Stewart, Huckabee go head-to-head on abortion


This is a cross-post with Choice Words, the blog of ChoiceUSA. 

Let me first say this: I like The Daily Show.  I like Jon Stewart.  The show is usually wildly entertaining, and Stewart’s comedic critiques of Congress and the mainstream media alike are a great way to unwind in the evenings.

It’s also a great way to pass the time while doing my cardio workouts at the gym.  I’d say I have an episode of The Daily Show playing on my iPod for 90% of the time I’m on the elliptical machines.  Episodes that are more political add an additional advantage to my workout: the more frustrated I get, the faster I go.  So when deciding which episode to watch last Friday, I figured I’d go for June 18 with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.


Huckabee was Stewart’s guest last December, their conversation revolving around the issue of same-sex marriage.  This time around, Stewart declared, he was going to let the former governor pick the topic.  The topic?  Abortion.

Oh boy.

I was nervous from the start.  After all, Huckabee is a seasoned expert at arguing the so-called "pro-life" side of this issue, and I don’t think Stewart is a worthy opponent.  Still, I had to watch.

The interview started generically enough, Stewart taking the obvious "her body, her choice" side against Huckabee’s "sanctity of life" talking points.  While it irked me that Stewart was letting Huckabee take the point on the "fact" that even pro-choice people think abortion is a "necessary evil," he did offer some decent (albeit concessionary) counter-arguments.  But I got the sense from the get go that Stewart was not at all well equipped with, well, the facts.

Ironically enough, the anti-evolution, anti-medical science former governor invoked biology to make his main point:

I believe life begins at conception, when 23 chromosomes from a male and 23 from a female create a unique DNA schedule that has never existed before, has an imprint that is unlike any that has ever been … Biologically and scientifically, it is irrefutable that that’s when life begins.  Now, some would argue is it human life?  But what else can it be?  It’s not a dolphin, it’s not a stalk of broccoli, I mean it has to be human life because of the cellular structure that’s happened.

 

I was just short of yelling at my iPod, screaming at Stewart to refute his so-called "scientific facts" right there on the air.  But he didn’t.  He changed the subject back to generic, loosely-woven arguments about sovereignty that, while important to highlight as a cornerstone of pro-choice rhetoric, allowed Huckabee to get away with making some very powerful yet very inaccurate arguments against abortion.

For one, Huckabee is arguing that "life" begins before a woman is even pregnant.  According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, "a pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete."  Implantation is the process by which a fertilized egg (zygote) has traveled back down the fallopian tubes and implanted on the wall of the uterus, which can take up to five days after "conception."  From the same ACOG statement: "Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant."  Are we to assume, then, that a woman who is having sexual intercourse without contraception should be mourning for lost lives between one-third and one-half of the time she’s sexually active?  The antis often come back with the argument that it should be "God’s decision" to decide which implant and which don’t, but by that argument we should halt all medical interventions to cure viruses and cancers: after all, shouldn’t we just "leave it up to God" to decide who survives and who doesn’t?

All too common, this argument that a zygote is a human life because it will not turn into anything else is especially frustrating (and has produced some very obnoxious anti-choice merch).  Treating a zygote like a human and offering all rights associated with personhood on the basis of "it’s not going to turn into anything else" is full of holes; should we be treating Huckabee like a corpse?  Because given enough time and biological process, he’s not likely to turn into anything else.  


The interview became increasingly infuriating as Stewart and Huckabee began bridging "common ground" with one another.  Agreeing (on very different levels) that there are too many abortions in the U.S., the abortion reduction agenda began rearing its ugly head.  Stewart proclaimed himself "not one of those people who thinks [abortion] should be completely unregulated," letting Huckabee get the upper-hand at defining abortion as an intrinsically evil procedure, not to mention contradicting his own "sovereignty" argument by suggesting *some* pregnant women need regulation.  Yes, those of us on the pro-choice side want fewer abortions, but it’s not because we hate that so many "lives" are "ended" every year.  We want fewer abortions because abortion is an expensive, no-fun medical procedure, something we should avoid not because the procedure is bad or wrong, but because prevention is, well, easier.  In the words of Melanie Zurek and Courtney B. Jackson of the Abortion Access Project:

Critics of the abortion reduction paradigm (at least within the pro-choice community, including Jacobson), point out shortcomings of this approach: the persistent focus on the fetus and abortion instead of women and women’s health and autonomy, the anti-contraception agenda of many in the anti-abortion community, and the fact that not all abortions are the consequence of a failure to prevent unintended pregnancy but instead result from unforeseeable, unpreventable circumstances often relating to the pregnant woman’s health.


The soundbites on abortion reduction are rarely qualified with such complex considerations, and this allows anti-choicers to define the whats and the whys of the procedure at large.

