Posted on 08/22/2006 12:19:08 PM PDT by Pyro7480
So how do "you" feel about GW's support of the Plan B abortion pill?
I think that until it is implanted, the woman has not accepted responsibility for the life.
Nobody knows when they take "plan b" whether there is an egg, much less a fertilized egg. You could be preventing implantation, but you wouldn't know. A lot of fertilized eggs don't implant, and we don't give them funerals because we don't know it happens. And other fertilized eggs end up with miscarriages so early in term that the woman doesn't know they were pregnant, and we don't give them funerals.
i'm not saying they aren't human, a fertilized egg is the beginning of human life. And some people oppose all use of birth control pills because the pill can sometimes allow fertilization but prevent implantation (plan b is much like taking a few pills all together).
But while I consider myself strongly pro-life, I don't see this early-stage prevention of implantation as having the same problems as abortion.
Mostly because it's not an act in which a known human being that is most certainly going to live a long life is terminated (which is what happens in an abortion).
Instead, it's just taking some pills "just in case", when you have no idea if there was any fertilization at all.
I know that the mere possibility of termination of the embryo is evil to some people, and I admire their position though I don't hold that position myself.
But I would say that forcing politicians to adhere to an anti-plan-b policy in order to keep the pro-life vote would be a mistake. It would be like fighting the contraception fight again (since as I said earlier the pill can do the same thing "plan b" does).
Another disappointment from Dub.
It's been one after another for as long as he's been in office, starting with his failure to prosecute the Klintonoid Kriminals.
"I think that until it is implanted, the woman has not accepted responsibility for the life."
Which is relevant to what? No one has the right to kill an innocent human being on the grounds that she doesn't "accept responsibility."
Tough question. I am pro-choice so I say it is up to the woman. However, as someone who is pro-choice, I will choose life over death any day.
I believe it is between a woman and her maker. On judgement day, she will have to account for what she did. Where her soul goes is up to a higher being.
As for a pill that can be taken the next morning to stop a pregnancy, we are back to the when does life start argument. The pill seems to be a catch all. Even if a woman didn't get pregnant, taking the pill would be a way to make sure. This could apply for rape, incest, or even an accident.
Wouldn't it be better to know the morning after or not know for that matter then finding out three weeks forward and then having to have an abortion and go through the stigma?
I don't endorse it. I am just trying to take a look at it from different points of view.
"Tough question. I am pro-choice so I say it is up to the woman."
Well, if women have a right to "choose" to kill innocent people, then why don't I? Why can't I go down to the United Airlines counter and kill that jerk who was rude to me?
"I believe it is between a woman and her maker."
Then how can we outlaw the killing of anyone?
"As for a pill that can be taken the next morning to stop a pregnancy, we are back to the when does life start argument."
There's no argument. There are people who undertand that science and reason show that life begins at conception, and people who are in denial. To say that there is an "argument" implies that both sides have arguably supportable positions, and that's just not the case.
"then finding out three weeks forward and then having to have an abortion and go through the stigma?"
A woman who has an abortion, and the doctor who performs it, should be executed.
"I am just trying to take a look at it from different points of view."
Well, when you're through wasting time and energy, we will welcome you back to the communion of those who believe that taking innocent life is wrong.
"I think that until it is implanted, the woman has not accepted responsibility for the life."
I do not follow you here. Life begins regardless of whether one accepts responsibility.
"Nobody knows when they take "plan b" whether there is an egg, much less a fertilized egg. You could be preventing implantation, but you wouldn't know. A lot of fertilized eggs don't implant, and we don't give them funerals because we don't know it happens. And other fertilized eggs end up with miscarriages so early in term that the woman doesn't know they were pregnant, and we don't give them funerals."
That we do not know for sure if we are aborting in each case is exactly why it is gravely immoral. If you see a bag in the street and are not sure if a baby is in it, but think there may be one, do you kick it and destroy it or do you seek to help him?
That spontaneuous abortion happens in nature has no bearing on the fact our individual choices and acts must be governed by logic and obedience to the moral law.
