Abortion and Politics

[Brian Stoffregen]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

It isn't too general a question. But yours is too intentionally obtuse an answer.

Life began at creation -- when, through the power of God, inanimate things began to live that includes the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Once life began, then life could produce life. Two dead cells cannot produce life.

[Brian Stoffregen]

John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.

You appear to be placing your cards on the word "flesh" and some meaning for it that you have yet to reveal to us. I await enlightenment.

Flesh (as defined by the dictionary): the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human. Equivalent to the Greek sarx and the Latin carnes. Do you want to offer another definition?

[readselerttoo]

Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?

Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.

now THAT'S sarcasm!

[Brian Stoffregen]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.

Living sperm and eggs have the capacity to grow and reproduce. Dead ones do not. In addition, they have grown to become the living sperm and eggs.

[TravisW]

So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?

That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.

Living sperm and eggs have the capacity to grow and reproduce. Dead ones do not. In addition, they have grown to become the living sperm and eggs.

*high school biology facepalm*

[George Erdner]

Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?

Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.

Touché!

[Charles_Austin]

Peter writes:
I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.
I comment:
Including those on Fox News? The Wall Street Journal? The voices on 80 percent of "talk radio"? Rush Limbaugh, the Savage guy, Laura Ingraham and the Colter woman have audiences that I will bet are about six times the size of those of The New York Times or any other allegedly "liberal" media you care to name.
But we digress. With regard to "abortion and politics," one should consider very carefully what each party is saying and consider what they say they will do if they have the votes. My guess? the so-called "pro-life" folks will not get what they want. No matter who wins. 

[cssml]

The Al Smith dinner was tonight.  Both politics and the dignity of human life were topics, so I guess this is sort of on topic for the thread :-)

  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-roasts-president-obama-himself-at-the-al-smith-dinner/
  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-roasts-himself-jabs-at-romney-and-even-elbows-chris-matthews-during-al-smith-dinner/

[Satis Est]

  Rush Limbaugh is a journalist?

[George Erdner]

  Rush Limbaugh is a journalist?

Not according to Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't claim to be a journalist.

[Charles_Austin]

I was referring, not only to reporters, but to media voices; and the ones with the largest audiences are so far from the "liberal" side of things that they might as well be on the second moon of the fifth planet in the third solar system of a distant galaxy.
Those in the Fox lair, however, seem to intend to practice journalism.

[gerrybraunschweig]

All I know is that killing babies is wrong.

[Matt Hummel]

All I know is that killing babies is wrong.

Satis est. 

Norman raised the question about judicial history.

So this one's for you Mr. Teigen- In 1973 using legal legerdemaine, SCOTUS developed a new "right." Of course, Roe was also prior to much that would happen in the field of embryology.  As many in the Abortion-Industrial complex baldly state, "It's those ****ing ultrasounds."  The blob of tissue/product of conception has been given lie to for most except for the ardent believers in abortion.

And now the Abortion-Industrial complex and their useful idiots have spent the past 40 years or so crying "Stare decis!"  People who spend a great deal of time scoffing at Fundamentalists for their risible reading of Inerrancy of Scripture or us Catholics for Papal Inerrancy get all hot & bothered that anyone dare to challenge the Wisdom of the Nine.

But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

And now on to other matters- I love the expression "so called 'pro-lifers'"!  Maybe I can adapts its use in referring to "so called 'Presiding Bishop'" or  other circumstances.  It would seem to indicate that there was a knowledge of a hidden agenda.  So if anyone has details, let's hear them.

But be that as it may.  The folks I am working with who are both full time professionals and volunteers, some of whom have been in the struggle for 40 years, have no illusions about Mr. Romney.  We do know that the current occupant of the Oval Office is the singularly most ideologicaly committed pro-abortion president in our history. 

We know what type of judges he will appoint to the judicial benches, including the aforementioned SCOTUS.  We know how linked he is to NARAL and PP and the other major portions of the Abortion-Industrial complex. 

As for Romney, we stand a better chance for judges and justices and for cooperation with Congress when the Senate is freed from the grip of Nevadan tyrrany. But there will be no magic wand.  Even if when Roe is cast upon the ash heap of history along with the other decisons I referenced, all the pro-life people I know realize that it would be up to the states,and that the battle would be fought heart by individual heart.  But all we ask for is a fair fight and a level playing field.  Why? Because we come to the fight with two things that the pro-abortion side  does not: Truth and Love.  Tertullian said, "The soul is naturally Christian."  I would add, "and pro-Life."

That's what has the AIC so scared and hostile.

[Donald_Kirchner]

But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

I think that stare decisis is a good, bedrock legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior court decisions (at the same or a higher court level.) Note that it does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so.

[Matt Hummel]

But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

I think that stare decisis is a good, bedrock legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior court decisions (at the same or a higher court level.) Note that it does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so.

Don- You and I are in agreement. My point is that people who scoff openly about infallibility or inerrancy get downright fundamentalist, "'Roe' said it, I believe it, that settles it."  But then they go on to praise Brown v. Board of Education.  Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.