While I do wish I’d been there to refute the more complicated aspects of Huckabee’s arguments, I was indeed happy to hear "the A word" discussed in-depth on a popular national TV program.  And while I think Stewart caved to Huckabee’s arguments more than we’d have liked, I believe pro-choice viewers were able to shape their own refutations of Huckabee’s unrealistic views on reproductive issues, refutations that will become very important as abortion once again becomes a widely-debated issue in our society.  Progress cannot be charted any other way, and we need to be the ones to define the terms by which we think about abortion, contraception, sex education, autonomy, etc.  As Stewart argued in his most prolific moment in the entire interview, confronted with the recent poll that suggested most Americans consider themselves "pro-life":

[The abortion issue] gets inflammatory with the idea that people who think women should have control over their own reproductive decisions aren’t ‘pro-life.’  It is at its core such a fundamentally inflammatory way to frame the discussion that we’ve already lost in some respects.

 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    Nice post, CPC Watcher.
    I agree, I really like Jon Stewart but this “debate” was offensive on so many levels…

    I’m reminded of what Bella Abzug said to Jimmy Carter many years ago: “It’s biologically impossible for you to be PERSONALLY opposed to abortion.”

    To watch two old men debating abortion rights was disgusting.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah when Jon said he thought abortion should be “regulated” on some level, I was like, well that just countered your whole argument about women being in control of their own bodies. And again, why do most abortion debates involve older white men with steady jobs and good health insurance??

  • invalid-0

    The state should trust women & her doctors to make private decisions. Canada has no abortion laws — That was done on the federal level (Canada courts) — determining that abortion laws were unconstitutional. Canada isn’t having the culture war that we are.

    I check anti-abortion sites such as “Life News” to keep track. They will trumpet any scandal they can find. Their only news out of Canada is protests. I don’t expect our supreme court to do this, … but it’s what I would like to happen.

  • invalid-0

    Much of what was said in this article is true, such as “a pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.” What’s being confused is the conclusion that the pregnancy is what establishes life by the implantation of a zygote, which is in most cases already alive, and if it isn’t alive at that point, then it has already been eliminated by “God’s decision,” as to when each of us will die. Since the name of God has been invoked, the author may possibly believe there is a God. But by denying God’s repeated command that He is the only one who has the right to take a human life, the author seems to be denying His power and authority. If we deny God has power and authority over His creation, then we deny that there is a moral imperative. And if there isn’t a moral imperative, then we should just eliminate anyone who is an inconvenience or a drain on the economy. Might makes right. Only the strong survive. Why stop with the unborn? Children don’t contribute, old people are inconvenient, anyone with a severe health problem is a good candidate for elimination. Where do you want it to stop? If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, nothing else matters. But if Christ is who He says He is, then all human life is sacred, just as God says it is.

    • invalid-0

      Go live in Afghanistan if you want to live under GAAAAWWWWRRRD’s law.

  • invalid-0

    Denny, I’m glad that you have a religious philosophy that works for you. I have a religious philosophy that works for me, and so do others. Some people are atheist and/or humanist, even, and have no religious philosophy at all. Isn’t it great to live in a secular, constitutional republic, where minority rights are protected, and no one is forced to live by the religious beliefs of another group?

  • invalid-0

    Only one thing wrong with that philosophy. Truth is truth regardless of who you are or what society or time frame you happen to live in. Anything opposed to truth is false so if you have a philosophy that is at variance with someone else, you can’t both be right. You can both be wrong, but you can’t both be right. And unfortunately, if the frame of reference you live by is fundamentally erroneous, there are consequences for those errors. And we all pay for the false philosophies of the groups who live by them. If Bernie Madoff thinks a ponzi scheme is the way to live, we all suffer in the long run. You can probably think of a dozen other examples that have caused the recession on the national level, not to mention personal and private melt downs. If my religious philosophy is different than yours and we have fundamental differences, we can both be wrong, but we can’t both be right.

  • invalid-0

    If my religious philosophy is different than yours and we have fundamental differences, we can both be wrong, but we can’t both be right.

    Okay, then. Prove that your religious philosophy is correct, in an objective manner, to everyone’s satisfaction, and I’ll live by its rules. If I can prove that my religious philosophy is correct, then you agree to live by its rules. Deal?

    Until one of us succeeds, however, we’ll each follow our own philosophy, and keep establishing laws based on secular principles and not (possibly wrong) religious ones.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry. I would never presume to be an expert capable of influencing anyone’s opinion or philosophy. People are much too proud and inflexible for that. To change your philosophy of life is to admit you are wrong and most people would rather be exiled to hell than admit an error in logic. However, there are certain paradigms that are demonstrably true to nearly everyone’s satisfaction, with the caveat that nothing is provable to everyone’s satisfaction, because if there are two people, there are always two philosophies and they rarely agree at every point.
    Philosophies are only opinions and theories formed by imperfect individuals with imperfect data. Truth on the other hand is always true. For instance: there is truth; there is a God; there is a moral code; etc.

  • invalid-0

    For instance: there is truth; there is a God; there is a moral code; etc.

    Um…permit me to point out that the examples of “truth” that you cite are wildly subject to “opinion.”

  • invalid-0

    Truth on the other hand is always true. For instance: there is truth; there is a God; there is a moral code; etc.

