Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Abortion: When will you ever be satisfied?

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

Will your side ever be happy?

Here, Sen. Ben Nelson has dramatically expanded anti-choice legislation – to the disappointment of pro-choice advocates – and yet, you are still complaining.

As Cecile B. Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America stated,

“”The Nelson language is essentially an abortion rider…. There is no sound policy reason to require women to pay separately for their abortion coverage other than to try to shame them and draw attention to the abortion coverage.

“After the passage of the Stupak amendment in the House,” she continued, “we heard loud and clear from women across the country that they will not stand for the undermining of their rights and their access to benefits. This Nelson abortion check provision will no doubt create the same outrage, as women learn that they are being made second-class citizens when it comes to health care coverage.”


Richards has made a very valid point. I see why the Nelson language is
so upsetting to pro-choice advocates. But I have no clue why
anti-choicers are all up in arms over this.

If it had been up to Planned Parenthood or the National Organization
for Women (NOW), the health care bill would never have been used as a
platform to discuss abortion. It was the anti-choice proponents that
wanted to make health care reform about abortion, and they’ve gotten
just what they wanted in both the House and Senate versions of the
bill. Yet, they are still unhappy.

National Right to Life and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops say they will not support the Senate version of the bill.

“In all the areas of our moral concern,” the bishops said, “the Senate
health care reform bill is deficient,” On the issue of respect for
unborn human life, the bill not only falls short of the House’s
standard but violates longstanding precedent in all other federal
health programs.

This is incomprehensible. Even in the Senate version of the bill,
insurance funding for abortion is being curtailed well beyond what it
has ever been before. This should be a “victory” for you (although a
sad day for womens’ rights). What is it going to take for you, and
other anti-choicers, to finally be satisfied?

We’ll see where all this goes in 2010.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(70)
post a comment
Your Name

posted December 29, 2009 at 5:50 pm


What is all the muck about?
Where did America go wrong?
I feel the argument of choosing to murder children by choice with any tax dollars or further funding of any sorts is completely wrong. I further would like to add that this does not protect our posterity, as our very own Constitution of America dictates for us to do.
So, as for me and my house of fellow constituents, well, let’s agree to protect people, instead of finding ways to protect people to have the right to kill them by choice.
Cara



report abuse
 

Saladdin

posted December 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm


What’s the big deal? Did you honestly believe that either group supports either bill? I don’t recall either group announcing that they support either the House or Senate bills because they do not. This is a ploy. Something akin to, “No, both bills suck, but the Senate bill a tad more.”



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 30, 2009 at 5:14 am


Woe is the day when being able to kill another solely because it’s to your convenience to do so is considered a “right”.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 30, 2009 at 9:52 am


Murder has been illegal in every society there ever was. Abortion has been legal in just about every society too. They aren’t the same thing. You can’t expect Christians to understand that. The prerequisite for being a Christian is stupidity. Obviously Panhandler is a Christian.



report abuse
 

methodistsearching

posted December 30, 2009 at 10:28 am


When will EITHER side be satisfied is more the question. And the obvious answer is “Never”.
If this issue is to be settled, it will involve compromise and understanding on both sides, which requires maturity and the ability to see each other’s point, which neither side appears to display.
First off, I checked and was surprised to find that my insurance covers elective abortion. Since my plan is pretty average, I will un-scientifically conclude that most plans cover elective abortion. To argue that any government bill about health insurance should leave out abortion is cherry-picking and not realistic or even fair.
As to the whole debate, let’s try to each see the other’s side (yes, call me a dreamer):
1. Abortion kills a human, plain and simple. The attempts to gloss over that fact have resulted in many women suffering emotional anguish in later years when they come to this conclusion.
One for the “pro-life” side.
2. To outlaw abortion is to require a woman to remain pregnant for the natural length of the term, even if she does not want to. This is an infringement on personal liberty. And, since there is no analogous situation for men, it is a sex-based infringement. This is un-American, plain and simple.
One for the “pro-choice” side.
The issue of whether or not to have an abortion is a serious conundrum. A woman in this situation needs access to all of the information she can get. She also should be given all of the advice she asks for. But, she must be given the respect of being able to make her own decision. She is the one who has to live with it.
Until medical science reaches the state where the burden of pregnancy can be removed without killing the child, this is where we are at.
OK, let the flaming begin…



report abuse
 

Rapnsum

posted December 30, 2009 at 11:32 am


You should get a copy of the film Maafa21 and see what the real racist and eugenic goals are behind abortion. View a clip here: http://www.maafa21com



report abuse
 

ManHoleCover

posted December 30, 2009 at 2:43 pm


Racist and eugenic goals? I do not think that making abortion available to all is targeting any particular group of people in any way. Unfounded fear mongering, race baiting, and paranoia.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 30, 2009 at 6:53 pm


Rd: Boris
Who are you trying to fool here about abortion not being murder?
Re: Methodistsearching
Well, you forgetting the individual which has a right under The Constitution of America to be defended and given rights such as yourself. Posterity
So, if you are trying to say that it would be biased to let others not to be given that right of killing their child, that would be indeed leaving out the inalienable rights of the living child within the womb. Thus making the elective choice of abortion or insurance coverage of, a unconstitutional right.
Cara



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 30, 2009 at 6:58 pm


@ Boris
Firstly, you might want to check up on your history. Prior to liberalization in the mid-to-late 20th century, abortion was flatly illegal in most countries, the United States included. Even dating back to the Roman and Assyrian empires there were laws against abortions. Secondly, this is where I’d ask you why they aren’t the same thing, but I fear I won’t get a straight response as you’ll more than likely just respond tell me that they’re not the same thing because the government says they’re not (Which is fallacious). Thirdly, how do you figure I’m a Christian? You know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm


@ Methodistsearching
The very fact that a woman cannot have an abortion whenever she pleases, and the very fact that a state’s compelling interest can override what a woman wants and “force” her to remain pregnant even if she doesn’t want to remain pregnant makes your assertion that being able to do just that is “un-American” as false, and rightfully so. An infringement of “personal liberty” at any time is an infringement of “personal liberty” period. Therefore, if it’s wrong to ‘force’ a woman to continue her pregnancy starting from point A, then why is it not equally as wrong to ‘force’ a woman to continue her pregnancy starting from point B or C or D, etc.?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 30, 2009 at 7:22 pm


I have a migraine again, sorry for the spelling errors, I find this subject to be somewhat irrational when dealing with people who don’t care that they are children or that they are being legally murdered for whatever choice they were given by law, for whatever reason.
Flat out unconstitutional. Our Posterity have rights of their own. I am sorry that you want to call them an unidentifiable object growing in the womb, like they are a UFO or something. Like we don’t know about the birds and the bees and what happens when people have sex and procreate. We know. We know. We know what that big bump in the belly is, so please let us be reasonable when debating a life of a human being. Your a life, so respect others.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 30, 2009 at 8:51 pm


To state that abortion is unconstitutional is a flat out lie. It has been ruled upon by those in our system of government who decide what is constitutional. That is not me, that is not you, that is the Supreme Court. There is no such thing as legal murder, murder is illegal in all cases (unless the only thing slaughtered is the English language). Yes, by all means respect the lives of others. I’m a big fan of personal liberty, so please let all enjoy theirs while they may. Our posterity, future generations, are well secured by global comparison, but our posteriors have been robbed blind.
MHC



report abuse
 

Gene

posted December 30, 2009 at 9:19 pm


Anyone who thinks that there is not a real human being in the womb should visit an abortion mill, yes, mill. See all of the body parts that have just been thrown in a garbage disposal will convince you.
Planned Parenthood has deceived the public for 30 years telling us it is just a piece of tissue. Some babies have lived after only six months in the womb. Stop trying to convince us that it is not murder.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm


Panhandler,
>Firstly, you might want to check up on your history. Prior to liberalization in the mid-to-late 20th century, abortion was flatly illegal in most countries, the United States included. Even dating back to the Roman and Assyrian empires there were laws against abortions.
Boris says: Abortions were legal and openly advertised when the Constitution was ratified. Abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s banning abortions after the fourth month. These abortion laws have since been declared unconstitutional. A recent study done by Johns Hopkins University supports earlier research that indicates that women who live in countries where abortions are still illegal get abortions at the same rate as women who live in countries where abortions are legal. According to the World Health Organization 110,000 women worldwide die each year from illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them. Making abortions illegal in the United States would not reduce the number of abortions. It would mean that women who refused to submit to carrying an unwanted fetus for nine months and then giving birth to a child they don’t want would be forced to turn to the back-alley abortions at a staggering risk to their health. Would you like to explain why your personal ideology is more important than public safety?
>Secondly, this is where I’d ask you why they aren’t the same thing, but I fear I won’t get a straight response as you’ll more than likely just respond tell me that they’re not the same thing because the government says they’re not (Which is fallacious).
Boris says: There is no scientific reason to mischaracterize a lump of cells the size of a raisin as a human being. An embryo is biologically far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically its brain has yet to develop and so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear even the remotest similarity to a human being. This lump of cells has the potential to become a human being but it has to be preserved, nurtured, fed and brought to term by the woman that it depends on. Seeds can become mature plants but that doesn’t make a seed a plant. People always get a straight response from me and as you can see and feel right now, if I disagree with you it will be like a sharp stick in the eye.
>Thirdly, how do you figure I’m a Christian? You know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?
Boris says: You “pro-lifers” try to obscure the religious and inhuman nature of your position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions and distorting the language to confuse the issue. Calling abortion murder is a prime example. Since there is no scientific, moral, legal or rational justification for banning abortions the ultimate “justification” of the “pro-life” position is religious dogma. That and the fact that you are on a Christian blog is why I think you’re a Christian.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 30, 2009 at 10:19 pm


Now I KNOW Gene is a Christian because he just told a big fat lie. Abortions done in the third trimester are illegal unless the fetus severely deformed or the woman’s life is in danger. The vast majority of abortions are done when the embryo is the size of a raisin. We wouldn’t have to say anything about abortion not being murder because it isn’t. But we have a bunch of dishonest, deluded and poorly educated religious fanatics who admit not accepting almost all major scientific theories telling us that abortion is murder. Of course they have no support for this in their book of magic and fairies but who cares if they did. It’s still a retarded book about magic and fairies.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted December 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm


Cara —
Since 1 out of every 5 pregnancies is terminated by the Ultimate Abortionist, when are you going to stop the hypocrisy of worshipping the Heavenly Baby Killer while criticizing human beings for following His example?
Who is in charge here? Is God the sovreign giver and sustainer of life and death? Or is He so impotent that he needs human beings to intervene on His behalf?



