13

This is what abortion has led to

Posted by ycandrea 5 months, 2 weeks ago to Government
595 comments | Share | Flag

OK. I just vomited and I am still very shaken up when I heard that the governors of Virginia and New York want to kill babies after they are born in the name of abortion rights. I am really upset. I have always believed a baby is a human being with the right to live from the point of conception. Yes, a woman has a right to make choices about her body, but she does not have the right to kill another human being. She can give it up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby. But now they can kill the child after it is born. Isn’t that murder? So, how do all of you who think it's OK to kill humans inside the womb think about killing them outside the womb feel? To me, there is no difference but some of you rationalize it. So did Ayn Rand. This is one issue I did not agree with her about and this is why. This is where your rights to abortion/murder have led. There should be a category for morality.
SOURCE URL: https://www.countable.us/articles/20668-virginia-s-moderate-governor-admits-abortion-bill-allows-babies-killed-birth?fbclid=IwAR1QAcFMnVwjI6ZDtvr-oGf8m9tWmxAuMytl7pnKDFTHSMNP8q9LW8AjBtY


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I don't think the abortion topic is as clear cut as Ayn Rand likes to make it. Rand defines life as involving "self-sustaining and self-generated action". Though that is certainly a requirement for life, by that definition, both infanticide and termination of the elderly and/or disabled becomes too easy. Such people are incapable of generating a sufficient number self-generated actions to sustain their lives. Does that mean they are not alive? Of course not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      What life is not self-sustaining and does not have self-generated action?
      If a life has help, it does not mean that that life itself magically ceases to exist. Not unless the above stops. Rand’s definition seems right.
      But the real question should be about human life.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        But the key part of Rand's definition is "self-generated". The "help" that you refer to requires a sacrifice on the part of the person giving the help. Rand chose not to have children because of her unwillingness to make such a sacrifice, and I am OK with that.

        When someone chooses to have sex with someone else, they know the possible consequences. Birth control measures are so common now that no one can reasonably claim that they cannot adequately protect themselves from such consequences.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          All life does not have rights and "help" does not imply sacrifice.

          The availability of contraception does not negate anyone's rights. The consequences of not using it are the possibility of more complex means required for an abortion, not a duty to have a child.

          The intrinsic notion of rights for anything genetically "human" also implies a duty to not use 'artificial' means of birth control, which is why the Catholic Church lobbied to make and keep it illegal, and still damns it as "sin" now that their impositions are unconstitutional.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
            I am not denying anyone's right to an abortion. Others can do it if they want, but abortion is just the first "town" on the road to infanticide and then euthanasia and ultimately forced euthanasia. It starts with tolerance and then required acceptance and then persecution of those who disagree with the required acceptance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              The laws that conservatives want deny the right, your description of Ayn Rand's argument wasn't correct, and it matters that the fundamental argument against abortion also denies contraception.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bobsprinkle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      BREATHING is a self sustaining action!!!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        While breathing is a self-sustaining, self-generated action, anyone who has a baby knows that the amount of time required raising an infant does not go down at the time of birth. An infant certainly cannot self-generate enough self-sustaining actions. It is necessary, but FAR from sufficient.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bobsprinkle 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Well, even at this point in your "life" you also would cease to exist without food and water to sustain you.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
            But I am quite capable of self-generating adequate food and water for myself. Arguably even most teenagers can't do that and certainly not senior citizens after they have lost parts of their minds and/or mobility. At those points, Rand's definition of life has serious limitations.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    This is what happens when people justify to themselves that a human life is "just a little clump of cells". They start down that slippery slope about when life begins and the line just keeps moving farther and farther away. You start justifying abortion for Down's Syndrome (Iceland). And pretty soon you get to this: the slaughter of the just-born. And then you start in with the gas chambers and ethnic cleansing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      My wife Nannies for a boy with Downs Syndrome.
      He is a delightful child. He is loved by all in his family. He has some special talents as well as some special needs. I suppose that is similar to the Democratic fools minus the special talents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        My girlfriend worked with Downs Syndrome children and she said they are so sweet. Very rarely angry, very rarely violent in any way. They, too, have a place in life.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          My wife has also been a special needs preschool teacher . She is very loving to the many autistic and Downs kids. They all respond favorably to her kindness and gentle encouragement. Their abilities vary but they are human beings and they have value.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I have an uncle with Down's. He's actually lived far past a normal lifespan for one with that condition (he's in his fifties and most with Down's die in their mid- to late-thirties.) What is interesting is that those who study the disease have noted a direct correlation between the amount of love given to a Down's child and their longevity. Now that my grandparents have both passed away, we're wondering how much longer he'll be for this world.

        They have also noted in a separate study on newborns that SIDS prevalence dropped significantly in hospitals where those in the neonatal care units took the simple step of picking up and holding the babies from time to time. It is no surprise that many delivery units are now encouraging the infant to stay with the mother as much as possible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          My youngest son had surgery when he was 3 days old. I remember walking into the neo natal unit after the surgery to see him. The doctor and nurses were gathered around his incubator and were very worried. They said they thought he was seizing because he was trembling and shaking so bad. I pushed my way through and put both hands into the incubator. One on his head and one on his tummy. He quit shaking immediately. They were amazed. I stayed in there for hours soothing, gently massaging him, whispering to him. Then they taught me how to get him out and hold him with all the wires and tubes. He was in there for over a month. I was there at least 8 hours a day and so was my husband. Babies seem to know who their parents are.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            "Babies seem to know who their parents are."

            I know mine sure do. My youngest son (seven months) won't go to sleep unless either my wife nurses him or I cuddle him on my shoulder.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Yes, thank you for sharing.

            I know mothers who gave birth to Down's babies and they would not give them up for the world.

            The sick mindset of the left knows no limits to "know better" and interfere where they have absolutely no business to do so.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      That is just so sadly true! That is what makes me cry in shame and horror at our human race and what it is turning in to. I keep saying "This cannot be happening!" But it is. I cannot get emotional. I have to figure out how to process this and remain rational. It is hard.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        It is actually in cases of such moral outrage that emotion is actually useful. Not that we should allow it to control us and lead us to violence, but because emotions are not typically chosen, it is a validation from the inner soul that there is something very wrong.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        We are all in an “Uncivil War” like it or not. The left
        Will cheat, lie and encourage violence. To them The end justifies the means. To them The end surly must mean the death of reason , sanity and civility.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          Yes. They have a history to reach back to.

          An East German communist was asked what did he think of the 10 million plus people murdered by Stalin in the name of communism?

          He answered: "It was worth the price".

          What can you do with monsters like this? Most of the time I see people bringing up ethics, moral and other values that are nonexistent for the left. We won't defeat them by moralizing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      As Ayn Rand put it "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life'. A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term."

      That does not denigrate life, it distinguishes between human and non-human life. Human life as a "person" is required for rights. Not the presence of dna in a clump of cells and not the alleged presence of a mystic "soul". That vicious nonsense replacing the basis of rights with mysticism is worse than a "slippery slope", it openly leads to the denial of human rights, starting with the right of a woman to her own choices for her own body.

      Distinguishing between human life as the basis of rights and "clumps of cells" is not a "moving line". It makes it possible to stop the "slaughter" and "start in with the gas chambers and ethnic cleansing" that Blarman disgustingly attributes to Ayn Rand and a rational standard for human rights as the source of its opposite.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
        I totally disagree and as I have stated before, I do not recognize yours or Ayn Rand's authority on the matter. You do not possess the knowledge necessary to make such a proclamation. It is just opinion. And so is mine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          As I responded previously, "Ayn Rand did not require your permission or authority to know that an embryo or fetus is before birth a potential human being. It only requires knowing what a person is. She wrote a lot on the nature of man and the source of morality and rights, more than 'enough knowledge to understand this'."

          That represents far more than "opinion", in contrast to your assertions as admitted opinion with nothing to base it on and which does not even attempt to address what Ayn Rand explained. You can "recognize" or not recognize whatever you want to. Rational readers seeking explanation can judge accordingly.

          "It is the anti-abortionists, who have no defense of the mystical notion of intrinsic 'rights' of the unborn who lack knowledge."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
              We have a right to not have yours forced down our throats.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 months ago
                I am not forcing anything. Why are you so nasty?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                  Anti abortion laws are brute force. Nasty is the barbarism of forcing women's sacrifice to bear children they don't want. Rights of the individual are not just "opinion".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 months ago
                    Everyone knows your position on this issue, ewv. I, for one, am done talking about it with you. You will never be able to change my mind, and I will never be able to change yours. What's the point of keeping this going? We have each expressed ourselves. You are now responding to something I said over a week ago. Go figure.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                      This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism, not arbitrary opinions repetitively asserted while rejecting everything else as "just opinion", intending to put your opinion into law to be imposed by force. Those with an interest in this forum you should at least try to understand what Ayn Rand's philosophy is and why. That is not "nasty".

                      You also do not dictate what is appropriate when I may respond to posts in a backlog I have not yet seen.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 5 months ago
                        And you do not get to dictate what is appropriate to post in this forum. It is not your forum. I may post what I like and as far as I am concerned, and in my opinion, Ayn Rand would agree with me on this. I am sure she never in her wildest nightmares ever thought abortions would lead to live killings of babies. You do NOT get to claim a more righteous viewpoint. It IS just your opinion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          Ayn Rand emphatically disagreed with you. She opposed all laws banning abortion and gave the reasons, starting with a moral foundation of rights, not arbitrary "opinion". See "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights".

                          On abortion in particular:

                          "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

                          "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

                          "To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable".

                          "The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished".

                          That was Ayn Rand's position. That it was her position is not my "opinion", it is what she wrote in opposing the alleged 'rights of the unborn' over many years.

                          Your "opinion" that she would agree with you despite her explicitly and emphatically saying the opposite is false.

                          Abortion did not "lead to live killings of babies". A fetus in not a "baby" and abortion laws cover the period up to birth, not "infanticide". The article you linked to is, in the contemporary phraseology, fake news. It was intended to get you upset and it succeeded.