    Is there? Really? Can you prove it? I have some atheist friends who would be rather interested in seeing this….

  • http://www.getahugetank.com invalid-0

    I guess everyone has their own opinion about things. But I think we should not be playing God with unborn babies lives. A child is a child at conception when it has traveled up the tube and has been fertilized. A child is what it is being formed to be. I agree with the author of NO COMMON GROUND. Nice job in putting your thoughts to paper.

  • invalid-0

    But I think we should not be playing God with unborn babies lives.

    No prenatal care for you, then.

  • invalid-0

    The discussion we are having is exactly what you so rightly point out; that every statement, regardless of evidence that the statement is a fact proven by all the available data, is questioned by some who mistakenly think that an argument without reason or support from experience over time has some merit in and of itself. It is now fashionable to throw out thousands of years of wisdom in favor of quasi-intellectual opinions and philosophies that cast a shadow on reason and to ridicule the people who would hold to time honored and incontrovertibly proven objective truth. Why throw away what is good just because it is old? Keep the gems and throw the chaff on the burn pile. Let me point out, you are absolutely right, there are some who think incontrovertible truth is subject to opinion. That doesn’t make their opinion incontrovertible truth.
    There is truth. There is a God. There is a moral code.
    Instead of me proving they are right, let’s see you prove they are wrong.

  • invalid-0

    Can’t prove a negative.

  • invalid-0

    Let me point out, you are absolutely right, there are some who think incontrovertible truth is subject to opinion. That doesn’t make their opinion incontrovertible truth. There is truth. There is a God. There is a moral code. Instead of me proving they are right, let’s see you prove they are wrong.

    Uh, no. That’s not how basic logic works. If I say unicorns are real, the onus is not on you to disprove it, but on me to prove it. And we’re certainly not going to pass laws protecting unicorns, simply because we haven’t proven that they don’t exist. (There’s a whole lot of mythical megafauna that would need to be addressed then!)

    It is now fashionable to throw out thousands of years of wisdom in favor of quasi-intellectual opinions and philosophies that cast a shadow on reason and to ridicule the people who would hold to time honored and incontrovertibly proven objective truth.

    If you believe in unicorns long enough, they’ll become real? How very… Disney-esque. Oh, and if the “truth” you’re discussing has been “incontrovertibly proven,” I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a reputable citation for the finding. Surely this truth is sufficiently incontrovertible to withstand some healthy skepticism?

    If you believe God exists, then great. Good for you. If you want to force that belief on my life, and the lives of others, however… then, let’s just say that we’re not going to take your word that this deity exists. (Or, for that matter, that there is only one of them! Paganists would beg to argue!)

  • invalid-0

    Saving mothers and babies with prenatal care is doing the work of God who said love your neighbor as yourself, not playing God (not playing at being God). Destroying life is not doing the work of God, but is playing God (playing at being God) who said to leave revenge and the length of a person’s life to Him.
    If you are pregnant, is the baby your neighbor?

  • invalid-0

    If you are pregnant, is the baby your neighbor?

    Uh…No.

  • invalid-0

    You are deflecting.
    Tell me one thing. Do you know for certain there is such a thing as truth?
    And if so, why?

  • invalid-0

    Then what did Jesus mean when He said, “Love your neighbor as yourself”?

  • invalid-0

    has a seperation of church and state, I don’t have to. I live by US laws and they give a woman a right to choose a safe and legal abortion. Even if abortion was made illegal, abortion would exist, but REAL born named women with real lives would die, which is what happened by the millions before Roe V Wade was added to our Constitution giving women that right. I notice that you anti-choicers NEVER mention these women who died in all of your anti-choice propaganda. You say millions of people were aborted and should be here and stuff like that, but why don’t you ever mention the women who died when abortion was illegal?? Because they weren’t as real as the fetuses seem to be to you and others who think like you. No, I do not believe in your mysogonist male “God.”

  • invalid-0

    by denying God’s repeated command that He is the only one who has the right to take a human life, the author seems to be denying His power and authority

    To people who think things happen for a reason, being born a fertile female is a fairly large “sign from God” and, on that basis, there are a lot of people who have expectations that any sane woman who accept any pregnancy. Me, I think my biological sex was chance and I don’t want laws or society to force or coerce me to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

  • http://www.cpcwatch.org invalid-0

    See, this is why people get abortion fatigue. Because us writers write pieces about issues meant to be discussed, debated, deconstructed, and wholly picked-apart for the good of our movement, then the antis find it and start the same old circular “is abortion inherently right or inherently wrong” debate. An FYI, we can pretty much refute any argument you make against abortion by copy/pasting segments from the exact same debate we’ve had, oh, 2,000,000 times already. I’m sure you can do the same.

    This is why constructive, in-depth discussion of abortion and societal view of the procedure just don’t exist. RH Reality Check’s new “Common Ground” series, while a worthy attempt at creating such discussions, are no exception (from what I’ve seen so far anyway).