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 31, 2009 at 1:43 am


Massive post follows :P
@ Boris.
“Abortions were legal and openly advertised when the Constitution was ratified.”
Abortion wasn’t regulated and they most certainly weren’t openly advertised.
“Abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s banning abortions after the fourth month.”
This isn’t quite true. The first abortion law banned certain aborti-however you spell it because they killed the woman. These laws gradually expanded to making abortion illegal after ‘quickening’ until, by the mid 1860’s, very nearly every state had a law banning abortion flatly. It wasn’t until 1973 that all abortion laws were struck down. Slice it any way you like, abortion has been flatly illegal for the majority of the U.S.’s history.
“These abortion laws have since been declared unconstitutional.”
Ummm, yeah. We know.
“A recent study done by Johns Hopkins University supports earlier research that indicates that women who live in countries where abortions are still illegal get abortions at the same rate as women who live in countries where abortions are legal.”
This isn’t true, because 1.) Not only is the abortion rate for every country the same (They vary wildly) but 2.) It’s impossible to calculate the number of illegal abortions that occur in a country because they’re, well… Illegal.
“‘According to the World Health Organization 110,000 women worldwide die each year from illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.”
And check the countries they all occur in. They’re poor and they lack access to the latest developments in medical technology. The legality of abortion does not affect their safety; access to modern medicine does. I’ll have more on this below.
“Making abortions illegal in the United States would not reduce the number of abortions.”
100% false. The instance of an action is higher when it’s legal than when it’s illegal. This is attested to by the fact that the number of abortions in a country go up after legalization, followed by a dip in the fertility rate. If making abortions legal/illegal did not change their number, then you wouldn’t see a dip in the fertility rate.
“It would mean that women who refused to submit to carrying an unwanted fetus for nine months and then giving birth to a child they don’t want would be forced to turn to the back-alley abortions at a staggering risk to their health. Would you like to explain why your personal ideology is more important than public safety? ”
Ah… It’s the back-alley abortion myth. I love that thing. Anyway, let’s really examine it, shall we? The following is the estimated number of women who died from an illegal abortion between the years of 1940 and 1985. These numbers are taken from the National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC.
1940 1,313
1941 1,080
1942 962
1943 910
1944 770
1945 694
1946 593
1947 457
1948 388
1949 298
1950 246
1951 226
1952 249
1953 230
1954 223
1955 211
1956 174
1957 209
1958 215
1959 235
1960 241
1961 271
1962 253
1963 234
1964 207
1965 197
1966 159
1967 135
1968 109
1969 115
1970 109
1971 75
1972 41
1973 22
1974 7
1975 14
1976 3
1977 4
1978 8
1979 0
1980 2
1981 1
1982 11
1983 10
1984 11
1985 6
Keep in mind that the first state legalized abortion was in 1967, and that Roe v. Wade occurred in January of 1973. Unless you’re completely dishonest, you can see a steady and drastic decline in the number of women dying from illegal abortions prior to any kind of legalized abortion. Care to guess what caused that decline? I’ll tell you: Advancements in medical technology, mainly penicilin. Legalized abortion didn’t make abortions safe. Advancements in medical technology did. This is a fact attested to by Mary Calderon, the then director of Planned Parenthood in 1960, when she stated that “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions is done by physicians…. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.”
So kindly stop with the whole “back-alley” abortions thing. It’s a lie and a flat out fabrication. “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”– No truer words have been spoken.
“There is no scientific reason to mischaracterize a lump of cells the size of a raisin as a human being. An embryo is biologically far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically its brain has yet to develop and so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn’t bear even the remotest similarity to a human being. This lump of cells has the potential to become a human being but it has to be preserved, nurtured, fed and brought to term by the woman that it depends on. Seeds can become mature plants but that doesn’t make a seed a plant. People always get a straight response from me and as you can see and feel right now, if I disagree with you it will be like a sharp stick in the eye.”
Man, oh man. I could sit here and explain why you’re wrong, but it’s so much easier to just copy-and-paste, so that’s just what I’ll do :)
~~~~~~~~~~
******
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm… unites with a female gamete or oocyte… to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
******
From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly,
Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote… is a unicellular embryo.”
******
Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. …Fertilization takes place in the oviduct… resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
******
Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
******
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
******
T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.
“Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”
******
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
*******
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.
“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
******
Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
******
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.
“Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
******
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
******
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
******
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
******
Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986
“…but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”
******
Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. …At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
******
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
******
Turner, J.S., and Helms, D.B., Lifespan Developmental, 2nd ed., CBS College Publishing (Holt, Rhinehart, Winston), 1983, page 53
“A zygote (a single fertilized egg cell) represents the onset of pregnancy and the genesis of new life.”
******
Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99
“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”
******
Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86
“The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”
******
Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419
“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”
******
DeCoursey, R.M., The Human Organism, 4th edition McGraw Hill Inc., Toronto, 1974. page 584
“The zygote therefore contains a new arrangement of genes on the chromosomes never before duplicated in any other individual. The offspring destined to develop from the fertilized ovum will have a genetic constitution different from anyone else in the world.”
******
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005 (Prenatal Development Video)
“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”
******
The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006. (Video)
“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Science: It’s a wonderful thing.
“You “pro-lifers” try to obscure the religious and inhuman nature of your position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions and distorting the language to confuse the issue. Calling abortion murder is a prime example.”
I find it funny that you call the position designed to prevent one human from killing another inhuman. That’s irony for you.
“Since there is no scientific, moral, legal or rational justification for banning abortions the ultimate “justification” of the “pro-life” position is religious dogma.”
Science doesn’t deal with what should and shouldn’t be (Normative statements are generally bad), so that’s out right off the bat. As to the remaining of what you wrote, the “legal” and “rational” justification is quite simple. The unborn are humans, therefore they’re deserving of the same basic protections afforded to all humans.
“That and the fact that you are on a Christian blog is why I think you’re a Christian.”
So that means you’re a Christian, too, huh?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 31, 2009 at 2:32 pm


“Slice it any way you like, abortion has been flatly illegal for the majority of the U.S.’s history.”
Unconstitutionally illegal. Doesn’t that mean it has always been legal, just not yet ruled upon?
MHC



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm


Panliar,
Abortion wasn’t regulated and they most certainly weren’t openly advertised.
Boris says: I’d like to see you prove that. Abortions were legal up until quickening. During the 1840s newspaper advertisements for abortions proliferated. The number of abortions skyrocketed, especially among middle and upper class married women who wished to limit the size of their families. After the enactment of obscenity legislation advertisements for abortifacients did not disappear but simply became vague by referring only to “female irregularities.” In the late 1860s, newspaper advertisements became more blatant again. So your statement is absolutely false.
This isn’t quite true. The first abortion law banned certain aborti-however you spell it because they killed the woman. These laws gradually expanded to making abortion illegal after ‘quickening’ until, by the mid 1860’s, very nearly every state had a law banning abortion flatly. It wasn’t until 1973 that all abortion laws were struck down. Slice it any way you like, abortion has been flatly illegal for the majority of the U.S.’s history.
Boris says: Right, and African Americans didn’t have equal rights for the majority of the U.S.’s history either. Denying women reproductive rights is just as wrong as denying them the right to vote, which was also part of the law for much of U.S. history as well. So your argument fails absolutely.
“These abortion laws have since been declared unconstitutional.”
Ummm, yeah. We know.
Boris says: Okay then what are some ways we can reduce abortions without making them illegal?
This isn’t true, because 1.) Not only is the abortion rate for every country the same (They vary wildly) but 2.) It’s impossible to calculate the number of illegal abortions that occur in a country because they’re, well… Illegal.
Boris says: Not so.
Context: Accurate measurement of induced abortion levels has proven difficult in many parts of the world. Health care workers and policymakers need information on the incidence of both legal and illegal induced abortion to provide the needed services and to reduce the negative impact of unsafe abortion on women’s health.
Methods: Numbers and rates of induced abortions were estimated from four sources: official statistics or other national data on legal abortions in 57 countries; estimates based on population surveys for two countries without official statistics; special studies for 10 countries where abortion is highly restricted; and worldwide and regional estimates of unsafe abortion from the World Health Organization.
Results: Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Among the sub regions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted. The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide, By Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas
“‘According to the World Health Organization 110,000 women worldwide die each year from illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.”
And check the countries they all occur in. They’re poor and they lack access to the latest developments in medical technology. The legality of abortion does not affect their safety; access to modern medicine does. I’ll have more on this below.
Boris says: The legality of an abortion affects the safety of an abortion. Many women die trying to do the abortion them selves. But I’m quite sure that doesn’t bother self absorbed and self righteous faith heads like you.
100% false. The instance of an action is higher when it’s legal than when it’s illegal. This is attested to by the fact that the number of abortions in a country go up after legalization, followed by a dip in the fertility rate. If making abortions legal/illegal did not change their number, then you wouldn’t see a dip in the fertility rate.
Boris says: Oh please. Just about everyone I know smokes marijuana. Do you think the fact that marijuana is illegal concerns these people in the least?
Ah… It’s the back-alley abortion myth. I love that thing. Anyway, let’s really examine it, shall we? The following is the estimated number of women who died from an illegal abortion between the years of 1940 and 1985. These numbers are taken from the National Center for Health Statistics and the CDC.
Boris says: Oh really. But you just said: “2.) It’s impossible to calculate the number of illegal abortions that occur in a country because they’re, well… Illegal.” Trip over your own lies much do you? ROFL! Another Christian hypocrite exposed for the evil liar he really is.
Keep in mind that the first state legalized abortion was in 1967, and that Roe v. Wade occurred in January of 1973. Unless you’re completely dishonest, you can see a steady and drastic decline in the number of women dying from illegal abortions prior to any kind of legalized abortion.
Boris says: Now that you’ve been exposed as being completely dishonest as well as delusional you don’t have any room to comment on other people’s honesty.
So kindly stop with the whole “back-alley” abortions thing. It’s a lie and a flat out fabrication. “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one”– No truer words have been spoken.
Boris says: Again many women would try to give themselves an abortion. This obviously doesn’t concern a Christian redneck ignoramus though does it?
Man, oh man. I could sit here and explain why you’re wrong, but it’s so much easier to just copy-and-paste, so that’s just what I’ll do :)
Boris says: This of course this is a logical fallacy often made by Christians called an appeal to authority. In this particular case we have some typical quote mining where if the reader takes the time to read the context some of these passages were taken from they will see the literature these passages were lifted from does not support the argument Panhandler is trying to make. Quote mining is dishonest and indistinguishable from lying.
Science: It’s a wonderful thing.
Boris says: I know. It has shown that God does not exist. Anyone who disagrees with that does not believe in science.
I find it funny that you call the position designed to prevent one human from killing another inhuman. That’s irony for you.
Boris says: Fetuses aren’t humans. Yes it is anti-human to try to force parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it. That’s the real issue here. A child has the right to be wanted by its parents. It is anti-human to try to turn women into government owned breeding pigs.
Science doesn’t deal with what should and shouldn’t be (Normative statements are generally bad), so that’s out right off the bat.
Boris says: Okay what does then? Most aspects of any life behavior can be better understood by considering the basic science of life. Fundamentalist Christians certainly do not understand much about human behavior because of their ridiculous beliefs about human origins. For example, humans have evolved their own system for raising children that is very sophisticated when compared with those of other animals. We should not assume that this system was invented but rather it evolved over time and thus describes a current maximization of the factors that favor success of progeny. Forcing parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it does not favor success of progeny.
As to the remaining of what you wrote, the “legal” and “rational” justification is quite simple. The unborn are humans, therefore they’re deserving of the same basic protections afforded to all humans.
Boris says: No, as I just proved fetuses are NOT humans they are potential humans. Women have the basic constitutional right to be protected from an unwanted fetus and people who would make them carry this fetus for nine months. We cannot give a fetus rights that conflict with a woman’s rights because rights must be considered as a whole. It’s one thing to disagree with a refutation of your claims but quite another to go on yammering with the same argument as if no objections have been raised. Christians always do this, which is another clue that you’re a Christian. I proved that the unborn are potential humans and unless you can respond to that your argument remains refuted. And since your entire case rests on false premises, distortions of language, logical fallacies and arguments that have not only been refuted here by me but in all the relevant literature on the subject all I can say now is: checkmate, you lose.
So that means you’re a Christian, too, huh?
Boris says: The fact that you’re on a Christian blog, parroting long refuted Christian arguments, using common Christian trickery and ploys like distorting the language and telling outright lies, are what they would call in detective work, clues. Now you will prove that you’re a Christian when you repeat the same arguments that have been refuted as if no objections had ever been raised. I’ve destroyed all of your arguments and you don’t have any new ones. The best thing you could do is go away before Boris humiliates you to the point of tears. I eat Christian liars for lunch. Burp.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 31, 2009 at 6:17 pm