                          What you publicly post here is subject to response. Don't be surprised when anti-Ayn Rand, anti-reason, anti-rights emotionalism is rejected for what it is.

                          Repeatedly dismissing everything you don't like as just "opinion", with complete disregard for the reasons given, while clinging to your own repetitive baseless opinion as immune from criticism because it is your opinion, advocated to be rammed down our throats through the force of law, is not appropriate on a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Killing babies after they born doesn’t sound very American.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      It's also not abortion and is not what was being advocated.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 1 week ago
        This kind of abortion talk I find disturbing.
        “If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          That has nothing to do with abortion. The context that was dropped for that quote is that he said he was talking about exceptional cases where the infant is severely damaged or not viable at all. The question then arises as to what to do or not do to take extraordinary measures to keep it alive. This has nothing to do with abortion and occurs every day for patients of all ages.

          Anti-abortion fanatics are hysterically trying to smear that as "killing babies" just because a mother doesn't want it. That is not what he said. The article is dishonest.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    While I support abortion being legal, I most assuredly do not support this.

    To clarify my support for abortion. I believe abortion should be Legal, Discouraged, Stigmatized and RARE. I only support it being legal because it is better to have it legal and done by medical professionals than illegal and done as it was years ago on the DL. Many women died from badly preformed procedures.

    With this said however I would support Post Birth Abortions for High Level Democrats and Liberals....I am joking before anyone gets bent out of shape.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The usual method of killing a late term baby has been rather ghastly. Coached by lawyers about how to avoid a charge of murder, the abortionist would turn the baby around to force a breach (feet first) birth, then pull the child out until all but the head is out, quickly driving a scissors into the base of the skull, killing it before it has a chance to draw its first breath.

    A forced breach is dangerous for the mother, so I suspect these bills are designed to do away with the fantasy that this kind of "abortion" isn't infanticide, by allowing the abortionist to kill the child without criminal charges. I hope someone takes this through the federal court system as an attempt to legalize murder.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I met a nurse at an airport years ago while we were waiting for our flights and we started talking about general things then she brought up abortion. She was for it and proceeded to tell me why an unborn child is not really a being (they struggle to stay alive during abortion but I guess that doesn't count) and then proceeded to tell me that in fact even a new born child isn't a sentient being because their brain is still forming until they are five years old and so if you don't like how they seem to be turning out you should still be allowed to terminate them! I picked up my luggage and moved away from her. When you start judging where a life is worthwhile and when it should be terminated you are making a judgement call that only the one who owns that life can morally make. The nurse must be very happy with the new law.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      This is precisely what Rand's flawed definition of life leads to. I am not saying I have a better definition. I don't. In my tissue engineering research lab, I see cells forming tissues and ultimately organs that are generating self-sustaining actions. I know when something is alive and when something is dead when I see it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I think that is one of the fundamental questions of life that until science can answer, we are left with religious speculation. Show me the man or woman who can point a meter of their design at another object and have it declare with certainty and accuracy the presence of conscience and I will show you the most important inventor in the history of the world.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        The definition of life is not the basis of human rights. Human life is a particular kind of life that depends on rationality as the fundamental means for sustaining ones life. You don't see rationality swimming around as cells forming tissue in a lab.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months, 1 week ago
          When cells form tissues in a lab, they are actually self-generating actions to sustain themselves. This is a necessary, but insufficient, requirement for life. You and Rand include rationality as a requirement for sustaining one's life. On that, it would be unreasonable to disagree. However, by that definition, it is not reasonable to assign rights at birth because clearly the infant is incapable of either rationality or sustaining its own life. If one makes the convenience argument that Rand does as the basis against abortion, then it is OK for Casey Anthony to abandon Caylee Anthony in a swamp at nearly 3 years of age. Caylee still needed her mother to survive and was incapable of sufficient rational thought to sustain her life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
            jbrenner: Your example of a mother abandoning a child:
            The mother, by looking after the child creates and accepts her part in a Contract to undertake that care.
            This Contract cannot be dissolved until the child is old enough to understand and approve the ending of the Contract.
            Is such a Contract made by a woman before birth? Only if the woman intended to give birth and be a mother.
            Without Contract, there is no obligation nor duty.
            A government using Objectivist principles has the job of enforcing Contracts.
            What it shall not do is enforce the views of outsiders however emotional and enraged.

            On a re-read, I think the word 'Deed' fits the situation better than 'Contract'.
            A Deed is an statement of obligation by one party intended to be legally enforceable.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            All life is self-sustaining to some degree. That has nothing to do with human rights. And no one has said that all self-sustaining activity includes rational thought. In the entire realm of the lower animals and the plant kingdom it does not. Ayn Rand's principle of the rights of the individual are not an argument for or from "convenience" and does not justify dumping babies. You are making assertions about her philosophy that are not true.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    We have a definition of death that seems to be generally acceptable, that being the cessation of brain activity. Would it be reasonable to define the detectable onset of brain activity as the beginning of life?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Of couse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        The article below appears to indicate that brain activity begins somewhere between week 8 and week 25 of pregnancy. So, going by this definition of the beginning of human life, should abortion be acceptable prior to week 8?
        http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/me...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months, 1 week ago
          Well, there is another milestone: the heart:

          "A baby’s heart begins to develop early and begins beating just 22 days after conception. Between days 22 and 24, the heart begins to bend to the right and fold itself into a loop. By day 28, the tube has a general heart-shaped form with the structures of the chambers and blood vessels in place."

          Reading the article, there are many stumbling blocks to define with certainty when does life begin?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          I still consider the pregnant mother's body and the body of the life forming inside her as separate human lives and, to me, it makes sense that they are both important and should be protected. Just my opinion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Opinion based on what? If the onset of brain activity is the beginning of human life, what is your moral objection to abortion prior to the existence of a brain?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      No, not if you mean life as a human person. A person is essentially different than a fetus or embryo. The concept of rights does not pertain to those. Rights are a moral concept pertaining to human beings, not anything with "brain activity" no matter what it is or how limited, regardless of the presence of human dna.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    To be clear...
    THE SAME People who are AGAINST the death penalty, and FOR Giving our rights to EVERY Living person who wants to sneak into the border...

    Are AGAINST the rights of a newborn...

    I always joke that Abortion should be legalized until 12 mos after the kid graduates from college (In case they go full libtard). But I WAS JOKING!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      There is no such thing as a "right of the unborn". Lumping the right of abortion with welfare entitlements because the left tends to support both is not logical. Ascribing an alleged "right to be born" is itself an arbitrarily imposed entitlement of the unborn -- at the expense of a woman who does not want to bear a child -- worse than welfare statism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
        On the other hand, forcing people to carry to term because the unborn have "rights," is no different to arguing that people have a right to healthcare.
        In this way, the anti-abortionists have just put forward socialism, but are too confused to see it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by AgSchweed 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    What confuses me is how a mother's life can be considered endangered from childbirth after the baby is already born which was one of the reasons quoted for letting the baby die...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      Letting an nonviable infant die after being born is not related to a threat to a woman's health during childbirth. It is not abortion and was not included in the bill on third trimester abortions. The confusion arises from the hysterical attempt to conflate them by those who do not themselves understand the difference between the unborn and those already born as human beings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    This guy is insane:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner...

    "The infant would be kept comfortable" waiting to be killed.

    Very reassuring.

    How can someone (I understand he is a physician, so that explains the matter-of fact narrative) elaborate with such nonchalance about the killing of an infant, even if he/she has deformity or other issues.

    Harking back to the Nazi laboratories where they were experimenting with human lives.

    And the left is calling the GOP Nazi!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      He did not say "waiting to be killed". That has been added by the hysteria dishonestly misrepresenting his statement through selective omission of the context and reinsertion of misrepresentation as if it were part of a quote. Stop calling people "Nazis".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 1 week ago
        He did say "waiting for a decision by the mother and her doctor." What other decision could he be discussing other than to let the child live or die? I'd be curious what you think he meant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          The context dropped for that quote is that he said he was talking about exceptional cases where the infant is severely damaged or not viable at all. The question then arises as to what to do or not do to take extraordinary measures to keep it alive. This has nothing to do with abortion and occurs every day for patients of all ages.

          Conservative commentators have routinely dropped the context in their 'interpretation', edited it out of videos they show, and left it out of their quotes, replacing it with their own insinuations and worse, such Ex adding his own "waiting to be killed". They then use their own additions and imagery as an excuse to crank up the hysteria full bore with demagogic accusations of "nazis" and "murder" while misrepresenting and smearing the bill, the doctors and everyone else defending the right of a woman to not bear a child. That is what the article referenced at the top of this thread does, but it is only one example. It is all demagoguery intended to provoke hysteria against all abortions, employing a false imagery to smear abortions at all stages.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
          The decisions was whether or not to keep trying to save a non-viable newborn for a little bit longer or not.
          It's not different to death-bed care for adults.
          At no point did he suggest anything remotely relating to infanticide.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
          The woman is to make a decision about her body and her future. She takes into account technical specialist advice.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 1 week ago
            And the decision involves the life of another living being, and its future. Her body health has already been resolved, since the situation being discussed is when the child has been delivered alive.Trying to get around the fact that her decision involves consideration that one human life is worth less than another is dishonest.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              When deciding what extraordinary measures will be taken to try keep someone alive, the value to themselves of different kinds of lives possible and those taking care of it is necessarily a consideration. It is not undertaken by out of context dogmatic duty either in this kind of situation pertaining to patients of all ages or in abortion and contraception.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 1 week ago
                I'd be more inclined to listen to quality of life concerns, rather than how dealing with a special needs child crimps someone's social life. There are some devastating birth defects that would make it impossible for the child to enjoy life, and maybe it's best to let them go. I've seen people who made the decision to accept a special needs child, sometimes by adoption, and they seem able to have a full and joyful life. People who can't extend kindness beyond their own self should be sterilized at puberty.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  A woman has no duty in her own life to bear a child, whether or not it would take extraordinary care under the 'politically correct' euphemism of "special needs". That a woman does not want that for any reason whatsoever at some or all points of her life is not subject to your "inclinations" and sarcastic demeaning as "crimping a social life". Nor is there any duty for what you misrepresent as merely "extending kindness" under penalty of forced sterilization and your desire for it.