"But while I consider myself strongly pro-life, I don't see this early-stage prevention of implantation as having the same problems as abortion.
Mostly because it's not an act in which a known human being that is most certainly going to live a long life is terminated (which is what happens in an abortion).
Instead, it's just taking some pills "just in case", when you have no idea if there was any fertilization at all.
I know that the mere possibility of termination of the embryo is evil to some people, and I admire their position though I don't hold that position myself.
But I would say that forcing politicians to adhere to an anti-plan-b policy in order to keep the pro-life vote would be a mistake. It would be like fighting the contraception fight again (since as I said earlier the pill can do the same thing "plan b" does)."
Either life is important or it is not. Intentionally taking a drug known to destroy a young life is wrong. That we want to minimize it simply based on the age of the person is hardly virtuous or logical.
But you don't have a legal responsibility to HELP another person.
If you saw someone drowning, you would not have to reach down and grab them and try to pull them to safety.
If you see a homeless man on the street, you do not have a legal responsibility to give them food, even it they might be starving.
The embryo is not killed by the drug. The embryo passes out of the body alive, and dies because it is unable to live and grow in the new environment.
Just like you don't kill the homeless man when you don't invite him to your house to get out of the heat, the heat itself kills him.
"But you don't have a legal responsibility to HELP another person."
There are so many things wrong with that argument that I am astounded that you actually offered it.
Firstly, right and wrong, good and evil, are not defined by statute. Rather, our laws are an imperfect and distorted reflection of our understanding of these absolute principles.
It is, therefore, bass-ackwards to try and argue the morality of a question from the standpoint of its legality.
Secondly, a murdered preborn person is not analogous to a person who is drowning through no fault of one's own.
If you pushed said person into the river in the hope that he would drown, then you do have a responsibiltiy to "reach down and grab them and try to pull them to safety."
"The embryo is not killed by the drug. The embryo passes out of the body alive, and dies because it is unable to live and grow in the new environment."
Congratulations, you've done what was thought to be impossible. No one ever thought there could be a worse excuse than Nuremburg's "I vass only following orderssss," but you found one.
But for the administration of the drug, which is administered with the intent of killing the innocent person, said innocent person would not die. The administrator of the drug, therefore, is a murderer.
"Just like you don't kill the homeless man when you don't invite him to your house to get out of the heat, the heat itself kills him."
Human beings are well able to withstand outdoor summer temperatures in any city in the US.
The administration of the drug is to prevent fertilization (as with any contraceptive). Without that administration of drug, or use of condom, or sponge, or rythm method, a human life would come into being. Some people are consistant and say all of those things are wrong. But they are VERY few.
The drug also prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Of course, other things also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Not allowing the implantation of the fertilized egg does not to me equate with murder.
Of course you can argue that any attempt by the woman to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is tantamount to murder. But given that you have no idea if there even IS a fertilized egg, that the primary purpose of the drug is to prevent fertilization (which most people believe is an OK thing and not murder), and given that there is a rational distinction between preventing implantation, and forcible execution of the baby through the administration of drugs and/or physical devices, I think it is perfectly sane to be pro-life but not oppose plan b.
Preventing implantation is both substantively and morally different from actively terminating the life of a living being, which is what abortion does.
If I wanted to argue against my point now, I would say that pushing someone off a building also doesn't kill them, but would be murder (it's not the push that killed them, but the landing). I readily admit this is a gray area, but I will staunchly defend my position that it IS a gray area, and not black and white as opponents of plan b argue.
Just as I tell people who say everything is racist that by pointing out simply foibles and calling them racist you demean the use of the word for real racism, I think pro-lifers demean our position against the murder of babies when we argue too hard that drugs like plan b are identical to procedures like partial-birth abortion.
"The administration of the drug is to prevent fertilization (as with any contraceptive)."
That is just one of the many factual errors upon which your position its based. The drug is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum (more properly known as "a human being") in the uterus. It in no way prevents fertilization.