So, what is the total abortions(death of developing children per year)
Let us just start with the most recent year, 2009?
Cara



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 31, 2009 at 7:09 pm


@ Boris
“Boris says: I’d like to see you prove that. Abortions were legal up until quickening. During the 1840s newspaper advertisements for abortions proliferated. The number of abortions skyrocketed, especially among middle and upper class married women who wished to limit the size of their families. After the enactment of obscenity legislation advertisements for abortifacients did not disappear but simply became vague by referring only to “female irregularities.” In the late 1860s, newspaper advertisements became more blatant again. So your statement is absolutely false.”
You do realize that you’re the one burdened with proving your claims as true, correct? You don’t get to make an assertion, then when I claim it’s not true, turn around and tell me to prove your claims untrue. You have to prove them true.
But, anyway, it’s ironic that you call me a liar while making up lies yourself. Number one, the assertion that “the number of abortions skyrocketed” is false. Considering the fact that anti-abortion laws went up, and contraceptives became relatively easy to acquire, how could they? Number two, Comstock Laws weren’t even passed until 1873. What Comstock laws did was ban the distribution of materials referencing birth control (I.e., chemical suppositories, vaginal sponges, medicated tampons, douching syringes, cervical caps and even condoms) and abortions, as they were generally accomponied with graphic details. Abortifacients, however, were not advertised. Why? Because by 1868, 7 territories, the kingdom of Hawaii and 28 out of 37 states had laws on record flatly banning abortions and the use of abortifacients. Here they are for your viewing pleasure.
1. Alabama – Ala. Acts, c. 6, 2 (1840).
2. Arizona – Howell Code, c. 10, 45 (1865).
3. Arkansas – Ark. Rev. Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, 6 (1838).
4. California – Cal. Sess. Laws, c. 99, 45, p. 233 (1849-1850).
5. Colorado (Terr.) – Colo. Gen. Laws of Terr. of Colo., 1st Sess., 42, pp. 296-297 (1861).
6. Connecticut – Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn. Pub. Acts, c. 71, 1, 2, p. 65 (1860).
7. Florida – Fla. Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, 10, 11, subc. 8, 9, 10, 11 (1868), as amended, now Fla. Stat. Ann. 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965).
8. Georgia – Ga. Pen. Code, 4th Div., 20 (1833).
9. Kingdom of Hawaii – Hawaii Pen. Code, c. 12, 1, 2, 3 (1850).
10. Idaho (Terr.) – Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863).
11. Illinois – Ill. Rev. Criminal Code 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill. Pub. Laws 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867).
12. Indiana – Ind. Rev. Stat. 1, 3, p. 224 (1838). By 1868 this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind. Laws, c. LXXXI, 2 (1859).
13. Iowa (Terr.) – Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., 18, p. 145 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 49, 10, 13 (1843).
14. Kansas (Terr.) – Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, 9, 10, 37 (1859).
15. Louisiana – La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offenses 24, p. 138 (1856).
16. Maine – Me. Rev. Stat., c. 160, 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840).
17. Maryland – Md. Laws, c. 179, 2, p. 315 (1868).
18. Massachusetts – Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845).
19. Michigan – Mich. Rev. Stat., c. 153, 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846). [410 U.S. 113, 176] 20. Minnesota (Terr.) – Minn. (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 100, 10, 11, p. 493 (1851).
21. Mississippi – Miss. Code, c. 64, 8, 9, p. 958 (1848).
22. Missouri – Mo. Rev. Stat., Art. II, 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835).
23. Montana (Terr.) – Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts 41, p. 184 (1864).
24. Nevada (Terr.) – Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, 42, p. 63 (1861).
25. New Hampshire – N. H. Laws, c. 743, 1, p. 708 (1848).
26. New Jersey – N. J. Laws, p. 266 (1849).
27. New York – N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit. 2, 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (1828). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N. Y. Laws, c. 260, 1-6, pp. 285-286 (1845); N. Y. Laws, c. 22, 1, p. 19 (1846).
28. Ohio – Ohio Gen. Stat. 111 (1), 112 (2), p. 252 (1841).
29. Oregon – Ore. Gen. Laws, Crim. Code, c. 43, 509, p. 528 (1845-1864).
30. Pennsylvania – Pa. Laws No. 374, 87, 88, 89 (1860).
31. Texas – Tex. Gen. Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859).
32. Vermont – Vt. Acts No. 33, 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt. Acts No. 57, 1, 3 (1867).
33. Virginia – Va. Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, 9, p. 96 (1848).
34. Washington (Terr.) – Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, 37, 38, p. 81 (1854).
35. West Virginia – See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, 9, p. 96 (1848); W. Va. Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863).
36. Wisconsin – Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 133, 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 164, 10, 11; c. 169, 58, 59 (1858).
“Boris says: Right, and African Americans didn’t have equal rights for the majority of the U.S.’s history either. Denying women reproductive rights is just as wrong as denying them the right to vote, which was also part of the law for much of U.S. history as well. So your argument fails absolutely.”
Adding the word “right” after a word doesn’t make it a “right”. A “right” does not, not can it, exist when it comes at the expense of another’s life or well-being. This is why slavery was deemed wrong. The “right” of someone to own a slave is trumped by the right of the slave to not be owned. Abortion is no different. The “right” of a woman to discard the ZEF at her leisure is trumped by the right of the ZEF to not be killed. It’s just a matter of the law recognizing this fact. Simple.
“Boris says: Okay then what are some ways we can reduce abortions without making them illegal?”
You can’t. The abortion rate will remain comparatively high while they are easy to come by. This is why states in the South and midwest have comparatively lower abortions rates than states in the west and northeast. This isn’t to say that you don’t advocate contraceptives and sex ed, but contraceptives and sex ed by themselves will have their effects mitigated for as long as abortion is legal.
“Boris says: Not so.”
So not only did you not read what I typed out, but you didn’t even read what you copied and pasted? How does that work?
“Boris says: The legality of an abortion affects the safety of an abortion. Many women die trying to do the abortion them selves. But I’m quite sure that doesn’t bother self absorbed and self righteous faith heads like you.”
In the U.S., the legality of abortion has had no affect on its safety, for abortions were safe before they were legal due to advancements in medical technology post-WWII. Once again, I reference you to the NCHS, the CDC and the writing of Mary Calderon.
“Boris says: Oh please. Just about everyone I know smokes marijuana. Do you think the fact that marijuana is illegal concerns these people in the least?”
Do you think that, if tomorrow marijuana was legalized, that there would be no more people smoking it tomorrow than there are today? The simple fact is that there would, because tomorrow marijuana use would be legal. People are more apt to engage in an action when it’s legal than when it’s illegal.
“Boris says: Oh really. But you just said: “2.) It’s impossible to calculate the number of illegal abortions that occur in a country because they’re, well… Illegal.” Trip over your own lies much do you? ROFL! Another Christian hypocrite exposed for the evil liar he really is.”
“Boris says: Now that you’ve been exposed as being completely dishonest as well as delusional you don’t have any room to comment on other people’s honesty.
I’ll respond to these two together. Since I’m such a nice fellow, I’ll help you out, as you seem to be struggling here. It’s hard to report the occurrence of an illegal action because it’s illegal. For example, no one knows how many people exactly in the U.S. do cocaine. However, if for some reason you die from a cocaine overdose, we can calculate that because a coroner will perform an autopsy to determine cause of death. Understand? It’s hard to adequately record the occurrence of an illegal action; It’s not hard to report the number of people who die from that occurrence. Nothing I typed out makes me a liar or dishonest, as nothing I’ve typed out contradicts anything else I’ve typed out. Learn to read before you try to make accussations of others, making yourself look utterly foolish in the process.
“Boris says: Again many women would try to give themselves an abortion. This obviously doesn’t concern a Christian redneck ignoramus though does it?”
No, they wouldn’t. The vast majority of abortions have always been carried ou
“Boris says: This of course this is a logical fallacy often made by Christians called an appeal to authority. In this particular case we have some typical quote mining where if the reader takes the time to read the context some of these passages were taken from they will see the literature these passages were lifted from does not support the argument Panhandler is trying to make. Quote mining is dishonest and indistinguishable from lying.”
1.) Please, please, please learn what an appeal to authority is before you go out and accuse people of engaging in it. An appeal to authority requires using person A who is an authority on subject X to argue that because he’s an authority on subject X and holds some opinion of subject Y, that subject Y is true. That’s highly different than quoting person A’s position on subject X when he or she is an authority on position X. So fail and try again.
2.) You’re quite welcome to “read the context” of what I copied and pasted. But, oh, you won’t do that. Why? Because it directly contradicts your assertion that fetuses aren’t human beings. You know what’s dishonest? Callously dismissing that which shows your arguments to be plainly false.
“Boris says: I know. It has shown that God does not exist. Anyone who disagrees with that does not believe in science.”
As a scientist myself, it pains me to tell you that, firstly, science does not concern itself with gods or goddesses– Science has neither proved nor disproved that there is a god. It doesn’t care– And that, secondly, science isn’t something you believe in.
“Boris says: Fetuses aren’t humans. Yes it is anti-human to try to force parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it. That’s the real issue here. A child has the right to be wanted by its parents. It is anti-human to try to turn women into government owned breeding pigs.”
1.) Even if you state that fetuses aren’t humans one more time, it still won’t be any more true than it wasn’t the first time you stated it.
2.) At some point in time, the government will ‘force’ a woman into continuing a pregnancy even if she doesn’t want to. I suppose you missed the whole ‘compelling state interest’ aspect of Roe v. Wade, huh?
3.) What if you’re a male and you don’t want to be a parent?
“Boris says: Okay what does then? Most aspects of any life behavior can be better understood by considering the basic science of life. Fundamentalist Christians certainly do not understand much about human behavior because of their ridiculous beliefs about human origins. For example, humans have evolved their own system for raising children that is very sophisticated when compared with those of other animals. We should not assume that this system was invented but rather it evolved over time and thus describes a current maximization of the factors that favor success of progeny.”
No, actually, it’s not. Most animals
“Forcing parenthood on people who do not want it or are not ready for it does not favor success of progeny.”
If it’s good enough to happen to a man, why not a woman?
“Boris says: No, as I just proved fetuses are NOT humans they are potential humans.”
You proved no such thing. All you did was dismiss what I copied and pasted for you. Ignoring evidence does not mean you proved anything. It means you ignored the evidence given which contradicts your assertion. Even a child can do that. Are you a child? If not, then stop arguing like one.
“Women have the basic constitutional right to be protected from an unwanted fetus and people who would make them carry this fetus for nine months. We cannot give a fetus rights that conflict with a woman’s rights because rights must be considered as a whole.”
No, they don’t. Did you ever read Roe v. Wade? It’s hard for me to believe you have with the amount of falsities you’re spewing. This is taken directly from the case
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, *but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation*. …Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that *the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations*; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant.
So, please, try again.
“It’s one thing to disagree with a refutation of your claims but quite another to go on yammering with the same argument as if no objections have been raised. Christians always do this, which is another clue that you’re a Christian.”
You haven’t refuted anything. That’s the problem. All you’ve done is engage in straw men, rather poor logical bait-and-switches and flat out ignored those things you couldn’t respond to. It’s like… Seriously? Congratulations on being the epitome of how not to argue.
“I proved that the unborn are potential humans and unless you can respond to that your argument remains refuted.”
It’s plainly evident for everyone to see that you did no such thing. Making a false accusation of a logical fallacy (It’s clear that you don’t understand what an appeal to authority is) does not constitute a refutation by any stretch of the imagination. Well, maybe in your world it does, but it doesn’t in the real world. And this is ignoring the fact that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the quotes I posted. Go figure, right? I can’t really blame you for not doing so. I wouldn’t either if I were you.
“And since your entire case rests on false premises, distortions of language, logical fallacies and arguments that have not only been refuted here by me but in all the relevant literature on the subject all I can say now is: checkmate, you lose.”
I’m sure that if you clasp your heals together and say that you’ve refuted anything I’ve typed out thus far, that they will suddenly become refuted. Maybe. Or probably not, but it’s worth trying, right? Also, what “relevant literature” would that be? I’m curious, because as it stands you’ve don’t nothing but ignore everything I’ve posted while claiming to have “won”.
“Boris says: The fact that you’re on a Christian blog, parroting long refuted Christian arguments, using common Christian trickery and ploys like distorting the language and telling outright lies, are what they would call in detective work, clues. Now you will prove that you’re a Christian when you repeat the same arguments that have been refuted as if no objections had ever been raised. I’ve destroyed all of your arguments and you don’t have any new ones. The best thing you could do is go away before Boris humiliates you to the point of tears. I eat Christian liars for lunch. Burp.”
*says something about you not having refuted anything*
But, anyway, I’m not so sure whether to laugh or cry at the very fact that you’re engaging in those things you’re accusing me of; something which is nothing short of ironic.
…And I’m still not a Christian :)



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted December 31, 2009 at 7:23 pm


Grrr… I didn’t finish responding to two things.
1.) No, they wouldn’t. The vast majority of abortions have always been carried out by a medical practitioners (We’re talking 90%+). This suddenly wouldn’t up and change tomorrow. The notion that abortions need to be legal to be safe is false, and decidedly so. If abortions were made illegal tomorrow, what would happen is that some women would give birth, some women would go out of the country to procure an abortion, some women would obtain an illegal abortion and some women wouldn’t get pregnant at all.
2.) No, actually, it’s not. Most animals have a complex system of childrearing which similar to that of humans. Or maybe it’s the other way around them. Either or, really.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 31, 2009 at 10:16 pm


Panfull,
You do realize that you’re the one burdened with proving your claims as true, correct? You don’t get to make an assertion, then when I claim it’s not true, turn around and tell me to prove your claims untrue. You have to prove them true.
Boris says: No, they stand until you can prove them false. Newspaper advertisements are a matter of record. Check http://www.law.georgetown.edu. Obscenity and Abortion Legislation in Maryland in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1984). You don’t get to assert claims aren’t true without offering any evidence to back up that assertion. This is exactly what you did though. Dismissing evidence without offering competing evidence or any reason for your dismissal is just one of the many logical fallacies you have committed. Besides my father is an antique collector and I’ve seen plenty of these ads in his collection myself. Why don’t you see if you can pray them away since simply claiming they don’t exist didn’t work? Hahaha.
But, anyway, it’s ironic that you call me a liar while making up lies yourself.
Boris says: Everything I have posted can be easily verified. None of your religious mumbo jargon can though.