                  Such pronouncements underscore the anti-abortionist utter contempt and lack of concern for other people's individual values and rights in their own lives, specifically those of the women they regard as cattle.

                  That man-hating attitude seeking and demanding sacrifice of women to mystic "rights" of the unborn is right out of its origins in the Catholic Church and its later expressions as discussed in Ayn Rand's article "Of Living Death", already referred to in this thread https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post.... "Of Living Death" is "an extended analysis of the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, laying bare the vicious motives behind the Catholic Church’s views on sex, contraception and abortion." https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1968...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months ago
                    So, from your perspective, a developing human being has no value beyond that which the mother attributes to it? When a society blesses and celebrates an execution of the innocent, it's a grim testament to its moral state. Abortion should be legal, and it is the right of the mother to decide. What is repulsive to witness is the party atmosphere associated with the passage of a law that insures butchers like Gosnell can't be held accountable.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                      DrZ: "So, from your perspective, a developing human being has no value beyond that which the mother attributes to it?"

                      "So, from your perspective" a woman's life has no value to herself when you decide a fetus has intrinsic value superseding her own life, which supposed intrinsic value supposedly makes it more important for her to bear a child she does not want?

                      You did not address anything I wrote, so let us review it.

                      You now say that "abortion should be legal, and it is the right of the mother to decide". You don't say why. It contradicts your opposite ethical premises expressed here. The moral principles are the more fundamental and ultimately lead to a politics reflecting them.

                      That a woman does not want the burden of bearing a child for any reason at some or all points of her life is not subject to your "inclinations", sarcastic demeaning as "crimping a social life", or claims of an intrinsic value of a fetus over her own values for her own life. There is no moral duty for what you misrepresent as merely "extending kindness" under penalty of forced sterilization and your stated desire for it. Appealing to altruistic sacrifice with "sterilization" is not "kindness" and not a proper ethics for man or anything a free society can be based on.

                      That morality is the fundamental issue: The abortion controversy in the country is a "grim testament to its moral state", but it is the opposite of what you wrote. It is the topic of Ayn Rand's "Of Living Death" referred to previously https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1968...

                      She concluded that article:

                      "Such is the tragic futility of attempting to fight the existential consequences of a philosophical issue, without facing and challenging the philosophy that produced them.

                      "This issue is not confined to the Catholic church, and it is deeper than the problem of contraception; it is a moral crisis approaching a climax. The core of the issue is Western civilization's view of man and of his life. The essence of that view depends on the answer to two interrelated questions: Is man (man the individual) an end in himself?—and: Does man have the right to be happy on this earth? [emphasis added]

                      "Throughout its history, the West has been torn by a profound ambivalence on these questions: all of its achievements came from those periods when men acted as if the answer were 'Yes'—but, with exceedingly rare exceptions, their spokesmen, the philosophers, kept proclaiming a thunderous 'No' in countless forms.

                      "Neither an individual nor an entire civilization can exist indefinitely with an unresolved conflict of that kind. Our age is paying the penalty for it. And it is our age that will have to resolve it."

                      The first purpose of this forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and rational egoism is described https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about "We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their propagation by engaging in some inspired conversation." Those who participate on this forum should at least know what those ideas are and not use the forum to promote the opposite.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                      Aside from the more fundamental anti-individualist morality expressed in that post demeaning the value of the woman to herself (discussed separately) there are number of contradictions and falsehoods.

                      Society is not "blessing and celebrating an execution of the innocent". Abortion is not "execution" and a fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty: Moral concepts do not apply to it at all -- other than by religionists harboring the anti-concept of "original sin".

                      "Society" is not "celebrating" any of this, any more than an individual "celebrates" having an appendix removed. An abortion is a temporary setback required so one can move on and continue to live and pursue value. One may "celebrate" that aspect -- like celebrating the end of World War II -- which is why the passage of the NY law was commemorated.

                      "Society" is not "blessing" anything; "blessing" is a religious ritual.

                      There is no law "insuring butchers like Gosnell can't be held accountable" and there is no "party atmosphere" around it.

                      The VA state law under consideration, and the NY law now in effect, pertain to third trimester abortions, not infanticide. The NY law previously banned abortions after 6 months unless the woman's life was in danger; it now includes the woman's "health" in addition to her "life", which is what Ayn Rand supported 50 years ago, as discussed here on his forum: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                      Anti-abortion propagandists made the rest up, in part because they don't themselves know the difference between abortion and infanticide, and in part because they realize that others do know they are different, and want to incite hysteria with false claims of legalizing real infanticide falsely tied to abortion. Some anti-abortionists are hysterical over it because, lacking objectivity, they are gullible and believed it. They were gullible because they want to believe it as confirmation of their ideological and religious beliefs and speculations.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months ago
                        An unborn child is by default legally innocent, since it has had no chance to commit any act to prove it has unlawful intent. That has nothing to do with religion.

                        I guess we should ignore the cheering and clapping, and all the happy faces in the New York legislature with the passage of the law legalizing third trimester abortion. It sure looked like a celebration to me.

                        Gosnell benefited from a lack of interest in what was occurring in his abortion clinic. His abortions butchered children and mothers alike, resulting in the death of at least one woman, and serious injury to a number of others. With abortion now legal under any conditions, what would motivate New York law enforcement to carry out even the sloppy inspection protocol that allowed Gosnell to operate for so many years? When a woman pays to have her child aborted, how many abortionists will feel duty bound to make sure a surviving infant is terminated? Gosnell made sure any baby that took a breath was quickly finished off with a scissors to the brain, and he was operating in an environment that had some small risk of prosecution.

                        I do feel strongly that all forms of contraception should be readily available, to avoid a situation that can result in an abortion. I also feel that amniocentesis should be covered for any mother who wants it, so that developing infants with severe genetic disorders can be terminated early.

                        Euthanasia is a dangerous proposition, whether performed early or late in life. It creates societal approval for a disregard for human life. It fits in well for authoritarian rule, which can set standards for termination of the "unfit."
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          All forms of contraception are already "readily available". No one wants go through an abortion that can be avoided. Nothing should be "covered any mother who wants it", which is not possible without government force violating rights.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          Abortion is not euthanasia. To say that either "creates societal approval for a disregard for human life" is a non sequitur. Laws and common practices follow what is already generally accepted, which in turn cannot in this country be categorized as "disregard for human life" that "fits in well for authoritarian rule".

                          Abortion is not "terminating" people's lives, and the common practice of not taking extraordinary measures to keep the suffering, terminally ill alive is on behalf of the value of human life, not "disregard for human life", "terminating the unfit" and "authoritarian rule".

                          These repetitious conservative mantras trying to frighten people out of supporting abortion with hyperbole about "murder", "infanticide", "nazis", "euthanasia", "terminating the unfit", "authoritarian rule" and the rest of it are all hysterical nonsense.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          This statement by Dr. Z is not true: "An unborn child is by default legally innocent, since it has had no chance to commit any act to prove it has unlawful intent. That has nothing to do with religion."

                          He previously wrote, "When a society blesses and celebrates an execution of the innocent, it's a grim testament to its moral state", which premise is false and makes no sense at all. It is offensive. No one, let alone "society", is "blessing and celebrating" "execution" of anything, and the typical emotional appeals to "innocent" fetuses is a contradiction in terms now rationalized into a legal argument.

                          That is an offensively false and hysterical attempt to inculcate guilt, but more on that later because as it is too important to overlook. First look at the underlying cognitive dissonance underlying the false imagery.

                          There is no such thing as "by default legally innocent" for entities that cannot make choices. A fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty of anything; it does not have the ability to morally choose, let alone commit crimes or choose to -- or choose not to.

                          That lack of ability to make such choices does not make it "innocent by default". Concepts of morality, let alone crime, do not apply to a fetus. "Innocent fetus" is a stolen concept, ignoring and contradicting the facts and concepts on which the concept 'innocent' depends. There is no such thing as a "default" use of a concept that is inapplicable. The concept 'color' does not apply to sound, which does not have a "default color" either, nor is it "innocent by default" until proven guilty of "criminal intent". Appeal to such floating abstractions as "default innocence" of a fetus is only a default on the rational use of concepts.

                          A fetus' "intent under the law" is another stolen concept. A fetus cannot have either lawful or unlawful intent. There is no such thing as fetus being innocent under the law; it does not make choices and take actions under the law at all. There can no such things as "criminal intent" of a fetus, or its opposite. Law does not apply to actions by fetuses; law does not apply to fantasy. Yet the contradiction is exploited to rationalize conjuring a false imagery of an innocent victim unjustly "executed".

                          I did not say that these conceptual fallacies are "religion", but religion is a common instance and source of it. I wrote that "moral concepts do not apply to a [fetus] at all -- other than by religionists harboring the anti-concept of 'original sin'", the last as a qualification on the misuse of moral terms.

                          An anti-concept is an "artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept". The religious anti-concept 'original sin' -- being born guilty -- makes no more sense than "innocent fetus" that anti-abortionists invoke constantly in emotional appeals.

                          The factual basis of a proper morality, let alone law, is not religion, but invocations of the anti-concept 'original sin' is historically seen as an illogical concept of morality explicitly buried deep into religious doctrine for centuries, in contrast with run of the mill emotional stolen concepts like "innocent fetus". 'Original sin' and 'innocent fetus' are two sides of the same illogical coin.

                          Yet here we see the non applicable concept of "innocence" strained into the fantasy of alleged legal argument -- in a transparent attempt to pretend the contradictions of a false morality are merely a matter of law -- just as the anti-abortionists bizarrely invoke the "Constitution" for alleged "rights of the unborn".

                          None of it makes any sense. As Ellsworth Toohey said, "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes". We have examined it, but what is it intended to accomplish? The same game as the Catholic church for centuries instilling guilt into innocent people for not following an impossible anti-man dogma at the root of the anti-abortionists' barbaric demands on women to bear children they don't want. The impossibility of following such dogma, by a populace that believes in it, guarantees a populace with head bowed in perpetual guilt, ready to be manipulated and kept in permanent tortured sense of life on earth.