    Lauren

  • http://www.cpcwatch.org invalid-0

    I don’t mean to degrade the Common Ground series at large, just so ya’ll know. I’m just noticing that a large portion of anti-choice commentators seem to be completely incapable of getting past the “right vs. wrong” aspect, regardless of whether or not the piece itself tried to make such arguments or open up that sort of discussion. It’s a waste of time.

  • invalid-0

    Canada doesn’t have any abortion laws. This is what I’d like to see:

    issues … discussed, debated, deconstructed, and wholly picked-apart for the [common] good

    I can visualize this kind of discussion if the debate was happening between doctors & patient advocates and medical staff and others who deal with OB-Gyn & general practice in their professions, determining best practices without interference from politicians and other strangers who don’t have full knowledge and may not be willing to compromise.

    The thing about Medical Standardes, the rubrics are different than for legislation & voting. “The law” is about treating everyone the same [theoretically] — and voting has winners and losers. The criteria for medical best practice is focused one “what’s best for the patient” & there isn’t such an expectation of “one size fits all”.

    Pragmatically, I don’t think that USA will change to how Canada does it, but it is a model to point to: when there is an objection to an abortion law giving doctors too much leeway we can point to Canada: it hasn’t happened in Canada. (I keep track of “pro-life” sites such as Life News and they search for and trumpet any abortion “scandal” they can find. All they ever report from Canada is protests & “religious persecution”.)

  • http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/154052.html invalid-0

    If I am only pregnant, the “baby” is not my neighbor because the baby is not alive, as my neighbors are. A baby is only alive once born, and not until it is. Prior to that it is merely a spirit in the hands of God. Its eventual life is neither a responsibility of mine nor that of a doctor who has determined it should never have life in the physical form that exists, but totally that of God.

    I believe God is powerful enough to assure life of a spirit if that is His intent, just as He can determine any death and return human life to the status of a spirit. Eventual birth might instead be in another feasible body if conditions make it unwise for that woman protecting a fetus with her own body to do so until the moment when that life could begin on its own where its temporary preparation for life began. The small remains unused for life are useless if never born, unless as is supposed they could benefit others.

    Further, I question the “thousands of years of wisdom and quasi-intellectual opinions and philosophies held to be time honored and incontrovertibly proven objective truth.” Where did this unproven idea that life could begin before birth ever take root?

  • emma

    Could you do us all a favour, please, and leave the godbag stuff and pseudo-philosophical ramblings at the door? I don’t care about your god. I don’t care about your jesus. I don’t care if you want to take a work of fiction as your literal truth – if you are that credulous, it is entirely your problem, and I would appreciate it if you’d refrain from making it mine. I haven’t the vaguest interest in proving or disproving your god’s existence, given that it’s not possible to prove a negative, you’ve failed to prove there *is* a sky fairy, and because people who insist on believing in fairy tales tend to be impervious to evidence or reason.

     

     

    • invalid-0

      Seriously, I’d like to come here and read substantial discussions of the issues. I wish the mods would ban these bible-humpers who come in and splooge their Jeezoid ideology all over the page. They’re not contributing in any meaningful way, any more than a spammer would be.

  • invalid-0

    Unicorns? Isn’t that some of the chaff that we threw on the burn pile long ago? Why bring up something that is so obviously untrue to refute a discussion about what is true? Truth is truth regardless of whether there is anyone there to appreciate it or not. Truth exists without a sentient being to recognize its existence and validity. Sentient beings are fallible and impressionable and have imaginations; that’s why it’s so difficult for people to sift out the truth from fantasy. That doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist, it only means that there are so many threads of consciousness that deflect from reality into fantasy that they come up with all sorts of mythical hypotheses that have no basis in truth, — like unicorns. Mental exercises that delve into the “dream world” are entertaining at best. They are imaginings, mental inventions, make believe. What do unicorns have to do with truth?

  • invalid-0

    Unicorns? Isn’t that some of the chaff that we threw on the burn pile long ago? Why bring up something that is so obviously untrue to refute a discussion about what is true?

    Well, if unicorns are so obviously untrue, then can you prove it? C’mon, this should be a slam dunk for you… right?

    Sentient beings are fallible and impressionable and have imaginations; that’s why it’s so difficult for people to sift out the truth from fantasy.

    Oh, I agree with that. So, could you tell me why the following statement…

    That doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist, it only means that there are so many threads of consciousness that deflect from reality into fantasy that they come up with all sorts of mythical hypotheses that have no basis in truth, — like gods. Mental exercises that delve into the “spiritual world” are entertaining at best. They are imaginings, mental inventions, make believe. What do gods have to do with truth?

    …is any less true than your original quote?