"Without that administration of drug, or use of condom, or sponge, or rythm method, a human life would come into being."
Another factual error. Some methods allow a human life to come into being, and then kill it. The drug we're discussing is one of those.
"Some people are consistant and say all of those things are wrong. But they are VERY few."
And a third factual error in three assertions. You're batting a thousand. Millions and millions of Catholics understand that contraception in all its hideous guises is an atrocity.
"Not allowing the implantation of the fertilized egg does not to me equate with murder."
When you deliberately cause the death of an innocent human being, that's murder.
"Of course you can argue that any attempt by the woman to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg is tantamount to murder."
If you have a taste for belaboring the obvious.
"But given that you have no idea if there even IS a fertilized egg"
So, it's okay for me to spray an apartment building with machine gun fire, because I have no idea if anyone is inside? When are you going to realize that you have no valid arguments to make?
"that the primary purpose of the drug is to prevent fertilization"
Factual error. The "morning after" pill is an abortifascent, intended to terminate life after conception.
"(which most people believe is an OK thing and not murder)"
Truth is not subject to popular vote. Consensual validation is entirely irrelevant to matters of morality. that said, no one is asserting that all contraception is murder. However, the use of abortifascents like "Plan B" as contraception is.
"and given that there is a rational distinction between preventing implantation, and forcible execution of the baby through the administration of drugs and/or physical devices, I think it is perfectly sane to be pro-life but not oppose plan b."
Preventing implantation *is* forcible execution, just as much as holding your head under water would be.
"Preventing implantation is both substantively and morally different from actively terminating the life of a living being"
That is a bizarre thing to say, considering that preventing implantation terminates the life of a living being. How is terminating the life of a living being different from terminating the life of a living being?
"I readily admit this is a gray area"
No, there's no gray. Killing innocent babies is killing innocent babies, and nothing else.
"but I will staunchly defend my position that it IS a gray area"
You have yet to advance a single valid argument in support of your position. Your every attempt has been grounded either in factual error or logical fallacy, as I have shown. Under those circumstances, your defense is not "staunch," but merely stubborn. Obdurate, even.
"I think pro-lifers demean our position against the murder of babies when we argue too hard that drugs like plan b are identical to procedures like partial-birth abortion."
The only person here who has used the word "identical" is you. The rest of us are able to recognize that, while strangling someone is not identical to shooting him, both are murder.
First, plan b is a contraceptive. If you don't accept that fact, it's hard to discuss being "for" or "against" it. From the official plan b website (there are a myriad of other sources with this same information, in case you want to try to argue that the plan b website is lying to you):
Things do not always go as planned. You might have forgotten to take your pill, or another birth control method you used might have failed, like your condom broke. Now you have a second chance to prevent pregnancy with Plan B®.
Plan B® is an emergency contraceptive that can still prevent a pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected sex.
Plan B® should be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of unprotected sex and can reduce the risk of pregnancy by 89%. But the sooner you take it the more effective it will be.
Plan B® is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant.
Ask your healthcare professional for a prescription in advance, so that it will be there for you — in time — if you ever need it.
OK, regarding your comments about birth control. The list of birth control methods I provided meet the criteria I stated. Further, since one of them was "the rythm method", and since that method is generally accepted by catholics, my statement about only a "few people" being opposed to ALL of those methods is accurate. If you leave out the rythm method, you are correct that many catholics oppose all other forms of birth control.
Further, "the pill" also will sometimes allow ovulation and fertilization, and then prevent the embryo from implanting -- so the plan b pill is not different from the regular "pill" in that way -- it is just a stronger pill that does not include estrogen.
Going back to your claim about the drug's primary use -- the drug is a super-strong birth control pill, whose first attack is to prevent ovulation, just like a normal birth control pill. If ovulation has occured, it can hinder the sperm's interaction with the egg. Only if those two fail can it also prevent the egg from implanting. And it will NOT force a period which would remove an implanted egg from the womb.