Number one, the assertion that “the number of abortions skyrocketed” is false. Considering the fact that anti-abortion laws went up, and contraceptives became relatively easy to acquire, how could they?
Boris says: Again check the Georgetown Law website I provided. Instead of presenting facts to the contrary you commit the logical fallacy of personal incredulity: I cannot explain or understand this therefore it cannot be true. So typical of a Christian and certainly, not of any kind of scientist.
Number two, Comstock Laws weren’t even passed until 1873. …. [Continues endless appeals to authority]
Boris says: These laws that you would love to reinforce today also banned the distribution of information on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
Adding the word “right” after a word doesn’t make it a “right”. A “right” does not, not can it, exist when it comes at the expense of another’s life or well-being. This is why slavery was deemed wrong. The “right” of someone to own a slave is trumped by the right of the slave to not be owned. Abortion is no different. The “right” of a woman to discard the ZEF at her leisure is trumped by the right of the ZEF to not be killed. It’s just a matter of the law recognizing this fact. Simple.
Boris says: Forcing people to remain pregnant against their will is enslavement, body, mind and soul, but you don’t grasp that because to you women are not people, they’re incubators.
You can’t. The abortion rate will remain comparatively high while they are easy to come by.
Boris says: The only way to make abortions illegal is if as Mike Huckabee suggests we have a constitutional amendment protecting human life. That would effectively put the Republican Party and its endless pro business profits people and the super rich out of their war profiteering business. There goes the Carlyle Group and Haliburton and with them evangelical Christianity. They would never again be able to wage wars for business or religious reasons and the Christians would finally be forced to become their brother’s keeper. Your social and fiscal conservative stance would be abolished. No more war and no more killing would put the neo cons like you out of business. So go ahead try to pass your amendment and see what happens. ROFL! Do you people EVER think about the ramifications of your brainless schemes?
This is why states in the South and midwest have comparatively lower abortions rates than states in the west and northeast. This isn’t to say that you don’t advocate contraceptives and sex ed, but contraceptives and sex ed by themselves will have their effects mitigated for as long as abortion is legal.
Boris says: You know people can easily verify your claims so the only possible reason you could have to make such obviously false ones is because of the sheer desperation of your position. The states with the lowest rates of abortion are South Dakota (6.4 per 1,000 women), Utah (6.6 per 1,000), North Dakota (6.9 per 1,000), Kentucky (7.5 per 1,000), West Virginia (7.9 per 1,000) and Idaho (9.9 per 1,000). The highest rates of abortion and divorce are in fact in the Bible belt and not only that they are the highest among evangelical Christians. Don’t believe me? Then you must not listen to the radio station Jay Sekulow’s show is on. Chuck Crismier harps on these statistics every week on his radio program.
So not only did you not read what I typed out, but you didn’t even read what you copied and pasted? How does that work?
Boris says: What I pasted totally refuted what you posted. If you could rebut what I pasted you would have done so. Instead you post a non sequitur –ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part. Geez, an 8 year-old uses better logic!
In the U.S., the legality of abortion has had no affect on its safety, for abortions were safe before they were legal due to advancements in medical technology post-WWII. Once again, I reference you to the NCHS, the CDC and the writing of Mary Calderon.
Boris says: ANOTHER appeal to authority. Look, a debate gets nowhere with people saying if you just read what so and so says… Are you trying to imply that illegal abortions are safer than legal ones? Because no one is going to buy that lie, even you.
Do you think that, if tomorrow marijuana was legalized, that there would be no more people smoking it tomorrow than there are today? The simple fact is that there would, because tomorrow marijuana use would be legal. People are more apt to engage in an action when it’s legal than when it’s illegal.
Boris says: Academic studies and my own life experience tells me you are wrong. But then you’re wrong about everything.
I’ll respond to these two together. Since I’m such a nice fellow… [Continue mindless religious yammering]… making yourself look utterly foolish in the process.
Boris says: That lame response has only made you look even more utterly foolish that you did already.
No, they wouldn’t. The vast majority of abortions have always been carried ou
Boris says: Huh?
Please, please, please learn what an appeal to authority is before you go out and accuse people of engaging in it. An appeal to authority requires using person A who is an authority on subject X to argue that because he’s an authority on subject X and holds some opinion of subject Y, that subject Y is true. That’s highly different than quoting person A’s position on subject X when he or she is an authority on position X. So fail and try again.
Boris says: Appeals to authority are what most of your case is based on. So naturally you need to redefine it and pretend this isn’t what you are doing. Telling me to read something or pasting other people’s arguments is appealing to authority. You know, what you do to support your claims. .
2.) You’re quite welcome to “read the context” of what I copied and pasted. But, oh, you won’t do that. Why? Because it directly contradicts your assertion that fetuses aren’t human beings.
Boris says: No, I checked out what you pasted on the Internet and discovered you cut and pasted passages directly from creationist websites. BUSTED Mr. Not A Christian. Hahaha. What a phony! Audience,
Boris has once again uncovered the truth for your entertainment pleasure and his own sheer delight and much to the chagrin of the Christian apololiar. You are busted sir.
You know what’s dishonest? Callously dismissing that which shows your arguments to be plainly false.
Boris says: Any reader can see that is exactly how YOU have responded to all of my points! Wow what a hypocrite!
As a scientist myself, it pains me to tell you that, firstly, science does not concern itself with gods or goddesses– Science has neither proved nor disproved that there is a god. It doesn’t care– And that, secondly, science isn’t something you believe in.
Boris says: Scientific method doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural. But you don’t speak for the scientific community, which is made up of human beings. Apparently you aren’t a scientist or at least one who is very well read and the last bit aware of what other scientists have been writing. “God: The Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist” was written by Victor Stenger, a physicist and astronomer. An evolutionary biologist wrote “The God Delusion.”
1.) Even if you state that fetuses aren’t humans one more time, it still won’t be any more true than it wasn’t the first time you stated it.
Boris says: Even if you say fetuses are humans that won’t change the fact that we have two different words for these entities because they are in fact two different things. What you are doing is the same as covering your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you” like a small spoiled child. Science and the legal system agree with me, NOT you.
2.) At some point in time, the government will ‘force’ a woman into continuing a pregnancy even if she doesn’t want to. I suppose you missed the whole ‘compelling state interest’ aspect of Roe v. Wade, huh?
Boris says: Wrong Christianity is dead along with it Christian fascism. I already explained what would happen to your Christian ideology should that happen. It would go poof.
3.) What if you’re a male and you don’t want to be a parent?
Boris says: Exactly. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. What fascists like you want to do, is give all reproductive rights to the government. Not happening.
If it’s good enough to happen to a man, why not a woman?
Boris says: Because if a woman has no reproductive rights no one will. Duh.
You proved no such thing. All you did was dismiss what I copied and pasted for you. Ignoring evidence does not mean you proved anything.
Boris says: You didn’t present any evidence to ignore. Anyone can see that I have meticulously refuted every point you have made. You on the other hand simply dismiss evidence without giving any reasons. So Christian of you.
It means you ignored the evidence given which contradicts your assertion. Even a child can do that. Are you a child? If not, then stop arguing like one.
Boris says: Again this is what YOU are doing. Anyone disagree?
No, they don’t. Did you ever read Roe v. Wade? It’s hard for me to believe you have with the amount of falsities you’re spewing. This is taken directly from the case… So, please, try again.
Boris says: A woman’s right to be protected from an unwanted fetus doesn’t have to be spelled out to the letter. The Constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion and that isn’t spelled out either. But much to the chagrin of angry Christians the courts continually enforce our freedom FROM religion. Explain that. Without spewing more lies I mean.
You haven’t refuted anything. That’s the problem. All you’ve done is engage in straw men, rather poor logical bait-and-switches and flat out ignored those things you couldn’t respond to. It’s like… Seriously? Congratulations on being the epitome of how not to argue.
Boris says: ROFL! Look who is talking! You can’t speak without committing a logical fallacy basically because you don’t even know what one is! Name it and claim it. Don’t accuse me of ignoring something without specifically telling us all what it is I ignored. And you talk about bait and switch. ROFL! Your hypocrisy grows with every paragraph. Saying I haven’t refuted anything without specifically stating what I didn’t refute and why it doesn’t stand refuted is nothing but more smoke and mirrors used to disguise the weakness of your position. Refute what I’ve said or stand refuted as you still are. This whole post of conservative jibber-jabber of yours was nothing but a complete waste of time. Everything you’ve posted stands refuted. No one on this blog other than Mr. Incredible will come to your defense either.
It’s plainly evident for everyone to see that you did no such thing. Making a false accusation of a logical fallacy (It’s clear that you don’t understand what an appeal to authority is) does not constitute a refutation by any stretch of the imagination.
Boris says: I’ll let the impartial observers decide for themselves. You can’t afford this to happen so I’m sure we will get more Christianese and smoke and mirrors from you.
Well, maybe in your world it does, but it doesn’t in the real world. And this is ignoring the fact that you didn’t even bother to respond to any of the quotes I posted. Go figure, right? I can’t really blame you for not doing so. I wouldn’t either if I were you.
Boris says: A fetus is not a human being and an acorn is not a tree and a seed is not a plant. Can you explain without any more lies why we have different words for these things? I didn’t think so Mr. “Scientist.” ROFL!
I’m sure that if you clasp your heals together and say that you’ve refuted anything I’ve typed out thus far, that they will suddenly become refuted. Maybe. Or probably not, but it’s worth trying, right?
Boris says: Again you must now say why what I have written does not refute your absurd claims and lies. Just saying I haven’t done so won’t make it so. Maybe in your little world of religious delusions it will but not in the world the rest of us live in.
Also, what “relevant literature” would that be?
Boris says: Uh, the Constitution for one. Hahaha.
I’m curious, because as it stands you’ve don’t nothing but ignore everything I’ve posted while claiming to have “won”.
Boris says: Get this through your skull. YOU have not refuted one thing I’ve said. I HAVE refuted EVERYTHING you have posted. You cannot dismiss evidence without refuting it, which is ALL you have done. You’ve done this in plain view for everyone to see. I need specifics not a wave of your magical Christian wand.
But, anyway, I’m not so sure whether to laugh or cry at the very fact that you’re engaging in those things you’re accusing me of; something which is nothing short of ironic.
…And I’m still not a Christian :)
Boris says: I think you are once again distorting the language in order to hide the truth. Answer this question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ actually existed and that he is God? Gotcha. Hahahaha. You can run but you can’t hide.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted December 31, 2009 at 10:21 pm


No, actually, it’s not. Most animals have a complex system of childrearing which similar to that of humans. Or maybe it’s the other way around them. Either or, really.
Boris says: Oh yeah there’s a zebra college right down the street from me. Since when did animals other than humans send their offspring to school? ROFL! Mr. “Scientist” strike again! Hahaha.



report abuse
 

No name

posted January 1, 2010 at 4:59 am


Test



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 1, 2010 at 2:56 pm


For some reason, my comments won’t post.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm


That’s okay nobody wants top read them anyway.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm


Panhandler: For some reason, my comments won’t post.
The truth: I can’t seem to find any arguments on creationist websites that I can cut and paste that could refute what Boris has posted.



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm


No, actually, my comments really won’t post. I’ve been trying for a while now. So let’s try again.
~~~~~~~~
@ Boris
“Boris says: No, they stand until you can prove them false. Newspaper advertisements are a matter of record. Check http://www.law.georgetown.edu. Obscenity and Abortion Legislation in Maryland in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1984). You don’t get to assert claims aren’t true without offering any evidence to back up that assertion. This is exactly what you did though. Dismissing evidence without offering competing evidence or any reason for your dismissal is just one of the many logical fallacies you have committed. Besides my father is an antique collector and I’ve seen plenty of these ads in his collection myself. Why don’t you see if you can pray them away since simply claiming they don’t exist didn’t work? Hahaha.”
I can dismiss your evidence if you don’t provide anything to back up your assertions. That’s how things work. When you make a claim, you have to back it up.
…And still, it’s quite humorous to me that you still continue to go on about logical fallacies when you don’t even know what logical fallacies are.
“Boris says: Everything I have posted can be easily verified. None of your religious mumbo jargon can though.”
This is a blatant lie and you know it. Actually, everyone here knows it.
“Boris says: Again check the Georgetown Law website I provided. Instead of presenting facts to the contrary you commit the logical fallacy of personal incredulity: I cannot explain or understand this therefore it cannot be true. So typical of a Christian and certainly, not of any kind of scientist.”
No. When you don’t prove something is true with evidence, I don’t have to accept it as true on your world alone. See how that works? You don’t just get to make assertions and have others accept it as true without providing proof for those assertions.
“Boris says: These laws that you would love to reinforce today also banned the distribution of information on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.”
1.) Still haven’t figured out what an appeal to authority is, I see. Not surprising, really.
2.) Just to re-iterate what was stated prior (A point you ignored), “What Comstock laws did was ban the distribution of materials referencing birth control (I.e., chemical suppositories, vaginal sponges, medicated tampons, douching syringes, cervical caps and even condoms) and abortions, as they were generally accomponied with graphic details.”
3.) I would love to reintroduce Comstock laws? Really? How did you come to such a conclusion, or are you just pulling things out of your you-know-where?
“Boris says: Forcing people to remain pregnant against their will is enslavement, body, mind and soul, but you don’t grasp that because to you women are not people, they’re incubators.”
So if a woman wants an abortion her eighth month of pregnancy, should she be allowed to have one? Most people would say no, some PC’ers included. Does that mean they all advocate for slavery? Since SCOTUS ruled in Roe v. Wade that a state’s interest in protect the life of the unborn is greater than the mother’s “right to bodily autonomy”, does that mean that SCOTUS advocates slavery? Huh? HUH? HUH?!?!?!
“Boris says: The only way to make abortions illegal is if as Mike Huckabee suggests we have a constitutional amendment protecting human life. That would effectively put the Republican Party and its endless pro business profits people and the super rich out of their war profiteering business. There goes the Carlyle Group and Haliburton and with them evangelical Christianity. They would never again be able to wage wars for business or religious reasons and the Christians would finally be forced to become their brother’s keeper. Your social and fiscal conservative stance would be abolished. No more war and no more killing would put the neo cons like you out of business. So go ahead try to pass your amendment and see what happens. ROFL! Do you people EVER think about the ramifications of your brainless schemes?”
This is just inane rambling filled with a great number of assumptions, undeserving of a real response.
(Continued…)