  • invalid-0

    A couple of comments ago you said something that is absolutely true, so you must believe that there is truth, and by the way, you have badly misquoted me by inserting the word “gods” into my argument. You have been asserting all along in this discussion that what you say is true, and you are very correct in claiming that there isn’t any way to prove a negative, that is an absolute truth, so then it follows that you believe there is such a thing as truth. I can think of a couple of other proofs for the existence of Truth but let’s stick with your own words. So far, I haven’t made any argument for the existence of God, I have only stated that there is a God, and there is a moral code. My first goal was to get you to agree that there is such a thing as objective Truth, which you have done, with a little patient coaxing. After all if there is no such thing as truth, then why would we be having this conversation? Nothing you are saying is true and nothing being said is true if there is no truth. If there is no truth, then everything you have been taught is a lie and you and your parents have wasted a lot of money on your education. You should have skipped school and become another mindless con-artist, out to get whatever he can for himself before God decides enough is enough and ends another pointless existence. If there were no truth, then there couldn’t be a God and there wouldn’t be a moral code either. Ahhh, but there is a God and there is a moral code. Just because some things can be proven false doesn’t mean that some things can’t be proven True. Incidentally, I agree with your implied truth statement that there are no gods, in your question “what do gods have to do with truth?”, because there are not gods.

  • invalid-0

    Incidentally, I agree with your implied truth statement that there are no gods, in your question “what do gods have to do with truth?”, because there are not gods.

    No gods? Really? Wow, you just have all the answers, don’t you? I guess all those paganists out there are wrong. Why don’t you go visit your nearest university theology department (or the philosophy department, if they’re out to lunch) and tell them all this? They’ve only been trying to figure this out for centuries. Why let them continue to labor in ignorance when you already know what they’re after?

    Heh. I have to admit, you’re fun. You’re so blind to the boundaries of ontology that you actually think you can make statements like “there is a God” and not allow others to come to their own conclusions on that question. You think “Truth” is as much “abortion is murder” as “1 + 1 = 2″. (Heck, you think a universal, monolithic “Truth” exists in the first place, when in fact a lot of what we hold to be true is culturally determined.) You think you’re so knowledgeable and wise, when you have the small-minded, simplistic worldview of a child. You wouldn’t even make it past Philosophy 101.

    Anyway, I am going to bow out of this thread. You believe whatever you want to believe. The Constitution prohibits your religious beliefs from becoming law, and I’m grateful for that. Perhaps one day, you’ll learn why you should be grateful for that as well. Have a nice day.

  • invalid-0

    OK. One final comment which you may or may not read. I said there are no gods because there is only one God, and yes, all those paganists out there are wrong. You can not come to your own conclusions about God because God is God and you aren’t. When people come to their own conclusions about anything, what you normally have is an opinion weighed down by the baggage they carry with them and it’s not sustained by facts and truth. You have read a great deal into my remarks that were never a part of what I said, and jumped to conclusions about my personal beliefs from no evidence whatsoever. I don’t believe whatever I want to believe. I believe what a higher authority demands I believe. If it were only my own musing about the intricate and precise construction of creation as we know it, it would only be an educated guess about how it came to be and what it all means, at best. And if Jesus has not died and risen from the dead, then all our ramblings and pontification is totally meaningless and there is no God. But Jesus has risen from the dead, Alleluia! God bless you and your ‘house’.
    Thanks for the stimulating dialog. – denny

  • invalid-0

    I’ve been perusing this site for several days hoping for some voice speaking for the unborn. Well done, Denny. You too, Nancy. Life does indeed begin at conception, but if someone wants to wait a few days to call it a pregnancy that’s ok with me.

  • http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/154052.html invalid-0

    It certainly doesn’t apply to anything I posted. You think you have answered me because you say life begins when you think does? I don’t.

  • http://elisabethsowecke.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    This was awesome and I salute you. I enjoyed and felt both challenged and affirmed by your piece because I didn’t see the episode. Your synopsis seemed comprehensive.

    I whole-heartedly battle for reproductive justice and currently believe there are not nearly enough abortions, namely safe abortions, occurring on this earth.

    I also believe *god* works through women (as one particular religion off the top of my head perpetually salutes through figures such as eve and mary) in support of abortion.

    Jon Stewart should inform himself. He was sickening. Huckabee is a lost cause and he doesn’t know it. Big surprise.

  • harry834

    When anyone here says "God", do you mean an actual person. If so, why is he the one person that can never show himself and speak for himself. I’d have an easier time believing that something is the word of God, if God himself were blogging here to say it.
    That is a serious question. So many people claim to speak God’s word. But I want to hear him speak for himself. We apply the same standard for every other person on earth.
    Also, have any of you actually seen God? On TV, in photographs, anywhere? A hard-to-reach famous person will at least be in photos, TV, or some media that is not a hand-drawing.
    Again, all these are serious questions. It seems that we can get the words from the mouth of anyone, so we don’t have to take the surrogate talking head’s word for it. But why is the omni-present, omni-powerful High Father unable to at least do a damn photgraph??????

  • harry834

    If terminating an embryo/fertilized egg is the same as murder, what punishment are we to give 1) the women who get abortions? 2.) the scientists who destroy embryos in petri dishes for stem cell research?