Again, from the drug information:
Plan B® works like a regular birth control pill. It prevents pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary, and may also prevent the fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg). Plan B® may also work by preventing it from attaching to the uterus (womb). It is important to know that Plan B® will not affect a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus; it will not affect an existing pregnancy.
I don't mind having a discussion where we disagree, even violently, about whether preventing the fertilized egg from implanting is an act of murder or not . You are entitled to believe it is, and there are good arguments for that position. But if you think that is ALL that plan b does, you are not arguing from a position of fact.
As to your claim that "deliberately causing the death of a human being" is murder: If you know that an abortion clinic is aborting a baby, and you stay at home rather than going to the clinic with a gun and forcing the doctor to NOT do the abortion, you have refused to take an action that you know would save a life (if you need me to, let me modify to say you could kidnap the woman and force her to have her child).
If you don't go around kidnapping women who are aborting their children, then you are deliberately "taking an act", that act being sitting on your behind in your house, which leads to the death of innoncent life.
It's obviously not the same in scope as a woman refusing to allow the embryo to implant in her womb, but that is also a deliberate act which does not directly kill the baby but directly leads to the death of the baby. Your statement is too absolute to be applicable to life as you live it, unless you want to claim that every one of us is a murderer, because every one of us has taken deliberate action which has led to the death of innocent life.
Your use of the word "deliberate" is key, but is also a point of opinion. The woman who takes plan b is not "deliberately killing her baby", in most cases she is simply preventing ovulation, or preventing the sperm from impregnating the egg, two things which only SOME opinion believe is the same as killing a potential life. The woman has not deliberately terminated an already existing life.
And her "deliberate act" which is to prevent being pregnant the same type of "deliberate act" a catholic might take by not having sex at all.
If you want, I'll agree with you that morally, if someone runs up to my house and there is a gunman running up behind her and shooting, I should open my door and let her in, and hope that the gunman doesn't break down my door and kill me and my family. But I would not call someone immoral if their reaction was to turn off their lights. Even though that might be considered a "deliberate act" which leads to the death of the person at the door.
I hope this has clarified the arguments for you, so we can disagree on real points of contention.
Pushing a 2-year-old into the raging river is murder. NOT JUMPING INTO THE RAGING RIVER TO RESCUE THE 2-year-old also results in death, but is not murder.
Your argument is based on the premise that, once the egg is fertilized, the woman has an ethical and moral obligation to care for that fertilized egg. My argument is that her obligation can equally be defined as starting when her body accepts the responsibility for the care of that egg through implantation.
If I jump in front of your car and you hit me and kill me, by your definition it is murder because you chose to drive the car down the road even though you KNEW someone might jump out in front of your car at any time.
You will argue against that by claiming that your "shooting into a building" is different because we expect people to live in buildings, while we don't expect people to jump in front of cars.
But people DO jump in front of cars all the time, and there are buildings with no people in them.
I won't belabor the point. Your position, while untenable logically when applied to the totality of your own life, is a relatively coherent and consistent position, which makes it easier for some people to adopt and adhere to, like telling someone to only cross the street a controlled interesection when the walk sign is on is the simplest way of protecting them, even though wiser people can figure out how to walk across the street without such controls and still survive.
Let me start by saying that you have, once again, failed to make a single valid point.
“First, plan b is a contraceptive.”
In that it prevents the implantation of fertilized ova in the uterus, it is an abortifascient. Life begins at conception. A fertilized ovum is a human being. One must wonder why you continue to deny that plain fact.
“From the official plan b website”
Oh, well, *there’s* a reliable, objective source. (Guffaw)
“there are a myriad of other sources with this same information”
Doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie; it just won’t get any truer.
“Further, since one of them was "the rhythm method", and since that method is generally accepted by Catholics, my statement about only a "few people" being opposed to ALL of those methods is accurate.”
Bill? Bill Clinton? Is that you? Are we going to argue over the meaning of “is” next? That may be the most meaningless non-point you’ve advanced yet.
