Friday, June 20, 2003
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
The Abortion Debate
I don't want to alienate anyone that believes the government has no right to make medical decisions, or who might feel that the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I have no desire to alienate or offend anyone .
Just want to ask one question or two for those on the pro-choice side....
Should the government allow the abortion of a completely healthy 8 month 28 day old fetus though there is no health risk to the mother?
(If you say yes, stop reading, this is not the website for you. You're looking for Al Qaeda, Neo-nazi, anarchist-leftist or, just as likely, satanist blogs. I've got nothing to say to you.)
99% of you would never support such a barbaric thing. So we're in complete agreement. You are anti-abortion the same as me, at least at the 8-mo, 28-days stage.
How about 8 months, 2 days?
7 months?
6?
Since the government "has no right to take away a woman's right to choose" 2 months into a pregnancy, if her freedom is paramount, if her body, her privacy is everything, then why doesn't she still have the right to do as she will, without hindrance even at 8 months?
The difference: Something is superseding the right to choose here-- a new, relevant factor. There is at least one other issue involved at 8, 7 or 6 months, a viable human life. The Supreme Court declares it does "have an interest" in the third trimester, 6-months or higher.
Most Americans agree-- terminating a 6-month pregnancy is not the same in any way as it is at 3-weeks.
But most pro-lifers say that life begins at conception.
Since pro-choicers disagree, it is their responsibility to clearly define medical criteria, to clearly define the boundary with empirical data, at which point the unborn child's right to live becomes superior to the woman's right to choose, and why. Why six, but not 5 or 4 months?
What I rarely hear discussed is the question of pain and suffering. Surely an unwanted pregnancy (there are no unwanted children-- the adoption lists are too long to believe that) causes pain. I won't moralize and say, well, then, the sex without protection shouldn't have been wanted either... that's a moot point. A young girl, pregnant and unwed, is surely in a scary situation. I can understand why NARAL et al focus on that... it's a real thing, and not something the pro-life movement should ignore. To the best of my knowledge, they don't; though they often express that the girl is more likely to feel greater pain in the future if she makes the decision without carefully thinking it through.
But there is another part to this question of pain and suffering. Can the pro-abortion movement and the doctors that perform them prove categorically that a fetus feels no pain as it is aborted?
Shouldn't medical science be able to confirm when the development of the central nervous system of an unborn baby happens? What if the "procedure" is utterly torturous for the fetus, even at 2 weeks?
Don't we need to be convinced by objective analysis that there is no pain, no suffering, no cruelty being done before we accept this as a private, "personal" decision?
Don't we need proof that another individual life is not being extinguished before we decide a woman's privacy is more important?
I am told by a medical respondent that the central nervous system is formed about the same time that the fetus produces its own blood-- about 5 weeks. One might say that this is the emergence of a new life, in a more substantiated way than one could while the embryo is still a clump of cells...
It is also my understanding that many, many fertilized embryos fail to "take root" or attach to the uterine wall. Fertilization without gestation. If nature regularly allows embryos to pass then perhaps the pro-life movement might be able to accept the idea of an abortifacient, like RU-486, which does not cause pain or kill a nascent life, but prevents the embryo from attaching. Since this is a regular occurrence in nature (women are 'pregnant' far more often than they ever know), it seems to be far preferable-- in consideration of the sanctity of independent life-- to the use of forceps and surgical extraction, and the embryo is not yet a fetus.
But I could be wrong. All I know is this discussion goes in fruitless directions far too often. Religious beliefs are not useful to convince secularists. Spiritual views will on deaf ears to many libertarians, libertines, or hedonists. There is no quicker way to further entrench a leftist in his or her position than to quote the Bible.
And lastly, I wonder what it says about society when a 16-year old can't go into a R-rated movie without a parent, but can go into a pregnancy clinic and get major surgery without the parent's even being aware.
I don't want to alienate anyone that believes the government has no right to make medical decisions, or who might feel that the government doesn't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I have no desire to alienate or offend anyone .
Just want to ask one question or two for those on the pro-choice side....
Should the government allow the abortion of a completely healthy 8 month 28 day old fetus though there is no health risk to the mother?
(If you say yes, stop reading, this is not the website for you. You're looking for Al Qaeda, Neo-nazi, anarchist-leftist or, just as likely, satanist blogs. I've got nothing to say to you.)
99% of you would never support such a barbaric thing. So we're in complete agreement. You are anti-abortion the same as me, at least at the 8-mo, 28-days stage.
How about 8 months, 2 days?
7 months?
6?
Since the government "has no right to take away a woman's right to choose" 2 months into a pregnancy, if her freedom is paramount, if her body, her privacy is everything, then why doesn't she still have the right to do as she will, without hindrance even at 8 months?