    I have asked part 1 several times, with no real answer, though one commenter (an anti-abortion woman who regreted her abortion) here once said she would let herself get arrested if the law ever decided, and another person emailed me to say we should start out with small punishment to avoid “culture shock”, then work our way up to punishments worthy of any murderer.

    I still however get the feeling that many anti-abortionists would rather dodge the question…though that emailer suggested others sgared her views to give punishments eventually.

    Some questions:

    1.) For the crime of murder, shouldn’t the punishment come now and without hesitation?

    2.) If we are going to consider women who get abortion as murderers of infants, how will that view affect the type of sympathy these women may get or not get? How much sympathy can one have for a murderer of babies?

    3.) How can we punish ANY murder differently than any other? With any difference in speed, no hesitation? I do understand that prosecutors, defense, and judges make differing punishments, sentences. But this is on an INDIVIDUAL case by case basis. I feel the anti-abortion crowd wants to create a lesser standard for the entire group of those who use this murder method. It’s like giving a special leniency to all those who kill with a knife or all those who kill with poison. Why should the METHOD of murder AUTOMATICALLY give leniency to ALL who employ it?

    4.) For the 1/3 to 1/2 of fertilized eggs that drown out in a menstruation, should we try to save them the same way we would try to medically save someone who dies from any naturally cause? Isn’t medicine about preventing death from natural causes?

    Vacinnes were once forbidden, and to many modern parents, still are because they supposedly violate “God’s will” and the natural order. If we reject this, if we accept that God wants us to medically intervene whether or not the cause of injury is human or natural, why not try to save the drowning embryos in menstruation? If we have the right to morally intervene between a woman and her doctor to stop her abortion, why not for menstruation?

    All serious questions. I just want some answers. I need to know.

  • invalid-0

    God is an actual person and He did speak for Himself and yes He was seen by many thousands of people.
    We don’t have a photograph because cameras hadn’t been invented yet.
    You’ll never find Him if you keep turning away.

  • invalid-0

    Good questions Harry. I like the way you think.
    I’m certainly not an expert on the way the court system in America works so it’s hard to give an opinion about all the idiosyncrasies that convolute the intent of the laws pertaining to murder.
    God does say that vengeance is His and that means that He will use those duly elected officials in our society who have the power to punish as His agents of justice here on earth. Our laws are never perfect because we aren’t perfect but God uses whatever is available to Him to accomplish His overall plan for us. The greater question is what happens when we stand before Him for judgement at the great resurrection. We are all flawed and commit grievous harm to our neighbors intentionally or unintentionally, all the time, so we will all have to be judged by God eventually.

  • invalid-0

    My body=My body. No-one has a right to leech onto my body, without permission, and force me to administer life support to them (at my own considerable detriment) for nearly ten months. Regardless of whether that “someone” is human or not, and a zygote is about as human as a teratoma.

    End of story.

  • invalid-0

    If you don’t want to give life to a baby than don’t have sex because we all know how life is created. Abortion is just a way for women who have sex and create life and don’t want to take responsable for their action to just kill their child and go on living like nothing happened. remenber that we all were at one time a zygote. I think life began at conception and i stand up for the unborn children who don’t have a voice.

  • emma

    So, now that cameras have been invented, why does the sky fairy not show itself, so we can all see it for ourselves? Seems likely that the reason no one has seen the sky fairy is that the sky fairy doesn’t exist. Lex parsimoniae, and all that…

     

    Sigh. Is there anything more annoying than an internet evangelist?

  • invalid-0

    Thanx Amanda.

  • invalid-0

    You are absolutely right Emma. I’m probably just as annoying to you as you are to me. The only way we can have a real dialog is if we can come to some sort of agreement on a few basic ideas. If you read this whole list of blogs you will see that I tried to establish some common ground for discussion way back at the beginning. We can’t start in the middle and make any headway because there isn’t anything we can use for a reference that is common to both of us. So, now Emma, let me say again in this blog, that there is something basic that is provable that we both need to believe in order to move forward. And that is that, “There is objective Truth”. And from the Truth of that statement, that there is objective Truth, which is not an opinion, belief, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, position, conception, conviction or stance, I believe many other Truths can be proven which lead to an ordered world view that is correct and not the product of somebody’s fantasy. Just because someone has an opinion doesn’t make it true.

  • harry834

    An objective truth exists out there, independent of what people believe or want to believe. Though in order to have at least 98% certainty in this truth, there need to be good reasons for believing in it. Even though Larry King and many elderly public figures have existed before Twitter, Internet, modern electronic media, I can see all of them in these media today. We say God has existed before everything, and is still here today, and will always be here. Surely, he does not age or will every die. So why hasn’t he done photographs, TV appearenrces, books, or something?

    I also have to agree that a human embryo is both human and has a life of it’s own. But treating it as a murder victim means that I scientists should be arrested for murder for destroying embryos on petri dishes. It means women should be arrested for murder, not just doctors. How can we claim, over and over again, that stopping an embryo’s development is murder when we won’t treat the women as murderers by law? Saying the "laws of man are imperfect" sounds like a cop-out. It’s a bigger cop-out to say "God will deal with them" when we don’t have assurance that God exists (see above paragraph). Besides, if we can let these murderers go because God will deal with them, why not others? Isn’t there an ethical mandate to punish all murderers, not just the ones we don’t like or sypathize for?