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 1, 2010 at 11:42 pm


“Boris says: You know people can easily verify your claims so the only possible reason you could have to make such obviously false ones is because of the sheer desperation of your position. The states with the lowest rates of abortion are South Dakota (6.4 per 1,000 women), Utah (6.6 per 1,000), North Dakota (6.9 per 1,000), Kentucky (7.5 per 1,000), West Virginia (7.9 per 1,000) and Idaho (9.9 per 1,000). The highest rates of abortion and divorce are in fact in the Bible belt and not only that they are the highest among evangelical Christians. Don’t believe me? Then you must not listen to the radio station Jay Sekulow’s show is on. Chuck Crismier harps on these statistics every week on his radio program.”
If my claims are so easy to verify, then why don’t you do them once in a while? Taken from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:
1.) New York: 38.2
2.) New Jersey: 34.3
3.) Maryland: 31.5
4.) Delaware: 28.8
5.) California: 27.1
6.) Nevada: 27.0
7.) Florida: 26.8
8.) Connecticut: 23.6
9.) Hawaii: 21.8
10.) Massachusetts: 19.9
11.) Michigan: 19.4
11.) Rhode Island: 19.4
13.) Illinois: 18.9
14.) North Carolina: 18.8
15.) Kansas: 18.4
16.) Oregon: 17.7
17.) Washington: 17.5
18.) Texas: 17.3
19.) Virginia: 16.5
20.) Georgia: 16.3
21.) Colorado: 16.1
22.) Arizona: 16.0
23.) New Mexico: 15.7
24.) Ohio: 14.9
25.) Tennessee: 14.4
26.) Pennsylvania: 13.8
27.) Alaska: 13.6
28.) Minnesota: 12.7
29.) Alabama: 11.9
30.) Louisiana: 11.7
30.) Montana: 11.7
30.) New Hampshire: 11.7
30.) Vermont: 11.7
34.) Iowa: 10.6
35.) Maine: 10.5
36.) North Dakota: 9.6
37.) Oklahoma: 9.5
38.) Nebraska: 8.9
39.) Indiana: 8.6
40.) Wisconsin: 8.5
41.) Arkansas: 8.3
42.) South Carolina: 7.9
43.) Missouri: 6.9
44.) West Virginia: 6.7
45.) Utah: 6.4
46.) Idaho: 6.1
47.) South Dakota: 5.1
48.) Mississippi: 4.9
49.) Kentucky: 4.4
50.) Wyoming: 0.7
So you were saying? Oh, and please explain to use all what divorce have to do with anything? You really do love your red herrings, don’t you. Yes, you do. Anyway, this will probably be glossed over and ignored, just like you’ve ignored everything else.
“What I pasted totally refuted what you posted. If you could rebut what I pasted you would have done so. Instead you post a non sequitur –ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part. Geez, an 8 year-old uses better logic!”
No, actually it wasn’t. This is why I asked if you even read what you copied and pasted, because if you had you’d know that what you copied and pasted did no such thing. But it’s become deathly apparent that you don’t read either what other people post or what your sources really say, so it doesn’t surprise me.
“Boris says: ANOTHER appeal to authority. Look, a debate gets nowhere with people saying if you just read what so and so says… Are you trying to imply that illegal abortions are safer than legal ones? Because no one is going to buy that lie, even you.”
*ahem*
It’s funny how you still don’t know what an appeal to authority is. You really should stop accusing people of engaging in a fallacy that you clearly don’t understand the meaning of. It’s rather annoying. Quoting data from the National Center for Health Statistics is not an appeal to authority; quoting data from the Center for Disease control is not an appeal to authority; quoting the director of Planned Parenthood in 1960 on the subject of illegal abortions is not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be something along the lines of, “Person X says abortion is okay. Therefore, abortion is okay.” Understand? Probably not, but here’s hoping.