                          Such is the nature of the offensive attempts to impose guilt for the 'crime' of a woman choosing to live her own life with her own happiness as an end it itself, with the false guilt inculcated through the tortured logic of moral intimidation (all from Dr. Z): hysterical accusations of "execution" and "murder" of the "innocent" in a "party atmosphere" with "society" allegedly celebrating "butchers like Gosnell" -- sarcastic demeaning of a woman's life and values as nothing more than "crimping a social life" -- a desire for "sterilization" of women who don't submit -- and demanding altruistic sacrifice in the name of "kindness". Those who are attracted to at least the sense of life in Atlas Shrugged should know better than to accept that kind of thinking.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          As already stated, "'Society' is not 'celebrating' any of this, any more than an individual 'celebrates' having an appendix removed. An abortion is a temporary setback required so one can move on and continue to live and pursue value. One may 'celebrate' that aspect -- like celebrating the end of World War II -- which is why the passage of the NY law was commemorated."

                          DrZ's "I guess we should ignore the cheering and clapping, and all the happy faces in the New York legislature with the passage of the law legalizing third trimester abortion" is non-responsive.

                          I don't speak for the general sense of life of Cuomo and NY Democrats, but celebrating a reform of some remnants of the abortion restrictions imposed by the Catholic church since the 19th century is a rational response. The essence of the reform is what Ayn Rand advocated in the 1960s https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Because they are Democrats and generally welfare statists, however, the reform was package-dealed with other provisions such as more requirements for insurance companies.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 months ago
                          Abortion in NY is not "now legal under any conditions" and the law has nothing to do with Gosnell. Late term abortions require, among other regulations of abortions, that the mother's health or life be at stake, which is almost always the case in a very serious way with late term abortions anyway.

                          Gosnell has nothing to do with any of this. Ideologues constantly demagogue abortion with hysterical propaganda misrepresenting abortion as "Gosnell", "murder" and "infanticide".

                          Gosnel did not got away with actual murder and harm because of an alleged "lack of interest". Anti-abortionists are notorious for their "interest" in lobbying and controls, and in stalking, harassing and threatening doctors across the country to the point that state laws were needed to prohibit them from accosting patients and doctors.

                          Monitoring and controlling doctors, requiring them to limit their practice and act only under state intrusion and permission is a statist premise, along with the anarchist mob mentality. The possibility of some violation of a law is not an excuse to prevent legal and moral activity, including abortions.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Nazi's opposed abortion and homosexuals, kinda like today's religious conservatives, so the comparison isn't 100% wrong.
      What this guy is proposing is indeed infanticide, but that's not what those of us who are pro-choice are advocating.
      Conservatives are dishonestly trying to conflate infanticide with abortion, in order to ban the latter, even in the first trimester.
      They are basically religious versions of democrats.
      Don't buy into their game.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        I am not buying into anyone's game as the majority of Gulch members don't.

        I assume people have their own opinion they have consciously developed and which is called "adulthood". You may not have heard of it.

        As for "conservatives dishonestly trying to conflate infanticide with abortion" - no, they don't.

        What Tran proposed and Northam spelled out with deadly accuracy only a former medical professional is able, is indeed infanticide. Check the details and don't buy into the propaganda of the left.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          No one called for "infanticide", let alone with "deadly accuracy". The deadly inaccurate misrepresentation in the dishonest article and the hysteria it has generated is the "propaganda of the religious right" outdoing the left.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
            I know this is off topic, but the fact that conservatives reject/don't understand the concept of rights and are prepared to sacrifice the individual for some allegedly higher purpose, as we see with abortion, makes them collectivists. As such, they should be considered left wing too, just like any other collectivist. I refer to them as politically illiterate and religious leftists.
            I know this isn't the mainstream view, but it's high time Objectivists start putting forward the proper political definitions, based on the fundamental issue of individualism vs collectivism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          "Adulthood" does not mean gullibley latching onto a dishonest article, let alone hysterically accusing proponents of the right of abortion as advocating infanticide. We have all "heard of" adulthood and don't need your snide insults substituting for rational discussion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          You're commenting on a post which is titled "what abortion has led to" while discussing infanticide, and you're still trying to suggest they aren't trying to dishonestly conflate the two?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Abortion has led to infanticide. Geez. Read my comments!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              Abortion can't lead to infanticide, that's a non-sequitur.
              It's like saying, "free markets lead to corruption."
              It's nonsense.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                When you give the go ahead to kill unborn human beings, it does and is leading to giving the go ahead to kill human beings while they are being born and after they have left the womb.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
                  That's the non-sequitur.
                  There are no "unborn human beings."

                  Words have meaning and you are using them all incorrectly, with an agenda of reducing half the population to the level of cattle.

                  This makes Bernie Bro's seem reasonable by comparison.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Just because you say that does not make it so. They are human whether you accept it or not.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      "Human cells" does not mean "human being", i.e., a person. No one has said the cells aren't human cells. In equivocating on the meaning of "human" -- between a human person and cells that are human -- you are misusing the concepts.

                      That distinction has been explained many times and you continue to not acknowledge it. It is why the repeated assertions invoking the equivocation -- long after this has been discussed -- do not contribute to the discussion. It's not a matter of "Just because you say that does not make it so". This has all been explained, not just "said so".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Actually, that's not true at all. One of Margaret Sanger's prized possessions was a personal letter written to her by Adolf Hitler, who praised her and her methods. Hitler and Sanger both took the basic premise that the value of human life was subjective and depended on such characteristics as race, skin color, and even religion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          This kind of demagoguery comparing proponents of the right of a woman to not bear a child as like "Hitler", the eugenics of Sanger and an allegedly "prized letter", and "the value of human life was subjective and depended on such characteristics as race, skin color, and even religion" are a disgusting smear. The Nazis did criminalize abortion and even if they hadn't it wouldn't say anything about a rational ethics supporting a woman's right of abortion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
            Yep the Nazi's were loudly anti-abortion.
            They were also shamefully supported by both the catholic and protestant churches for this reason and for being anti-homosexual.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              Blarman is prone to making 'authoritative' pronouncements that are both false and irrelevant, trying to sound like response when it isn't. But aside from Nazi history -- even if their position had been the opposite -- they (and the early American eugenicists) have nothing to do with Ayn Rand and the rights of the individual.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
                Yes I know, I was just making an aside as anti-abortionists often compare those of us who are pro-choice to Nazi's, all the while oblivious to the fact that they actually shared their anti-abortion position.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          You're missing the point.
          Whether you think the state can force you to carry to term, or force you to have certain abortions, you're on the SAME side.
          Those of us who support rights protecting government, oppose any government involvement in the matter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            That would only be true if the State also sanctioned, encourage, or perpetrated rape. You are trying to divert away from the true choice in the matter: whether or not have sex. That is the real choice. You can't get pregnant if you don't have sex. If you have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and everything that goes with pregnancy.

            I'm not against choice, I'm against trying to divest choice from consequence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              "You are trying to divert away from the true choice in the matter: whether or not have sex. "
              If that's what you think the matter is about, then why bring up abortion at all?
              You are a religious leftist, that wants to regulate peoples sex lives.
              Just be honest about it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -3
        Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Here is a March 2018 article on contemporary reform partially repealing 1930s Nazi anti-abortion law: https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...

        But Northop did not "propose infanticide" of babies well after birth, which is not abortion and not what proponents of the right of abortion mean by it or advocate. The hysterical article linked at the top of this thread is not honest. "Infanticide" has been added as 'interpretation' by those who don't know the difference and want him to have said it as "proof" "confirming" their own confusion over abortion.

        As you wrote, they want to ban all abortion (and often contraception), and constantly and dishonestly conflate it with "infanticide", "killing babies" and, at best, late term abortions they can emotionally demagogue through imagery as if it were "babies". Mark Levin shouts himself hoarse with this demagoguery all the time on his radio show.

        As the latest in the pattern, the anti-abortion movement hysterically latched onto the recently released video of Northam, 'interpeting' it to mean real babies being "killed" to try to make their own confused slogans sound plausible to those with actual concern for human rights. The article cited by this thread does this with fabricated misrepresentations as to what he 'must have meant' because they can't imagine it meaning anything else. It's all picked up as it goes hysterically 'viral' -- including on this forum where people should know better -- and picks up more and more misrepresentation, like a snowball rolling downhill, parroted and expanded as truth as the shrieking hysteria grows.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    I agree with all who posted. But, and it is a big one! If the mother's life is in danger or if the circumstances are such the mother feels a desperation (rape, etc) but NOT after twelve weeks! If it takes one longer than that to make up one's mind, they need help. There is no way we can condone this awful proposition! And I am appalled it doesn't have to be a Medical doctor doing the procedure!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  25n56il4 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      In April 2017, the Office of the Inspector General cited the Department of Health and Human Services for providing funding to Planned Parenthood (not a govt agency) and America Corps because they were providing transportation to patients seeking abortions. Wonder how that played out?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      I understand that rape is a terrible thing and has horrible consequences - some of which sometimes involves conceiving an obviously unwanted baby. But why on earth it is okay to KILL the baby? At whatever gestation period? (OK I am good with a 72-hour rape kit, or whatever they call it - to prevent fertilization). It wasn't his fault! I get that the mother may not want the baby, so why can she not adopt it out? EVEN unwanted babies conceived in violence can grow up to be not only much-loved but very productive members of society. Honestly, I don't think that's a good reason for abortion, myself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Rape is not the only rational reason for an abortion and you do not make the decision for the woman who chooses not to have a child.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 1 week ago
          You don't get to tell me what I get to do. I did not say, nor do I say now that I CAN stop a person from having an abortion, but in every day and at every opportunity I will continue to say what I already said.

          Here, I'll say it for you again, just because I can: "Honestly, I don't think that's a good reason for abortion, myself."