     

  • harry834

    if it is murder when a human stops an embryo from developing in a womb, is the washing out of a women’s fertilized eggs in menstruation a form of SIDS? Would these woman or anyone else be obligated to verify, (use microscope) that microscopic babies died in these fluids. We do this verification when children are missing in a natural disaster. And even if the parents didn’t care, the authorities would or neighbors would. 

    I did ask the question below: if it’s ok to intervene between a woman and doctor with regard to abortion, why not menstruation? We do have mandatory vacinnes, breath-alcohol tests,…couldn’t we have mandatory medical tests for women’s menstruation, to verify whether fertilized eggs dies in the natural disaster?

  • invalid-0

    If you don’t want to be obliged to give birth, don’t have sex because anti-choicers think a few minutes of heterosexual intercourse should be punished with nine months of discomfort, discrimination, invasion of privacy, patronisation, risk of death, violence, disease, social, familial, cultural, financial and economic complications. Not to mention the guilt-tripping and post-birth problems of raising or adopting out an unwanted child, or adding to the burden of existing children, which can last for years and damages actual born people. This, apparently, is far better than making your own decisions regarding if and when you will birth children. Remember ladies, you don’t deserve to live without facing punishment for being female and fucking without Amanda’s approval.

  • emma

    To be honest, I’m really just not that interested.

     

    Sorry.

  • truth

    …but it [Truth] feels so right!” Good work Denny. Logos, baby, Logos. They can’t refute it. They are little demons/slaves to their subjective realities. Man, are they in for a rude-awakening at end times. I will pray for them even though I know they don’t want me to…

    “Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends…” Eternity is a looooooooong time my little demons, and you are on the losing side – sorry. The good news is that our master is forgiving, all-loving so there is still time. Stop your futile rebellion whilst you still can.

  • invalid-0

    So, how does this work in the fundie worldview? If women who do not share your religious views are “demons” than what are the children you would force them to gestate? Baby demons?

    And, after all, what sort of mothers would demons make, anyway?

  • harry834

    for a person to be so knowledgeable about God’s law, but claim that they’re "not an expert" on human law? Is God’s law easier to understand than human law?

    Or perhaps it’s just field of study. I didn’t study law either (I’m going into Psychology). Perhaps you studied theology? Anyway, I’m curious as to how you came to learn God’s law so fluently, but not so much human law?

    Also, how did God write his law? Did He write on stone tablets, or use parchment? And why in all these thousands of years would he never make an updated edition? Our Constitution has changed A LOT in two hundred years, to keep up with the changing issues facing questions of right and wrong (or more specifically, "consitutional and unconstitutional"). Why hasn’t God used the Twitter (or something more advanced) to make updated versions of his Holy Book(s)?

  • harry834

    So I can understand if God just finds that beneath Him. But at least a computer? Or something else?

    • invalid-0

      Have you said you believe there is absolute Truth? I don’t remember.
      Without that agreement between us, we don’t have anything to talk about.
      If there isn’t any Truth, then everything is false because there isn’t any middle ground, and if everything is false, then nothing you or I can say has any meaning. I believe there is absolute Truth and it’s a good thing, because that allows us to communicate important ideas and understand their consequences.
      You seem to be pursuing two different subjects: the existence of God and the morality of abortion, which I believe are related but which can’t be addressed very effectively at the same time without some groundwork.
      Most people try to attack these problems from the final conclusion end of the argument which means they haven’t considered how to get to those conclusions in the first place. It’s like using quantum physics to prove 1+1 = 2. This is a hook-up, microwave, sound bite society that wants “silver bullet” answers to complex questions. It’s not that easy. All difficult questions have to be approached from a solid foundation of Truth or they are meaningless opinions without any substance.
      When you ask why God doesn’t give solid evidence for proof of His existence, I think you may be asking if God exists, but not really wanting to know the answer if it contradicts your preconceived conclusions.
      If you will allow me an observation: the greater question here is, “Why do you want to know?”

    • invalid-0

      God is on twitter Harry! Add yourself as a follower.

  • invalid-0

    I’m just curious, who the hell died and left someone else in charge to tell me what I can and can’t be doing? Look, to each his own, but aren’t we still all bigots and continually spreading hate in our lives and from generation to generation by having these debates? I’m not a believer in God, and I don’t think that he’s ever really existed, but merely created like a story of the boogey-man to keep people in check. To believe that one “thing” or entity exists, we must also acknowledge that its opposite exists; otherwise, we wouldn’t really know that something could be considered as “truth” or “fact” or that it “exists”. If the Bible is the book of God, then why hasn’t the Devil published a book? Furthermore, why are there so many different versions of the Bible? Why has it changed so many times throughout the years? If it is the word of God, then why can it be changed by man? And before you say something about the Bible; as part of my many religious courses, theory & philosophy, we have studied the thing inside and out. Also, we’ve compared Bibles side by side giving 50 years of difference in between; and so many differences exist. Why is that? But this article isn’t about God, so why are we even trying to speak about God on these blog posts?