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 1, 2010 at 11:44 pm


“Boris says: Academic studies and my own life experience tells me you are wrong. But then you’re wrong about everything.”
What academic study will report that the instance of something doesn’t go up when its status is changed from illegal to legal? The answer? None. And you won’t find one.
“Boris says: That lame response has only made you look even more utterly foolish that you did already.”
Amazing. So instead of responding to what I wrote out, you just call it foolish and outright dismiss it? Why am I not surprised?
“Boris says: Appeals to authority are what most of your case is based on. So naturally you need to redefine it and pretend this isn’t what you are doing. Telling me to read something or pasting other people’s arguments is appealing to authority. You know, what you do to support your claims.”
Like I’ve said a few times now, you might want to try again, because you don’t know what an appeal to authority is. I’ve noticed how any statistic I post is instantly deemed an appeal to authority and discredited. I wonder how that works? Really. I do.
“Boris says: No, I checked out what you pasted on the Internet and discovered you cut and pasted passages directly from creationist websites. BUSTED Mr. Not A Christian. Hahaha. What a phony! Audience, Boris has once again uncovered the truth for your entertainment pleasure and his own sheer delight and much to the chagrin of the Christian apololiar. You are busted sir.”
Not that this should be a surprise, but you’re lying. I copied and pasted everything from the site clinicquotes.com.
“Boris says: Any reader can see that is exactly how YOU have responded to all of my points! Wow what a hypocrite!”
I’ve taken the time to respond to all of your points. All you’ve done thus far is either tried to insult me, which hasn’t worked, or ignored responding to any and all my points levied against you.
“Boris says: Scientific method doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural. But you don’t speak for the scientific community, which is made up of human beings.”
It’s a good thing I never said I did. What I said was exactly what your first sentence stated. And because science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural, it says nothing about the existence of gods or goddesses. Science concerns itself with that which can be tested; not that which cannot.
“Apparently you aren’t a scientist or at least one who is very well read and the last bit aware of what other scientists have been writing. “God: The Failed Hypothesis, How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist” was written by Victor Stenger, a physicist and astronomer. An evolutionary biologist wrote “The God Delusion.””
Apparently, you don’t know how to read, and since you don’t know how to read then it’s no surprise that you were unable to understand what my post said, that being that science has nothing to say about the existence of gods or goddesses. So would you care to try this again?
“Boris says: Even if you say fetuses are humans that won’t change the fact that we have two different words for these entities because they are in fact two different things. What you are doing is the same as covering your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you” like a small spoiled child. Science and the legal system agree with me, NOT you.”
1.) Science doesn’t agree with you. We’ve already been over this. You were given twenty plus quotes which show you’re wrong. You can continue to insist that you’re right, but that won’t make you right. You don’t have to like it or even accept but, the the unborn at every stage of development being human beings is a scientific fact.
2.) The simple fact that the law doesn’t treat the unborn as human beings means that the law hasn’t caught up with science. That’ll change one day, though.
“Boris says: Wrong Christianity is dead along with it Christian fascism. I already explained what would happen to your Christian ideology should that happen. It would go poof.”
So you’re not going to respond to what I wrote out and go off on some tangent about Christian fascism? Mmmkay.
“Boris says: Exactly. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. What fascists like you want to do, is give all reproductive rights to the government. Not happening.”
Did you even read what I wrote out? I asked you a question, and you didn’t even attempt to answer it. In fact, I don’t even know what your tangent about fascism has to do with anything, but I digress. Men do have reproductive rights. Our reproductive rights simply come before the act of sex, not after it, which is where they should be. Much to you consternation, no one is demanding that all reproductive rights be given to the government. No, what I’m saying is that a woman’s reproductive rights should be the same as the man’s. That is, she has the right to not engage in an action which can lead to pregnancy (Rape nonewithstanding) and she has the right to use anything at her disposal to prevent a pregnancy. She does not have the “right” to kill another.
Of course, I don’t even know why I’m explaining this to you.
“Boris says: Because if a woman has no reproductive rights no one will. Duh.”
Women are capable of parthenogenesis?
“Boris says: You didn’t present any evidence to ignore. Anyone can see that I have meticulously refuted every point you have made. You on the other hand simply dismiss evidence without giving any reasons. So Christian of you.”
This is a bald faced lie. So let’s recap, shall we?
1.) You mentioned something about back alley abortions. I responded by presenting you with data from the NCHS and CDC which shows that the number of women dying from illegal abortions were falling long before the first state legalized abortion as well as the writings of Mary Calderon, the then director of Planned Parenthood in 1960, who also stated that all abortions were “safe”, with the majority of abortions being carried out by licensed practioners. You dismissed what I wrote out as an appeal to authority.
2.) You said that the unborn aren’t human beings. I presented you with no less than twenty quotes all taken from various scientific sources. You also dismissed that as an appeal to authority.
3.) I showed you the abortion laws on record by 1868, and you didn’t even bother responding that point. Unsurprisingly, you blew that off as an appeal to authority.
4.) And even though it hasn’t happened yet, you will probably dismiss what I wrote out in this post regarding the abortion rate by state as an appeal to authority as well, since I got the above from the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
So explain to me again how you’re “meticulously refuted every point I’ve made”? You haven’t, nor have you tried to. You just label them as appeals to authority.
“Boris says: Again this is what YOU are doing. Anyone disagree?”
Anyone who can read will disagree.
“Boris says: A woman’s right to be protected from an unwanted fetus doesn’t have to be spelled out to the letter. The Constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion and that isn’t spelled out either. But much to the chagrin of angry Christians the courts continually enforce our freedom FROM religion. Explain that. Without spewing more lies I mean.”
1.) There’s no such thing as a “right to be protected from an unwanted fetus”. That’s directly contradicted by the fact that a woman’s “right” to have an abortion isn’t absolute; that she can’t have an abortion whenever she pleases for whatever reason she pleases; and that at some point in time she will be made to continue her pregnancy, even if it’s against her will.
2.) The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the freedom from religion. It guarantees the free exercise of religion, which includes no religion.
“Boris says: ROFL! Look who is talking! You can’t speak without committing a logical fallacy basically because you don’t even know what one is! Name it and claim it. Don’t accuse me of ignoring something without specifically telling us all what it is I ignored. And you talk about bait and switch. ROFL! Your hypocrisy grows with every paragraph. Saying I haven’t refuted anything without specifically stating what I didn’t refute and why it doesn’t stand refuted is nothing but more smoke and mirrors used to disguise the weakness of your position. Refute what I’ve said or stand refuted as you still are. This whole post of conservative jibber-jabber of yours was nothing but a complete waste of time. Everything you’ve posted stands refuted. No one on this blog other than Mr. Incredible will come to your defense either.”
This post is filled with all sorts of irony. Unlike you, I actually know what logical fallacies are and how not to commit them and, unlike you, I also know what does and doesn’t constitute a logical fallacy. Yeah, it’s shocking, I know. Furthermore, it’s funny that you accuse me of smoke and mirrors and of not telling you what you have refuted when I’ve been telling you that you haven’t refuted anything I’ve been posting for– I dunno’– Four or so posts now. How does that work? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
“Boris says: I’ll let the impartial observers decide for themselves. You can’t afford this to happen so I’m sure we will get more Christianese and smoke and mirrors from you.”
Still making assumptions I see. Well, don’t let me stop you. A fool and his folly or whatever the saying is ;)
“Boris says: A fetus is not a human being and an acorn is not a tree and a seed is not a plant. Can you explain without any more lies why we have different words for these things? I didn’t think so Mr. “Scientist.” ROFL!”
Non-sequiturs are fun!
…Actually, no, they’re not. Your analogy is flawed. In the fetus/human being example, you’re comparing stage of development (Fetus) to species (Human being), while in the acorn/tree and seed/plant example, you’re comparing stage of development to stage of development. To make the example valid, you need to compare stage of development to stage of development in the first instance. Therefore, a more fitting example would be that a fetus is not an adult. Of course, just like the fetus is a human being, so is the adult.
See? Simple. And you’re welcome.
“Boris says: Again you must now say why what I have written does not refute your absurd claims and lies. Just saying I haven’t done so won’t make it so. Maybe in your little world of religious delusions it will but not in the world the rest of us live in.”
Way ahead of you. I direct you a few responses upwards to the four points of interest. Of course, this isn’t the first time I’ve done as much, so let’s see if you take the time to respond to it this time.
“Boris says: Uh, the Constitution for one. Hahaha.”
You obviously haven’t read the Constitution then. Well, seeing as how you don’t really read my responses, that doesn’t surprise me.
“Boris says: Get this through your skull. YOU have not refuted one thing I’ve said. I HAVE refuted EVERYTHING you have posted. You cannot dismiss evidence without refuting it, which is ALL you have done. You’ve done this in plain view for everyone to see. I need specifics not a wave of your magical Christian wand.”
I really do think you need to re-read over our conversations. You haven’t refuted *anything* I’ve posted out. Not one thing. Blowing off what others have written off as “appeals to authority” doesn’t constitute a refutal– Especially when no one is engaging in an appeal to authority. That’s called avoiding the question, and people generally do so because they cannot answer the questions posed to them. You’re a good example of this, actually.
“Boris says: I think you are once again distorting the language in order to hide the truth. Answer this question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ actually existed and that he is God? Gotcha. Hahahaha. You can run but you can’t hid.”
Who’s distorting anything? And you’re going to have to explain to me how you ask a question, and then respond with “Gotcha’!” before someone can answer? What are you? Like 8?
Anyway, yes and no. That was simple enough to answer.
“Boris says: Oh yeah there’s a zebra college right down the street from me. Since when did animals other than humans send their offspring to school? ROFL! Mr. “Scientist” strike again! Hahaha.”
What does going to school have to do with childrearing? No one likes a sophist, especially when you’re bad at it.



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 1, 2010 at 11:46 pm


Finally! I guess the problem is that you can’t post links. Wish I would have known that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 8:07 am


Panhandler,
You’re dealing with one, in Babbling Boris, who lives near a nuke waste dump, absorbing the radiation and sniffin’ fumes driftin’ in therefrom. So, you’re not gonna get anything from him that makes any sense.
Further, he won’t answer any of your questions, preferring, instead, to try to distract from the fact that he cannot anwser them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 8:13 am


Babbling Boris excretes: A fetus is not a human being…
Mr. Incredible: 46 chromosomes — 23 from each human parent — says he is.
Babbling Boris excretes:… and an acorn is not a tree…
Mr. Incredible: An acorn is a stage in the development of a tree.
Babbling Boris excretes:… and a seed is not a plant.
Mr. Incredible: A seed is a stage in the development of a plant.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 8:49 am


Panhandler,
You’re awsome! You have thoroughly handled Babblin’ Boris!
Babbling Boris excretes in Panhandler’s direction:
…you are on a Christian blog is why I think you’re a Christian.”
Panhandler:
So that means you’re a Christian, too, huh?
Mr. Incredible:
http://thumbsnap.com/v/tgsCuO81.jpg



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 9:03 am


Panhandler to Babbling Boris:
You do realize that you’re the one burdened with proving your claims as true, correct? You don’t get to make an assertion, then when I claim it’s not true, turn around and tell me to prove your claims untrue. You have to prove them true.
Mr. Incredible:
http://thumbsnap.com/v/GPAlfNAu.jpg



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 9:19 am


Panhandler to Babbling Boris:
See? Simple.
Mr. Incredible:
Not, however, simple enough.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:16 am


Panfull,
First, before I destroy another one of your posts I need to get you to tell the truth for the first time on this blog. So you believe Jesus existed and he wasn’t God? Who was or is he then? The son of God? Do you believe Jesus resurrected? Do you have a relationship with Jesus? If you believe Jesus existed then you are a Bible believer because there is no evidence form outside the Bible that Jesus actually existed. Now before we continue I need you to answer all these questions. Jesus in the gospels is simply an allegory for the sun. I have already proved that on this blog, Any objections to that claim? I knew you repeat the same old tired arguments after seeing the destroyed. So Christian of you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:24 am


Babbling Boris vomited:
… there is no evidence form outside the Bible that Jesus actually existed.
Mr. Incredible:
Yes, there is — http://www.sign2god.com/ww/Jesus-exists.html
Babbling Boris vomited:
Jesus in the gospels is simply an allegory for the sun.
Mr. Incredible:
Know, He isn’t.
Babbling Boris vomited:
I have already proved that on this blog…
Mr. Incredible:
No, you haven’t. You may only assertions. Idiotic ones, at that.
Babbling Boris vomited:
Any objections to that claim?
Mr. Incredible:
Which one?
Babbling Boris vomited:
I knew you repeat the same old tired arguments after seeing the destroyed.
Mr. Incredible:
That’s about as close as one can come to a drunken, verbal stupor.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:26 am


You may only assertions — — > You have only assertions



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:28 am


Know, He isn’t. — — >No, He isn’t.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:29 am


Watch as Boris now sets the trap for the Christian liar. Panfull the only person supporting you is the resident evolution denier. What do you think of people like that. Are they idiots or insane or both? Bam! hahaha.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 10:47 am


Intelligence-resistant Boris:
… the resident evolution denier.
Mr. Incredible:
Your ignorance is appalling.
Don’t you have a poodle to dress up?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 12:35 pm


Boris, who manages to trap himself in his own traps, says:
Watch as Boris now sets the trap for the Christian liar.
Mr. Incredible says:
If you keep writing things like that, we’re not gonna know when you’ve gone senile.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 1:07 pm


Boris, making the best use of his ignorance, says:
Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever.
Mr. Incredible says:
Is that the kind of stuff they’re teaching you people in special ed?
Half the stuff that goes into making the baby belongs to the man.
If the woman is the caretaker of his property, she creates a bailment. If she destroys that property, that’s conversion.
If his property becomes her property, then no child is a man’s child and he has no responsibilities, either.
It sure’s fun swattin’ you ’round!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm


It [Science] has shown that God does not exist. Anyone who disagrees with that does not believe in science.”
I know that, by posting to you, I’m takin’ your time from your boyfriend in a federal pen…but
That message indicates that a thought came to you at some point, and you said to yourself, “What the Hell, I’ll just eat some trash, wait a couple of hours and squeeze it out on this blog.”
Give us links to the conclusive, uncorrupted, unbiased, empirical Science that YOU say has “shown that God does not exist.” Not the Boris bogus science that came to you in a dream after you enjoyed a dude’s lap dance. We want details… no, not of the lap dance… of the experiment that YOU say shows “that God does not exist.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 1:33 pm


CORRECTION
==It [Science] has shown that God does not exist. Anyone who disagrees with that does not believe in science.==
I know that, by posting to you, I’m takin’ your time from your boyfriend in a federal penitentiary…but
That message indicates that a thought came to you at some point, and you said to yourself, “What the Hell, I’ll just eat some trash, wait a couple of hours and squeeze it out on this blog.”
Give us links to the conclusive, uncorrupted, unbiased, empirical Science that YOU say has “shown that God does not exist.” Not the Boris bogus science that came to you in a dream after you enjoyed a dude’s lap dance. We want details… no, not of the lap dance… of the experiment that YOU say shows “that God does not exist.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted January 2, 2010 at 1:47 pm


No matter what the subject of a particular blog is, Babbling Boris ALWAYS manages to take it off course, saying the same things over and over, never admitting that we have answered his foolish questions, never admitting that we have resolved the issues he has brought up.
The subject of this blog is “Abortion.” And what does Babbling Boris do? Well, he continues arguments against God, arguments he has brought up in other blogs on this site, asking the same questions over and over, bringing up the same issues over and over and over, as though we haven’t already answered those questions and resolved those issues. It’s like he’s a machine.
I suggest somebody go over there and check his place for pods.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 2, 2010 at 4:08 pm


I think Boris meant science demonstrates to people with a functioning brain that God does not exist, so, you don’t qualify. You might consider finding an Incredibly good psychiatrist who might cure your predisposition to disorganized thinking, evidenced by your lengthy multiple postings. I often see seven or more in a row from you. Try bringing all yours thoughts on a subject together, boiling down your points to a few coherent paragraphs, and you’ll get better results. Circular logic becomes more apparent, and is more easily discarded, that way. I know it’s asking a lot, but it’s for your own good.
MHC