          Now you just TRY taking my thoughts about right and wrong away from me and see what that gets you.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            You can defiantly hold any "thoughts about right and wrong" you want to -- expect to have them challenged when you publicly post them here, especially when you make false accusations of murder. Yes, we do "get to" reject that. Abortion does not "KILL the baby"; there is no "baby". "Thoughts about right and wrong" determine restrictions put into law. False ethical ideas harm people through oppressive laws. Laws prohibiting abortion do in fact force a woman to bear a child. The justifications for a woman to choose for herself an abortion are not restricted to what you think is "a good reason for abortion yourself", are not restricted to "rape", "whatever gestation period", or your preference to "adopt it out".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 1 week ago
              Challenge away. Do you think I give two runny sh*ts what you think? Your "challenge" does not take away the FACT that it's a BABY that is being MURDERED. Say what you want. I don't care. It's still a murdered child.

              Fortunately, there are more places that do restrict abortion to something that is much more reasonable than VA and NY, and many of those are not likely to change.

              Oh, and at least 1/3 of the words in your last comment are NOT words I used. Stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to think a woman has a perfect right to kill whatever baby she wants, but you don't seem to think it's okay for me to use the words I want to use without you adding to them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by GaltsGulch 5 months, 1 week ago
                RE: "Do you think I give two runny sh*ts what you think?"
                Boy oh boy, it sure looks like you guys are having fun in here. Let's take a down a notch though gharknees. You can do better than this. Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct and let's clean it up.

                RE: "At least I pay my dues. I see you don't." ( from here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... )
                We don't do this here either. Take a breath. Attack the argument, not the man.

                https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  LOL Now they're even 'downvoting' the forum moderator in their crusade. They don't intend this one, like the historical crusades, to be "fun". His sustained, defiantly repetitive personal attacks should not be tolerated at all. A written code of conduct for the forum should not be needed to know better than this for any civilized person, let alone on a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. The goal is not to personally "attack" either "the man" or "the argument", which is the wrong mentality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                Your repetition of ridiculous assertions accusing people of murder, emphasized with an emotional outburst of profanity, is not an argument and doesn't belong here at all. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not emotional outburst.

                Every politics implies and presupposes an ethics. It matters to our rights when dogma is promoted as false ethics. False ethics have bad consequences. It does not matter, in logic, that you defiantly don't want people challenging your baseless emotional assertions. The quotes around your words are your words. Your public assertions here are always subject to challenge, even as you insist that you don't care what those who reject you think, if only so that others can read the response.

                A baby must be born to be a baby. Emotional outbursts do not convert contradictions into facts by shouting them in capital letters. Running around shouting that people are "murderers" is not rational.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Sorry didn't read. Won't read. Bye.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    "Gharkness" emotionally accuses people of murder in a rage of profanity then runs away with "Won't read". Such outbursts showing no understanding or desire for understanding of the discussion do not belong on a forum of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  gharkness 5 months, 1 week ago
                      You just keep on beating that dead horse. There are people who just don't know when to shut up. It appears you happen to be one of them. I think your biggest problem is that you haven't been able to change my mind. Nope, not even the slightest. And you seem to think that if you keep on you will make me change. Trust me: this is not the first time I have thought about this situation. I have heard all the arguments (and you have yet to come up with anything new or even slightly convincing). But hey, keep beating that dead horse.

                      Rage,hahahah!

                      Oh, and while you are at it, hey, get me thrown off. At least I pay my dues. I see you don't.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                        "Gharkness" can think anything he wants to with his unchanged mind and open refusal to read. These irrational outbursts and personal accusations, including speculations about other people's "biggest problem", do not belong on this forum. That is not "beating a dead horse".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      A medical choice between the life or death of the mother or the child yes. Anything else leads to what is happening now. Just my opinion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        A woman choosing to not have a child does not lead to "infanticide", which is also not what is "happening now". "Infanticide" is an hysterical misrepresentation of a third trimester abortion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      You don't decide by when a woman decides not to bear a child for any reason she wants, including the accumulating knowledge of normal or abnormal progression of the potential birth. "Twelve weeks" is an arbitrary decree with no objective moral import.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
        It certainly is not arbitrary. It is when the heart is developed. It is human. I believe your statements are "arbitrary with no objective moral import". It is your opinion. We have a right to ours also, based on facts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
          When a claimed "heart is developed", ignoring all the characteristics of what a person is, is not the basis of being a human person with rights. We do not have rights because a "heart beats". Claiming that it creates a "right" to an entitlement to be born six months later is an arbitrary assertion in an emotional appeal to irrelevancy, not "based on facts". Ycandrea has made the same baseless assertion about the "moment of conception".

          'Sez you sez me' everything is nothing but opinion "We have a right to ours" does not justify a right to impose brutal use of government force under criminal law to enforce religious beliefs, which is theocracy, not a civilized free society. Repetitive, bald assertion of stark "opinion" is neither rational discussion nor a basis for government coercion to barbarically force a woman to bear a child.

          Ycandrea's arbitrary 12 week deadline was decreed in the arrogant assertion, "If the mother's life is in danger or if the circumstances are such the mother feels a desperation (rape, etc) but NOT after twelve weeks! If it takes one longer than that to make up one's mind, they need help". The arrogantly authoritarian Ycandrea does not decide for another woman why and by when she needs an abortion. As originally stated, "You don't decide by when a woman decides not to bear a child for any reason she wants, including the accumulating knowledge of normal or abnormal progression of the potential birth." The accumulating medical knowledge over time does not imply that a woman needs Ycandrea's version of "help". Most late term abortions are for reasons of health, not inability to "make up one's mind". Nor is any of it any of Ycandrea's business at all to impose arbitrary "opinion" with theocratic force.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Everyone can and does know what a human person is without advanced knowledge of biology. The anti-abortionists lump human beings together with something else that is not persons, including cells at conception, and demand that we regard it as if were a person. Subjectively lumping different things together without regard to essential similarities and differences is an invalid concept, not the basis of a logical argument -- except in the imaginations of those who misappropriate "logic" for the flim flam of rationalistic verbal manipulation that departs from reality at the first step.

    The "same organism", which is functioning vastly differently in a different context after birth than before, is not a person before birth. The differences have been described several times. A refusal to think conceptually in terms of rights, persons, morality, barbaric mistreatment of a woman forced to bear a child, the meaning of biologically parasitic dependence, the differences between pre and post birth, and the meaning of the entire process, cannot in logic stare perceptually at 'here now same organism' and demand we reach an alleged conceptual conclusion of an entitlement of the unborn to be born.

    The entire process of grand larceny through bulk stolen concepts employing deliberate context dropping as a strategy is thought divorced from concepts and reality, not a 'scientific' approach.

    But that isn't where it stops. The same fallacy is typically expanded by anti-abortionists into a chain non sequitur to ague that they can't tell the difference from one infinitesimal moment to the next all the way back to conception so cells at conception must be a person with rights.

    When an argument winds up in an absurdity it means in logic that something was wrong with the argument -- a reductio ad absurdum -- but the anti-abortionists demand that we accept the absurdity and throw out reality, including the women barbarically forced to bear children, sacrificed to the absurdity of clumps of cells at conception mystically imagined to be a person. It is argument devoid of concepts and reality, rationalizing verbal manipulations as if logic were the handmaiden for emotional dogma. It is not science and objectivity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 1 week ago
      So, when the going gets tough, you start arguing with someone else and refute "anti-abortionists" arguments instead of mine. I was specifically speaking of a child immediately before and after birth, you've jumped to clumps of cells and declared "the differences have been described several times" -- but that's not really the case, you repeatedly declare that a difference obviously exists, but do not describe it in biological terms, instead shifting your arguments to rights and person hood which are philosophical, not biological concepts.

      And you end with a word salad that speaks to none of the issues that I was talking about but those irrational anti-abortionists and barbarically forcing women to bear children, none of which I've mentioned.

      Clearly you would rather argue with them than with me and that's fine. I've actually not expressed an opinion on abortion, just the nature of human development.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Pointing out, after refuting your anti-conceptual argument, how anti-abortionist activists typically exploit your fallacy by expanding it beyond a single range of the moment does not "start arguing with someone else". It shows the consequences, which is not avoiding alleged "tough going".

        The "nature of human development" cannot be understood or discussed by appealing to 'here now same organism', without regard to concepts and context, in the name of science and objectivity. Nor is such a context-dropping assertion about the moments just before and just after birth a discussion of the "nature of human development" at all.

        The dramatic difference between pre and post birth most certainly has already been discussed, both in this thread and previously. Also already discussed in this thread is the simple fact that before birth the fetus has developed the potential for the functionality it will begin to use after birth.

        Understanding what a person is is a requirement for anything related to the topic of this thread, and cannot be banned as not "biological". It does not require technical biological concepts outside of general knowledge. And your "From conception on there is a continuity" does not mean that there is no difference between stages of development as if essential differences in attributes do not exist. It takes concepts to understand all of this, not staring at one event at a time out of context, ignoring the difference between functioning and its potential, then proclaiming from moment to moment: 'It's the same thing'.

        To say nothing but "here now same organism" would be pointless by itself. To try to further conclude from that that it is "biologically identical before and after birth", in denying that a fetus is only a potential human being, is a non sequitur. The anti-conceptual, deliberately context-dropping perceptual argument of 'it's the same thing' has been refuted, not evaded as "tough going". In remaining on the anti-conceptual level of perceptual empiricism (as in Hume and the Positivists) you don't seem to know what you are missing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
          You've given some of the best explanation as to why abortion should be perfectly legal that I've read anywhere, yet it's like you're talking to a wall.
          The same nonsense just keeps getting regurgitated back at you, despite being thoroughly and repeatedly addressed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 1 week ago
          So, by your definition, a child isn't human until it draws first breath? Technically, the human brain isn't fully developed until about the age of 25, so one could make the argument that the death of a being before their 25th birthday isn't really the death of a human, but that's a ridiculous argument.

          Doctors consider third trimester premature births as deserving of preservation, so what are they? Is the ability to breathe oxygen what makes one human?

          What do you suggest be done with a child that survives an abortion attempt? The mother has already made the decision that she doesn't want the baby, but by your own definition, it's now a breathing human being, and its death by instrument or dehydration is now murder. I'm just looking for consistency.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            There is no such thing as an abortion of a child that survived birth. Birth does not mean "draws its first breath". It is born alive or it isn't, whether or not prematurely.