    Why do we care what someone else is doing or thinking anyways? What is the point? Do we feel special for telling women, men, and families that NO an abortion is not an option for you? Sex is such a natural thing, by why should anyone be “punished” if they get pregnant unintentionally? It is known that 1.29 million abortions occur annually; out of those, 73% of the women cite that “economic factors” due to finances are what are stearing them into this direction. So let’s do the math, 73% of 1.29 million is a little more than 941,000. And for the sake of the argument, lets say that the other 27% are just for reasons as rape, incest, and fetal deformaties. If abortion was illegal for all reasons outside of rape, incest, and deformaties (because who really wants a child of incest or rape walking around, unless you mean to tell me that that is “God’s will”); what happens to all of those now born infants? No one really wanted them, but they were forced to be born anyways. Wouldn’t our already deep-debted nation become more in debt having to take care of them? What if all of them every year ended up in foster homes? Do we even have 940,000 couples wanting to adopt a child a year? Then we complain about the education cuts; crowded schools, too many kids dropping out anyways, not enough good teachers, etc. So not only have we increased the human race in the United States dramatically every year, but we’ve destroyed the “American Dream” that our European Ancestors came here to build. Someone out there, that includes the taxpayers (so yes, “neighbor”), has to pay for all of this. I know mine and my husband’s income doesn’t allow us to have a 2nd child; so why should I punish my 1st child if I was forced to have a 2nd child? Am I not allowed to have sex with my husband, because I know that I could unintentionally end up pregnant? I couldn’t do the same things for my 1st child as I can now, or provide for him (or them) the same way if I had multiple children. And what kind of quality of life is that?

    Where is the quality of life, knowing that while you were growing up that you weren’t really wanted; because your Mother wanted an abortion, but people said “no”. I think we’d have a lot more nutbags walking around out there than we currently have now.

    Why can’t we just agree to disagree on certain topics such as these, and let people live their own damn lives? What I do behind closed doors doesn’t have any affect on your life. Your bills still coming, you still go to work every day, etc. I don’t tell others how to live, and I would certainly appreciate it others didn’t tell me how I can and can’t live; and that includes what I choose to do to my body.

    One more note before I finish ranting; if it became illegal to have an abortion, what do we do with the Dr’s that already KNOW how to provide one? We can surely take away their ability to legally practice a business with abortions provided, but we can’t take away their knowledge – and we’ll just end up with a secret society of people still giving abortions. ALSO, for the women out there that are going to just treat the fetus like crap because they don’t want it, and hopes that it comes out a stillborn – where is the prevention in that? We can tell women not to drink or smoke or do drugs, but I am sure that some would result to that just to make the fetus “go away”. So before we start ranting on and on about what “God’s will” is; we should remove religion from the factor and think about the societal impacts and burdens that all of these additional lives would bring to us.

  • invalid-0

    Wow Savannah! Good for you. You really unloaded. Highly emotional stuff. What I’ve been trying to do is to get someone to recognize that there is objective Truth so we can go on from there. From the idea that Truth exists, it is possible to find many Truths that control our lives whether we want them to or not. Simple example: 1 + 1 = 2. Another example: If something isn’t True then it is false. There is no middle ground. Nothing very emotional about this stuff i’m afraid but it is possible to build conclusions on these basic ideas that produce a logical worldview.

  • invalid-0

    Another example: If something isn’t True then it is false. There is no middle ground.

    “Coke is better than Pepsi.” True or false?

  • invalid-0

    When you give your opinion about something, you offer a conclusion or a judgment that, although it may be open to question, seems true or probable to you at the time. By definition, opinions are subjective and normally they have very little to do with objective Truth. They are based on feelings and debatable; they’re mostly up to the individual. Opinions may or may not be backed up with evidence, but because they are only opinions, they aren’t proven by that evidence. And to complicate matters even more, because we are imperfect, sometimes we form opposing opinions using the same objective Truths as evidence. That doesn’t mean that the underlying objective Truths don’t exist or that ancillary Truths can’t be discovered using those objective Truths. There is Truth and it is discoverable. Opinions aren’t middle ground. They are just guesses that normally have very little to do with Truth. All Truths exclude their opposites. If it’s True that Coke is better, then Pepsi can’t be better. And if it isn’t true that Coke is better, then the statement that Coke is better is false. There is no middle ground.

  • invalid-0

    All Truths exclude their opposites. If it’s True that Coke is better, then Pepsi can’t be better. And if it isn’t true that Coke is better, then the statement that Coke is better is false. There is no middle ground.

    So which is it? Is the statement “Coke is better than Pepsi” true or false?

  • catherin31

    Custom essay writing service should come folow your fantabulous stuff just about this good topic in history essay performing. Therefore, you should be a good tutor in that deal.