Fundie stuff I do not get

[Wolfie]

I'm not sure that's what they mean. If a mother's life is truly in danger, then yes, as I already said, I would support the termination of the pregnancy, as they would also:

"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim."

ETA: Also, why do you put doctors in quotes?

ETA: Never mind, I just saw what you wrote above.

No, they really do mean just what they say. That even if a woman's life is in danger they are not allowed to terminate the pregnancy. There have been issues with this in Catholic hospitals.

[emmiedahl]

I read their statement, and they advocate letting ectopic pregnancies go until the last minute (when a woman could have life threatening complications) rather than dealing with it right away. The baby dies either way, the difference is the impact on the mother's health. What they advocate is a risk to the mother's life according to all current obstetric knowledge and even malpractice. I would be within my legal and moral rights to sue a doctor who treated me with this kind of disregard for withholding medical care. I can't imagine what their malpractice insurance rates are.

Pro-life indeed. No wonder they cannot get even 1% of doctors to add themselves to the directory.

[emmiedahl]

ITOG, how do you explain this:

Some physicians who consider themselves pro-life and claim to be against abortion make exceptions when it comes to the health of the mother, and so are excluded from the APP. They claim sympathy with a woman who is suffering from an illness or a disease and wish abortion to remain a legal alternative in such circumstances. We hope to educate and admonish these physicians that intentionally ending the life of an innocent human being should never be an acceptable alternative, even of a tiny human being whose mother is suffering from an illness or disease that would resolve or improve with an abortion.

http://prolifephysicians.org/doclisted.htm

[itsthatonegirl]

How about scientific sources? Does anything scientific suggest that the baby *is* a full human life? I would say the burden of proof lies on the side trying to take away rights (your side, that is).

Evidence that God is Okay with Abortion:

1. Abortion is prescribed BY GOD'S LAW as a punishment/test for unfaithful wives: The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

2. The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old: And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

3. The Bible does not count fetuses as people: Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

4. God sometimes approves of killing fetuses. Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

5. By Jewish law, if you harm a person, you get the "eye for an eye" treatment. If you cause a woman to miscarry or harm a fetus, you pay a fine. --Exodus 21

There are many other passages in which it is ordered by GOD that a fetus not be treated by law like a baby. But you know better than God, right?

1. This verse says nothing about her being pregnant.

2. and 3. When I read these verses, my guess is that babies under a month died frequently during these times, and therefore were not counted in censuses? Just my hypothesis.

4. This verse, read in context, is obviously including children along with all other people.

5. This one only talks about paying a fine if no harm comes. "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

[itsthatonegirl]

ITOG, how do you explain this:

http://prolifephysicians.org/doclisted.htm

Yes, I can agree with them. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[emmiedahl]

1. Please read in context. It is the punishment for a woman who is believed to be pregnant with another man's baby.

2 and 3. Babies did die; nonetheless, the Bible clearly in these cases does not consider them people. Yet you do. Again: the Bible doesn't, but you do.

4. No, it obviously excludes infants less than a month of age. It explicitly includes them.

5. In some translations (including, I believe, the original Hebrew), this verse implies that the baby dies from its premature death (no NICU back then) and that the mother is the one unharmed. So if you cause the death of a fetus, you get a fine; if you cause harm to the mother, there is a much stiffer penalty.

[emmiedahl]

Yes, I can agree with them. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

So you agree that the mother's life can be put at risk for a nonviable pregnancy. Then you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice.

[Renting with Raggles]

She's not as crazy as the catholic-who-smiles-at-gay-people or the libertarian fundies who want to force Tiny Tim's mother to give birth and then throw him in the workhouse.

Look here, itog, there may be some hope for you. You are wondering where you can get evidence as to when life begins, right? There is a community of people that examine issues related to the physical world using a methodology that is as bias-free and dispassionate as it is possible to be when there are human beings involved. They are called scientists, and they use methods which systematically make predictions, test and confirm ideas about the human body. When enough tests show the same, non-conflicting results, they reach what is known as consensus. This is one of the best resources we have for determining 'truth'. If you have some scientists that reject the body of evidence, their findings should not be immediately dismissed but subject to further scrutiny (that's how science keeps from becoming ossified and outdated - pretty neat, eh?). Of course, you can't go about using some science to support your claims while rejecting other discoveries made using the same process of prediction, testing and re-testing.