            The ridiculous argument that the brain must be fully matured before being human only at the age of 25 is your own ridiculous argument. A person does not have to be mature to be a person and no one has said that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 5 months, 1 week ago
            Of the options, one is to force the woman into parenthood. She says, no. do you force?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 1 week ago
              The woman can make a decision to offer the child for adoption, and her identity is protected from disclosure by law. With technology on the path it is today, I'd recommend she provide a medical history and DNA sample for the record. That way her offspring can get the answers regarding medical ancestry without requiring contact.

              Legally, once a child is born alive, the doctor involved risks charges of murder if the mother asks that the child be terminated. It is no longer a part of her body, but a human being with a right to life.

              At what point does the right of a mother to demand the death of a child end? Abortion, by law, recognizes that right prior to birth, but to extend that right to end the life of a living, breathing human being beyond birth is stretching the legal bounds to breaking.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                Killing children is not abortion at all. Repeatedly running to the the imagery of infanticide is not a defense of anti-abortionists forcing women to bear children they don't want.

                Neither is demanding "adoption" as a substitute for abortion. This has nothing to do with the excursions into "protecting identity" and "medical ancestry". There are many reasons why a woman may not want to bear a child, or not bear a child to put it up for adoption, or not want to put it up for adoption at all if it were to be born. None of those reasons are the proper concern of the anti-abortionists imposing their will on others in their barbaric forcing of women to bear children.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a continuous process with a primitive mental function developing right up to the time of birth. It has to work out that way or it wouldn't ready and there would be a much different biological context from a different evolutionary path than what occurred -- so there must be "similarities". But passively reacting to stimuli like a vacuum cleaner noises coming in from the outside as "soothing" is a very crude and low resolution that does not allow for the same kind of discrimination of entities for perception, and choice of where to focus, that comes later, and doesn't negate the total biologically parasitic state.

    You are right to start with the known rights of women known to have them and why. The anti-abortionists do the exact opposite, with obsessive concern over "rights" of the unborn beginning with conception and no concern for the women. It started with church doctrine speculating about mystic souls and a contempt for human well being and happiness on earth. That has always been barbaric.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 months, 1 week ago
      "There is a continuous process with a primitive mental function developing right up to the time of birth."
      Doesn't it continue beyond birth?
      "passively reacting to stimuli like a vacuum cleaner noises coming in from the outside as "soothing" is a very crude and low resolution "
      I was not thinking of fetuses reacting to sounds but rather babies in their first three months. I'm saying newborns share traits with fetuses. Loud environments can wake up a one year old and can be disturbing to them. The same environment, maybe a loud restaurant, puts newborns to sleep.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        Yes there is a continuous process of growth for a healthy person throughout his life. You see it in our own life constantly.

        Loud noise wakes you up, too, but that, or a loud boring TV program putting you to sleep, are not relevant to rights.

        The fetus has some characteristics in common with persons -- it has to in order to develop in order to become a person, even though its development of organs, including the brain, is less mature and more limited in capacity. But it's functioning in a very limited environment, supported parasitically and blocked from the outside world, making human functioning like that of even an infant impossible, is essentially different.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 5 months, 1 week ago
    New York’s ‘Reproductive Health Act’ brought shock and awe to the entire country, by legalizing full-term abortions, and decriminalizing it. As barbaric as this all is, no one seems to be focused on the nurses and midwives’ addition to this bill, who coincidentally have been trained by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Partners in Health, Planned Parenthood, and the Ivy League schools, for over two decades. While everyone is still trying to catch their breath, the reality of what lies ahead, may unfortunately include unthinkable, sinister acts. Based on past events, actions, and evidence of fetal tissue and body parts being sold, new “youth” blood clinics opening their doors, and prior experimentation on prison babies, it’s time to wake from the shock, and pay very close attention. This is both a physical and spiritual battle – armor up. They just legalized allowing a new born baby to suffer and die outside of the womb, if they did not succeed with the abortion procedure. This is murder in the worst degree.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 5 months, 1 week ago
    I agree, My wife is an RN of 40 + years was horrified at the former pediatrician now governor of Virginia & the New York advocating infanticide. When watching the local TV station reporting or Fox reporting on this she has to change the station. I, myself was prompted to write an email to my congressman (a Dimm) regarding this abortion issue. I received a prompt form letter back stating that "As a member of the U. S. House of Representative, I believe this is a matter that should be determined between a woman and her doctor- not Washington politicians." The rest of the email goes on to inform that the government doesn't fund abortions and so on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
    First, I would like to remind the Gulch that up and down votes are not about your feelings, and agreements, but that it is for voting on whether that post is worthy of discussion.

    Abortion is a moral right, because women have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness (including living a life free of children). So when does the fetus gain that right to life? That's simple, when it is ready to live.

    Objective laws ought to be about protecting individual rights, and the mother is an individual, the fetus inside her is not. How do we know when the fetus becomes an individual? It's simple, the fetus becomes an individual when it makes its first individual "decision". That is, the fetus becomes an individual when it acts on its own for the first time, when it escapes the egg.

    Mammals have eggs, just like every other animal, but the mammal egg is soft and is carried in the mother. But it is still an egg.

    Life is a self-propagating system, life begets life. Life is "a distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond, adapt, and reproduce".

    The purpose of an egg is to create life, and the thing inside the egg is ready to be alive when the development of the genetic code is done forming the non-living into the living, which begins with the process of hatching or water breaking.

    One of the most important parts about being alive is metabolism, and one of the most important parts of metabolism and being a living being on a planet is the ability to breath the air. The process of an egg is to prepare the soon-to-be living for the world it evolved within. This brings us to human fetuses and the late stage of evolution in the human egg.

    "Humans, like all mammals, need to put the finishing touches on lung development before being born. It’s this final stage that researchers have discovered holds the key to when labour begins. Fetal Lung Development: While in the uterus, babies are not breathing air. They receive oxygen via placental blood. While the lungs begin to develop early in pregnancy, the process continues all the way through the pregnancy gestation. Around 24 – 28 weeks of pregnancy, your baby’s lungs begin to produce a substance called surfactant. This substance is made of six types of fats and four proteins, and is critical for your baby to be able to breathe outside the uterus. Surfactant is a soapy-like substance. It coats the inside of the lungs and keeps the air sacs (alveoli) open. The alveoli is where gas exchange in the lungs occurs – oxygen is taken up by the blood and carbon dioxide is released and then exhaled. Without enough surfactant, the alveoli collapse and are almost impossible to open again in normal situations. If the alveoli collapse, they can also stick together and tear. The last stage of lung development begins around 36 weeks of pregnancy, and it continues until your child is about 8 years old. This is called the aveolar phase, when the lungs form millions of alveoli. During this last stage of pregnancy, surfactant production increases as well, preparing the lungs for life outside the uterus. What Causes Labor To Start? During late pregnancy, the uterus has an increased number of immune cells (macrophages). Macrophages help fight lung infection by effectively sweeping up any viruses or bacteria that might be present. A protein found in lung surfactant actives the macrophages, which begin to migrate to the uterus wall. Once there, a chemical reaction takes place, stimulating an inflammatory response in the uterus that begins the process of labour. The surfactant protein is called surfactant protein A (SP-A). Babies begin producing SP-A at around 32 weeks and levels increase for the remainder of the pregnancy, until the lungs are mature enough to breathe outside the uterus." (https://www.bellybelly.com.au/b…/what...)

    Therefore a fetus in an egg is not-yet-ready to be alive, until it makes the individual, independent, evolved "choice" to join the world alive. Until that point, it is not-yet-living, not an individual, and not-yet-human. It will choose when it is alive when the process of creating it is finished. Until then, it is the mother's autonomy that matters. After that, it has taken for itself the inalienable right to life, which cannot be taken away for any reason.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      BiggestShoelaces: "First, I would like to remind the Gulch that up and down votes are not about your feelings, and agreements, but that it is for voting on whether that post is worthy of discussion."

      The forum is also supposed to be for those with an interest in Ayn Rand's ideas and rational discussion, not militant religious conservatives emotionally pushing their feelings and repeating the same rationalizations over and over, which is not a basis for discussion at all.

      There are many conservatives here who have at least some sense of life attraction to Atlas Shrugged and enough respect for reason that they do discuss ideas (sometimes with good knowledge). But there are a few who keep repeating the same emotional dogmas and rationalizations without regard to prior refutations and explanations, and who emotionally 'downvote' rational discussion (especially ideas of Ayn Rand) contrary to their feelings, or do so emotionally and rotely as part of the 'crusade' without any attempt at response at all, 'downvoting' posts in bulk based on who writes them. They obviously don't belong here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
      The act of birth is part of the natural process, not a "choice" of the fetus to be born; it could not think in such terms. It doesn't decide, "now I'll crack the egg and climb out". The basic act of choice is the choice to focus, which requires being in the external world where there is something to focus on, even if pre-conceptually, in contrast to the passive sensations from stimuli in the "egg".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
      You might take profitable note of the origin of the word "fetus":

      https://www.etymonline.com/word/fetus

      It has only been recent revisionism which has attempted to render to the fetus any kind of recognition other than that of a human being...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
        A haughty, presumptuous lecturing us on what we "might take profitable note of" on the etymological origin of a "word", not a concept, is a typical irrelevancy from Blarman. Even in strained rationalism it does nothing in defense of the anti-abortion demands.

        The valid concept of a fetus is not a "recent revisionism". Conservative appeals to anti-conceptual, unprincipled traditionalism are even more peculiar in the light of the lack of any mention in the founding of this country of alleged constitutional "rights" of the unborn.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
        Science and rationality got better?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
          What actual science is there that denies that the fetus is an individual human being?

          DNA? Is it human? Yup. Is it distinct and unique from the mother (or father)? Yup. Is it in the process of developing into a horse? Nope. Starfish? Nope. Anything but a human? No. It is simply building enough mass so as to specialize and fulfill all the coding in that DNA - a process which requires time and nutrients (and a host environment).

