make a personal definition and distinction between a “fetus” and a “baby” but your on words blur the lines between the two.

Why would it be okay (or at least more conscionable) to abort a 6.5 month “live” fetus than it would a 7.5 month “live” baby? You're walking an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary line between fetus and baby.. you say they are BOTH LIFE. I agree.

I think you may be getting really close to seeing the point, I wish I had more time.

Okay, change every where I said "life" and insert baby. The points would still be same. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

#2. You have still avoided the issue. How do you take care out your definition? We've clearly established that care is required to meet your standard of definition for a "baby." That is... that a fetus has to have the potential to live ("could live") outside the womb. If none (zip, zero, nada) can live outside the womb without care then you must by logic deal with it or remove it.

Simply saying “... whether it could survive, AT ALL” does not answer the question because none, not one, can survive with out care. What does “AT ALL” mean? Are you implying a time factor, a quality factor or something else? Does it's heart have to beat outside the womb? Once or twice? Does it have to take a breath? How many?

#3. Now we're getting really warm. Forget about the legal term “murder.” You agree that “ a human being has been killed in the process of denying readily available care to a baby....” Okay! ... getting really close to heart of the matter. What is the definition of readily available care that will give the “entity” a chance to survive “AT ALL?”

If that is not clear, let me phrase it another way. You belief the difference between a fetus and a baby occurs somewhere between 2 and 5 months gestation. What care does, say, a 4.9-month-gestation fetus need to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive?

If what a 4.9-month-gestation fetus needs to have a chance “AT ALL” to survive is not provided, does that end the life of a human being? I realize you have already answered that, but I don't think you see the full implication of that statement. I am hoping by this point you will see that there is one particular type of care that is almost 100% of the time readily available that will more often than not give the 4.9-month-gestation fetus a chance for life beyond the womb. It also applies from conception to birth.

Peace, jw

Yes, we're aware of your opinion. You still didn't answer me: are you obligated to volunteer the additional information about yourself?

"It's been covered but you are wrong. I will highlight it for you. He said:" "The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy."

I must strongly disagree. No where does it say he was given the floor for on the basis you claimed... no where. You now change the subject from the "basis for the floor" to the content of what he said.

Further you go on to read the fellows mind...

"...turning the topic of discussion to an intended rant against PP."

Sorry, I think we've passed reasonable discussion and I'm through. God bless and best wishes.

Peace,
jw

What I said:
I think homicide is just as evil as lying,
I think what I meant was more like "no less an evil than"....

You quoted me, but then you said:
...but the Church doesn't agree with you about lying being just as evil as homicide ...
which led to my asking if "just as" is commutative.

But my argument works not much worse even if lying were as bad as homicide. That is, if sometimes you gotta kill a human, how can it be a priori true that it is never okay to lie?

You write:
It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

I respond: Asserting the contrary is not an argument. It's just stating what the argument is about. It may not have been calculated to put him on the defensive. I have no more a window into your soul than you have into his, and e-communications on fora are not a good environment for picking up on the vibes of someone's feelings.

But his upsetittude or non-upsetitude is not to the purpose. My mood is one thing, my arguments another. They neither stand nor fall on my emotional state at the time I present them.

And whatever your intention, if he responds to the question, "What are you so upset about?" what will we learn about his thinking on the morality of lying? I'm upset, somewhat, because a friend died earlier than I would have liked and there's this big hole here where she used to be AND I think her husband is one of the world's truly good guys and I hate to see him suffer,

But I'm just as much of a pedantic, nit-picking, argumentative logic chopper when I feel good. (And thanks for your prayers for the deceased, Ann, and her excellent husband, Richard.)

I think Locomotive Breath has been bear-baited by many of us pro-lifers. I regret it because clearly he has tried to think well about both abortion and telling the truth. I think he has reached the wrong conclusions, but I have reached plenty of wrong conclusions in my life, I mean PLENTY!, so I don't hold that against him. He even has the nerve (da NOIVE!) to think that I have reached the wrong conclusion -- which just shows how out of touch with reality he is.

I want to hear him make his argument against being subtle as a serpent in the Colorado legislature.

Of course, my personal opinion is that if one DIDN't lie to a politician he'd feel all lonely and disappointed. But that's just me.