The difference: Something is superseding the right to choose here-- a new, relevant factor. There is at least one other issue involved at 8, 7 or 6 months, a viable human life. The Supreme Court declares it does "have an interest" in the third trimester, 6-months or higher.
Most Americans agree-- terminating a 6-month pregnancy is not the same in any way as it is at 3-weeks.
But most pro-lifers say that life begins at conception.
Since pro-choicers disagree, it is their responsibility to clearly define medical criteria, to clearly define the boundary with empirical data, at which point the unborn child's right to live becomes superior to the woman's right to choose, and why. Why six, but not 5 or 4 months?
What I rarely hear discussed is the question of pain and suffering. Surely an unwanted pregnancy (there are no unwanted children-- the adoption lists are too long to believe that) causes pain. I won't moralize and say, well, then, the sex without protection shouldn't have been wanted either... that's a moot point. A young girl, pregnant and unwed, is surely in a scary situation. I can understand why NARAL et al focus on that... it's a real thing, and not something the pro-life movement should ignore. To the best of my knowledge, they don't; though they often express that the girl is more likely to feel greater pain in the future if she makes the decision without carefully thinking it through.
But there is another part to this question of pain and suffering. Can the pro-abortion movement and the doctors that perform them prove categorically that a fetus feels no pain as it is aborted?
Shouldn't medical science be able to confirm when the development of the central nervous system of an unborn baby happens? What if the "procedure" is utterly torturous for the fetus, even at 2 weeks?
Don't we need to be convinced by objective analysis that there is no pain, no suffering, no cruelty being done before we accept this as a private, "personal" decision?
Don't we need proof that another individual life is not being extinguished before we decide a woman's privacy is more important?
I am told by a medical respondent that the central nervous system is formed about the same time that the fetus produces its own blood-- about 5 weeks. One might say that this is the emergence of a new life, in a more substantiated way than one could while the embryo is still a clump of cells...
It is also my understanding that many, many fertilized embryos fail to "take root" or attach to the uterine wall. Fertilization without gestation. If nature regularly allows embryos to pass then perhaps the pro-life movement might be able to accept the idea of an abortifacient, like RU-486, which does not cause pain or kill a nascent life, but prevents the embryo from attaching. Since this is a regular occurrence in nature (women are 'pregnant' far more often than they ever know), it seems to be far preferable-- in consideration of the sanctity of independent life-- to the use of forceps and surgical extraction, and the embryo is not yet a fetus.
But I could be wrong. All I know is this discussion goes in fruitless directions far too often. Religious beliefs are not useful to convince secularists. Spiritual views will on deaf ears to many libertarians, libertines, or hedonists. There is no quicker way to further entrench a leftist in his or her position than to quote the Bible.
And lastly, I wonder what it says about society when a 16-year old can't go into a R-rated movie without a parent, but can go into a pregnancy clinic and get major surgery without the parent's even being aware.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
WMD silliness
It's exasperating. 13 years of sanctions. A 1998 pre-emptive unilateral cruise missile attack called Desert Fox. Scores of congressmen on both sides of the aisle every year, stating clearly that Saddam's continuing WMD programs posed an significant danger.
Now many of those same congressmen are calling Bush and Blair liars.
It's exasperating. 13 years of sanctions. A 1998 pre-emptive unilateral cruise missile attack called Desert Fox. Scores of congressmen on both sides of the aisle every year, stating clearly that Saddam's continuing WMD programs posed an significant danger.
Now many of those same congressmen are calling Bush and Blair liars.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
The Nature of Truth
Read this opening statement from a June 7th Reuters article.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of the senior intelligence analysts who examined Iraqi trailers suspected of being used to make biological weapons doubted they were used to make germ agents, the New York Times reported Saturday."
Observe the ripple effect in your mind from the idea that some analysts doubt. So, now there’s a question… “maybe they weren’t what I’ve heard…?” Their purported doubt becomes your own.
Now read this:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most of the senior intelligence analysts who examined Iraqi trailers suspected of being used to make biological weapons did not doubt they were used to make germ agents, the New York Times reported Saturday." (altered)
Isn't the above corollary just as true as the original statement? Since the original says only some doubted, not all or most, the rest did not doubt: isn't that undeniable?
The article goes on to explain that of three intelligence teams, two were close to unanimous that the labs were in fact able to make biological weapons, and only the third was “sharply divided.” Among the NYT’s doubters is an analyst who has not physically inspected the labs, but only read reports and perceived some political agenda at work:
One senior analyst cited by the New York Times who had seen the evidence from the trailers but not the vehicles themselves said "I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter" and claimed the white paper was rushed and "looks political."
We are not given a chance to judge for ourselves if this senior person’s analysis and doubts may themselves be entirely political. But the if the reporter's goal is to plant seeds of suspicion and scepticism about the field reports, the effect is the same.
Further, this report, as any other, can be the result of subjective cross-examination becoming the story. I can think of CSPAN press conferences I've heard, and later read a reporter's version. In them, they might turn their own questions into the interviewee's statement. That is, Rumsfeld is asked a question to which he responds “Yes,” but then the reporter writes "Rumsfeld said this," instead of "when asked this, Rumsfeld, said yes."
Suppose 100 senior analysts examined the obviously WMD labs (else why painted in camouflage, else why not declared, and what the hell else could they be for?) and 95 said it was highly likely they were for germ agents. 5 others say they had serious questions. That situation would allow for the above quote. Or suppose 10 of them assented to questions such as "Isn't it somewhat possible that they could be for another purpose?" That could allow for the proposition that some doubted, even if each of the 10 added a proviso that, sure, it's possible but utterly unlikely.
The doubters were clearly the minority, despite the spin. The reporter was eager to create doubt and uncertainty in the reader's mind.
Read this opening statement from a June 7th Reuters article.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of the senior intelligence analysts who examined Iraqi trailers suspected of being used to make biological weapons doubted they were used to make germ agents, the New York Times reported Saturday."
Observe the ripple effect in your mind from the idea that some analysts doubt. So, now there’s a question… “maybe they weren’t what I’ve heard…?” Their purported doubt becomes your own.
Now read this:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most of the senior intelligence analysts who examined Iraqi trailers suspected of being used to make biological weapons did not doubt they were used to make germ agents, the New York Times reported Saturday." (altered)
Isn't the above corollary just as true as the original statement? Since the original says only some doubted, not all or most, the rest did not doubt: isn't that undeniable?
The article goes on to explain that of three intelligence teams, two were close to unanimous that the labs were in fact able to make biological weapons, and only the third was “sharply divided.” Among the NYT’s doubters is an analyst who has not physically inspected the labs, but only read reports and perceived some political agenda at work:
One senior analyst cited by the New York Times who had seen the evidence from the trailers but not the vehicles themselves said "I have no great confidence that it's a fermenter" and claimed the white paper was rushed and "looks political."
We are not given a chance to judge for ourselves if this senior person’s analysis and doubts may themselves be entirely political. But the if the reporter's goal is to plant seeds of suspicion and scepticism about the field reports, the effect is the same.
Further, this report, as any other, can be the result of subjective cross-examination becoming the story. I can think of CSPAN press conferences I've heard, and later read a reporter's version. In them, they might turn their own questions into the interviewee's statement. That is, Rumsfeld is asked a question to which he responds “Yes,” but then the reporter writes "Rumsfeld said this," instead of "when asked this, Rumsfeld, said yes."
Suppose 100 senior analysts examined the obviously WMD labs (else why painted in camouflage, else why not declared, and what the hell else could they be for?) and 95 said it was highly likely they were for germ agents. 5 others say they had serious questions. That situation would allow for the above quote. Or suppose 10 of them assented to questions such as "Isn't it somewhat possible that they could be for another purpose?" That could allow for the proposition that some doubted, even if each of the 10 added a proviso that, sure, it's possible but utterly unlikely.
The doubters were clearly the minority, despite the spin. The reporter was eager to create doubt and uncertainty in the reader's mind.
Monday, June 02, 2003
Christian terrorists=Muslim terrorists?
On Equivocation
(You know the reporter was eager to work that in.)
I thought about this, to examine myself to see if I was applying a double standard. Was I wrong to say "Muslim Terrorist" if I didn't like the phrase "Christian terrorist"?
This is what I came up with.
Rudolph's attacks in no way advance "the cause of Christ," and directly contradict the commands of Jesus. The Boanerges John and James asked Jesus, "Shall we call down fire from heaven to consume them, like Elijah did?" He rebuked them: "You know not of what spirit I came. The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save." (paraphrased, from mem.)
So what to make of Muslims who say Osama's Al Qaeda do not advance the cause of Muhamed? If one cites as evidence suras calling for violence, they will respond with contrary suras, and that the other verses should be taken in context.
In contrast, one can't find any calls by Jesus to kill anyone that need to be explained away. In the Bible narrative, after the Ascension, the disciples preach... and heal. And raise the dead. And feed the hungry. And get beaten and stoned and thrown in jail. They don't shed any blood.
Now, it is true that starting in the 300s, when Constantine added to his aegis In Hoc Signes, Byzantine war sullied the Christian timeline.
After Muhamed died (632) Khalid ibn AlWalid IMMEDIATELY waged war. No healings, no persecution for these apostles. No, they were martyrs who desired to populate hell with infidels before they gave up their own ghost. A far cry from St. Stephen, "Father, do not hold this sin against them!"