          Is the female body specially equipped to provide the perfect nurturing environment for a developing human being? Yes. And is that same environment found in the male body? No. Therefore the division of the sexes fulfills a very specific role inimical to the propagation of the species - which also originates in one's DNA. Also, due to the inordinate complexity of pregnancy, it also can not be argued to be anything short of a fulfillment of the mother's DNA as well, as she certainly doesn't spend her time willing the development of the new child.

          This being the case, the science of DNA most assuredly affirms that the fetus is entirely an individual human being.

          Your arguments above don't actually address the issue of whether or not the fetus is human, they simply point out the physical deficiencies present at various stages of development. That can be said about just about anyone at any time (just look at leftists ;) but it is hardly a scientific measure of humanity itself. If one only judges someone to be "human" who is perfectly formed with all their proper functions, we tread on very dangerous grounds - the very grounds which have led to the proposal of this law. Because those very same people who propose infanticide rely on the very same arguments being used here: that a human being isn't a human being until they say so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
            This equivocation between human cells and a human person is the stock pretense to "science" from the anti-abortionists. It is in fact a subjectivist, religious argument.

            The concepts and principles of morality and the rights of man are objectively based on the nature and requirements of a human being, a person, who must use his mind to make choices in order to live, not the presence of dna regardless of anything else. Dropping that context and misappropriating "rights" as a floating abstraction is at best a logical error.

            Human dna is required for a clump of cells or a zygote to eventually become a human being; it does not create "rights of cells" by itself. The dna in a zygote, and ultimately in the pre-birth process the fetus, determines characteristics of a potential person -- if and when it is born and becomes a human being. The "science of dna" certainly does not "affirm that the fetus is entirely an individual human being" -- any more than affirming that a single cell or a zygote is a human being -- and that science says nothing at all about requirements for morality and rights of human beings.

            The notion of "human because it has human dna" is a typically religious argument subjectively pronouncing "rights" somehow intrinsic to biological humaness without regard to the source and meaning of rights as a moral concept pertaining to people, not cells. Religionists begin with faith in "rights" of human cells as a meaningless floating abstraction, subjectively decreed as somehow intrinsic to human cells, then in the name of science point to dna in the cells to rationalize their prior faith, as if we didn't already know that human zygotes don't become giraffes, and as if this mental processes had any connection to the objectivity and clarity of thinking required in real science. It's a phony, dishonest appeal to science to put over a subjectivist religious dogma.

            Contrary to Blarman, an objective conceptual basis for the moral rights of people based on their nature does not lead to "infanticide" and no one with such an understanding has advocated that. The state bill pertaining to third trimester abortions doesn't either -- it's misrepresented that way by anti-abortionists who don't know the difference themselves. They are the ones ascribing their floating abstraction of "rights" to anything with dna "because they say so".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
            The fact that a fetus is not an individual human being, is self evident.
            You can verify this simply through observation.

            Not that any of this has anything to do with the legal argument, which is about rights, not "DNA."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
              Facts require proof. I'm still waiting for some that says that a fetus is not a human being. When I observe one, it looks and feels human to me - just in a different stage of development. When I put my hand on my wife's pregnant belly and feel that movement, there is no question in my mind that a human being is in there doing its best to grow and develop. The fact that every single one of us started out that way tells me that you are arguing against the evidence - not for it.

              (Even the abortionists which are harvesting organs and body parts for research are doing so because they are researching human conditions - not animal ones. Thus even those performing the abortions know that they are dealing with human life. The parts would not be profitable otherwise.)

              Not that any of this has anything to do with the legal argument, which is about rights, not "DNA."

              Half true. Rights are dependent upon being human, however. DNA is a positive, scientific affirmation of genus and species which can - without any doubt whatsoever - identify a human being. What is more, DNA is unique to a single human being (even in the case of identical twins). Does that mean that all instances of human DNA can express all Rights uniformly? Of course not. But we aren't talking about the Right of Speech or Association. We're talking about the cardinal right to Life itself, without which no other Rights may be expressed. The expression of the Right to Life is continuance - a continuance that abortion abrogates in violation of that Right.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                Recognizing the difference between a person and a potential human being in the form of a fetus and earlier even more primitive stages is a matter of conceptual classification based on essentials. The rational concept of human being, i.e., person, required for concepts of morality and rights as well as other biological and mental characteristics, distinguish people from other living entities does not apply to a fetus. This is determined by observing both and noting the essential differences.

                That we all "started out that way" is not "evidence" to the contrary. It is only consistent with the fact that every person had to go through a complete, specific process, in accordance with his dna, during which he was only a potential person. There are no virgin births.

                Blarman's "putting his hands" to "feel movement" is not an observation of a person. 'Looky feely human' in the imagery of his mind as he ignores concepts and essentials is not rational understanding. Neither is his subjective feeling that "there is no question in my mind that a human being is in there doing its best to grow and develop". We are not human beings with rights because we twitch when poked and have a heart beat and 10 little fingers. The kind of growth required is as a potential human being, not yet a human being, progressing by an automatic process, not "doing it's best". His emotional projections are not observation. Emotions are not tools of cognition.

                His "waiting" for proof that a "fetus is not a human being" is a demand for an impossible proof of a negative with his emotions as a primary -- the same emotions that he invokes to savagely deny the rights of women without waiting for "proof" of anything.

                He already has proof of the essential differences between a person and a fetus; the "proof" he pretends to wait for is the impossibility of ever overcoming his emotional commitment to faith, which is not subject to rational argument at all.

                The rest of his rationalizations are evasive misuse of science as the handmaiden of his faith, which is why we see so much repetitive irrelevancy in his posts: Going on at length, over and over and over, about about "human dna" and "abortionists harvesting organs and body parts for research" because they are "human" is all the same irrelevant equivocation-in-bulk between the concept of a 'human person' versus 'cells with human dna'. Organs with human dna are not human persons either.

                The dramatic pitch of his 'conclusion' leaps to the non-sequitur: "We are talking about the cardinal right to Life itself, without which no other Rights may be expressed. The expression of the Right to Life is continuance - a continuance that abortion abrogates in violation of that Right." That is nothing more than the same fallacy of arbitrarily claiming "rights" of the unborn to be born by entitlement. No, it isn't "about the Right of Speech or Association". It's far more bizarre: an alleged right to "Freedom of Assembly".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
            Evolution requires that life is capable of living, and a unique DNA sequence is not capable of life. My sperm as DNA, should I self-regulate my ejaculate?

            Evolution created the egg to allow for the automatic process of creating life. When the fetus becomes an individual it leaves the egg, ready to live.

            A human life requires the ability to breath, a major requirement of life, a human can response to the environment and can adapt, two other major requires of life, a human can metabolize, an other major requirement of life. A fetus cannot breath (when it can the water breaks), a fetus cannot respond or adapt to change, and a fetus cannot metabolize without the mother (metaboling requires breathing). A fetus is not-yet-living, and is not-yet-human. When the evolutionary process of individual life creation is done, the fetus becomes a human and leaves the womb.

            A human being is not just his DNA, that drops the context of being a rational animal.

            Are you aware of the Gulch Oath?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
              And a fetus cannot begin to choose to perceive the world and begin to identify what it is seeing. It's mental capacity is restricted to passive sensations of stimuli. It lives in the sense of a completely biological parasitic entity.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                Neither can a new born baby. There is no difference in perception.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  A new born baby is a biologically independent non-parasitic entity with rapidly increasing perception of the external world around it. Unlike in the womb, a baby's five senses are directly perceiving external reality, which is not possible while passively reacting to stimuli within the woman's body.

                  A fetus is not a person. The concept of moral rights does not apply to a fetus, let alone the even more primitive earlier stages of pre-birth. The anti-abortionists misappropriating the concept of 'rights' as a floating abstrction to pre-birth also do not know how to justify the concept of rights for human beings, and gladly violate them for the women they abuse.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                    A new born baby would die if no one fed it. It is totally dependent. A baby in the womb is no different.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                      The difference is that between a biological parasitic state versus a biologically independent entity with vastly different functioning. That you do not understand why human beings have rights and parents must take care of their children does not mean that fetuses and more primitive stages of pre-birth have an alleged "right" to be born.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
                  A new born can perceive, it's just not great. You gain the inalienable right to liberty, and therefore to vote at 18 because that's when humans can understand abstract concepts, it doesn't mean all adults must vote correctly or they will lose their right to vote.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
              "Evolution requires that life is capable of living"

              So many problems with this statement. First, there has been no proof of macro-evolution. The second, evolution is not one of the requirements for identifying life.

              "My sperm as DNA, should I self-regulate my ejaculate?"

              Incorrect. Both spermatozoa and unfertilized eggs contain only half the necessary DNA to be termed "life". Please review your biology.

              "Evolution created the egg..."

              Your science here is pretty rusty to say the least. Even my high school biology knows the difference between a fertilized egg/zygote and an unfertilized one. Your "science" leaves me shaking my head. There is also the unspoken chicken v egg conundrum inherent in this rather poor argument.

              "A human life requires the ability to breath"

              Life requires a method of respiration in order to collect the necessary oxygen for energy production (though there are certain bacteria which use a non-oxygen based respiration method). The fetus gets this through the amniotic fluids and the food it receives from the mother. It only takes its first breath outside the womb as it transitions to a less dependent state. That in no way detracts from a status as a living being, however. Is a fish alive, even though it does not breath air? Aside from the extremely poor rationale here, I will point out once again that you are making an argument of degrees (a slippery slope argument), which is precisely what leads to the legislation in the article.

              "A human being is not just his DNA, that drops the context of being a rational animal."

              I don't disagree. Are there any other rational animals than humans? I wasn't aware of any. You will admit however that being human is key and DNA is indicative of species.

              "Are you aware of the Gulch Oath?"

