I have to join with my colleague Revere in saying that I am pro-abortion. Furthermore, I find the willingness of the devout anti-choice mob to distort the evidence so appalling that I would not join with them in anything.
When I gave a talk at UW Stevens Point last week, there were a few protesters outside the building — friendly, non-violent people who I invited in to listen. It’s a shame, though, that I was giving a neuroscience talk, since I also have a talk that rips into the bogus developmental biology that ‘pro-lifers’ use — and the group picketing me were Catholic right-to-life weirdos. They also were handing out flyers complaining about my desecration of crackers.
Myers hammered his rusty nail while gleefully boasting that “nothing is sacred.” One has to wonder if he would likewise gleefully drive nails through the hands and feet of Christians he so publicly despises?! Obviously Christians themselves are not sacred to him.
There they go again, making my point for me. I do not think Christians or crackers are sacred, not because I devalue human life, but because “sacred” is an invalid rationale for doing so; the value comes from the individuals themselves, not from some imaginary decree from a nonexistent ghostly entity. It is also a great shame that Catholics so obliviously and so willingly equate themselves with crackers; they assume that because I would abuse a piece of bread, I would treat human beings in exactly the same way…apparently because they think that cracker is just as precious as a person.
That’s a rather gross and dangerous error. A cracker is a flat piece of ground up vegetable matter, baked and processed, mostly inert, sold with the intent of being further broken down in someone’s digestive system. Throwing it in the trash in no way implies that a complex and dynamic being can be similarly disposed of, or be casually destroyed and consumed. Sane people have an appropriate perspective on the relative importance of foodstuffs and human beings. Crazy people can’t tell the difference.
And speaking of crazy people…one kind of insanity destroys the ability of normal people to distinguish between embryos and people, and encourages them to lie to others about the status of the embryo, treating it as the moral equivalent of a child. It’s almost the same problem as revering a cracker over a person. A better question to ask is whether they would kill someone to defend a Jesus wafer? (And some, at least, have told me that they would.) Would they be willing to throw away their purported reverence for the sanctity of life to kill someone to defend a fetus? (We definitely know that some will.)
There are groups that are actively blurring the line between embryos and human beings, and I consider them just as wicked as the howling haters lined up outside women’s health clinics — they use mistruths to foment attacks on people to defend non-people. One of the biggest, noisiest, and most dishonest is Pro Life Across America, which puts up billboards all across the US; we have a similar outfit here in my state, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
Their work is easily recognizable. They have one theme: fetuses and babies are exactly the same. All of their signs feature cute baby pictures coupled to factoids about development, and they thoroughly enrage me — I see them all along the roadsides on my drive in to Minneapolis. They are basically generating false associations about development.
Here’s a standard example:
Awww, cute plump smiling baby with eyes and ears and a tongue…and did you know he formed those in the first month of pregnancy? How can you support aborting adorable little children!
It’s even sort of weakly, tenuously true. The embryo does have non-functional primordia of those organs at 28 days, but it’s not exactly cute — it looks more like a worm — and it’s only about 4mm (or about 2/10 of an inch) long. It’s ‘face’ is a couple of branchial arches. If they wanted to be honest in their advertising, they ought to revise the billboard to look like this:
I suggest they add another line of copy, too: I also had a tail!
You get the idea. All of their billboards are like this, listing a known developmental landmark, the earlier the better, and showing a picture of a post-natal infant as if that has any relevance. It’s an attempt to make an emotional tie to developmental events. It works with a lot of people, too, the people who are ignorant of reality — and of course, these ads do nothing to educate them.
Here’s another of their ads that plays games with the concept of conception:
Yes, that baby did get his genes at conception. So? A collection of genes does not make a human being. There was no teeny-tiny infant spontaneously bursting into existence at the instant a sperm cell punched into an oocyte — it was something that looked like this:
This is a point absolutely and solidly established in biology. The embryo is not the adult. It does not contain the full information present in the newborn — that will be generated progressively, by interactions with the environment and by complex internal negotiations within an increasingly complex embryo. Pretending that 46 chromosomes in a cell is sufficient to define a person is the most absurd kind of extreme biological reductionism.
The fertilized oocyte is a human cell, but it is not a human being.
Way too many people think that is a sacrilegious idea — we have to cherish every single scrap of human tissue, especially the bits that have the potential to go on and develop into a child.
No, we don’t. We don’t have to revere every block of rough marble because another Michaelangelo could come along and sculpt it into something as wonderful as his David; we don’t have to treasure every scrap of canvas because the next Picasso is going to use it for a masterpiece. The value isn’t in the raw materials, but in the pattern, the skill, the art put into it. Similarly, those cells are simply the raw clay that the process and time will sculpt into something that is worth love and care.
Which is more important, the pigments or the painting? Even worse, do you think the pigments are the painting?
A couple of additional points: notice how clever I was in not saying precisely when the fetus becomes a human being? That’s because there is no sharp magical border, it’s grey and fuzzy all the way. That’s a social and personal decision. Don’t even ask me when — I’m a guy. I don’t have the same responsibilities as a pregnant woman, so I don’t get the same privileges.
Also, some people are ‘uneasy’ about the whole abortion thing. Fine; don’t get one. Your personal feelings of yuckiness shouldn’t be a factor in deciding what other people do. Churches make me queasy, but I’m not planning to criminalize attendance.
You’re stretching the definition of non sequitur. And hostile? lol Do you even know what that means? Disagreeing with you doesn’t make me hostile, you dingbat.
The point, you moron, is that you weren’t disagreeing with Paul, you were disagreeing with a strawman of your own invention — that should have been clear from the dialog I quoted, in which Paul simply asserted that Skatje lacks empathy — nothing about not being able to change. Thus, your comment was non sequitur, idiot.
BTW, Anodyne, you stupid asshole, Paul twice (#964 and #972) noted that he had never said that Skatje couldn’t change, and yet you still don’t recognize that your attack on him as being cynical is non sequitur. You seem quite unable to separate your own thoughts, which you expressed well enough in #959, from those of others. No one has disagreed with what you wrote in #959 so stop treating them as if they had, jackass.
Looking back, you are fairly correct; it seems there was a misunderstanding of what the other said about knowledge and empathy. I understand what you were getting at, but it wasn’t initially interpreted that way.
I love the passive voice. Try taking responsibility for your mistakes, asshole.
Paul: She lacks empathy. If you can’t tell that in this thread, you can’t read.
Anodyne [completely non sequitur]: If you think one cannot become more empathic with time, you’re sadly mistaken.
I was saying that too many of the comments I read had the gist of “she’s a hopeless case […]”
Point them out, please.