What criteria are the pro-life doctors using to define life? Why does this differ from the rest of the medical community? Are they making conjectures about a 'soul' forming at conception? Are they using definitions of life (unique DNA, independent growth) that could equally be applied to something like cancer? Is their definition full of contradictions and loopholes - the only women who can have abortions are Catholic politician's wives like Mrs Rick Santorum? Once they have a reliable, testable definition you can use it to conduct actual experiments to confirm predictions based on it. This is the sort of examination that the pro-life physicians need to address (using scientific method, not bible verses or or metaphysical constructs such as the soul) to be considered by the mainstream body of medical scientists.

[Witsec7]

... The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Nothing wrong with you drawing this line for yourself. What gives you the right/superiority to enforce your values upon others?

[itsthatonegirl]

1. Please read in context. It is the punishment for a woman who is believed to be pregnant with another man's baby.

2 and 3. Babies did die; nonetheless, the Bible clearly in these cases does not consider them people. Yet you do. Again: the Bible doesn't, but you do.

4. No, it obviously excludes infants less than a month of age. It explicitly includes them.

5. In some translations (including, I believe, the original Hebrew), this verse implies that the baby dies from its premature death (no NICU back then) and that the mother is the one unharmed. So if you cause the death of a fetus, you get a fine; if you cause harm to the mother, there is a much stiffer penalty.

1. I did read it in context. It didn't say that.

2 and 3. Nothing convinces me that the newborns aren't being counted because they aren't people. And anyway, if that is your logic then I guess we can all kill three-week-old babies.

4. If 2 and 3 don't convince me, neither will 4.

5. I checked several versions on biblegateway.com... some did imply what you are saying, others did not. I do not know Hebrew so I cannot verify that. But even if it does imply what you are saying, it's still clear that there should be a punishment for harming a fetus.

[Witsec7]

Nothing wrong with you drawing this line for yourself. What gives you the right/superiority to enforce your values upon others?

repeating the post waiting for an answer

[emmiedahl]

Nothing wrong with you drawing this line for yourself. What gives you the right/superiority to enforce your values upon others?

And that's the thing. She has no scientific basis and only the sketchiest theological basis for her beliefs, but she wants to make me live by them.

1. I did read it in context. It didn't say that.

2 and 3. Nothing convinces me that the newborns aren't being counted because they aren't people. And anyway, if that is your logic then I guess we can all kill three-week-old babies.

4. If 2 and 3 don't convince me, neither will 4.

5. I checked several versions on biblegateway.com... some did imply what you are saying, others did not. I do not know Hebrew so I cannot verify that. But even if it does imply what you are saying, it's still clear that there should be a punishment for harming a fetus.

In context, 1 does say that. In 2, 3 and 4, I don't really care why they aren't counted as people. They aren't. That's the point. You aren't trying to force religion on people (which is bad enough) but rather extra-Biblical beliefs with no scientific grounding. And as for #5, my Hebrew translation DOES imply it. I was using the cut-and-paste from the first translation I found on the net.

Should a man who forces a woman to miscarry a wanted fetus be punished? That's a completely different issue than whether a woman should be able to abort. In this case, the fetus is being treated like property of the parents, not a child. You can destroy your own property, but you have to pay damages when you destroy someone else's.

[itsthatonegirl]

She's not as crazy as the catholic-who-smiles-at-gay-people or the libertarian fundies who want to force Tiny Tim's mother to give birth and then throw him in the workhouse.

Look here, itog, there may be some hope for you. You are wondering where you can get evidence as to when life begins, right? There is a community of people that examine issues related to the physical world using a methodology that is as bias-free and dispassionate as it is possible to be when there are human beings involved. They are called scientists, and they use methods which systematically make predictions, test and confirm ideas about the human body. When enough tests show the same, non-conflicting results, they reach what is known as consensus. This is one of the best resources we have for determining 'truth'. If you have some scientists that reject the body of evidence, their findings should not be immediately dismissed but subject to further scrutiny (that's how science keeps from becoming ossified and outdated - pretty neat, eh?). Of course, you can't go about using some science to support your claims while rejecting other discoveries made using the same process of prediction, testing and re-testing.

