Comments on: Another National Debate Settled

By: austin moore

austin moore — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:12:57 +0000

i’m asking myself: how can it be that i’ve never ran through your site before? it’s a great one! rare pieces questioned for a long time: http://johnedithnotes.blogspot.com/2005/10/slatecom.html , revelations of john

By: Jillian

Jillian — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:38:52 +0000

“This religion of Christianity, and the religion of Judaism, are the religions upon which this nation, and the constitution was formed.”

Dude, WTF?!?! Tell me you live in Russia or something, because if you are talking about the United States, you just failed a basic Development of the U.S. I class at your local community college.

I swear, it’s dumbass shit like this that makes so many rational people really hate Christians. Stuff like the above is just patently, patently false, and yet “good Christians” like you say it with a straight face. We’re left to wonder if you’re stupid or mendacious, based on the evidence of your behavior, and then you act all pissy when we call you on your bullshit.

Seriously – there’s nothing inherent in Christian doctrine that requires its adherents to be idiots. And yet when nonbelievers like me are constantly confronted with jackass comments like the above coming out of the mouths of believers, it tends to encourage us to believe that while you don’t have to be an idiot to be a Christian, it sure helps.

In other words, you’re a disgrace to your faith.

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:01:08 +0000

initiate debate: Go ahead and get that operation, you have my blessing and God’s blessing, but, please, stay out of the sun or add some UV protection the next time you’ decide to hit the beach.

Ray-O-Vac, I think if we were to see your brain under a microscope, it would probably look a lot like a steamed prawn. Does that mean your brain is not human?

By: Ray-O-Vac

Ray-O-Vac — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:54:57 +0000

If a fetus is a human being, why does it look like a steamed prawn?

By: initiate debate

initiate debate — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:11:13 +0000

Actually, I should re-phrase that – would your religion allow you or other people to have an operation to remove a melanoma or tumour?

By: initiate debate

initiate debate — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:08:43 +0000

So, Dr. BLT, would you deny someone an operation to remove a skin melanoma?

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:21:38 +0000

Those who resort to the “F” word are those who cannot come up with intelligent arguments. Still, Anne, you are not the only one who resorted to words that fall short of being intelligent. Excessive sarcasm is also for those who are short on logic, and short on empathy for the other side. I’m sorry for being so sarcastic with you, Anne. You see, you guys are really starting to rub off on me with all your sarcasm and cynicism. Actully, I cannot blame any of you. I must take responsiblity for allowing that to happen. Now I am guilty of exactly what I’ve accused all the rest of you of—excessive sarcasm and cynicism. Once again, I apologize. You may not understand my position, Anne, because in my religion, the religion of Christianity, our bodies are not our own. They belong to our creator. They are inhabited by the Holy Spirit, though we don’t always show it with our words (see my words above) or our actions. Nevertheless, in my religion, claiming ownership to our bodies and demanding that we should be the kings or queens of our bodies is simply bizarre. This religion of Christianity, and the religion of Judaism, are the religions upon which this nation, and the constitution was formed. So why should the notion of us not being the sole proprietors of our bodies be extirpated from our system of laws?

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:06:20 +0000

That’s right Anne, I’ve heard it all before. “It’s my body. I’ll do what I want with it. I have no responsiblity to anyone or anything that is not my body. I’ll have sex with whoever I want, whenever I want, and rid myself of the consequences. Don’t ask me to be responsible for a fetus just because it happens to belong to me and whoever had the audacity to impregnate me! Of couse I was not involved in the insemination process. I was an innocent bystander, so why should I have to face the natural consequences? Sex is meant for me and my pleasure. It’s my body and I’ll do what I want with it.” Just who is the infant here?

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:20:42 +0000

Does that include the responsibility not to use the greengrocer’s apostrophe (“known for it’s frequent accidents”)? I do hope so.Dr QED

By: watchman

watchman — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:48:05 +0000

Jillian, If the victim involved in the “terrible accident” mentioned in your hypothetical would have chose to wear a safety belt or avoid a street that is known for it’s frequent accidents the resulting situation might have been avoided altogether. Along with our rights comes responsibility.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 21:24:22 +0000

So, if there were someone in Dr. BLT’s neighborhood who was in a terrible car accident – say, a musician with actual talent – and the accident took place in a community somehow cut off from the rest of the industrialized world – say, like the Gulf coast is now – and the only way to keep this individual alive was to surgically attach them to Dr. BLT’s liver, spleen and kidneys until the injured person could be transported out of that community, then I suppose the state should be allowed to compel Dr. BLT to have this done to him.