People have her all wrong. If anything, it’s an excess of empathy. This is the young woman who, on principle, recently announced that she was going vegan because she could not justify causing pain to domesticated animals. I think she’s giving way too much benefit of the doubt to embryos, and that’s the basis for her arguments here.
PZ:
You certainly know her the best. I’m happy to take your word on the matter. It can definitely be difficult sometimes, because what someone posts here is all we have to go on, and abortion is a hot button and emotional issue. At least for me.
And me, too. We’d fight over this at home except she’s all tangled up in her senior seminar and finishing up classes and imminent graduation (which might be another contributor to her crankiness here).
You fail to recognize this as not giving enough “benefit of the doubt” to the woman herself, because “she deserves to have to carry a fetus to term for having sex even if she used all available types of birth control”. This is what we’re calling a lack of empathy.
We get it. Your daughter is great, thoughtful, kind, wouldn’t hurt a soul. But intention isn’t everything. Her philosophical position leads her to not oppose a law that would result in more deaths of actual living people (citations have been provided, multiple times). “Lack of empathy” is the most charitable interpretation, really. I don’t see how you can come down hard on Libertarians for the actual results of their shitty policies, and not recognize Skatje falls into the same field as well-meaning Libertarians. She holds a shitty philosophical position that will do real serious harm to living people if it is followed through with.
Not asking you to disagree with her, but at least recognize what people are arguing.
Say, did you read the post I wrote? The one way up top? I know it’s easy to forget it a thousand comments down…but if you think I’m suggesting that I agree with her position, you aren’t paying attention.
totally called it. still, it would help immensely if she finally realized that her stance will, in the real world, cause more harm and pain than legal abortion ever did.
Say, did you read the post I wrote 10 minutes ago? The one you replied to?
I was pointing out the error in saying Skatje’s problem is too much empathy because she feels sorry for the little babies. We were talking about empathy with respect to the actual living women involved. Your comment was dismissive or ignoring what was actually being talked about.
An embryo is not a person?
It’s the unbeliever that has the problem.
Believers have HOPE – for eternal life!
Unbelievers have only dispair, and their short life on earth.
Psalm 51: “Indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother CONCEIVED me.”
Did anyone on this blog walk on water?
Did anyone on this blog rise from the dead?
Does anyone on this blog have the authority or power or love for God’s creation to forgive our sins of abortion (murder)?
Did anyone on this blog willingly allow themselves to be fastened with nails to the blood-soaked Cross of Golgotha so that mankind’s sins can be forgiven?
Has anyone on this blog suffered “The Passion of Christ” so that human beings can CHOOSE to be baptized and OBEY God rather than man?
Why not stop with the useless opinions?
God’s name is MERCY. And He will forgive even the sin of abortion.
You simply have to believe, and ask for forgiveness.
P.S. I’m headed for the local abortion clinic to pass out the TRUTH – not opinions.
TRUTH is not a thing.
TRUTH is a person, and his name is Jesus Christ.
Give Him a chance to save you – life is short, and eternity is forever.
fuck off, proselytising troll. jesus christ never existed, your “truth” is a lie.
also, pascal’s wager is Teh Lame.
Phil:
No, it isn’t. By the way, that book of myths you’re quoting? It’s quite fond of detailing the killing of infants and has nothing at all against abortion. Many passages are quite explicit in their approval.
Now, go fuck yourself. Sideways. With the rusty implement of your choice.
Stupendous stupidity needs correcting, Phil.
As far as we can tell, this hope is false. As a certain Frank Zindler put it (according to a sidebar quote): “To believe that consciousness can survive the wreck of the brain is like believing that 70 mph can survive the wreck of the car.”
I must have missed that somehow. Life, you see, is interesting.
Maybe you should publish a scientific article or do something else that will make you remembered?
Irrelevant.
Are you really capable of believing in something when there’s no evidence for it?
Really?
Seriously?
Because I’m not.
That requires “Him” to exist in the first place. We’re waiting for the evidence. Bring some.
I’m not convinced, PZ.
She had at least three former unwanted embryos describe some of the deleterious long term effects, both prenatal issues and after birth. In response, she insulted us and our real-world examples. She made it very clear that she doesn’t give a hoot about unwanted embryos once we’re born.
If she comes back after graduation with a heart-felt apology, going into specifics, THEN I’ll believe your faith in her is justified.
it also seems (from the vegan standpoint) that she is arguing “anti” in the name of doing the least harm, but if you don’t believe in a soul, doing the least amount of total harm IS aborting an unwanted fetus (baby/child) BEFORE they can attain the level of consciousness needed to realize that they are unwanted and suffer the pain that follows (and not just the abstract, emotional pain either. childbirth is an extremely distressing event for an infant, possibly more so than for the mother since the mother has some inkling of what is going on and knows that it will end). The fact that the harm done by their unwanted status is ameliorated over a lifetime does not negate it.
So yes, abortion is killing a [potential] baby, but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be the kindest, most humane option for everyone in a given circumstance, despite my personal distaste for the procedure. I have been too recently pregnant to think of abortion in terms of abstract autonomy rights but I wholeheartedly still support a woman’s right to choice.
Although, until I realized the above, I felt much the same as PZ’s progeny (although I would have said that I don’t know enough therefore I fight for the woman’s right to choose). Going through pregnancy and childbirth and motherhood has taken me from an abortion-agnostic firmly into the pro-abortion camp.
People have her all wrong.
They are going by the evidence they have.
This is the young woman who, on principle, recently announced that she was going vegan because she could not justify causing pain to domesticated animals.
Yes, that’s principle, perhaps even sympathy, but not empathy.
I think she’s giving way too much benefit of the doubt to embryos
As has been noted here repeatedly, the argument for choice is the same if it’s an adult who is dependent upon your body. As I noted, you yourself have observed this at times.
Like Brownian #988, when I was in that age range, my view on abortion was almost identical to what Skatje has expressed here, right down to the “playing the odds” and “personal responsibility” aspects of it. I don’t know if I ever went as far as to express support for making abortion illegal – in liberal Canada where I grew up, the issue rarely came up and I was never called out on it and forced to take my position to that logical conclusion. In fact to this day I cannot really pinpoint at what point in my life I changed my mind.
But I think the empathy issue brought up by PZ is quite apropos. Because it is always difficult to distribute empathy in situations where both sides are deserving of it. There is a temptation to simplify the moral choice by choosing sides, to invest all our empathy with one party and not the other. And there is a powerful instinctive tendency for decent people to empathize more with the superficially weaker party, to root for the underdog as it were. And what is more weak and helpless than a fetus, utterly dependent on its mother and at the mercy of her every decision? Thus is not the fetus more deserving of protection, because it needs it more, because the woman is so much more powerful?
This is precisely why these baby-type adds are so dishonest. They deliberately present grossly distorted perception that exploits this humane instinct for pernicious ends.
if you think I’m suggesting that I agree with her position, you aren’t paying attention
Nice how you respond to Paul’s last sentence and ignore his entire argument.
In fact, you only responded to the first half of his last sentence. “… at least recognize what people are arguing.” — it would be nice.
Nope.
And neither has anyone else, ever.
P.S.
if you think I’m suggesting that I agree with her position, you aren’t paying attention
I not only paid attention, but responded above:
Rev. BDC, the Jesus Lizards run on water. I find that pretty impressive. Lots more impressive than an imaginary dude who never walked on the stuff.
As if I’m somehow arguing in support of my daughter’s position. I disagree with it; I strongly think empathy for the women involved is more important.
I also happen to know a little bit more about the person we’re arguing over.
Anything else you want to tell me I’m wrong about here, and how you understand my daughter’s motivation better than I do?
I think Robocop’s contributions here, except for the last one, were high quality, well argued, and thought provoking.
must me a temporary thing then, since he’s typically ignorant, delusional, and insipid.
Say, did you read the post I wrote 10 minutes ago? The one you replied to?
Well, he read the first part of the last sentence.
Your comment was dismissive or ignoring what was actually being talked about.
It sure was.
Anything else you want to tell me I’m wrong about here, and how you understand my daughter’s motivation better than I do?
unfair, given that we can only respond to what she has written here, and you haven’t actually clarified or changed any of the meaning of what she has said.
From what I see, she has “empathy” towards things that wouldn’t respond to it (animals, embryos) and a distinct LACK of empathy towards things that actually would respond to it, like other women.
it’s quite odd, if you account her behavior, as you do, to empathy.
As if I’m somehow arguing in support of my daughter’s position.
Saying it’s a fair argument supports it — in part — duh.
I also happen to know a little bit more about the person we’re arguing over.
You’re flailing.
Anything else you want to tell me I’m wrong about here, and how you understand my daughter’s motivation better than I do?
frankly, it’s quite common for parents to NOT understand how their offspring think, because they are too close to the issue.
have you forgotten basic psych?
Oh, just for the record. When I said I didn’t expect PZ to disagree with her, I didn’t express myself clearly. I was simply trying to say that I don’t expect him to argue with her in this thread like other people have. His position on abortion is clear, and obviously disagrees with hers. I was simply making allowance for the fact that a comment thread on a blog isn’t really the place you would expect family members to hash out such a difference of opinion.
So I don’t expect him to argue with her here. I do, however, request that he doesn’t artificially prop her up by ignoring the actual arguments being made.
I know; it was some time in my first term of my first year, when I learned from an anthropology 101 class just how widespread important family planning (including using methods such as lactational amenorrhea, phytochemical abortifacients, physical abortion, and infanticide) was to humans, especially to foragers and preagricultural ones. As I was going through a forager-romanticist phase, I was forced to reexamine my beliefs in innocence and potential, since foragers tend to care much less about such things as much as proven survivability. Not the most rational though process, I know, but useful for breaking out of the “every sperm is sacred” mindset.
it’s quite odd, if you account her behavior, as you do, to empathy.
She loves plants and animals; poor women with four children, not so much apparently (PZ may have personal knowledge that we aren’t privy to that contradicts what Skatje actually wrote) — they can just adopt their children out.
Did anyone on this blog walk on water?
Yep. Quite frequently last winter.
Did anyone on this blog rise from the dead?
Not me, but I can introduce you to several people I raised from the (clinically) dead*. Does that count?
*They weren’t really dead of course. Just didn’t have a heart beat and weren’t breathing. A little electricity, some drugs, a bit of artificial respiration took care of that. Those times.
Nobody’s talking about her motivation. We’re talking about the obvious shortcomings of her position. Attributing it to lack of empathy towards women who find themselves pregnant is a hell of a lot more charitable than saying she wants women to kill themselves with a coat hanger in botched abortions when abortion is banned, isn’t it?
Seriously, I don’t get why you’re deliberately ignoring what people are actually saying.
I was simply trying to say that I don’t expect him to argue with her in this thread like other people have
To give him credit, in #348 he did offer a mild criticism among his defenses of her as principled: “it’s also one that ignores the central point of this post: whether the fetus is a person is ambiguous”. Of course, that is not the central point of everyone else here.
This threads going to get far stranger if we are to now have a debate with PZ over who can judge his kid’s behavior better.
It’s frankly a ridiculous thing to debate, can and should make everyone involved unfairly uncomfortable.
I myself would be red-faced if I ever said something like “Anything else you want to tell me I’m wrong about here, and how you understand my [relatives’s] motivation better than I do?”
I mean, that has a tendency to just stifle discussion. might as well have just ended the thread.
I understand parental bonds are involved, but she jumped in the pool here. Skatje should more than be capable of clarifying her OWN motivations, yes?
*shrug*
there is now an elephant in the room.
Unbelievers have only dispair
And squirrels. I’ll take real squirrels over false hope any day.
Nobody’s talking about her motivation.
To be fair, saying that she lacks empathy is about motivation. Of course, it’s overly sweeping; perhaps we should say that she has demonstrated a lack of empathy, towards women in various circumstances — but not toward embryos or animals. Actually, people have said that, but PZ’s response to the broad swipe is understandable — though not charitable — because it differs from his personal experience.
Ichthyic, I think it’s fair to say that PZ probably gets a lot more nuance when arguing with Skatje than we do from her posts.
If Skatje wants to jump back into this or any other discussion on abortion a/o women’s rights, I’ll go right on arguing with her.
Yes, and it should stifle discussion. If all you have is speculation about her motives, and you’re going to disregard what the fellow sitting in the same room with the person has to say, then yeah, I think you’re done. You clearly aren’t interested in the actual motives.
As for the rest…as I seem to have to remind everyone, I disagree with my daughter. I’m on the same side you are in this debate. I am aware of the shortcomings of her position. I am not arguing for her position.
Do I have to use littler words?
I am sitting here in the middle of Odessa, Texas, a wasteland in more ways than just the fact it’s the middle of the fucking West Texas desert. My fucking hotel has a TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT in front of it. The maids refused to come clean my room yesterday because I threw the Gideon Bible in the trash and threw a used sanitary napkin and the remains of fast food in there on top of it (trash is trash). Around here it is standard to display crosses and religious plaques openly in the parts of businesses that are open to the public. I got asked today if I was a witch because I am wearing all black (I’m a geek, OK, and my blouse is sort of “goth”). I’m only saying this because I am so pissed off I scare myself. Fucking bumpkins. So those of you who care about tone, turn around and stick your fingers in your ears now; I’m going into “speedwell” mode.
About Skatje. Am I seriously reading the blog where we encourage Christian children to use their brains and question what they’ve been taught? Fuck, seems that’s only OK anymore when we’re expecting them to rebel against Christianity! We are so goddamned confident that allowing people to use their minds inevitably results in their adopting a mindset we agree with, that is until Skatje became involved and most of us lost our fucking minds. She is suddenly the exception to everything we say to other people. There is not a single bit of evidence in all her writing up until now that she is the kind of malicious, ignorant, sociopathic creep you are making her out to be–there is not a single bit of evidence that she is–until this thread, many of you would never have thought it of her, and I still don’t. We have never had any reason to think of her as anything but gifted and original, if somewhat arrogant, and I, for one, still think of her that way. I never claimed to like her much, but, Christ, fair’s fair.
Something is fucked up here, and it’s not the fact that a young woman has decided to try on another sort of idea. We are supposed to value the rich experience of being able to think widely and come to cogent conclusions. We are supposed to encourage people to live according to their convictions, and to trust that the truth will, inevitably, out. Do we think Skatje is forever incapable of seeing the truth or recognizing it for what it is? Are we encouraging her to use her mind, or are we making overwrought emotional threats?
OK. So you hate what she said, fine. And you can hate what I said, and she will hate what I said because I openly called for treating her according to her age. But I happen to take the learning process very seriously, and I refuse to stand by without comment and see you, and her, fuck it up because your nifty brain chemicals are working overtime to scuttle the lifeboat.
Back off and give her some intellectual breathing room, for fuck’s sake, or you will deserve every single time someone’s called you narrow-minded and pretentious ivory-tower twits.
Do I have to use littler words?
You really should leave this thread alone before you do more damage to people’s regard for you.
badgersdaughter, that’s a nice ad hominem rant, but it doesn’t actually address any of the substance of what people have written here.
My blog, my post, and you have the gall to suggest that I should leave?
Why? Do you need to be left without my input so you can speculate about my secret life as a pro-life Catholic zealot?
1043: We are supposed to value the rich experience of being able to think widely and come to cogent conclusions. We are supposed to encourage people to live according to their convictions, and to trust that the truth will, inevitably, out.
But once one is exposed to the capital-T Truth, its truthiness should be so obvious that only irrational, immoral, stupid and evil people (otherwise known as “them”) can’t see it and won’t embrace it.
badgersdaughter:
Please, lose the drama. I didn’t make any threat, emotional or otherwise. I will argue with anyone who has anti-choice, anti-women views. That’s all.
Oh, I’m sorry, truth machine OM, I see that you’re so wrapped up in your little rules that you failed to notice I wasn’t playing your game of Calvinball. I wasn’t arguing about abortion, I was calling you out about the way you, and others, are handling a specific situation with a specific person. last I checked, we were allowed to tell other people we thought they were being assholes. I’m sorry if that didn’t address the topic of whether or not abortion was OK. I think I acquitted myself pretty well on that score dozens of posts ago, anyway, so stick that wrench in your truth-mechanical guts and grind burrs off of it.
truth machine:
Please speak for yourself here. My regard for PZ hasn’t been affected.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
In the spirit of doing myself what I expect others to do, I’ll drop the drama now. Never cared much for it outside Victorian novels anyway.
If all you have is speculation about her motives, and you’re going to disregard what the fellow sitting in the same room with the person has to say, then yeah, I think you’re done.
I see. We ARE going to discuss this, at your insistence.
Yes, and it should stifle discussion.
like i said, if that’s the way you feel about it, why not just close the thread?
I seem to have to remind everyone, I disagree with my daughter.
I don’t see where anyone said you agreed with her (there was a technical point made about tacit support, but it’s irrelevant to whether you agree with her actual position), which it’s rather obvious you wouldn’t, given the years of pro-choice posts you’ve made. That you even mention this here suggests you are entirely missing the point of what people are saying.
You’re getting way too defensive about this.
paul said:
Seriously, I don’t get why you’re deliberately ignoring what people are actually saying.
seems obvious to me. Parents should never jump into debates their kids get themselves into.
that said, perhaps, since we have the master interpreter present, he would be willing to translate some Skatje sayings for me?
please translate the following:
“Soooo many anecdotal sob stories.”
does she think all of your stories you’ve posted about in the past 5 years regarding abortion are anecdotal too?
“Get off your my-life-was-harder-than-yours high horse.”
does she think that actual evidence of experience is not relevant to the decision-making process?
“I still find this slut-shaming thing to be absurd. If we were seahorses, I guess I would be a player-shamer.”
?? haven’t a clue.
Why?
I stated why.
Robocop. Don’t imagine that I am on your side just because you happen to be able to twist something I said to fit your particular twist.
srsly?
For once I have to disagree with you, TM. I’d rather PeeZed be honest, consequences be damned. Do you really want him to tone it down, so that you can maintain some sorta Platonic ideal of him in your mind?
Please speak for yourself here. My regard for PZ hasn’t been affected.
You are not coextensive with “people”.
We are supposed to value the rich experience of being able to think widely and come to cogent conclusions.
I must have missed the cogent part.
where was that again?
1054: Don’t imagine that I am on your side just because you happen to be able to twist something I said to fit your particular twist.
I don’t and provided no reasonable basis for you to conclude that I did.
There is no such thing. Oh, you must mean your imaginary deity and fictional/mythical babble. Which you can’t supply conclusive physical evidence for. Which by parsimony means it doesn’t exist.
Disagree. If I kick puppies in my spare time, one might say I lack empathy towards them. That does not mean I am motivated by empathy, although it does imply that empathy could be a factor in why I do not refrain from kicking puppies.
This is, of course, clearer and more to the point. Thanks for that.
Of course not. But her presence in this thread was a study in ignoring evidence/posts contrary to what she wanted to believe coming into the thread. It’s worth pointing out. As if saying “it’s a philosophical position” excuses ignoring the real world implications. As I pointed out earlier, it’s the same situation you see with young Libertarians (and we’ve seen how much PZ is willing to assume good faith and accommodate their “philosophical positions”).
My blog, my post, and you have the gall to suggest that I should leave?
that’s not what he meant, obviously.
I was calling you out about the way you, and others, are handling a specific situation with a specific person.
What you did was rant, and the rant was inaccurate and full of hyperbole.
I’d rather PeeZed be honest
Me too.
Do you really want him to tone it down
No, I really want him to honestly engage what people have actually said here, but that would be very hard to do now.
so that you can maintain some sorta Platonic ideal of him in your mind?
Who, me? C’mon, you must be kidding.
Who are these “everyone” who are arguing against that? Paul has explained in #1032 what he meant by “not asking you to disagree with her”, so no one has denied that your position is different from hers.
Having been vegan significantly longer than I’ve been pro-choice, I remember using animal rights arguments against legalized abortion. I’m happy to answer any questions concerning that position. (With the caveat that we don’t know for sure whether Skatje’s veganism and anti-choice position are related, either in reality or in her narrative. In my case, misogyny was the real issue, and after I challenged my misogyny, animal rights were no further barrier to being pro-choice.)
We’ve all grown up in an extremely misogynistic culture which teaches that women should not be allowed to control their own lives, and women’s primary purpose should be to produce offspring for men. Regardless of how well any parents raise their daughter to value her own autonomy, there is tremendous cultural pressure for women of any age to vie for relative status within the patriarchy — though the younger the woman, the more overtly she is threatened and so the more she needs status — by declaring that she would never deny a man his right to own her body, and any woman who would is irresponsible and thus inferior to her.
It is simply naive to imagine that your own daughter is special and immune to this pressure.
that’s not what he meant, obviously.
That’s not obvious to PZ, for reasons that you have noted.
This thread has well and truly succumbed to topic drift. Epic drift, at that, a la the Titanoboa thread — only less fun.
Fair enough. I hope we can all eventually come to see it as a lesson and not as a personal insult. Given that it’s the Internet, that’s not terribly likely or anything, but a few posts ago I claimed the role of standing in front of the herd of elephants, saying “Let’s all be reasonable here,” and I used to be one of those stubborn Libertarians myself, so I might as well go on and let myself be trampled, just for the sake of being consistent. :)
Hey, Truth Machine–Go fuck yourself. You have no interest in civil discourse and I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you beyond this post.
Way to fail. Last I checked, I said “I understand what you were getting at, but it wasn’t initially interpreted that way”. I’m talking about myself, you fuckwit.
Cain–
I clearly stated in a recent post that this wasn’t about her, but about her demographic and I was using her as an example. I don’t know Skatje and I’m not going on a personal crusade to defend anyone just because they’re the blog owner’s daughter, so don’t pretend that I am.
When did I say we “need to gently guide and nurture…”? Don’t put words in my mouth. And I’m not “clutching pearls” (why even use such a sexist phrase?) It seems everyone’s estimation of my concern is way too high.
…but…sonofabitch…
I was just going to cite the part where I said something about not being that emotional or attached to the premise, but I can’t find it anywhere, so it was probably deleted before making the post; I apologize–I thought that information was available to everyone. *extended facepalm* Fucking lame.
As am I! I really, truly care about this issue. (And put my money [and very soon some time] where my mouth is) I will fight tooth and nail for the right of others and myself to have control over our own goddamned bodies. What really pisses me off is people who implicitly say a woman is too helpless and stupid to know what is right for her life. That is where my passion lies–not with making excuses for people. It wasn’t my intent to distract from the pro-choice sentiment; I wanted to mention the role of empathy–not sympathy–when you’re addressing someone that age because it is entirely relevant.
It’s not an “off chance”. It’s demonstrable. And at no point have I ever said you should let her slide. I’ve said it many times already, but I guess I have to say it again…She said cruel things and should be corrected. It our duty to point out how vile and reprehensible her opinions are. I am absolutely sickened by what she said, and I’m in no uncertain terms disagreeing with the fact that her words portray her as a huge fucking heartless asshole. I can, and will, point out bullshit when I see it, but that doesn’t mean I have to be a quiet little good girl and not say anything when I feel that people are defeating their own purpose. It’s that fucking simple.
While I heartily object to you putting words in my mouth, I do appreciate that you didn’t try to rip me a new asshole because we are in disagreement.
——————————–
I’ve already said my point, and there’s no need to rehash it over and over again. It is what it is.
And for some of the posters, when someone asks to have their inconsistencies pointed out in the interest of gaining knowledge, and you turn around and hurl cheap insults at them, you make it clear that you really don’t give a fuck about increasing others’ understanding or coming to any sort of an agreement. It’s all about you and stroking your ego. Get over yourself.
That’s the problem. He’s not being honest or arguing in good faith. He’s picking and choosing very carefully to paint a nice picture while acting like everyone else is being unreasonable. He’s pretending to address people’s comments while completely ignoring what they’re saying. He accused me of not reading his original post in the process of ignoring almost the entire content of the post he was replying to, ffs.
That’s funny.
No, I really want him to honestly engage what people have actually said here, but that would be very hard to do now.
ayup.
near impossible.
Do you need to be left without my input so you can speculate about my secret life as a pro-life Catholic zealot?
I take your saracasm and run with it.
see, this is exactly where you miss the point. People are speculating about what skatje wrote.
I don’t recall seeing you write about yourself supporting Catholicism or anti-choice stances, so why would anyone speculate about that?
seriously, can you not see the difference?
I’m done. You’ve made further debate pointless unless Skatje herself returns to clarify.
I’d honestly be surprised if you did, yes. But I’m also surprised you a) asked him to leave the thread alone, b) used his reputation as the argument for doing that.
Yawn, Anodyne the tone troll is back. Whoopie shit. Still nothing cogent.
asked him to leave the thread alone
again, he didn’t. do I need to spell it out?
He was asking PZ to avoid taking this debate tack, as it is dishonest and stifles debate via parental fiat.
[… seahorses …] ?? haven’t a clue.
It’s about gender being irrelevant. She would be just as uncaring about the circumstances of males if they were the ones who get pregnant.
Such is life.
1059: There is no such thing….
This wooden literalism is causing you to embarrass yourself again.
Which by parsimony means it doesn’t exist.
Parsimony is a very helpful tool, especially for sorting. But it doesn’t determine truth.
She would be just as uncaring about the circumstances of males if they were the ones who get pregnant.
ah.
well, at least she’s not sexist. equal opportunity hater.
wonder if it’s just the common “hate humanity because humans have fucked everything up” meme.
meh, but that would be just idle speculation…
He was asking PZ to avoid taking this debate tack, as it is dishonest and stifles debate via parental fiat.
Well, what I was saying is that he was flailing about, attacking strawmen left and right as if they were “everyone”, that it doesn’t serve him well to do so (and yes, I am talking about his “reputation”) — and since he seems to be too emotionally invested to be able to do better, leaving it alone is a wise course.
He’s not being honest or arguing in good faith. He’s picking and choosing very carefully to paint a nice picture while acting like everyone else is being unreasonable. He’s pretending to address people’s comments while completely ignoring what they’re saying. He accused me of not reading his original post in the process of ignoring almost the entire content of the post he was replying to, ffs.
Quite so.
But it doesn’t determine truth.
your concept of “truth” is meaningless and irrelevant.
always has been.
No. The problem here is that I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of some knowledge I have about my daughter, and apparently that was not enough — I did not paint a sufficiently evil picture of her to fit your preconceptions.
You don’t know what good faith means, wanker.
Hey, Truth Machine–Go fuck yourself. You have no interest in civil discourse and I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you beyond this post.
Well, that’s one way to avoid admitting to error and taking responsibility for your actions.
Doubtful. “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
We simply would not be having such discussions, none of us would. It would be unthinkable, because unlike women, men’s right to control reproduction has never been questioned.
Selective abortion in pregnant male pipefish
I did not paint a sufficiently evil picture of her to fit your preconceptions.
conclusion not based on evidence.
too defensive.
done.
see, this is exactly where you miss the point. People are speculating about what skatje wrote.
Of course, my comment about Skatje being Catholic was tongue-in-cheek, but the attitudes she expressed, which I quoted when I made that comment, were the sort that many Catholics hold. And you [Ichthyic] gave a serious response (#984) from personal experience about the sort of influences that might contribute to such views. It was speculation, but it was also rational and informed.
Flailing about?
I explained why Skatje was making that argument. I did not justify it.
I explained that despite protests here, I am not defending a pro-life argument.
I said that I have been rather clear in my pro-choice position.
For that, we get this bizarre whining that somehow I am pretending that being pro-life means I do not comprehend how that position is anti-woman. And I get the ridiculous suggestion that I should leave this thread. I don’t know what the hell planet you guys are living on, but it sounds like Planet Stupid so far.
Neither does your imaginary deity and fictional/mythical babble. You know that. Do you really want to have to prove yourself here and now, and fail again, as you already have again and again? You have nothing but hot air. We know that. You refuse the see that TRUTH.
No. The problem here is that I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of some knowledge I have about my daughter, and apparently that was not enough — I did not paint a sufficiently evil picture of her to fit your preconceptions.
You don’t know what good faith means, wanker.
Sigh.
Nerd–
Oh, please. A handful of people on the blog took exception to what I’ve posted, and I’ve replied, which I have every right to do.
A troll starts fights for the sake of pissing people off, doesn’t address what people are actually saying, and delights in the fact that they can get people all riled up.
Project much?
I’m done with this quibbling.
strange gods before me:
I am so tempted to just say “Word” here. While a good part of me believes it wouldn’t be an issue if it were men who got pregnant, the darker side of me says oh yes it would be. And, I think it would be an issue, eventually.
Back when I found myself pregnant and decided on an abortion, there was zero fuss. It was not an issue at all. (This was in the 1970s). No protesters, no pro-life nonsense, no hassle, nothing. The whole anti-choice movement is a recent one.
1087: Neither does your imaginary deity and fictional/mythical babble.
So you admit your error. It’s a miracle!
PZ, I (and I think a lot of other people here) would like to give Skatje the benefit of the doubt – and not just because she’s your daughter, although your insight is always appreciated. I understand that an excess of empathy, particularly for the vulnerable, can sometimes lead people down false pathways. What concerned me (yeah, I guess I’m being a concern troll here) was her total dismissal of other people’s life experiences as “sob stories”. There were so many other, more empathic ways she could have handled it. She could have said something along the lines of “Yes, I understand your lives have been hard, but my reverence for life is such that I believe that even the most painful and difficult life is better than non-life.” Or one of a hundred other things she could have said.
but she didn’t. She totally dismissed them, brushed them off.
If you say that she’s under great stress from end-of-school stuff, I’ll believe you. But can you also give us that, at least by her words here an excess of empathy was not in evidence?
Windy @ 1083:
Oh my, those males, wanting sex without the consequence. Hahahaha, that was great, thanks Windy.
Flailing about?
I explained why Skatje was making that argument. I did not justify it.
I explained that despite protests here, I am not defending a pro-life argument.
I said that I have been rather clear in my pro-choice position.
None of which is the sort of thing I characterized as flailing. More like
For that, we get this bizarre whining that somehow I am pretending that being pro-life means I do not comprehend how that position is anti-woman.
I’m having trouble parsing that, but it doesn’t look familiar. And of course
I don’t know what the hell planet you guys are living on, but it sounds like Planet Stupid so far.
Diane,
Faith in Christ Jesus is just that.
At some point in our lives, all human beings created in the image and likeness of God, MUST decide for God, or against God.
The consequences are eternal, either way.
The existence or non-existence of God is the most important question we humans are ever asked to answer.
However, Jesus Christ did leave us many reasons and a rational thought process to come to the Knowledge of Truth, and the opportunity to CHOOSE to believe and follow Christ unto everlasting life through forgiveness of our sins:
For example,
1) We experience the effects of the law of gravity. Though gravity is something we can’t see, we know it exists. We know it functions consistently. It is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. Similar laws govern every aspect of the universe—laws of energy, motion, mass, matter and life itself.
2) Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and professor at Oxford University even admitted: “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, nor foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker”
A growing body of evidence to the contrary is leading more and more scientists to question assumptions popular in scientific circles for years. Although few among them are willing to admit compelling evidence of God’s existence, an increasing number are admitting that everywhere they look they see evidence of a world that gives the appearance of intricate design down to the tiniest details.
3) No wonder the late renowned British astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle, after examining the different settings that regulate our planet and the rest of the universe, marveled: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology [of the universe], and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science, November 1981
4) Our universe works like a giant watch, vast in scale and complexity yet precise in its mechanics. Several decades of space exploration have shown the precision of the universe. It is because of this predictability that NASA can rely on split-second timing when launching men into space and sending spacecraft to explore planets so far away that it sometimes takes years to reach them even at speeds of thousands of miles per hour.
5) Materialism argues for naturalistic abiogenesis —that life arose from nonliving matter through undirected chemical processes.
But that very concept is contrary to one of the most basic of all natural laws—the law of biogenesis. Throughout nature the law of biogenesis is abundantly evident: Life can come only from existing life, just as your life was conceived by living parents. Naturalistic evolutionists argue against the universality of biogenesis but can produce no concrete evidence of natural abiogenesis.
6) A thousand years after King David expressed his awe at these marvels, the apostle Paul told Christians in Rome that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .” (Romans 1:20
7) Theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne, president of Queens College, Cambridge, and a member of Britain’s Royal Society, wrote: “The intellectual beauty of the order discovered by science is consistent with the physical world’s having behind it the mind of the divine Creator . . . The finely tuned balance built into the laws determining the very physical fabric of the universe is consistent with its fruitful history being the expression of divine purpose”
8) Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University, concluded from his intensive study of the cell, the basic building block of life, that such tremendous complexity can be explained only by the existence of an intelligent Designer:
His conclusion: “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent design”
The precision of our universe is not the result of an accident. It is the product of a meticulous Creator and Lawgiver, the universe’s Master Watchmaker.
Just think of how wonderful it is when someone forgives us, or we find it in our hearts to forgive someone else. We can start over again, and not hate or hold onto resentments.
Consider those on this blog who I forgive for their unfounded words toward the Son of the Living God. They are doing the same thing that those who stood at the foot of the Cross did to Jesus Christ, who longs to forgive and HEAL everyone of us, if only we allow him.
“Come down off the Cross if you are the Son of God.”
You see, like many on this blog, they want PROOF FIRST.
But Jesus remained on the Cross and proclaimed to all the world, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
There’s plenty of reasons to believe, but not the ‘absolute’ proof many are looking for before they CHOOSE to believe.
That’s the way it is with the Kingdom of Heaven.
It’s a CHOICE to believe.
Why do many on this blog CHOOSE to ignore the existence of God and organize the world and their lives without reference to, and in opposition to the will of God? Is it in order to justify their unbelief, their moral and ethical relativism, and a life of disobedience to the One in whom we live, move and have our being? If there’s no moral absolutes, as in Jesus Christ, the 10 Commandments, etc. then we can do anything we want, like procure abortions, and call it falsely, “A woman’s right.”
What about the right of the child in her womb?
God Bless you, and as yet, the unbelievers in their own opinions who appoint themselves the center of the universe.
Through God’s gift of LIFE to us on earth, we can experience the marvelous life and existence of God who is infinitely Omniscient.
Fuck off, TM.
#1005: I post the justification Skatje is using. Nothing more. I don’t defend it.
#1008: Paul pompously declares that I am not doing enough to condemn her position and completely misrepresents what I said. He sure does load a lot of shit into my brief comment.
There follows a flurry of nonsense in which various people complain that I didn’t address every word Paul said. No, I didn’t. Because what he said was inane and irrelevant.
#1026: I explain again that no, I am not trying to defend a lack of empathy for women, and I point out that I’ve got more inside info on my daughter’s motivations than you do.
There follows more outrageous protests that I’m “flailing” to suggest that I understand my daughter a little better than you do, various reminders that I have to address all of the comments that she made that you don’t like, etc., etc., etc. It doesn’t seem to matter that I flatly say I disagree with her…somehow I must chastise her! Ferociously! Right now!
So let me repeat myself. Fuck off, TM.
.somehow I must chastise her! Ferociously! Right now!
No one said anything of the sort. You’re flailing.
ah, the old “the lurkers support me in email” defense.
No, I didn’t. I pointed out that your “people have her wrong” was completely fucking wrongheaded if it didn’t actually take into account what people were saying, which it didn’t. If you were trying to say “I don’t agree with Skatje”, say that. But if you’re going to pretend to be correcting what people are saying, you actually need to read their posts and properly represent what they are saying first.
Becca: I’m not saying to give Skatje the benefit of the doubt — argue with her as much as you want. I disagree with her entirely on this.
My comment at #1005 was simply on one matter, that I think she has more empathy for the embryo than is warranted; I agree that she is not thinking it through to empathize with the women. I also think she’s making a serious mistake in trying to justify that by pretending that getting pregnant is a choice that demands that women take unconditional responsibility for the embryo.
That has turned into a shitstorm of people reading far more into my comment than is legitimate. And that’s why I’m telling TM to FUCK OFF. Again.
Yep, bad and illogical choice. No conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or your fictional/mythical babble. What a loser…
No, I didn’t. I pointed out that your “people have her wrong” was completely fucking wrongheaded if it didn’t actually take into account what people were saying, which it didn’t. If you were trying to say “I don’t agree with Skatje”, say that. But if you’re going to correct what people are saying, you actually need to read their posts and properly represent what they are saying first. All you’ve done so far is pretend to contradict people, so that maybe people who aren’t paying attention will buy what you’re saying. That’s deceptive, and rather pathetic. Someone reading only your posts would have no honest idea of what the people you’re responding to have said.
This thread has gone in the most uncomfortable direction. It can only end badly when people are discussing other people’s family members with those people’s family members. No, I’m not referring to those debating Skatje’s position, or saying that’s invalid. I’m referring to how this has devolved into a meta-discussion with PZ about his daughter. There are no “good” positions to be in in such a conversation. Not for PZ, and not for commenters here.
May this be the last time I ever say anything even remotely tone trollish, but this is most uncomfortable, and I hope it stops.
Phil @ 1095, the adults are talking, so fuck off somewhere else. Your preachin’ and moanin’ isn’t appreciated here.
You can fuck off, too, Paul. I was quite right to say that people have her wrong: you do.
That has turned into a shitstorm of people reading far more into my comment than is legitimate.
Not at all. You wrote “People have her all wrong. If anything, it’s an excess of empathy.” But people have addressed that and said exactly what it is they mean — for instance, my
In response you have attacked people harshly without paying much attention to what they have actually said. Becca asked
But can you also give us that, at least by her words here an excess of empathy was not in evidence?
So, can you?
I don’t doubt there are plenty of things I don’t know about your daughter (almost everything, as a matter of fact). But the fact that I’m more accurately representing her presence in this thread should give you pause if you were trying for any sort of honesty here. Not to mention the way you’ve dishonestly framed any participant that is not you or Skatje.
Framing! It’s not just for Nisbet and Mooney anymore!
My feeling is that it’s unfair to continue to criticize Skatje when she’s clearly left the thread. She’s made her statement, agree or disagree. If she wants to come back and argue more, great, maybe she’ll learn something or change her position (or maybe we will) but what are we accomplishing by talking “behind her back”?
Let’s do something fun like all jumping on phil instead.
Josh, OSG:
Me too. I’ve been discussing other aspects, such as how things would be if it were men who got pregnant. Even though that’s some serious topic drift too.
Compelling evidence? There is no evidence of gawd’s existence. None. Zero.
Try peddling your nonsense somewhere else, it ain’t sellin’ here.
compelling evidence of God’s existence
But…if there’s evidence then faith is meaningless and god doesn’t exist. That just about wraps it up for god.
It can only end badly
Which is why I suggested that PZ leave it alone — however, it was foolish of me not to anticipate how he would react to that — it was quite natural. And fully recognizing that now, I will now leave it alone.
Actual, active criticism of Skatje ended not too long after she left the thread. The more recent shitstorm has been defending the original criticism against people saying “you shouldn’t be mean, she’s a teenager!” or “you don’t know her like I do”. At least I have no interest in beating any drums. I don’t greatly care that someone has an opposing opinion on the internet. I do have an interest in defending any comments I have made thus far as legitimate (or if it is not, requiring fair argument on the point instead of a strawman), and that’s as far as it goes.
I guess I pretty much expect a parent to be protective of his child in this situation, including, um, flailingly, even if he believes she can fight her own battles. That appears to be what’s going on.
***
By the way:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/3/471
“Homicide: A Leading Cause of Injury Deaths Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the United States, 1991–1999.”
And with that, I’ll take everyone else’s lead and leave it alone.
Fuck off, Paul. For someone who doesn’t care about opposing opinions on the internet, you have invested a great deal of persistent effort in misrepresenting me. I have not been trying to claim that what my daughter has said is not what she said; I have said repeatedly that I disagree with it, and now I’ve said it so many times that I’m ready to tell anyone who persists in claiming that I’m somehow trying to whitewash her remarks to just fuck off. So do so.
And if you’re so thick that you now say,
I will repeat: READ THE ARTICLE WAY UP TOP. YOU KNOW, THE ONE I WROTE. Isn’t it kind of a little bit clear that I don’t agree? What is your problem that you can’t clearly see that I don’t agree with my daughter on this topic?
Again, it seems that my words weren’t little enough. I don’t agree with Skatje.
Now fuck off.
Classy.
TM@1106 – PZ did give me what I asked for, in his post at 1100. I’m satisfied.
That ain’t you…Ergo, your opinion is meaningless.
“Homicide: A Leading Cause of Injury Deaths Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the United States, 1991–1999.”
Wow. That is something I’ve never considered. There is so much violence toward women that people are not aware of.
Caine,
This anti-abortion movement did not just coincidentally arise after successes of feminism. That’s backlash. Women have gained further independence since then, so it’s become necessary to fall back on that most reliable of methods to making women dependent again: get them pregnant.
But if men got pregnant, there would never be such backlash as you saw since the 80s, because there has never been a need for a men’s rights movement, since men’s rights have always been natural and obvious and taken for granted.
Tell-tale sign of an obsessed troll: they announce they’re leaving. Then they don’t.
Paul @ 1117:
As if you’re ever classy. Do us all a favour and take your assholism elsewhere.
If you’re referring to me, I didn’t announce that I was leaving, I said that I was going to leave “it” — meaning our dispute/engagement/whatever — alone. On being obsessed — I’ve never denied it. On that other word — well, I’ll leave it alone.
strange gods before me:
Right, I understand that. I still think if everything changed, and men could get pregnant that there would, eventually, be an issue over abortion rights. However, I don’t think any anti-abortion movement against males would ever be able to gain real traction.
I said I was dropping the subject, not leaving the blog. Of course, then you decide to continue the misrepresentation on the Endless Thread. Real jackass move there.
P.S. I realize that responding to that bait at all is not leaving it alone. At least I managed not to comment on the first half of SC’s post. Oops, there I go doing it again.
Comments like #1103 are why Josh was on my Molly list this month. Considering his insight, I’m not going to say anything else about Skatje unless she’s here on Pharyngula and I’m speaking to her directly.
PZ, close the thread. This had gotten ridiculous – time to exercise your squidly authority. It’s rapidly approaching what my spouse says about why public hearings are so excruciating: Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it.
Where would it come from? In our world, it came from the Abrahamic religions. But the Abrahamic religions were historically A-OK with abortion until the late 1800s and early 1900s. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this was the period of first wave feminism.
Why would religions, which are almost invariably patriarchal, suddenly turn against the patriarchy? I don’t think Florynce Kennedy was using hyperbole. There’s a very real likelihood that abortion would be a sacrament, since it would function to increase men’s power.
strange gods before me:
Great point. I agree.
OK, TM, shut up and read. I will point out that you said in #1106,
I will point out that in #1100, I wrote:
It’s exactly what you asked for, at rather greater length. I spelled it right out.
Curious thing, though: #1100 was posted before your request. Maybe you missed it.
Why, no…because you partially quoted my comment from #1100 in your comment at #1106. It was sitting there in front of your face, and you went ahead and made your stupid demand.
You aren’t bothering to read what I write at all, are you?
So for the last time: fuck off. I’m getting extremely fed up with your constant misrepresentations, “Truth” Machine.
Well! Time to close the thread, then. ;)
Diane,
Sorry, I should have made the point more clear.
The evidence in my post for the existence of God needs to be clarified as ‘compelling evidence’ because Faith is still required for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.
God allows compelling evidence to support and lead to each person’s act of Faith, as in, “Peter, who do YOU say that I am?”
Compelling evidence is not the same as absolute proof. Hope that helps.
Of the two thiefs on their cross next to God, one said “Yes”, and the other said “No”
God requires a yes or no from all who have been called forth from our lamentable wretchedness and nothingness into existence.
Science attempts to discover the truth about matter that already exists.
God creates matter out of NOTHING!
Please think of the spiritual darkness evident when a person chooses not to even consider reading and contemplating Holy Scripture or chooses not to ask Jesus Christ for the gift of Faith.
For me as well as for everyone, “If the light that is within you is darkness, how very dark will the darkness be.”
God Bless your choices.
Phil
Don’t know if I will make it back,
too many sins to atone for,
too many prayers to pray,
too many souls to HELP save.
So long. Hope and will pray to see you in eternity.
There’s no way to make your point clear, Phil, because you have none. You’re a lunatic, and we don’t take kindly to preaching here. Go away.
But if men could get pregnant, wouldn’t they be the ‘women’?
No it’s not, and you have neither.
In fact, your gawd looks a lot like made-up stuff. Indeed, the claims you make are preposterous.
Where’s heaven? The folks who made this crap up thought the night sky was a bowl over the Earth, with little holes in it to let the light of heaven twinkle through. Heaven and gawd exist on the other side of the bowl of the night sky.
We have since proven otherwise. Absolutely.
Not if they still had the edge in physical strength, which is the root of one sex’s control of the other.
@1134: Doesn’t anyone read the classics any more? My comment was a clear literary reference.