“Further, "the pill" also will sometimes allow ovulation and fertilization, and then prevent the embryo from implanting -- so the plan b pill is not different from the regular "pill" in that way -- it is just a stronger pill that does not include estrogen.”
Thanks for admitting that both are abortifascients.
“Only if those two fail can it also prevent the egg from implanting.”
IOW, it only kills an innocent human being some times, not every time. Oh, well, if it’s only occasional murder, that must make it okay then.
“Again, from the drug information…Plan B® may also work by preventing it (a fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus (womb).”
IOW, Plan B may also work by killing an innocent human being.
“But if you think that is ALL that plan b does, you are not arguing from a position of fact.”
That Plan B may do other things in addition to killing innocent human beings is so breathtakingly irrelevant as to beggar any attempt to comprehend why you thought that argument worth making.
“As to your claim that "deliberately causing the death of a human being" is murder: If you know that an abortion clinic is aborting a baby, and you stay at home rather than going to the clinic with a gun and forcing the doctor to NOT do the abortion, you have refused to take an action that you know would save a life”
I fully expect that we will answer to God for allowing this to go on. I don’t look forward to it.
“If you don't go around kidnapping women who are aborting their children, then you are deliberately "taking an act", that act being sitting on your behind in your house, which leads to the death of innoncent life.”
Actually, our failure to do more is a sin of omission, not a "deliberate act." I don't, however, expect any slack from God on that account.
“It's obviously not the same in scope as a woman refusing to allow the embryo to implant in her womb, but that is also a deliberate act which does not directly kill the baby but directly leads to the death of the baby.”
No, that is an act that does directly kill the baby. The entirety of Western Civilization stands against you on that one. Your staggeringly wrongheaded claim that there is a difference is…well, it would have to improve significantly to rise to the level of “wrong.”
“because every one of us has taken deliberate action which has led to the death of innocent life.”
You really, really need to study. Omitting to take an action is not the same thing as “taking deliberate action.” It may carry a heavy load of guilt, but it’s a distinction worth making.
“Your use of the word "deliberate" is key, but is also a point of opinion.”
No, it only seems so to you because you do not think clearly.
The woman knows she has been inseminated. She knows that insemination can lead to fertilization. The probability that she is carrying a fertilized egg is, therefore, greater than zero. Not wishing to be pregnant, she takes a drug that will kill any fertilized egg that exists. She is saying, “If I am with child, kill it.” If she is, and if the drug kills the baby, then that constitutes deliberately killing her baby.
“preventing ovulation, or preventing the sperm from impregnating the egg, two things which only SOME opinion believe is the same as killing a potential life.”
I’ve never heard anyone express that opinion.
“The woman has not deliberately terminated an already existing life.”
As I show above, she has.
“And her "deliberate act" which is to prevent being pregnant the same type of "deliberate act" a Catholic might take by not having sex at all.”
There is a difference between killing a fertilized ovum (a human being) and preventing fertilization. The morality of contraception is a separate argument, but to equate the two as you do verges on insanity.
“If you want, I'll agree with you that morally, if someone runs up to my house and there is a gunman running up behind her and shooting, I should open my door and let her in…But I would not call someone immoral if their reaction was to turn off their lights. Even though that might be considered a "deliberate act" which leads to the death of the person at the door.”
The problem, of course, is that this analogy is completely false.
The baby inside the mother is safe unless you kill it. There’s no “letting it in.” It’s *already* in. All that is required for its safety is that we don’t kill it. You are arguing that it is moral to take a baby already safe in your house and throw her outside to be killed.
“I hope this has clarified the arguments for you”
The only thing it has clarified is that your thinking is as confused as it is obdurate.
“Pushing a 2-year-old into the raging river is murder. NOT JUMPING INTO THE RAGING RIVER TO RESCUE THE 2-year-old also results in death, but is not murder.”
You’re going to have to give up that invalid argument, you know. The preborn are not in need of “rescue.” Babies are safe inside their mothers unless you kill them. Plan B kills them.