              Yes. But if you want to argue that humanity doesn't begin until one can understand the Oath, you justify terminating the lives of the autistic, those with Asperger's or Down's Syndrome, those with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, or any number of other conditions. You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be "not worthy". That is the definition of a subjective judgment and not one I'm going to countenance for precisely the reasons this article demonstrates. It leads to the debasement of humanity itself.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
                "Evolution requires that life is capable of living"
                Marco-evolution is a thing and despite your religious scepticism of it, it doesn't change the nature of my argument. If you want to replace evolution with god, it still stands, the not-yet-living is not ready to survive on "god's" planned out earth. It is still being baked by god.
                https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...

                "My sperm as DNA, should I self-regulate my ejaculate?"
                Sperm and Eggs have DNA, they just unzip and mix "half" of their codes.
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...

                "The fetus gets this through the amniotic fluids and the food it receives from the mother."
                Yes, as it is not ready to be a life that breaths and eats individually.
                " Is a fish alive, even though it does not breath air?" Yes a fish is alive, when it left the egg it was the ready to live a fish life. It was not alive in the fish egg. "Aside from the extremely poor rationale here" I'll forgive your extremely poor rationale.

                "You will admit however that being human is key and DNA is indicative of species."
                Yes, being human is key, a fetus is not-yet-human. DNA is different for each species, fish breath oxygen from gills, humans breath oxygen from lungs, neither breath inside an egg, because the DNA is not done forming the life (not-yet-living).

                "you justify terminating the lives of the autistic, those with Asperger's or Down's Syndrome, those with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, or any number of other conditions".
                No, they are individuals with full inalienable rights to life (once they are born)

                "You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be "not worthy"."
                No, infants are individuals and there is no such thing as the "not worthy", not worthy according to whom?

                Religion "leads to the debasement of humanity itself."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
                  "it doesn't change the nature of my argument."

                  No, sadly, it doesn't. It is still an argument not of absolutes (an objective argument), but of degrees (a subjective argument). Every single one of your arguments relies on the slippery slope fallacy of "until it can do this..." The qualifications for life itself are met: the cells reproduce in pursuit of their programming, they respirate, they can certainly react with their environment and those reactions get more and more complex as the fetus develops. The qualifications for it being human are met: the fetus has uniquely identifiable DNA pertaining to the genus and species of homo sapiens. Is a fetus a human life? Yes. It fulfills all the necessary criteria.

                  To argue that the protection and defense of its rights require some other requirement is arbitrary and capricious and leads to exactly the same kind of results pointed out in this article: a debasement of human life and a justification of its termination based on anything one wants to dream up. To me, this is an abhorrent abridgment of the fundamental Right to Life that must precede the expression of any other Right. Those who are not willing to stand up for the Right of Life are willing to trample on the other Rights as well through exactly the same slippery slope justifications whether that be choice of religion, choice of political affiliation, skin color, heritage, or just about anything else. That is the path which leads to destruction. It is your choice to walk it - or not. Farewell.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Protection of rights requires that the concept of 'righs' pertain to the entity to be protected. A potential person is not properly regarded as already an actual human person just because it "has dna".

                    Rational use of concepts is required for human life and protection of the rights of the individual. It is not "arbitrary and capricious" and does not lead to "a debasement of human life and a justification of its termination based on anything one wants to dream up", and it does not lead to "willing to trample on the other Rights" through "slippery slope justifications whether that be choice of religion, choice of political affiliation, skin color, heritage, or just about anything else."

                    Mysticism, subjectivism, and irrationalism have savagely done just that throughout history, including the barbaric forcing of women to bear children they do not want. That "is the path which leads to destruction" and that is the choice the militant "anti-abortionists have made "to walk".

                    Blarman's ugly gratuitous accusations in his pompous "fairwell" histrionics that reason leads to such barbarism are disgusting. They are right down there with his previous repetitive -- and preposterous -- pronouncements that the Soviet Union was "based on atheism".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Allow me to quote ewv:

                    "This equivocation between human cells and a human person is the stock pretense to "science" from the anti-abortionists. It is in fact a subjectivist, religious argument.

                    The concepts and principles of morality and the rights of man are objectively based on the nature and requirements of a human being, a person, who must use his mind to make choices in order to live, not the presence of dna regardless of anything else. Dropping that context and misappropriating "rights" as a floating abstraction is at best a logical error.

                    Human dna is required for a clump of cells or a zygote to eventually become a human being; it does not create "rights of cells" by itself. The dna in a zygote, and ultimately in the pre-birth process the fetus, determines characteristics of a potential person -- if and when it is born and becomes a human being. The "science of dna" certainly does not "affirm that the fetus is entirely an individual human being" -- any more than affirming that a single cell or a zygote is a human being -- and that science says nothing at all about requirements for morality and rights of human beings.

                    The notion of "human because it has human dna" is a typically religious argument subjectively pronouncing "rights" somehow intrinsic to biological humaness without regard to the source and meaning of rights as a moral concept pertaining to people, not cells. Religionists begin with faith in "rights" of human cells as a meaningless floating abstraction, subjectively decreed as somehow intrinsic to human cells, then in the name of science point to dna in the cells to rationalize their prior faith, as if we didn't already know that human zygotes don't become giraffes, and as if this mental processes had any connection to the objectivity and clarity of thinking required in real science. It's a phony, dishonest appeal to science to put over a subjectivist religious dogma.

                    Contrary to Blarman, an objective conceptual basis for the moral rights of people based on their nature does not lead to "infanticide" and no one with such an understanding has advocated that. The state bill pertaining to third trimester abortions doesn't either -- it's misrepresented that way by anti-abortionists who don't know the difference themselves. They are the ones ascribing their floating abstraction of "rights" to anything with dna "because they say so"."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                An entity is not a person until it is born. Human dna in cells does not make them a person. That is not an "argument from degrees". The concepts of moral rights do not pertain to non-persons.

                No one said that "humanity doesn't begin until one can understand the Oath", and it is false that "You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be 'not worthy'". His refusal to "countenance" such a "subjective judgment" -- as he sniffs from his phony high horse -- is a dishonest straw man.

                The article doesn't "demonstrate" anyone else doing what he falsely accuses either. It misrepresents third trimester abortions as "infanticide". Worse than that are the anti-abortionists' reckless accusations of "murder" for abortions of even the earliest pre-embryo stages.

                Abortion does not "lead to the debasement of humanity itself". Blarman's authoritarian theocracy demanding submission to his dogma as he denies and misrepresents evolution and dna science is worse than a debasement of humanity. It is nihilistic destruction.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                  This is just your opinion. You have no facts to back up your point of view. I think science strongly backs up the fact that that an unborn baby is a human being long before it is born. And all of your ad hominems towards anyone who disagrees with you are totally uncalled for. This should remain a friendly discussion and we should keep it civil.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Emphatically rejecting his arbitrary decrees, rationalizations, dishonest misrepresentations -- personal and otherwise -- and reckless accusations is not "ad hominem". An "ad hominem" is a kind of logical fallacy, not what you don't like because it clashes with your beliefs. There is nothing civil or friendly in Blarman's posts.

                    This is not "just opinion". The facts have been given here and elsewhere repeatedly, with patient explanation.

                    There is no "science" that "backs up" the claim that anything in the pre-birth process is a human being, i.e., a person, "long before birth" -- The presence of dna, a "heartbeat", and twitching when poked are not the defining characteristics of the concept 'human being' and are not why we require a moral code and have rights. Nor has an any anti-abortionist tried to explain why anything with human dna has "rights" -- other than subjective appeals to a mystic soul.

                    All of those appeals in the name of science are fallacious rationalizations of a mystical floating abstraction of an alleged entitlement to be born and the barbaric practice of forcing women to bear children they do not want. There is nothing civilized or friendly about any of that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
                "Yes. But if you want to argue that humanity doesn't begin until one can understand the Oath"
                Your posts clearly demonstrate you have no understanding of the Oath and are not an Objectivist, but a religious conservative who supports vast violations of individual rights.
                You continue to simply ignore the points that have been calmly, clearly and repeatedly explained to you over several days, demonstrating how utterly wrong your position is end-to-end.
                This is pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                  That didn't start in his posts only a couple of days ago. Not every conservative on this forum (or elsewhere) is generally dishonest, but the dogmatic evasiveness in his posts is.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 5 months, 1 week ago
                +1! And here, here, Blarman! I do not know who is down voting you but they should explain why. Your arguments are very valid and based on rational thought.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 5 months, 1 week ago
                  Thank you. Any complaints should be directed to Scott. He's already heard from me.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months, 1 week ago
                    That makes no sense.
                    If Scott is a moderator, then it is posters like ewv and me that should be putting forward our complaints as we have been mass-downvoted by religious leftists that seem to have overrun what is meant to be an Objectivist blog/forum.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                    Posts are properly downvoted for not contributing to the discussion on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum. Worse are the false accusations, misrepresentations and personal attacks. Downvoting that is not the "hatred" and "bigotry" that Blarman falsely accuses.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months, 1 week ago
                      I tend to only down vote posts that contain personal attacks. I may respond to the others you mentioned. But that’s just me.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 1 week ago
                        I tend to do that also, ignoring most posts that do not contribute. But repetitively obnoxious pronouncements attacking Ayn Rand's ideas through misrepresentation and religious dogma are among the worst here. Blarman's sweeping accusations of "murder" and his denouncing Ayn Rand's concept of the rights of the individual as "arbitrary and capricious" and leading to "a debasement of human life and a justification of its termination based on anything one wants to dream up" are really sick. So are his accusations of personal "bigotry" and "hatred" for patiently explaining what is wrong with his arguments.

                        You may notice that despite Blarman's complaints about reasoned rejection of his anti-Ayn Rand posts, several bulk-downvoters were trashing every comment posted by new member Peter Smith for posting his understanding favoring Ayn Rand's positions.

                        And at least one of them continues to bulk-trash posts based on who writes them (which is not new from the militant religious conservatives), including rotely 'downvoting' my straightforward "Openly encouraging emotional personal attacks is not civil." https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... That was in response to ycandrea supporting Blarman's more personal attacks right after, in the name of being "civil and friendly", she supported his previous attacks. They act like they're running a ruthless crusade. They can't stop the discussion of their anti-abortion activism, but no one should have to waste time putting up with this on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum for reasoned discussion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo