Cooing at new-born babies banned
From the BBC:
A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection.
Some new mothers have already said they are astonished by the rules which stop people asking questions about their babies or looking at them in maternity wards.
Debbie Lawson, neo-natal manager at Calderdale Royal Hospital’s special care baby unit, said: “Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me.
“We often get visitors wandering over to peer into cots but people sometimes touch or talk about the baby like they would if they were examining tins in a supermarket and that should not happen.”
Here’s an interesting take on the hospital’s appreciation of the human rights of these ‘little people’:
…in the last two years, 76 girls under 16 have had an abortion at Calderdale Royal Hospital. Of those, 23 were aged 15 and nine were just 14.
Sometimes little people can be just too little to have rights…
the little people
Gary monro continues to confuse something the size of a baked bean with an actual person…
Trackback by Rearranging the deckchairs — September 27, 2005 @ 10:03 pm
Hi Frank,
Long time no hear… Hope all is well.
Comment by Gary Monro — September 27, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
This is appalling and symptomatic of the moral degredation of western society. Some months ago Henry Morgantauler a well known abortionist in Canada was awarded an honoury degree at the University of Western Ontario. He justifies abortion on the grounds that, among other things, it helps reduce juvenile crime. And this from a man who spent time in a concentration camp during World War II.
I don’t thing I should say any more, except that
such twisted reasoning is all to prevelent today,
particularly among the left, who following their long march through the instutions over the last 40 years now control the levers of power.
Comment by The Fog is Clearing — September 27, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
Since size matters so much, Frank, how about we execute you on the grounds that you’re obviously so much less than an elephant?
Comment by Dumb Brit — September 28, 2005 @ 9:28 am
The left control the levers of our minds also. There are people alive now for whom the idea that one is responsible for one’s own actions - and the consequences of those actions - is alien to the point of being genuinely incomprehensible.
They leave the care of their parents to be embraced by the ‘care’ of the state.
Comment by Gary Monro — September 28, 2005 @ 10:04 am
@Dumb Brit:
“Since size matters so much, Frank, how about we execute you on the grounds that you’re obviously so much less than an elephant?”
Gesundheit.
I’m not sure why you believe the topic is execution or elephants.
Still I suppose if you believe that something barely visible to the naked eye is equivalent to a baby, and furthermore should be accorded “rights” that have not been accorded anyone since the abolition of slavery, then you will believe anything…
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — September 28, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
If you will have me bow before numbers and accord rights by size and mass then you have left the human race and I have no more to say to you, as you obviously left your mind and soul behind when you did so.
It’s a shame Chesterton’s dead, he’d win hands-down in a debate with you, simply because he was so large.
Comment by Dumb Brit — September 29, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
@Dumb Brit:
Mightily though you wrestle with that strawman (and apparently it is winning), nobody has said that rights should be accorded by “size and mass”.
I have merely pointed out the rather obvious fact that anyone who refers to something yay big: >.< as a “baby” needs to follow it up with some kind of justification.
Then they need to explain why those particular “babies” should get rights nobody else has. Why for example should they or you be allowed to commandeer someone else’s body for 9 months without her consent?
If anyone else did that to a woman they would be looking at prison (assuming they were lucky enough to have the cops find them before her loved ones did).
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — September 29, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
I don’t want to get into an argument here, but surely the lady in question consented to having sex? A possible outcome of that is getting pregnant - so in effect she did consent. By you arguments, the only time someone should have an abortion then, is when they didn’t consent to having intercourse - and I think none of us here would want to change that.
Comment by lascivious — September 30, 2005 @ 8:05 am
@lascivious:
If you get in a car, a possible outcome is that you will be involved in an accident that kills you. That is hardly consent to being killed. If you walk alone at night, you may be mugged. Can your attacker use the defence that you consented to that as a ‘possible outcome’?
However, just as you would not expect to be left bleeding to death at the side of the road because you “consented” to that “possible outcome” when you got in the car, a women doesn’t consent to remaining pregnant (and running further risks because of it) simply because she ran the risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. Pregnancy can be ended, after all.
Also, if you take the view that abortion is otherwise murder, but acceptable when rape is involved - then by the same token it should be equally acceptable to ‘abort’ a five-year old child or for that matter a 38-year old commuter who is the result of rape. So why isn’t it?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — September 30, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
You mistake me - I am actually a supporter of abortion, allbeit with slightly more limited access than than is currently enjoyed, I just wanted to point out that with actions come responsibilities. Abortion should not be treated as a form of contraception. Accidents happen, but prevention is, after all, better than cure.
My point is simple - if an action bears a certain degree of risk, and the participent performed that action willfuly, then they should not call foul if that risk is realised.
Comment by lascivious — September 30, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
I’m not a supporter of abortion. I’m pro-choice.
What kind of limitations to access are you talking about? Are you claiming that there are some circumstances where you think you have some right to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will? I’m not sure what else you could mean by limited access.
And your point about risk remains not much different from “she was wearing a short skirt, so she asked for it”. Pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex, certainly, but pregnancy is not childbirth.
For that, you need a willing woman.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — September 30, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
Limitations such as not being able to turn up to a clinic and be offered an abortion without proper councelling and time to reflect. Abortion is a very serious course of action to take and the decision should not be taken lightly. Make abortions too easy to obtain, and too many women make mistakes they live to regret. Make them too hard to obtain and there are just as many regrets. It is impossible to make the process perfect for everyone, but allowing abortions to take place with little regard, or warning, of the associated psychological effects cannot be correct. If you still disagree with my views, a good read can be found on the bounty”/a> website about these issues.
As far as the “short skirt” argument goes, taking extremes does not add to the debate particularly effectively. Of course she didn’t “ask for it”, but we could both trawl through example after example that supports our particular view. This does not remove from the fact that actions often have a consequence. For those that do not want children, choices can and should be made to limit the risk of pregnancy. Sometimes accidents do happen, but that does not mean abortions should be a choice for birth control, just a last resort.
Comment by lascivious — September 30, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
Gary - sorry for the odd link - a typo
Comment by lascivious — September 30, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
Abortion is a very serious decision - why? And why can’t women make serious decisions all on their own, without mandatory advice from you?
Would you require the same limits and counselling for pregnant women intending to give birth, which is after all the alternative? Or are those women somehow better and can be treated as adults?
If anything it seems to me that an early term abortion (and most are of the ‘baked bean’ variety) is a significantly less serious step than giving birth.
I’ve looked at the link you gave. What makes you think that loading women up with a lot of ‘counselling’, or encouraging them to go through with giving birth, is going to make them feel any better about themselves or their decision afterwards? It seems just as likely that such propaganda and societal programming is the cause. Moreover, despite all that the most commonly reported emotion after an abortion is relief. Unsurprisingly.
We also know that many women feel guilt after giving birth, as well as giving up for adoption. For that matter many women feel guilty about masturbation or eating a cream cake. This does not of itself make these things “very serious decisions”. Should we offer women counselling in bakeries and read them a lot of letters off the weightwatchers site?
The pyschological effects of continuing unwanted pregnancies are well known, by the way. Even wanted births commonly result in extreme depression. To say nothing of the physical dangers - childbirth almost always entails actual bodily harm and is an order of magnitude more dangerous for the woman than an abortion. That is in 1st world countries. Worldwide, childbirth remains one of the leading killers of women.
You’ll want her to have all the facts, right?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — September 30, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
You are right - giving birth to a child can be a very damaging experience. If you have ever coucelled on these issues, as my wife has, then you would know that it is not a case of “councelling” women into having the baby. It is informing her of the effects of taking either course and letting her come to her own decision. If the woman decides she does not want that information, then that is her business, but it should always be offered and at the moment this is not the case.
By the way, there are a plethora of suppport services offered to women who are pregnant and have recently given birth. I should know - my wife has recently done so. These are also voluntary.
Comment by lascivious — October 1, 2005 @ 7:34 am
I’ve no problem with the offering of even-handed and factual information which is voluntary to receive, as long as it is offered to all pregnant women, whether they are considering abortion or not. Preferably prior to them becoming pregnant, actually.
Sadly the existence of fanatics on either side, but predominantly on the ‘pro-life’ side, means that a great many otherwise sensible options are not practical. Too often what is meant by ‘counselling’ is propaganda, and the purpose of it is simply to make women feel that there is something wrong with them if they do not feel guilt.
A tell-tale sign that this is the case is when you offer counselling to recently pregnant women who are considering abortion, and you do not offer the same information to recently pregnant women who are not. This smacks of the ‘counselling’ being unnecessary because they have already made the ‘right choice’, you see.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 1, 2005 @ 8:45 am
Well after many posts, it seems we are saying mostly the same thing.
As far as equal advice is concerned, that may not be as necessary as you think, as most people my wife and I know with children were actively trying for them when they found out the news. Most people, in our experience, want their babies, which is why the first question we were asked when we went to our GP was “Are you happy about your situation?”. If we were not, we would have been told about the options. We were happy with the situation, if a little surprised, and it would have been pointless (and in fact rather upsetting) to discuss the whole picture. We are the lucky ones.
It’s a shame there are so many “fanatics” on the pro-life side, but I am certainly not one of them - which is why I started with “I don’t want to get into an argument…” - I just didn’t like the kind of argument you were using
Comment by lascivious — October 1, 2005 @ 6:14 pm
Except that cars aren’t driven with the intent to kill a person, nor are roads built that you may be mugged upon them. The act of sexual intercourse, however, was clearly designed (by an intelligent Power or by Darwin’s monkeys, call it what you will) for the single purpose of procreation. Let’s not call an apple an orange here.
And stop deluding yourself, the size argument is the main thrust of your argument thus far, so don’t tell me I’ve brought the numbers thing in from nowhere when your fetish with size is all that seems to matter to you.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 3, 2005 @ 12:09 am
“Gary monro continues to confuse something the size of a baked bean with an actual person.”
Yes, “something” is certainly a good word to use there - because we ABSOLUTELY don’t know what it is. No, there’s just no way of knowing. How did it get there? Who cares, that’s not the issue.
Maybe they could have a look at that “something’s” genetics to see what it is. Do you think that would work? What do you think its genetic make-up would tell us it is?
Gosh, it’s a mystery.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 3, 2005 @ 12:25 am
Lol.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 3, 2005 @ 8:27 am
” What do you think its genetic make-up would tell us it is?”
The same thing the genetic make-up of one of your dead skin cells, or a of cell in your fingernail would tell us.
I guess those are people too, huh.
Comment by Frank O\\\'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
No, we’re not talking about dead skin cells. We’re talking about this mystery creature that’s growing inside its mother’s womb, exactly as it’s been designed to do. We’re talking about a natural process. Life. Human life.
Not red herring.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 3, 2005 @ 6:48 pm
“Except that cars aren’t driven with the intent to kill a person, nor are roads built that you may be mugged upon them. ”
Nor do all or even most women have sex every time with the intention of becoming pregnant.
For example, clearly a woman who has sex with contraception or whose partner has had a vasectomor isn’t planning to get pregnant when she has sex, is she?
“And stop deluding yourself, the size argument is the main thrust of your argument thus far, so don’t tell me I’ve brought the numbers thing in from nowhere when your fetish with size is all that seems to matter to you.”
I only mention that we are typically talking about something the size of a full stop, comma, or baked bean in response to an assertion that these things are ‘babies’. I could also point out that they additionally lack heads, arms, legs, brains, and pretty much anything else that most people generally expect people to have if it makes you happier.
However that is beside the point. Even if you have convinced yourself that a single-celled organism with no brain is morally equivalent to a person, I presume you will still agree with me that a woman is a person. So if they go their separate ways you would hardly object to that, would you.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
“No, we’re not talking about dead skin cells.”
OK live ones then.
“We’re talking about this mystery creature that’s growing inside its mother’s womb, exactly as it’s been designed to do.”
Since more than half of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, it seems that whoever designed these things doesn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to them. Much like yourself, I suspect.
“We’re talking about a natural process. Life. Human life.”
Death is also a natural process, as is disease, as is pain. Are these things therefore good, or do you and you alone get to pick and choose what natural things are good and which are not?
Note that there are thousands of people alive today who wouldn’t be if nature were allowed to run its course.
Look up the naturalistic fallacy and get back to us.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
Frank - not wanting to get into an argument again, but I feel I must comment on your arguments. Most abortions are not performed on “single celled organism” as by definition, an ovum would not be fertilized if it was single cell. What you speak of is a blastocyst - a fertilized ovum that has not yet implanted on the womb lining. At this stage, an abortion is not possible as it has not implanted. It is the size of about >.right choice, by default, is to keep the baby because this is biologically how we procreate. Your somewhat fanatical views are only doing damage to your cause, putting the backs up of the “pro-lifers”, who are right when poopoo-ing your arguments.
Comment by lascivious — October 3, 2005 @ 7:44 pm
“OK live ones then.”
You wouldn’t go out of your way to kill fingernails or skin cells - dead or alive. No, we know what this “something” is, and why you feel its right to exist is subjective. There’s just no use playing “dummy”.
“Since more than half of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, it seems that whoever designed these things doesn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to them. Much like yourself, I suspect.”
Well, that’s certainly His rat’s ass to give or withhold, isn’t it?
“Death is also a natural process, as is disease, as is pain. Are these things therefore good, or do you and you alone get to pick and choose what natural things are good and which are not?”
When a human being is CAUSED to die, it’s not a natural process. You argue like a six year old girl.
“Note that there are thousands of people alive today who wouldn’t be if nature were allowed to run its course.”
Yes, cherishing life is certainly a virtue. Apparently you think death is justified, no matter how it’s brought about. Directly, neglect, doesn’t matter to Frank. As long as there’s a bloodbath, he’s good to go!
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 3, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
Ok - the post screwed up. I will type it again:
Frank - not wanting to get into an argument again, but I feel I must comment on your arguments. Most abortions are not performed on “single celled organism” as by definition, an ovum would not be fertilized if it was single cell. What you speak of is a blastocyst - a fertilized ovum that has not yet implanted on the womb lining. At this stage, an abortion is not possible as it has not implanted. It is the size of about “.” this up to about a baked bean. It is only at 4 weeks when the blastocyst implants on the uterous, forming a fetus. It is not possible to perform an abortion before this time.
At 6 weeks, very close to the earliest possible abortion, the larynx starts to form as does the inner ear. The heart is bulging from the body and blood circulation is well established. Upper and lower limb buds will appear this week. And the primordia of the liver, pancreas, lungs, and stomach are evident. The fetus is not a comma, full stop or baked bean.
Did you know that at 24 weeks it is legal to perform an abortion in the UK? At 24 weeks, the fetus has arms, legs, a brain, eyes and all of the other parts needed to be an identifiable human being. The fetus is sentient - at 16 weeks my wife could feel movement of the fetus. At 20 weeks the fetus could “poke back” at us. At 24 weeks, a fetus can survive outside the womb. This is, in effect, a little person.
You know I am pro-choice supporter, but I feel it necessary to point out the obvious flaws in every single one of your arguments. I support choice because of the detrimental effect having an unwanted baby can have on the mental health of the mother, and more importantly, the child. I am pro-choice because of the injury, and possible death, that child birth can bring on. I am a supporter of choice because living in care is not a very pleasant experience. None of these are arguments for using termination as a form of contraception. All of these are arguments for allowing expectant mothers access to terminations.
Every single one of your arguments show a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of the issues. The right choice, by default, is to keep the baby because this is biologically how we procreate. Your somewhat fanatical views are only doing damage to your cause, putting the backs up of the “pro-lifers”, who are correct to poopoo-ing your arguments. Size, fetal rights and sentients or being born are non-arguments that should remain in the loonie-left propaganda where they belong. This is my last, and definitive, post on this issue.
Comment by lascivious — October 3, 2005 @ 8:02 pm
“Frank - not wanting to get into an argument again, but I feel I must comment on your arguments.”
Fair enough. I may comment on yours, so
“Most abortions are not performed on “single celled organism” as by definition, an ovum would not be fertilized if it was single cell.”
Um a fertilised ovum is just one cell, implanted or not. These guys are saying that life begins at conception, so they are indeed speaking of a single cell.
I would agree that pregnancy does not begin until implantation, so that technically there is no abortion until then either. However if we are to believe many ‘pro-lifers’ the death of a fertilised ovum is still the death of a person. And indeed many object to abortifacients (which operate by preventing implantation) on this basis.
“What you speak of is a blastocyst - a fertilized ovum that has not yet implanted on the womb lining.”
Or the same thing that has. It doesn’t matter to me, since I’m not the one claiming life begins at conception.
“At this stage, an abortion is not possible as it has not implanted.”
Again, technically true, as there is no pregnancy, but please explain that to the Pope and the life begins at conception crew.
“It is the size of about >.right choice, by default, is to keep the baby because this is biologically how we procreate.”
This got munched, but all you’re saying here is that the same old same old - if it’s natural, it’s good. In fact what we ‘biologically do’ is irrelevant to what we should do.
Biologically, we experience extreme pain and typically die if involved in a collision with a large lump of metal travelling in excess of 30mph. Because of modern medicine and painkillers, we don’t always do that. We don’t say that the right choice is to to experience extreme pain and die, even though that is what we ‘biologically do’ or ‘what we are designed to do’ in such circumstances.
Biologically, a significant number of women would die each year in the UK if they all made ‘the right choice, biologically’. I don’t know the mortality rates offhand, maybe as few as 10 and as many as 1000 would die. By your logic they should do so, because “this is biologically how we procreate”. And, after all, the baby might live.
“Your somewhat fanatical views are only doing damage to your cause, putting the backs up of the “pro-lifers”, who are right when poopoo-ing your arguments.”
Except they are not my arguments and I am not the fanatic. I am simply drawing the conclusions of your own arguments and those of the ‘pro-lifers’.
I am simply saying that if you believe that life begins at conception, natural processes are good, and life is the most important thing of all, then you are logically bound to accept all sorts of other crap as well. If you don’t like that, maybe you need a better argument.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 8:23 pm
lascivious, your remarks are based on reading things into my responses that are not there. Again, these are not MY arguments. Please read what I write and not what you think I write.
FYI, I support the right of women to end their pregnancy at any time and for any reason. And before the pro-lifers fly into a rage, note that a pregnancy can be ended via live birth as well as via abortion, and that either may be artifically induced.
Where a pregnancy can be ended in a live birth, without posing additional risk to the mother, then in my view that is morally required. (At present, and barring significant technology advances, this is a non-issue for public policy since abortions at this stage are invariably done for the life or health of the mother. And should the technology ever arrive whereby a woman can remove an early term embryo or fetus and hand it to the pro-life as a ‘premature person’ to care for, I expect they will quickly come with excuses as to why they should not. Indeed they already do as that technology exists now for embryos.).
As regards the sentience etc of the ‘baby’, some 11 million walking, talking children die each year worldwide. Not only are they sentient, many of them can even tell us that they don’t want to die. Despite this, we are all free to cancel our direct debits to Oxfam etc without giving any reason why, never mind a good one.
Women who abort are equally free to withdraw their support, just they typically do so with more thought, more justice, better reasons, and in approximately 100% of cases involving something that has nothing like the hardware most people believe is necessary, if not sufficient, for personhood. Nobody who posts here is any better than women who abort. All those who profess such caring for life really need to start with themselves, before they attack pregnant women who are probably more moral than they are.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
One last post - then really that is it! After this, you get the last say if you wish.
Firstly, may I remind you:
“Gary monro continues to confuse something the size of a baked bean with an actual person:
Sometimes little people can be just too little to have rights…
Actually, pretty much all people big or small are:
born
bigger than this .
sentient
not allowed to use someone else’s body against that person’s will (speaking of rights)”
This, and some of your responses to other people’s posts (which I call arguments) is what I was referring to. Morally correct or not, a number of your “arguments” for abortion are factually incorrect and somewhat unhelpful. Let me remind you some more:
“If anything it seems to me that an early term abortion (and most are of the ‘baked bean’ variety)”
“I could also point out that they additionally lack heads, arms, legs, brains, and pretty much anything else that most people generally expect people to have”
“Even if you have convinced yourself that a single-celled organism with no brain is morally equivalent to a person”
My point is that even the “baked bean” variety of abortions are not just “baked beans” - a fetus in the earliest possible abortion has the “human” features you describe. Morally correct or not, the arguments for pro-choice should not be based upon size, shape, sentients or being born. Resorting to extreme examples is also unhelpful to the debate. What should be debated is the wider issues involved (which, to be fair, you have also mentioned). But by resorting to arguments such as size or whether a fetus has limbs, you cloud the issue and you come accross as a fanatic - even to a pro-choicer.
Comment by lascivious — October 3, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
@lascivious: You make some fair points. Actually that was a sloppy post where I conflated some issues of legal and moral personhood. The only point I was trying to make is that applying the term ‘baby’ to early term abortions - and especially to anything from conception onwards - is highly misleading. I apologise if you found that offensive, and you’re probably right that it is counterproductive, but it is true nonetheless and the indiscriminate and innaccurate application of the term ‘baby’ doesn’t deserve a better response than “a baby is not yay big”.
My own view does not depend in any way on the personhood or otherwise of the zygote/embryo/foetus, and would not be any different if abortion involved a 40 year old stockbroker with a mortgage, five children and a cat. But certainly it copperfastens it that current estimates of foetal sentience range anything up to 26 weeks, but in no case earlier than 16 weeks, and that 100% of non-medical abortions are performed before this. And though I understand why you object, I feel entitled to point out such matters anytime someone pretends an abortion involves a baby, as if it were that simple and a settled question.
(I agree that sentience is a poor criterion, by the way. Although I think many people care about that for obvious reasons, it’s perfectly plausible that sentience as we understand it (not just pain signals and responses, but a self to be aware of them) does not occur until long after birth. I mean this in the sense that there may be no self-awareness and therefore nobody home until then - we simply do not know that much about this yet. But a definition of personhood based on sentience alone could inadvertently justify infanticide. Also for all we know birth is as agonising for the foetus as it is for the mother)
But my position is not based on that, it is based on the undeniable personhood of the woman, who can even tell us that she is a person and furthermore that she has no interest in remaining pregnant. Consequently she gets to enjoy the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy, and in fact we all enjoy far more trivial freedoms in spite of demonstrable loss of life and limb…and to walking, talking people whose personhood is also not remotely in doubt. Even the simple freedom to get behind the wheel of a car means that children (again the walking talking variety) will die, for a trivial example.
For a more relevant example, we can all refuse to give blood, even though people die as a result. Yet that only involves a pin prick, far less invasive than labour and childbirth and all that entails.
In contrast, too many pro-lifers seem to view the world through reality-inverting classes whereby embryos and foetuses have functional brains and extra rights, and women have no brains and reduced rights. In so far as the woman is even visible to them.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 10:46 pm
“You wouldn’t go out of your way to kill fingernails or skin cells - dead or alive.”
You never clip your nails or exfoliate?
Boy you must be a hit with the women.
“Since more than half of conceptions result in spontaneous abortion, it seems that whoever designed these things doesn’t give a rat’s ass what happens to them. Much like yourself, I suspect.”
Well, that’s certainly His rat’s ass to give or withhold, isn’t it?”
Oh, so you’re saying we should never intervene to save lives, we should leave that to “Him”?
That’s pretty stupid of you.
Your lack of concern for millions of ‘people’ dying of natural causes is pretty staggering, too. Shouldn’t you be out shaking the tin to collect money for some kind of medical research fund so that less of these ‘people’ have to die?
Surely somebody would be doing that if more than 1 in 2 babies were dying of natural causes like that.
Seems to me you don’t care about these ‘people’ half as much as you pretend, and neither does anyone else.
“Death is also a natural process, as is disease, as is pain. Are these things therefore good, or do you and you alone get to pick and choose what natural things are good and which are not?”
When a human being is CAUSED to die, it’s not a natural process.
What about the deaths YOU cause through YOUR neglect, hypocrite? Do you even know how many people, mostly children, will die in the time it will take you to think of a response to that question instead of helping them?
You claim to cherish life, but your actions show you do not.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 3, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
“You never clip your nails or exfoliate?”
You thrive with red herring, don’t you?
“Oh, so you’re saying we should never intervene to save lives, we should leave that to ‘Him’?”
No sweety, it was you who has been saying that all along. Common sense dictates that if something goes wrong in the womb that doesn’t present itself in order to be prevented, and it can’t be prevented, then it’s no one’s fault. If it CAN be prevented, then prevent it. That includes abortion.
“Seems to me you don’t care about these ‘people’ half as much as you pretend, and neither does anyone else.”
That “argument” — if it can even be labeled such — is neither here nor there. I’m not pro-death; we’ve established that. You are; we’ve established that. Know your role.
“What about the deaths YOU cause through YOUR neglect, hypocrite? Do you even know how many people, mostly children, will die in the time it will take you to think of a response to that question instead of helping them?”
lol…that was pitiful
“You claim to cherish life, but your actions show you do not.”
Can you name just one of them? I’d like to know what you think it is that I’m doing right now that’s so dastardly. Or are you serving more fish?
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 11:00 am
“Oh, so you’re saying we should never intervene to save lives, we should leave that to ‘Him’?”
No sweety, it was you who has been saying that all along.
If I’ve been saying that all along then you should have no difficulty producing a quote of me saying it even once. But you won’t do so because you are lying.
If it CAN be prevented, then prevent it. That includes abortion.
Does it include the deaths of women that you will kill by preventing them from aborting?
Are you also proposing that we should prevent all deaths that can be prevented regardless of the cost?
Will you also prevent the deaths that you can personally prevent at some cost to yourself?
Seems not, since you’ve already allowed hundreds of preventable deaths.
“You claim to cherish life, but your actions show you do not.”
Can you name just one of them?
Sure. You prefer to spend your money and time on internet access and posting garbage while walking talking children can be saved for approximately $1 per day.
So much for your cherishing of life, hypocrite.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 11:42 am
“If I’ve been saying that all along then you should have no difficulty producing a quote of me saying it even once. But you won’t do so because you are lying.”
Hey, you put that in my mouth to begin with…I just figured I’d return the favor (although you do support the wholesale slaughter of babies).
“Does it include the deaths of women that you will kill by preventing them from aborting?”
If we’re talking triage, then let’s talk triage. But I won’t go prancing like a faerie through your little make-believe land of hypotheticals. You do that enough for the rest of us.
“Are you also proposing that we should prevent all deaths that can be prevented regardless of the cost?”
I said to prevent it where it’s possible. It’s a fairly simple concept to grasp, sweety.
“Sure. You prefer to spend your money and time on internet access and posting garbage while walking talking children can be saved for approximately $1 per day.”
So you’ve assumed two things: that I pay for my own internet access, and that I don’t give to charity. Can you provide evidence of this? Didn’t think so.
“So much for your cherishing of life, hypocrite.”
Whatever you say, peasant. But your circular, baseless logic is starting to bore me.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
‘ArklahomBoy’ demonstrates why, when typing ‘pro-life’, many of us are tempted to neglect to type the ‘f’:
“Hey, you put that in my mouth to begin with”
Lie #2 from you. I asked if that was what you were saying, since it was implied by your previous remark.
“you do support the wholesale slaughter of babies”
Lie #3 from you.
““Are you also proposing that we should prevent all deaths that can be prevented regardless of the cost?”
I said to prevent it where it’s possible.”
But like anyone living above subsistence level, you don’t live by that, now do you hypocrite?
After all whatever you are doing now to prevent deaths, which is apparently nothing, clearly you could do more.
I guess you were lying when you claimed to cherish life, too.
Does your god approve of your lies?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 1:32 pm
“Lie #2 from you. I asked if that was what you were saying, since it was implied by your previous remark.”
None of it’s a lie. Go back up and read. Look at the logical conclusion of all that you advocate.
“Lie #3 from you.”
Should we start counting your lies? Which one would that be?
“But like anyone living above subsistence level, you don’t live by that, now do you hypocrite?”
I don’t know, do I? Will you ever qualify your baseless accusations, baby-killer?
“After all whatever you are doing now to prevent deaths, which is apparently nothing, clearly you could do more.”
How do you know? What AM i doing?
“I guess you were lying when you claimed to cherish life, too. Does your god approve of your lies?”
Wow, you’re really grasping for straws, aren’t you? Perhaps you should let the grown-ups talk, and go play with your dolls now?
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
““After all whatever you are doing now to prevent deaths, which is apparently nothing, clearly you could do more.”
How do you know? What AM i doing?”
Ignoring the carnage you cause, same as you do every time you post here and consume resources that would be better devoted to ending preventable deaths.
After all, are you not the same fool who said this:
“I said to prevent it where it’s possible.”
Was that instruction just for other people?
Maybe one day you will be the dictator of a small country and your diktat will matter.
Meanwhile how many children have to die for your entertainment before you do enough about it? You will find you have a LOT of luxuries to give up before you will be preventing all the deaths you can prevent, twit.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
So your position is that anyone “dumb” enough to believe that babies are babies is a hypocrite unless they’re omnipotent or omnipresent. But luckily for yourself, you’ve rationalized the humanity of these human beings, therefore you don’t need to hold yourself to any such ridiculously impossible standard that’s neither here nor there.
Meanwhile on planet Earth…
Your argument went to shambles when you started in on this stream-of-consciousness. Had you been a man, perhaps you couldv’e admitted defeat and walked away from the discussion with a shred of dignity. We both know that I know that you know you lost.
Give it a rest, sweetheart.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
*rationalized away the humanity
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
“So your position is that anyone “dumb” enough to believe that babies are babies is a hypocrite unless they’re omnipotent or omnipresent”
Reading comprehension and logical deduction aren’t your strong suits, are they, sparky?
Anyway why are you here again instead of subsisting and working 2 jobs to prevent deaths “where it’s possible”?
You are just another one of these right-to-lifers whose argument is so weak that you can’t even convince yourself, aren’t you?
And that is being charitable.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
Go on ahead and talk circles around yourself, princess. You suck, and we know it.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
Frank, Frank, Frank…. Children dying for his entertainment? The only bloodsport in this arena is the shameless baiting of you as you stumble like a blinded bull in a roaring ring. I would apologise for bringing Arkie’s canons to bear on you, but I wouldn’t mean it, so I won’t.
Your ‘arguments’ such as they were, have been reamed to death, just admit it. No ostrich ever found anything worthwhile in the sand, believe me.
Hmmmn… Think I’ll go steal some Iraqi oil….
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 4, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
lol
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 4, 2005 @ 9:51 pm
“Frank, Frank, Frank…. Children dying for his entertainment?”
Yes…do you understand that money spent on one thing cannot also be spent on something else? Or are you a convert to Mr Brooks theories now?
Every dollar spent on “Arkie”, and you for that matter, is a dollar that would keep another child alive today.
Don’t worry, I know neither of you really care about ‘life’ when it affects you personally. I doubt either of you will be complaining about the money spent on your internet and other luxuries anytime soon. No matter how many bodies pile up.
” I would apologise for bringing Arkie’s canons…”
Thanks for the laugh…and here I thought maybe you brought “Arkie” over in a last ditch attempt to make embryos look intelligent by comparison.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 10:14 pm
“Go on ahead and talk circles around yourself, princess. You suck, and we know it”
Gee, you “forgot” to include your answer to the question yet again huh? Too difficult?
Here it is again:
‘why are you here again instead of subsisting and working 2 jobs to prevent deaths “where it’s possible”?’
That deaths should be prevented ‘where it’s possible’ is your position, remember? Here let me remind you what you said:
““I said to prevent it where it’s possible.””
Have you changed your position on that?
Here let me help you work it out:
1) How many deaths have you prevented today?
2) How many deaths could you have prevented today? [Hint: the going rate for preventing a death for one day is approx $1]
Subtract the first figure from the second. The result is number of deaths you personally failed to prevent where it was possible, today. Use a calculator or ask an adult to help if this is too difficult.
That number is more than none, same as it is every day, isn’t it?
Or you could simply delete your own words and run away from them calling names again if it makes you feel better.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 4, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
As much fun as it is to watch someone who can’t tell when they’ve been owned insist that what I say is something that I don’t say, and that what he says is something intelligent and enlightened, I’ll have to pass. So long, sweetheart.
Comment by ArklahomBoy — October 5, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
“…insist that what I say is something that I don’t say…”
“I said to prevent it where it’s possible”
You didn’t say that? Snicker.
“I’ll have to pass”
No surprise…as usual the pro-liar declares victory and runs away.
Yawn.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 5, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
Your level of evil and malice is matched only by your petty stupidity.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 5, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
Dumb Brit:
“Your level of evil and malice is matched only by your petty stupidity”
You’re projecting. You’re no different than all the other pro-liars who value life at less than $1.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 5, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Projecting? No. Perceiving. Something you seem incapable of. I don’t value life in monetary systems, much less the monetary systems of a foreign nation.
Rest assured, though ,that if I did, yours would be valued pretty far into the minus values.
Comment by Dumb Brit — October 9, 2005 @ 1:28 am
” I don’t value life in monetary systems, much less the monetary systems of a foreign nation.”
Here you just demonstrate your petty stupidity…
Rest assured, though ,that if I did, yours would be valued pretty far into the minus values.
…which is matched only by your level of evil and malice.
Of course you’d hardly be the first hypocrite pro-liar to threaten killing even as you pretend life is priceless.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 9, 2005 @ 10:34 pm