Even if it renders him unable to work for months. Even if it leaves him bedridden for months. Even if he was perhaps planning on graduating from college in the next six months, but finds himself unable to stay awake long enough to study because the demands of forcing his circulatory system to work for two bodies leaves him perpetually exhausted.

No one’s denying it would be awfully swell of Dr. BLT to voluntarily offer to do this, but the question still remains: should the state have the power to compel him to do this?

I somewhat humbly submit that anyone who thinks the state should have such power might want to take the time to look up the definition of the word “fascist”, and then have a good, long look in the mirror.

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:10:41 +0000

Dr. BLT, I don’t need to make a case! It’s self-evident. The woman is in charge of the fetus; the fetus is not in charge of the woman. Are you arguing otherwise? Are you thinking about what that means? You can pretty up your language all you want, but it sounds like you’re saying that I, a grown woman with an education and a career, am nothing compared to a fetus, and I’m expected to toss my life aside in favor of what people like you think I should do with my body. So fuck you. And now you can whine about how liberals are so foul-mouthed.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:39:31 +0000

The so-called “Dr BLT” is simply interested in wasting as much as possible of the time of as many people as possible in circular reasoning which leads nowhere. signed “Dr QED”

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:47:33 +0000

Anne, you’ve provided absolutely no rationale for your answers. Are you saying that dependency is equal to inferiority? On what basis do you make that determination? At least the Father Tyme’s response makes sense if one adopts the humanistic notion that individual human beings are gods unto themselves.

By: cowalker

cowalker — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:26:33 +0000

“Consider eating, for instance. We can all agree that eating is a good and necessary thing, that everyone is entitled to eat. We might even agree that gourmet eating is one of life?s great pleasures. We would not conclude that everyone has a constitutional right to eat as much as they want, without ever getting heart disease, high blood pressure or other natural consequences of overeating. We could not coherently claim that every person has a constitutional right to eat without getting fat, and call it ‘gastronomical freedom.’”

I’m writing to my senators and congressman immediately to demand that artificial sweeteners such as saccharine, aspartame and splenda be outlawed. No one should be allowed to experience sweetness on his/her tastebuds without having to deal with the natural carbohydrates naturally linked to such a sensation. If you don’t want to deal with the extra pounds, then by golly, drink your coffee black without the artificial sweeteners!

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:40:01 +0000

Father Tyme, once again, I am grateful that you are actually engaging your mind instead of simply resorting to the mindless babbling of so many on this site. Your argument concerning the fetus not being fully developed is a weak one however. The problem is this: a “fully developed viable progeny” is not fully developed at all. When a baby is born, the baby is very much underdeveloped. In fact, if you’ve studied Carl Jung, you’ll realize that one cannot really said to be fully developed until one is a senior citizen. That’s where the developmental argument falls apart. As far as your insistence that a man should never tell a woman what to do with her body, this reflects an understanding of conception that is divorced from its interactional context. Are you suggesting that the man is not involved in the process of conception? That his participation in the sexual act has nothing to do with the outcome, but that it is all the woman. If so, that is certainly a bizzare notion. No, the man doesn’t have to bear the agonizing pain of childbirth, but, some men feel emotional pain at the thought that they are often excluded from the decision-making process, when the fetus is potentially their son, or their daughter. So you are suggesting they should be shut out of the decision. There are two bodies that go into the forming of a fetus, not one. And once the fetus has been formed, there are now three bodies. So the woman is not an island. She may be the largest island, among a total of three islands, but the notion that she must make the decision as to the fate of the would-be infant all by herself is bizarre. You say that the question is when is the baby sentient, but that is you artificially imposing your reality onto the situation. Yes, rights are confired by those in power, but not all of us believe that man, or woman for that matter, is the measure of all things. I respect your opinion, because it is well thought out, and it is intelligent. But it is based on flawed reasoning and arbitrary notions as to what constitutes life. Also, while the woman is obviously the central figure in terms of the pregancy, you are not looking at the situation from a systems perspective, and the universe operates within a system. We are not isolated units moving about independently within the universe.

By: Anne

Anne — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:55:50 +0000

Anne, is the body of the fetus inferior simply because it is less developed than the body of a woman?

