The "Red Herring" of Fetal Pain
Two Authors of Fetal-Pain Paper Accused of Bias
Conflict of interest in the research? Of course. Does this have the potential to skew results? No doubt. In the world of inductive reasoning, does this matter? Most certainly!
In the emotional debate over abortion, supposedly this omniscient "study" from "experts" is supposed to help us pro-life provincials understand the reality of abortion. And, no doubt, this takes the emotional wind out of the pro-life argument, right? Well...no.
The issue of fetal-pain is a throw back argument to Terri Schindler (schiavo), where it was justified to kill her because she couldn't feel pain. She didn't have the capacity to feel pain. So, people listened to George Felos' siren song "The Beauty of Starvation." The trouble with pro-death ideology is not difficult to refute. That's the fun part. The fact is, I get bored, since it is abysmally dull and lacks any creativity. Can't you people come up with something new? Substantive? Compelling? Are you kidding me: no pain...no guilt? No pain...not human?
The issue with the abortion controversy is and always has been "Is the 'fetus' human?" It is a most important metaphysical question. And if there is any doubt to what the fetus is, then we must cease the dismembering and chopping of innocent pre-born children. The pain issue is a red herring that deviates from the real issue, the humanity of the fetus. We are murdering human beings, pain...or no pain.
posted by Underground Logician @ 11:01 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
I agree with you entirely. Glad to see that you and Bill have hit it off so well! It's always nice to find fellow mutants such as ourselves.
I'm sorry I haven't posted lately. I've been swamped (as you probably know) but I've been thinking of you. Keep up the good Blog!
Interesting article.
HI SAURKRAUT!!!
It has been a while. I understand busy. My load had tripled, and I'm trying to keep my sanity in the process. Hang in there!
Hi Polanco!
How so? What do find interesting? Just curious.
Underground, tell me about it! What are you working on this semester?
And have you ever seen the movie The Silent Scream? If everyone saw it, there would be no abortions. I read about it, and had friends who saw it, but I could never bring myself to go see it. It's a movie in-utero of a baby being aborted and how it twists and turns to get away from the tools that are dissecting it.
The thought alone cured me from being pro abortion.
I should add that it cured me from beginning to think about being pro abortion. Truthfully, I was never pro abortion except in the case of rape, incest of the life of the mother.
I now believe that abortion should not take place unless it is to save the mother's life, and even then - I think it's up to the mom to decide that.
The whole thing. I think this whole debate is interesting and I'm trying to stay at a disance because I'm still forming an opinion.
It's called the potential for life. Does anyone doubt that the fetus will eventually become a human?
No.
So then abortion is the prevention of the potential for life.
Just like when I eat an egg, I am eating something that had the potential to be a chicken. Can the pro-choicesers tell me otherwise?
Abortion denies life. Period.
Good post. I found you on Great White Bear's site in which I liked your recent comment.
:)
Thank you, Sadie Lou! I'd like to apologize for not having anything recent. I have been absolutely swamped, lately. I'm glad your found me on the GreatWhiteBear. I like popping in on his site. He's fun to poke at, and has some good comebacks. His liberalism is bothersome, but he personally would be someone I'd like to have a beer with!
See ya round. I'll have something new on my site by tommorrow. Thanks again!
So then abortion is the prevention of the potential for life.
Just like when I eat an egg, I am eating something that had the potential to be a chicken. Can the pro-choicesers tell me otherwise?
Abortion denies life. Period.
Good post. I found you on Great White Bear's site in which I liked your recent comment. sadie lou
Hens don't lay fertilized eggs, so if you eat an egg, you're eating an unfertilized egg, not one that had the chance of becoming a chick.
Yes, abortion ends a pregnancy, a potential life. And war ends the lives not only of fetuses but also of pregnant women, of young boys and girls, of grown men, of elderly men and women. War kills too, and yet we have a "Christian" president willing to accept this "collateral damage" for the sake of planting democracy in a country half way around the world and in a country that did not attack us. In other words, it's acceptable that innocent fetuses, women, men and children die in war for what another country decides is a greater good. Lots of innocent people die in war. Lots.
Bush's followers accept that, but will not accept that sometimes a woman has to make a terrible choice, and that for her greater good, she may have to make that choice.
Why do Bush followers accept the one but not the other?
Dear Isabella:
Great to have you on board! Sorry for not having a current posting for you to see. I've been BUSY!
To comment on you recent entry, you are making a moral equivalence between abortion and the death due to war. Though death due to war is reprehensible, there are different moral factors that govern the two issues. Always abortion is wrong for there is absolutely no justification for killing an innocent for the reasons that abortions are done. NONE. A lot of the time, deaths due to war are wrong, but there must be certain factors in place for it to be absolutely evil. If the intent in war is to kill the innocent, then of course, it is totally reprehensible. If collateral damage is the cause of death to innocents, the effect is terrible, but the act being unintentionally done is a lesser evil.
It may seem odd that there are greater or lesser evils, but that is so. So, the man who inadvertently stepped on the gas and drove his car into a crowd, killing several people, though commiting a terrible act, can not be held accountable for intentionally killing them. This example is a lesser evil than a terrorist intentionally driving his vehicle loaded with C-4 and driving it into a market filled with women and children. Though death is occuring in both instances, the terrorist fully intended to kill the innocents, the elderly man did not.
With abortions, the intent is to destroy the life of the fetus, to eliminate it completely. It is not a collateral situation where the fetus dies unintentionally. Now, whether the mother getting the abortion intends to kill a baby is another story. She may be deluded by Planned Parenthood who tells her hat she is just eliminating a pregnancy and that the fetus is NOT human, just tissue, like a spleen. If that is the case, though the fetus dies, the mother cannot be held accountable for killing a human. She was not aware of it being human.
Whether this is the case in most abortions, I'm not sure. With all the publicity that the topic abortion has had, I wonder how informed pregnant teens are.
I must get back to my studies. Thanks again for dropping by and reading my gibberish.
Isabella--
I had a neighbor that raised chickens. They had a rooster on the premisis so you never knew if the egg you were eating was fertilized or not. When we ate eggs from our neighbors, we would hold the egg up to a candle to see if their was a fetus in it or not.
I'm quite sure you're right about hens laying unfertilized eggs when the eggs are being harvested for the grocery store.
I liked what the logician had to say in response to war being an altogether different thing than abortion.
I would add that abortion is entirely done for selfish reasons. Nobody aborts a baby because the fetus wanted to be aborted.
War--sometimes--is a sacrifice made for the greater good. Also, in a war, there are two (maybe more) sides. Both parties are interested in defending themselves and their cause.
Since when does the offending party in an abortion (the fetus) have a chance to defend it's self or run and hide?
War and abortion are very different.
Great points made, Sadie Lou!!!
Thanks.
I eagerly await new posts from you UL.
"Whether this is the case in most abortions, I'm not sure. With all the publicity that the topic abortion has had, I wonder how informed pregnant teens are."
Well, pregnant teens certainly were not informed by "abstinence only" programs.
Also, do you believe that aborition is wrong even when the life of the mother is in danger?
If so, then is that not a moral equivalence between abortion and death as well??
James:
You are certainly blitzing my blog. Thanks!
As to your comments. What is in "Abstinence Only" that is depriving teenagers? Can they still get pregnant? No doubt it's hard when the ol' Schmechel wants some action and heaven forbid, a guy has to say no to an ejaculation. Yeah, it's tough. Write a book or make a movie. See if people weep. (I have no sympathy...can you tell?)
We live in an age where we always want to "yes" as much as possible, or redirect the passions so no one is insulted or made to feel "marginalized" with negative emotions. When a man saves himself for his one true love, he'll be glad when he sees her coming down the aisle in all her radiance, thankful to God that he saved himself for this one precious woman. So, abstinence brings with it...discipline. ARRGH!
As to your question: "Is abortion wrong even when the life of the mother is in danger?"
Abortion is ALWAYS WRONG. The issue is not so much that a death in both cases is wrong. On one side death of the mother is bad and to be prevented at all cost physically and morally. The other side, abortion is both bad and morally wrong. The central issue in abortion is a metaphysical one; what is the fetus? If it is mere tissue, abortion is a non-issue morally. If it IS human, you do not kill it...period!
If the mother's life is in jeapardy, by allowing the baby to live does not mean that we are killing the mother. The issue contains a three key moral principles. The first is one of intent; killing and death by natural causes are not the same thing intentionally. It is NOT morally equivalent. We are not trying to kill the mother in order to keep the baby alive. We do our best to keep BOTH mother and baby alive, and leave the rest for God.
The second moral principle is one of knowledge: does the abortionist or mother KNOW in fact that the fetus is human? If so, they're in big trouble morally. More than likely, young girls getting abortions are hardly aware, at least the first time, that what they have in them is a "who."
The last moral principle is one of freedom: is the abortionist or mother FREELY CHOOSING the act? If young mothers are hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood staffers or pressured by family and friends to have the procedure, then they could hardly have freely chosen to do it. Did they kill human life? Yes. Did they really want to? Maybe not.
I think young mothers AND fathers are victimized, along with the baby in this deadly issue. All in all, it's a huge political and economic issue. Follow the money trail.
UL:
I'm not sure what to say on this post as neither one of us is going to convince the other to agree with our positions. This appears to be one issue where we can agree to disagree.
Well, the whole abortion issue rests on this: what is the fetus? Do you know the answer to this question?
Underground Logician said...
Well, the whole abortion issue rests on this: what is the fetus? Do you know the answer to this question?
Well, one answer is that in the first weeks of conception it is a tiny cellular mass.
And since not everyone believes in god, everyone does not believe that the tiny cellular mass has a "soul."
A tiny cellular mass is NOT a human being. If a religious person says it is because it has a soul, which god gives it at the moment of conception, then the discussion has moved into the realm of "belief" and not science.
It is a tiny cellular mass that could become a fetus and eventually a baby.
I'll go back to an old analogy:
an apple seed is not an apple.
an apple is an apple.
Isabella:
Couple of problems...you need to move from the epistemological to the metaphysical. It's not what you believe it to be, but what is it. You have stated that it is a cellular mass, which could become a fetus, and then a baby. I assume you mean if the mother doesn't miscarry. Is it just a cellular mass? How do you know if it doesn't have soul? I know of no scientific device that measures soul.
Secondly, if you believe that human beings do have soul (form seeing your website, the beauty and artistic quality of your foods show me that you do) you have to then formulate, what stage must abortions not take place once the soul enters the fetus. Is it the level of dependancy? If it starts to look like a baby?
If you are an agnostic, it is always better to err on the side of caution. Take cooking for example...You have an ingredient in front of you but it's not labeled and you think it's cream of tartar, but not sure. Are you going to throw it into your egg whites for your merrengue (sp?) without a care? NO!
Abortion may be killing a soul. We err on the side of life.
Post a Comment
<< Home