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 2, 2010 at 4:31 pm


Light goes on forever.
People are still people regardless of stage of development.
Toll of death count for childen trying to be born is what exactly?
Does somebody want to put a figure on that. I have read percentages of states. What about an actual developing head count?
As for Boris, enough said. We know that you support the ending of innocent life by choice or legal assertion. We also know you are a firm believer in denying an entity. So we know where you stand. It appears no matter how much evidence one would give to you to the contrary belief of yourself, you would appear to be rigid in your mindsets of choosing to believe there is no God and a child which life has been taken from the womb is not murder.
Contrary to your belief patterns, we know differently. So, best of luck to you in finding your true self and identity from your maker.
——
Test what exactly?
No Name blogger?
Currently I am seeking to end abortion in The United States of America. How difficult this may appear, I do think that awareness of the actual developing head counts is important to note. Seeing how they did not even get a tomb stone or a death certificate. If you want to lump them into one masive imaginary grave of millions of children worldwide, God rest their soles. I just thought the actual awareness of people having the right to end others lives over another having the right to develop and speak for themselves would be enough for legislation to make corresponding choices to end abortion. Seeing how it is against the United States Constitution and equal rights. For whatever reason people are a bit slow on the drawing board.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 2, 2010 at 4:58 pm


What is for your own good? For Boris, to what? If this is what it takes for him to resolve his issues, then he should go right ahead and post. The problem I have been seeing with Boris is this: he is trying to convince the rest of us to stop trying to protect the needless deaths of children because somebody gave them a choice to do so. Just because one or more individuals gave that choice for that person to end that life, does not however indicate that they did not make a mistake when making that decision or that,that law needs to be rectifide and eradicated.
The second thing that I find wrong with the posts from Boris is this: God does not exist. Wrong my dear friend, wrong. If you can’t see the complexity of the design of your own eye, how light penetrates it and gives you the ability to see, as a mirror fragment of his great and almighty power of design? Then, you ought to best look again at your eye and notice how your pupil dialates and retracts back depending on how much light penetrates it. Once again giving you the ability to see the screen in front of your face as you are reading. So, enough said. It is almost beginning to be comical defending the creator in a way. Look at the universe before your eyes, with the planets and the clouds and how they just seem to go on and on when you look out into space. How great and almighty is our God to have created such a magnificent tapestry of design of people, places and things. Too vast for me to even comprehend his abilities in doing so. For that is why he is God and man is man. He is far greater than anything we can put our thinking caps together and come up with.
Cara



report abuse
 

Panhandler

posted January 2, 2010 at 5:09 pm


@ Boris
“Panfull,
First, before I destroy another one of your posts I need to get you to tell the truth for the first time on this blog.”
I’ve been telling the truth the entire time.
“So you believe Jesus existed and he wasn’t God?”
That’s what I said. There’s no reason not to believe that a man named Jesus lived in the Mediterranean (sp?) about two thousand years ago and had a religion named after him after he did.
“Who was or is he then?”
The son of a carpenter.
“The son of God?”
Probably not.
“Do you believe Jesus resurrected? Do you have a relationship with Jesus?”
No and no.
“If you believe Jesus existed then you are a Bible believer because there is no evidence form outside the Bible that Jesus actually existed.”
Go to the Wikipedia entry on the historical evidence of Jesus. The historical concensus is that he existed, merely not in the way portrayed by the NT.
“Now before we continue I need you to answer all these questions.”
I did.
“Jesus in the gospels is simply an allegory for the sun. I have already proved that on this blog, Any objections to that claim?”
lol, how should I know?
“I knew you repeat the same old tired arguments after seeing the destroyed. So Christian of you.”
You haven’t destroyed anything.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 2, 2010 at 7:28 pm


Light does not go on forever. Wake up Cara, time for your meds.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 2, 2010 at 8:33 pm


Mr. Incredible there are cures for minds poised by Christianity. Try a dose of common sense or a whiff of science. As for the latent homosexuality reflected in your posts there is no cure. Enjoy.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 3, 2010 at 1:49 am


Panhandler,
I can dismiss your evidence if you don’t provide anything to back up your assertions. That’s how things work. When you make a claim, you have to back it up.
Boris says: When you make a counter claim you have to back that up too. So now that I have backed it up I get the sentence above, which completely ignores this fact and rambles on as though no objection has been raised. What about the Georgetown Law website? Claim backed up and summarily ignored by you. The smoke and mirror show isn’t working dude. I’m being specific and you are dealing in vagaries.
…And still, it’s quite humorous to me that you still continue to go on about logical fallacies when you don’t even know what logical fallacies are.
Boris says: I know what they are. That claim IS one, an ad hominem argument. Oops. Why don’t you look up a list of logical fallacies so you can prevent yourself from constantly making them? THEN you can tell the rest of us what they are. That’s how it works. ROFL! You’re too much! Any first year philosophy student would have a field day with your posts and wish the problems their professor gave them were as easy to spot.
This is a blatant lie and you know it. Actually, everyone here knows it.
Boris says: NewspaperARCHIVE.com
No. When you don’t prove something is true with evidence, I don’t have to accept it as true on your world alone. See how that works? You don’t just get to make assertions and have others accept it as true without providing proof for those assertions.
Boris says: So when I provide the evidence and then you still ignore it what is that exactly? I call it smoke and mirrors. I debate Christians all the time so I’m used to these childish tactics.
Still haven’t figured out what an appeal to authority is, I see. Not surprising, really.
Boris says: The truth of a claim should rest on logic and evidence NOT on whom is presenting the claim. You don’t present any logic or evidence to support your claims. You cut and paste from creationist websites.
I would love to reintroduce Comstock laws? Really? How did you come to such a conclusion, or are you just pulling things out of your you-know-where?
Boris says: I just assumed you agreed with the Reconstructionists on this since your posts make you sound like one of them.
So if a woman wants an abortion her eighth month of pregnancy, should she be allowed to have one?
Boris says: I don’t know. It’s her body I can’t decide. I don’t think doctors should be allowed to perform them in the third trimester though.
Most people would say no, some PC’ers included. Does that mean they all advocate for slavery? Since SCOTUS ruled in Roe v. Wade that a state’s interest in protect the life of the unborn is greater than the mother’s “right to bodily autonomy”, does that mean that SCOTUS advocates slavery? Huh? HUH? HUH?!?!?!
Boris says: No, I’m saying YOU are advocating slavery. I’m saying you think women are subhuman breeding animals. You’re just another anti-feminist who thinks women are emasculating men by not allowing them to be the primary breadwinners, not granting them sex every time they want it and not allowing them to beat their wives and ignore child care responsibilities.
This is just inane rambling filled with a great number of assumptions, undeserving of a real response.
Boris says: Oh please. If you had one we would be reading it here. You nit pick and purposely misinterpret every word of mine you can to support your fascist ideology. When I crush one of your arguments you ignore it like you just did. Not fooling anyone dude. Yourself maybe, but then your whole fascist right wing movement is self-deluded.
So you were saying? Oh, and please explain to use all what divorce have to do with anything? You really do love your red herrings, don’t you. Yes, you do. Anyway, this will probably be glossed over and ignored, just like you’ve ignored everything else.
Boris says: I wouldn’t ignore your list even if it did support your contention. I looked it over real good and I can’t even give you the benefit of the doubt. Either you have a problem geography, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Idaho are not in the south or mid west, or you were just hoping neither me or anyone else would actually take the time to look at this list. What does it prove exactly? That we have 50 states? That you can count to 50? Divorce has nothing to do with it. I was just stating a fact that I know irritates evangelicals because it exposes their hypocrisy on the subject as well as on abortions.
No, actually it wasn’t. This is why I asked if you even read what you copied and pasted, because if you had you’d know that what you copied and pasted did no such thing. But it’s become deathly apparent that you don’t read either what other people post or what your sources really say, so it doesn’t surprise me.
Boris says: This from a person who cuts and pastes from a website owned by a scientific ignoramus who swears the sun orbits the earth. See my hobby is mocking and making fun of young earth creationists so
I already knew whom Bryan Kemper is and that he can’t be trusted. Obviously you don’t check your sources or care about their accuracy as long as they agree with your point of view. Again, I’m used to that.
What academic study will report that the instance of something doesn’t go up when its status is changed from illegal to legal? The answer? None. And you won’t find one.
Boris says: Oh please. Ever heard of Prohibition? That only made people drink more.
Amazing. So instead of responding to what I wrote out, you just call it foolish and outright dismiss it? Why am I not surprised?
Boris says: Oh, you don’t like your medicine so much do you? You are such a hypocrite!
Like I’ve said a few times now, you might want to try again, because you don’t know what an appeal to authority is. I’ve noticed how any statistic I post is instantly deemed an appeal to authority and discredited. I wonder how that works? Really. I do.
Boris says: Look, I don’t have to cut and paste facts, pseudo-facts, figures, quotes taken out of context, endless lists that prove nothing and so on to have a debate and I’m not doing it. You do and you are. When I do provide a source upon your request you simply ignore what that source says. What about the Georgetown Law website? Huh? It proved you wrong so you ignored it.
Not that this should be a surprise, but you’re lying. I copied and pasted everything from the site clinicquotes.com.
Boris says: I’m lying? For your information sir, Clinicquotes.com is a website operated by young and immovable earth creationist Bible thumper Bryan Kemper who is the founder of Stand True Family Ministries. Kemper goes around preaching that special brand of Christian feel good bigotry on college campuses. According to their mission statement: “Stand True is a Christ Centered, loving, compassionate Pro-life organization. Social justice begins in the womb and requires action.” This statement should go on to say we also take quotes out of context from working doctors who make their living performing abortions to make it seem like they are anti-choice. Did you bother to check these quotes out yourself Panhandler or who made them? Well I did. Kemper is a typical Christian hypocrite who quotes Langston Hughes to support his position, someone by his own admission he would have executed for being gay. Like I said you cut and pasted quotes taken out of context to create a false impression from a creationist website. I’m not lying. Anyone can check out who owns clinicquotes.com. Perhaps you should have done this yourself before you made another false accusation.
I’ve taken the time to respond to all of your points. All you’ve done thus far is either tried to insult me, which hasn’t worked, or ignored responding to any and all my points levied against you.
Boris says: I have meticulously responded to everything you’ve posted. I know being accused of being a Christian is an insult and so I apologize for that. If you think I have ignored something, for the second time now I will tell you to be specific and state what it is. But if you are going to ignore this AGAIN you don’t have any room to say I’m ignoring you. Got it? Not that difficult.
It’s a good thing I never said I did. What I said was exactly what your first sentence stated. And because science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural, it says nothing about the existence of gods or goddesses. Science concerns itself with that which can be tested; not that which cannot.
Boris says: Yes but the existence of certain gods has been tested and all of their hypotheses have failed so far. Archaeology is a science you know.
Apparently, you don’t know how to read, and since you don’t know how to read then it’s no surprise that you were unable to understand what my post said, that being that science has nothing to say about the existence of gods or goddesses. So would you care to try this again?
Boris says: Okay. Ever heard of archaeology?
Science doesn’t agree with you. We’ve already been over this. You were given twenty plus quotes which show you’re wrong.
Boris says: Yikes! See if you can grasp this. Those quotes are APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. Stop saying you don’t commit this fallacy please! That is what quotes from experts or so-called experts are. Hello. Also many of them were taken from working doctors who perform abortions for a living, which really shoots your whole appeal to these men’s authority full of holes. Also your list commits the error of suppressed quantification, the number of “experts” endorsing your position is deliberately withheld to create the illusion of popular support.
You can continue to insist that you’re right, but that won’t make you right. You don’t have to like it or even accept but, the the unborn at every stage of development being human beings is a scientific fact.
Boris says: human being –noun?
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
The key word is, of course, “individual”. Now, let’s look at the definition of “individual”. Individual – noun – a single organism capable of independent existence. “Independent existence” is another key phrase. Here is the final definition: Organism –noun – a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. As you can see a fetus, embryo, and zygote fit none of these descriptions. So if a fetus is neither an individual nor an organism, what can it be? Because it resides inside and uses the organ systems of the woman carrying it, it is assumed that it is part of the larger organism of the woman. CHECKMATE. Once again though, you’ll knock over the game and all the pieces and say I cheated or don’t know how to play. We can start all over again but the outcome will still be the same. Checkmate you lose. The sign if insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and getting the same result but each time you begin you think this time the result will be different. You can’t win this debate here, in the public forum, in the courts, in the scientific community or anywhere else. This is because your position is completely indefensible. How many more times do I have to prove that?
2.) The simple fact that the law doesn’t treat the unborn as human beings means that the law hasn’t caught up with science. That’ll change one day, though.
Boris says: You might get some satisfaction from that sort of wish-thinking or some sick sense of power over women from making that claim but we both know it isn’t true. There are seven sitting anti-choice Supreme Court Justices as we speak some of them suffering from severe Christian religious delusions and superstitions. I don’t care if there were nine. Abortion is settled law and anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. Congress is never going to approve a justice who would actually move to strike down the abortion laws as anyone who has seen these hearings can attest. The Supreme Court is only going to get more liberal as the religious zealots who inhabit it now die off. Creeping liberalism. Nothing you can do about it.
Did you even read what I wrote out? I asked you a question, and you didn’t even attempt to answer it. In fact, I don’t even know what your tangent about fascism has to do with anything, but I digress. Men do have reproductive rights. Our reproductive rights simply come before the act of sex, not after it, which is where they should be.
Boris says: I knew it! Look your own fear of intimacy is never going to be the guide to public policy, morality or other people’s sex lives.
Much to you consternation, no one is demanding that all reproductive rights be given to the government. No, what I’m saying is that a woman’s reproductive rights should be the same as the man’s. That is, she has the right to not engage in an action which can lead to pregnancy (Rape nonewithstanding) and she has the right to use anything at her disposal to prevent a pregnancy. She does not have the “right” to kill another.
Boris says: I love when you people shoot yourselves in the foot for us all to see. If abortion is murder or killing then why does a woman have the right to murder the baby of a rapist? Obviously you don’t really believe abortion is killing or murder or you would not allow it under ANY circumstances other than to save the woman’s life. Don’t look now but your hypocrisy is showing not to mention the weakness of your entire case. Again. Thanks for pointing it out for us.
Women are capable of parthenogenesis?
Boris says: That answer just won’t do. If women don’t have reproductive rights no one will. Just admit that demonstrates the weakness of your position.
So explain to me again how you’re “meticulously refuted every point I’ve made”? You haven’t, nor have you tried to. You just label them as appeals to authority.
Boris says: This post right here refutes all of your claims. The claims I lied, the claims fetuses are humans, the claims I didn’t supply evidence – all of your false claims. Read ‘em and weep. Then cry me another river and tell me who agrees with you and give me some more lists and then say you don’t appeal to authority. Around and around we go with those who can never admit they’re wrong: conservative ideologues.
Anyone who can read will disagree.
Boris says: There’s at least one person here agreeing with me. So far the only person who agrees with you is a young immovable earth creationist. I’d be worried if that guy agreed with anything I said.
This post is filled with all sorts of irony. Unlike you, I actually know what logical fallacies are and how not to commit them and, unlike you, I also know what does and doesn’t constitute a logical fallacy.
Boris says: Yes we can all see you certainly know how to commit them. The problem sir is that you don’t realize it when you do as I have pointed out in this post several times now. This is why I didn’t bother responding to your endless special pleading (another logical fallacy) that your appeals to authority should not be considered appeals to authority. You keep doing it over and over and over again and then over and over and over again you claim you aren’t. I mean really man it’s almost like a sitcom or something now, the Theatre of the Absurd. “I supplied you with 20 quotes from experts! How dare you disregard my appeals to their authority! I don’t appeal to authority!” Whew! Cookoo, cookoo, cookoo, cookoo…
Yeah, it’s shocking, I know. Furthermore, it’s funny that you accuse me of smoke and mirrors and of not telling you what you have refuted when I’ve been telling you that you haven’t refuted anything I’ve been posting for– I dunno’– Four or so posts now. How does that work? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
Boris says: Are you trying to communicate a thought with that mumbo jumbo? I didn’t think so.
…Actually, no, they’re not. Your analogy is flawed. In the fetus/human being example, you’re comparing stage of development (Fetus) to species (Human being), while in the acorn/tree and seed/plant example, you’re comparing stage of development to stage of development. To make the example valid, you need to compare stage of development to stage of development in the first instance. Therefore, a more fitting example would be that a fetus is not an adult. Of course, just like the fetus is a human being, so is the adult.
Boris says: This is a textbook illustration of a logical fallacy. The conclusion (that fetuses are human beings) is built into the “supporting” premise (fetuses are humans). Such a premise assumes the conclusion that it supposedly proves and therefore proves nothing at all. In other words if we first assume fetuses are humans then we can prove they are human beings. Sure.
See? Simple. And you’re welcome.
Boris says: See? Simple. And you’re welcome yourself.
Way ahead of you. I direct you a few responses upwards to the four points of interest. Of course, this isn’t the first time I’ve done as much, so let’s see if you take the time to respond to it this time.
Boris says: No more vagaries. Be specific. No more smoke and mirrors. What are you talking about?
You obviously haven’t read the Constitution then. Well, seeing as how you don’t really read my responses, that doesn’t surprise me.
Boris says: I’ve read the Constitution and your posts. I’m pretty sure by now you wish I hadn’t and also that you wish you had thought about what you posted a lot more carefully. Obviously I thought about your posts a lot more carefully and clearly than you did. I’m still laughing at this last one. I can’t tell you how much fun I’ve had ripping it to shreds Mr. I Know What Fallacies Are. Sure you do. Let’s see you compose a sentence without committing one. Hahaha.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 3, 2010 at 2:15 am