Of course.

Does the fact that the fetus hasn’t yet acquired the language to declare, “It’s my body!” make the body of the fetus any less important than the body of the woman?

Yes, it does.

It’s not just a matter of the woman having control over what happens to her body.

Yes, it is.

The fetus is dependent on the woman’s body for development.

By: Father Tyme

Father Tyme — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:39:13 +0000

Dr. BLT,
Your statement that we should go to greater lengths to protect the rights of the fetus is somewhat disheartening. I notice that you are careful what NOT to say.
About the “rights” of a fetus; why does a fetus have rights? Rights are confired by those in power, not by mysticism from possibly erroneous writings however old or revered. There is a reason for the length of gestation in man and animal; soley to bring forth a fully developed, viable progeny. If the length of developement is less, the “product” therefore must be underdeveloped.
While premature babies are born every day and some live perfectly normal lives, you know as well as I that the vast majority do not survive, or if they do, it’s not our expectation of a normal life.
The question now becomes, when is the fetus sentient? For doesn’t sentience determine life as we know it? There has been study after study as to when this occurs. I’ve read volumes on the matter. Some say during the last weeks, some say last trimester, religious fanatics with absolutely no proof say at conception(!) and some say at birth. An old religion I heard of in a far away land believes that the soul of the mother “parts” upon birth and infuses the child, not before.
The problem with pro and anti abortion proponents is that of philosophy. On the pro life side, it’s derived from religion, even though there is no basis in the “original” bible to protecting unborn; the latter translations were a game of whisper. The anti factions decry the woman’s rights first since she is already a viable human being.
Your choice, as a woman should be your choice; not a religion effected choice unless you want that. That said, you as a woman should have no decision over someone else’s choice because of your beliefs.
It’s really very simple and greatly complex. Decisions have been made by men because they were supposedly superior. Go argue that with Liz or Annti over at Blondesense! If a woman is an intelligent human being, who are you to determine her rights to her body because of your views? It would be as ludicrous as me telling you that if I think you are inferior to me because of skin color or height or weight that I can tell you what to do. I’m sure you wouldn’t like that even if I and my believing followers “knew” it was for your own good.
No amount of proselytizing will convince either of us. But I will not tell you or your wife what to do with your bodies. That seems to be the difference, philosophies aside, between the two camps.
It’s difficult for me to accept your version of protection for something that is not yet but may become a human while allowing a callous attitude toward war to protect yourself(generic) from real or imagined enemies.
Rights are a determinant of social position. In a war, I might have to choose between your life and that of another. A choice must be made so that one may live. If you were old and the other young, I might choose youth. I also might want to keep experience alive.
You are not in a position to make a choice for women in general but that seems what you desire; carte blanche for your views because you think them right or holy or the proper thing to do. That’s fine. Make your decisions concerning those over which you have power. Justification by religion, yours or anyone else’s, is polemic. I might not subscribe to your religious views.
We differ on many things but I would never presume to tell your wife she either had to have or could not have an abortion; that should be hers and your choice, not mine. (I am making the foolish masculine presumption that you are indeed male. If not, I hope you’ll understand.) Eventually there will be compromise. There has to be. Such is life…and death.
Maybe we should start a “point – counterpoint blog”; could be interesting.

By: nolo

nolo — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 09:36:52 +0000

I’m a lot more impressed at my ability to survive the “spontaneous miscarriage ends 45% of all pregnancies” slaughter. And the “1 in 5,000,000 sperm” rally race.

Not to mention the “what if Dad had just rolled over and jerked off that night” lottery.

By: Dr. BLT

Dr. BLT — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:28:17 +0000

Anne, is the body of the fetus inferior simply because it is less developed than the body of a woman? Does the fact that the fetus hasn’t yet acquired the language to declare, “It’s my body!” make the body of the fetus any less important than the body of the woman? It’s not just a matter of the woman having control over what happens to her body. Once a fetus is growing and moving in the womb, the entire environment, the fully developed body of the woman, and the developing body of the fetus (as an interactive dyad) must be taken into consideration. The woman is not inferior to the fetus, and the fetus is not inferior to the woman. Both should have the right to live. Both should be able to exercise choice. The fetus cannot defend itself. It is, by nature of its age, weaker and more vulnerablethan a woman, so if it comes down to defending the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the fetus, we should go to greater lengths to protect the rights of the fetus.