“Your argument is based on the premise that, once the egg is fertilized, the woman has an ethical and moral obligation to care for that fertilized egg.”
It is amazing that you understood that much. However, one must substitute the word “baby” for “fertilized egg” to understand the moral dimensions. A baby is a human being. He or she has an absolute right not to be killed, even if the killer is his or her mother.
“My argument is that her obligation can equally be defined as starting when her body accepts the responsibility for the care of that egg through implantation.”
Which is blindingly bogus. There are no scientific or logical grounds for such an assertion. For all the sense it makes, you might as well be arguing that the sun is made of tomato soup.
“If I jump in front of your car and you hit me and kill me, by your definition it is murder because you chose to drive the car down the road even though you KNEW someone might jump out in front of your car at any time.”
You keep rehearsing that same bass ackwards argument. It doesn’t smell any better with repetition.
What we have with Plan B is analogous to somebody driving down the street saying, "If anybody tries to cross the street, even if they have the green light, I'm going to speed up, hit them, and kill them."
A valid analogy would be you sitting in your living room, when I crash my Suburban through your wall and deliberately crush you, because I wish your death. That’s what the mother does when she kills her baby with Plan B.
“You will argue against that by claiming that your "shooting into a building" is different because we expect people to live in buildings, while we don't expect people to jump in front of cars.”
I would, I hope, never display that degree of cognitive dysfunction. The baby doesn’t “jump in front of” Plan B. Plan B tracks the baby down where it lives and kills it.
“even though wiser people can figure out how to walk across the street without such controls and still survive.”
Umm, dude, *you* should obey the traffic signals.
You are simply extremely dogmatic and rigid in your belief. That is not a "bad" or "good" thing, I'm just making the observation.
You are free of course to reject anything outside that narrow viewpoint, and for you that is the logically consistent position.
I believe your latest response indicates that, at some level, you do understand the arguments I am making even though to you they are as jibberish. That's all I really ask, I don't need for you to accept or even tolerate my points, just so long as I am reasonably certain that you are rejecting them from a position of knowledge.
You even seemed to eventually agree that plan B does act like any other contraceptive, even though at first you disagreed and suggested the plan b website was lying. I will note that in order for the plan b website to be a lie, not only would a major corporation be willing to deliberately and obviously lie in a public document, but the government agencies tasked with prosecuting those lies would have to be in bed with them. I would guess that for your that is not only possible, but a certainty.
But after suggesting plan b was NOT a contraceptive, you later admitted that it did all those things a contraceptive did, and also admitted that a contraceptive also prevented implantation of a fertilized egg.
You then stated clearly that, in your world view, that contraceptives were abortificants because of that, and that anything that in some cases leads to abortion should be prohibited.
Which means that, to be consistant, you must believe that "the pill" is a drug that should be banned by any true pro-lifer.
Which again is a fine position, a consistent position. But there are many people who disagree with that opinion -- realise that if you were the ONLY one with that opinion, you could still be right and the whole world wrong, but that leads us back to the original reason for this discussion.
Which was that I was claiming that for the pro-lifers who are not voting against candidates unless they want to amend the constitution to ban birth control pills, being upset with Bush for supporting plan b was inconsistent, since plan b works just like "the pill" (except it doesn't force a period like some pills -- I would note that a pill that forces a period could actually dislodge a baby from the uterine wall, which plan B cannot).
As I said, I will not try to dissuade you from your position that birth control pills are abortificants and should be banned, or that none of my analogies were of any value to you (although they were to me as your answers to them revealed in better detail exactly what your position was).
TO summarize my understanding of our area of "agreement about the discussion":
You believe birth control and plan b work the same way, and that both prevent implantation of a baby, and therefore both are abortificants and no real pro-lifer should accept either of them.
You believe that there is a difference in "kind" between preventing implantation and physically removing the baby FROM the uterine wall, but that distinction does not matter with regard to the claim of murder. It does however apply when pushing for various laws, for example supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion but not pushing for a ban on birth control pills.
You believe that since the baby is inside the mother, the mother has an absolute obligation to care for that baby until it is out of the mother. You understand but find no comparison between the baby trying to attach to the uterus, and a homeless person trying to attach to your leg, both in search of food and shelter, because the obvious critical need of the baby relative to the homeless man makes the degree of difference too large for any analogy to work.
I presume that, short of the woman having a certainty of death, no other analogy would be of any persuasive value. I have no idea what your position is regarding the morality of termination of pregnancy if the mother's life will actually be forfeit (for example, if the mother needs cancer treatment that will kill the baby).
Thank you for taking your time to have this debate, even though I imagine it was frustrating for you because I appear so incapable of rational thought.
All by mouth female hormone meds presrcibed to alter the cycle in some way may act as abortifacients. These higher concentrations ones described in this piece specfically are used to prevent ovulation and prevent implantation if fertilization has happend.
The lower dose pills may have other uses aside from "birth control".
The points being made here is that this particular drug is used exclusively to prevent and also terminate pregnancy. That is direct abortion in many cases.
How long does the fertilized egg need to be implanted before you deem it worthy to be a life?
If I jump in front of your car and you hit me and kill me, by your definition it is murder because you chose to drive the car down the road even though you KNEW someone might jump out in front of your car at any time.
No, that is illogical. The person jumping is responsible for their own fate. The new life from conception has no control over their fate. The mother has the responsibility to care for that life. Your argument is more akin to a man throwing a baby in front of a car and then blaming the baby.
I agree that the 2nd item is illogical. It was simply the natural conclusion based on the argument made by the other poster, which I was striving to show was internally inconsistant and would lead to illogical conclusions.
There was no intent to compare the two, just to show that a rigid adherance to the belief system that "any deliberate act" that could reasonably be anticipated to terminate a human life would be murder. I probably should have used the idea of a person falling off the curb in front of you, rather than jumping out on purpose, but the idea is clear -- we know that driving has the risk of killing innocent people, but we deliberately drive because the value to us of driving outweighs the risk of killing an innocent person.
“You are simply extremely dogmatic and rigid in your belief.”
That would be the belief that killing innocent human beings is wrong?
To try and discredit adherence to that principle with loaded adjectives such as “dogmatic” and “rigid” is morally corrupt. Scurrilous. Vile.
“You are free of course to reject anything outside that narrow viewpoint”
You actually think it appropriate to refer to the principle that killing the innocent is wrong as “narrow?” Amazing.
“I believe your latest response indicates that, at some level, you do understand the arguments I am making even though to you they are as jibberish.”
I understand your arguments better than you do, in that I also understand why they are invalid, which you do not.
“You even seemed to eventually agree that plan B does act like any other contraceptive, even though at first you disagreed and suggested the plan b website was lying.”
What part of “breathtakingly irrelevant” did you not get? In the face of the fact that such drugs cause the deaths of human beings, whatever else they do is completely beside the point.
“I will note that in order for the plan b website to be a lie, not only would a major corporation be willing to deliberately and obviously lie in a public document, but the government agencies tasked with prosecuting those lies would have to be in bed with them. I would guess that for your that is not only possible, but a certainty.”
They try to give the impression that killing a baby is in the same category as preventing fertilization. Q.E.D.
“But after suggesting plan b was NOT a contraceptive, you later admitted that it did all those things a contraceptive did, and also admitted that a contraceptive also prevented implantation of a fertilized egg.”
Now you’re back in the realm of irrationality. In the face of the fact that it kills babies, whatever else it does is quite beside the point, which is what I have been saying all along. Further, you seem to be unaware that “fertilization” and “conception” are synonyms (words that mean the same thing). Contra *ception* means the prevention of fertilization, of conception. Nothing that happens after fertilization is contraception. Conception, which is the creation of a human being, has already occurred. From that point forward, you are dealing with a baby.
“You then stated clearly that, in your world view, that contraceptives were abortificants because of that”
Not “in my worldview.” As a matter of objective, empirical fact.
“and that anything that in some cases leads to abortion should be prohibited.”
So, it’s okay to kill innocent human beings as long as we restrict it to “in some cases?”
“Which means that, to be consistant, you must believe that "the pill" is a drug that should be banned by any true pro-lifer.”
You got a problem with that? You seem to think it’s okay to kill innocent human beings, as long as one can make the transparently bogus excuse that one was really trying to prevent conception.
“As I said, I will not try to dissuade you from your position that birth control pills are abortificants”
That’s not “my position;” that is a fact.
“and should be banned”
That is an example of a “position.” You really should try to learn the difference.
“or that none of my analogies were of any value to you”
There is no “to me” involved. They were invalid as a matter of objective fact.
“although they were to me as your answers to them revealed in better detail exactly what your position was.”
Apparently not, to judge from your failed attempts to rephrase them.
“You believe birth control and plan b work the same way, and that both prevent implantation of a baby, and therefore both are abortificants”
It doesn’t matter how they work; in that they kill babies, they are abortifascients as a matter not of belief, but of objective fact.
“and no real pro-lifer should accept either of them.”
My goodness, but your thinking is corrupted by leftist influences. A clear-minded, reasonable person would have phrased that, “No decent person should accept either of them, as they are used to kill innocent human beings.” You baby-killers are just as guilty as those of us who understand the enormity of what’s happening.
“You believe that there is a difference in "kind" between preventing implantation and physically removing the baby FROM the uterine wall”
Never said that. There is a distinction, but it is a distinction without a difference.
“It does however apply when pushing for various laws, for example supporting a ban on partial-birth abortion but not pushing for a ban on birth control pills.”
Never said that, either.
“You believe that since the baby is inside the mother, the mother has an absolute obligation to care for that baby until it is out of the mother.”
Your thinking is so morally corrupt that I am literally about to lose my pancakes. The reek of Satan is choking me.
The moral law (to which you are as subject as everyone else) is that the baby has an absolute right not to be killed. Ever. Inside the mother, or after it is born.
“You understand but find no comparison between the baby trying to attach to the uterus, and a homeless person trying to attach to your leg, both in search of food and shelter, because the obvious critical need of the baby relative to the homeless man makes the degree of difference too large for any analogy to work.”
Might as well be talking to a brick. Explanations are totally lost on you.
There is no comparison between going into the mother’s body to hunt down and kill an innocent human being on the one hand, and refraining from giving a handout to a bum on any given day on the other. Since your thinker seems to be broken, let me try to list some of the reasons.
1. You have already contributed a big chunk of everything you have ever earned to that bum’s upkeep. He can find food and shelter at the drop of a hat, if he is willing to give up booze, drugs, and other misconduct.
2. The bum is already at risk as a result of his own misconduct; the only risk to the baby is you crashing into the mother’s body and killing it.
3. You have no moral responsibility to support strangers who are broke because they won’t act right. You do have a moral responsibility to refrain from killing innocent human beings.
4. The baby does not “try” to attach to the uterus. This is something that happens in the natural course of events, needing no assistance. It is not a supplicant, going from womb to womb; it requires only that you don’t kill it.
5. And finally, of course, there is the difference between the sin of omission—failure to assist—and actively killing an innocent human being.
“I presume that, short of the woman having a certainty of death, no other analogy would be of any persuasive value.”
Any valid analogy would have persuasive value. You have offered none. Your every argument has been grounded in factual error or logical fallacy.
You have tried to draw analogies between a baby, safe in its mother’s body, and a person at peril through no fault of the third party; then to the act of going inside the mother's body and killing the formerly safe baby on the one hand, and refraining from assisting the party in peril on the other. It beggars belief that any rational person would need to have the utter fallaciousness of such analogies explained.
“Thank you for taking your time to have this debate”
I do it for lurkers who might otherwise overlook the fatal flaws in your position.
“I imagine it was frustrating for you because I appear so incapable of rational thought.”
I await some indication that this is a matter of appearance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.