A muslim terrorist can say that he seeks jihad, in fine company with the caliphs of the early "dar."
A Christian terrorist would be hard pressed to find anything even in apocolyptic texts to justify belligerent religiosity.
The muslim terrorist finds ubiquitous abetment and copious laudation from hinterland mosque to Mecca. Else why the duplication of efforts from Indonesia to Nigeria?
The abhorrent Christian terrorist finds universal castigation and instant remonstrance, more intensely from Christians than anyone. No one wanted Rudolph caught more than the anti-abortion groups.
Was Eric Rupolph hiding in North Carolina with a cadre of recruits from around the world?
Was he sending videotapes to TBN or CBN? Would they have broadcast them ad nauseum (see Al Jazeera)?
Were expatriate preachers inciting pogrom internationally, sending young men to head for the woods?
Were presbyteries, synods, bishoprics, archdioceses, etc., regularly issuing calumnious edicts calling for condemnation and wrath to be showered on their religious opponents?
Were the Islamic Councils praying for salvation for the West?
Was Osama (so much the deadlier one) in such danger of being caught that he could tell no one where he was, eating out of dumpsters?
Have there been fatwas calling for an end to fruitless violence and religious hatred?
I ask these questions, and feel confident that a muslim terrorist is considered a genuine muslim by, if not all, certainly much of his own faith community. I know the Christian faith community repudiates a terrorist like Rudolph publicly and privately.
On Equivocation
"I would prefer to say that Rudolph is a religiously inspired terrorist, because most mainstream Christians consider Christian Identity to be a heresy," Aho said. If Christians take umbrage at the juxtaposition of the words "Christian" and "terrorist," he added, "that may give them some idea of how Muslims feel" when they constantly hear the term "Islamic terrorism," especially since the Sept. 11 attacks.
(You know the reporter was eager to work that in.)
I thought about this, to examine myself to see if I was applying a double standard. Was I wrong to say "Muslim Terrorist" if I didn't like the phrase "Christian terrorist"?
This is what I came up with.
Rudolph's attacks in no way advance "the cause of Christ," and directly contradict the commands of Jesus. The Boanerges John and James asked Jesus, "Shall we call down fire from heaven to consume them, like Elijah did?" He rebuked them: "You know not of what spirit I came. The Son of Man came not to destroy but to save." (paraphrased, from mem.)
So what to make of Muslims who say Osama's Al Qaeda do not advance the cause of Muhamed? If one cites as evidence suras calling for violence, they will respond with contrary suras, and that the other verses should be taken in context.
In contrast, one can't find any calls by Jesus to kill anyone that need to be explained away. In the Bible narrative, after the Ascension, the disciples preach... and heal. And raise the dead. And feed the hungry. And get beaten and stoned and thrown in jail. They don't shed any blood.
Now, it is true that starting in the 300s, when Constantine added to his aegis In Hoc Signes, Byzantine war sullied the Christian timeline.
After Muhamed died (632) Khalid ibn AlWalid IMMEDIATELY waged war. No healings, no persecution for these apostles. No, they were martyrs who desired to populate hell with infidels before they gave up their own ghost. A far cry from St. Stephen, "Father, do not hold this sin against them!"
A muslim terrorist can say that he seeks jihad, in fine company with the caliphs of the early "dar."
A Christian terrorist would be hard pressed to find anything even in apocolyptic texts to justify belligerent religiosity.
The muslim terrorist finds ubiquitous abetment and copious laudation from hinterland mosque to Mecca. Else why the duplication of efforts from Indonesia to Nigeria?
The abhorrent Christian terrorist finds universal castigation and instant remonstrance, more intensely from Christians than anyone. No one wanted Rudolph caught more than the anti-abortion groups.
Was Eric Rupolph hiding in North Carolina with a cadre of recruits from around the world?
Was he sending videotapes to TBN or CBN? Would they have broadcast them ad nauseum (see Al Jazeera)?
Were expatriate preachers inciting pogrom internationally, sending young men to head for the woods?
Were presbyteries, synods, bishoprics, archdioceses, etc., regularly issuing calumnious edicts calling for condemnation and wrath to be showered on their religious opponents?
Were the Islamic Councils praying for salvation for the West?
Was Osama (so much the deadlier one) in such danger of being caught that he could tell no one where he was, eating out of dumpsters?
Have there been fatwas calling for an end to fruitless violence and religious hatred?
I ask these questions, and feel confident that a muslim terrorist is considered a genuine muslim by, if not all, certainly much of his own faith community. I know the Christian faith community repudiates a terrorist like Rudolph publicly and privately.