I’ve been telling the truth the entire time.
Boris says: Promoting the lies of the religious right is not telling the truth sir.
That’s what I said. There’s no reason not to believe that a man named Jesus lived in the Mediterranean (sp?) about two thousand years ago and had a religion named after him after he did.
Boris says: Oh yes there are many reasons. The question is why is there a reason to believe Jesus did exist? Because many other people have? Because the Bible says so? Have you ever bothered to look into what is held up as extra-biblical evidence for this person’s existence? Spurious and questionable passages in the works of one late first century and three second century historians that are considered rank forgeries by every honest historian that has studied them even conservative Christian scholars. Even if they weren’t forgeries references to a person (only Josephus actually mentions Jesus by name) 60 to 82 years after their supposed death, are hardly contemporary.
The son of a carpenter.
Boris says: So you believe the Bible. Do you believe his birth was announced by angels too?
Probably not.
Boris says: So you believe in a God. Which one?
Go to the Wikipedia entry on the historical evidence of Jesus. The historical concensus is that he existed, merely not in the way portrayed by the NT.
Boris says: It seems almost superfluous to point out that is an appeal to authority. But as I said if you look at what this supposed consensus is based on the whole case for a historical Jesus crumbles.
lol, how should I know?
Boris says: I don’t know. I’m always curious as to why people don’t try to find out the true origins of the Jesus story. I mean we know we can’t believe any religion’s version of its own origins. So we know the story isn’t true based on that alone. All one has to do is get out the Gospel of mark and a chart of the zodiac and read the story. It’s plain as day the Jesus story is an allegory for the sun passing through the twelve signs of the zodiac. The original Christians knew this.
You haven’t destroyed anything.
Boris says: Except perhaps your willingness to have any more of your posts held up to public scrutiny, ridicule and mocking. We’ll see. Trying to avoid committing logical fallacies in a conversation with someone who purposely leads you into committing them and then slams you for it may prove a little too humliating for you.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm


Thanks noname, I do need some meds. for my headaches.
As for light not going on forever.
Well the Bible says that God is light.
So there you have it.
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 3, 2010 at 4:02 pm


God is light.
That is scripture
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm


Light, in the vacuous, goes on forever. So there you have it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm


Re: Your Name post
What?
Light in the vacuous?
vacuous- devoid of matter, empty
Lacking intelligence, stupid, devoid of subsance or meaning,lacking serious purpose or occupation.
So I don’t know what you are trying to point out in your last post?
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm


God is light. I don’t think it is in anything vacuous.
So there you have it.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted January 10, 2010 at 1:12 am


I am a little puzzled and concerned why you keep using the terminology “anti-choice” versus “pro-life”. Do you want to disguise the fact that when abortion is chosen, a little LIFE is ended? This won’t suffice. We know the truth and torture that really goes on when a baby is sucked out of the womb by a vacuum-like instrument or stabbed in the head with a sharp needle with much the same apathy as a seamstress sticks his or her needle into a ball of yarn. Either way you look at it, on the face, abortion is still murder even though it is not a crime at the moment and the entire criminal justice system runs awry and soft on the label and legal terminology.
Moreover, even though abortion is currently a substantive right, this does not mean that we taxpayers must pay for it. Probably around 99% of the time, abortion is NOT a medical necessity. As one justice stated, just because folks have the right to travel does not mean we have to hand them bus money (Prof. Cheh).



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm


Abortion is never a necessity. Just because people in the legal system at this point have made it a legal choice, does not however vindicate them from the ultimate judge or that it is not a crime in God’s law. So just because the legal system took back the correct view of the murder itself, it does not mean however that it is still not what it is. People are people, God is God and the earth is round.
So the facts are straight.
Cara



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 18, 2010 at 9:33 am


If the earth is round how come the Bible says the earth is flat?



report abuse
 

Zfax

posted January 18, 2010 at 12:55 pm


Any way you look at it, people have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to become parents. The sex act should not be the determining factor. Health coverage obviously extends to abortions. If you want coverage, pay for it; same as with other medical insurance. Lesser minds can believe the Earth is flat and call abortion murder, but that doesn’t change the fact that neither claim is true.



report abuse
 

Ivv

posted January 19, 2010 at 4:11 pm


I agree that “anti-choice” or “pro-life” activists are not satisfied and hard to please. This is because they have failed to come into a sole agreement as to what they really stand for. Among their members their is a mixture of pros and cons that interfere with one another, and apparently the people with the power to do something are dabbling in a new territory which has angered several supporters of the “anti-choice” movement. I believe this conflict is great; thus, it divides the “anti-choice” community which in turn will gives the “pro-choice” community a stronger standing. At last, we, the “pro-choice” community, stand for our given right to CHOOSE. At last looking back at the health care issue, I agree with Zfax in that “Health coverage obviously extends to abortions. If you want coverage, pay for it.”



report abuse
 

toya

posted January 21, 2010 at 12:23 am


@ Ivv
Pro- life activist are not confused or hard to please. Its okay to CHOOSE and “we” understand choices, but what we don’t understand is how it could even be considered as a choice to murder another human being. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice, but why not adoption instead of abortion. We stand for life because we believe everyone deserves a chance at life.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted January 21, 2010 at 2:02 am


toya,
Even most no-choice fascists such as yourself agree that women should be allowed to get abortions in the case of rape. This shoots down your stupid claim that abortion is murder for what right does a woman have to murder the baby of a rapist? See, abortion isn’t murder. When you say it is it just reflects not only the desperation of the no-choice position it also reflects your own personal willful ignorance. The only sin is willful ignorance. Don’t be a sinner.



report abuse
 

Jamie Dimmel

posted February 3, 2010 at 6:38 pm


No question about why the religious right are opposing these bills, they want to return us to the medieval period when church law ruled and individuals had no rights or control over their life or thoughts at all. They will not be happy until abortion, birth control and anything else they don’t approve of are banned and punishable by death whether you believe in their religion or not.



report abuse
 

H.G. Wells

posted February 3, 2010 at 7:15 pm


Jamie, I think maybe you’re right, though I wonder which will religous leadership would emerge with the governing voice!
The reply to toya was good too, as I found it hard to follow how “they” were actually pro-choice (just not THAT choice!). We must give sufficient Liberty to our recognized citizens to not be enslaved to unwanted parenthood. Having sex most certainly does not mean one is able or willing to parent a child. “Why not adoption?” I’d say that should be left for every individual person to decide. Why would anyone be able to force that option on anyone else in a free society? I don’t think so.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.