What criteria are the pro-life doctors using to define life? Why does this differ from the rest of the medical community? Are they making conjectures about a 'soul' forming at conception? Are they using definitions of life (unique DNA, independent growth) that could equally be applied to something like cancer? Is their definition full of contradictions and loopholes - the only women who can have abortions are Catholic politician's wives like Mrs Rick Santorum? Once they have a reliable, testable definition you can use it to conduct actual experiments to confirm predictions based on it. This is the sort of examination that the pro-life physicians need to address (using scientific method, not bible verses or or metaphysical constructs such as the soul) to be considered by the mainstream body of medical scientists.

So at what point do you think the scientists will say life begins?

[Witsec7]

repeating the post waiting for an answer

still waiting

[Witsec7]

...

So at what point do you think the scientists will say life begins?

Stop with the diversion already.

[itsthatonegirl]

That is fine. You want nothing more than to be negative with me, anyway. Why don't we both put each other on ignore.

ETA: Why are you talking to me? It will only turn into more negativity and name-calling.

[Witsec7]

still waiting

I'm calling it a game set and match for the elder at this point. Its apparent its cannot support the positions she posits or directly respond to questions without diversion. My expectations have been met. Yet another fundy who merely comes for some attention and refuses ordered discourse. Its not like she's the first, nor is it her first try at attention whoring. She is a rather successful attention whore.I'll give her that much.

[emmiedahl]

So at what point do you think the scientists will say life begins?

I am actually very interested in this. When does life begin... it's one of those eternal questions. It is not even as important as: when do you become a human, with human rights? I mean, we kill living things all the time; humanity, the state of being human is what matters. The Bible seems to see humanity as beginning at 1 month of age, but you would have to kill me first to get to my newborns.

I don't know what scientists would say if they looked into it in depth. The scientists I know are all pro-choice, but they are not experts on embryology. I don't know, but I am interested. Many doctors compare a fetus to a parasite, and it indeed behaves just like one. When it is born, when it leaves the mother's body alive, it stops being a parasite and takes on a new existence. Different food source, different oxygen source, different levels of sensation, different brain activity, even the hemoglobin changes. The body changes dramatically on a cellular level at birth. The fetus moves from being a parasite, dependent on a host for everything, to a separate being. It's interesting and kind of magical.

There are no easy answers, which is why it is important to me that women get to decide for themselves.

[itsthatonegirl]

Thank you for your honest and well thought out answers, Emmie.

ETA: signing off to get some sleep!

[Renting with Raggles]

So at what point do you think the scientists will say life begins?

What do you mean will say? The stages of development of life have been pretty clearly delineated since the early 60s: let's say a few years later, legally, with Roe v Wade in your country.

You obviously haven't even studied the definition you are trying to challenge. Science doesn't work that way - you have to have a clear understanding of what you would attempt to dismantle.

My expectations have been met. Yet another fundy who merely comes for some attention and refuses ordered discourse.

Pretty much. Still, at least she's not a libertarian, so that's something. /lookingonbrightside

[Guest Anonymous]

Lissar, there is no reason for you to be so filled with negativity towards me, to the point of having to call me an attention whore. I mean, really? I'm the one who needs to grow up? And why are you the expert on who I am? You have never even met me. IRL I could be the friendliest gal you ever come across. I have never given you a reason to have such animosity towards me. I understand that I don't have viewpoints that match yours, but so what. The fact that you use that as an excuse to treat me hatefully only makes you just as narrow-minded and judgmental as the fundies you despise.

There are loads of reasons for me to behave negatively towards you. I don't claim to be an expert on who you are in real life - heaven forfend. I react solely to what you have written on this forum. Maybe this will clear up any confusion about why I don't want to be besties with you.

1.) You're willfully stupid. I don't enjoy stupid people.

2.) You want to force me to live by your ignorant, twisted, and harmful religious beliefs.

3.) You're dishonest. (Regardless of your howling to the contrary, anyone can read this thread and see that if they've got the reading comprehension of a fifth grader.)

4.) You're a hypocrite. (I particularly liked when you said that you took government help but you think it should be privatized and no one would starve if it was done away with.)

5.) You're so fucking evasive that you won't answer a question.**

6.) You're an attention whore.

7.) You infantilize yourself. You come across more like a teenager who is new to the internet than a grown woman with children.

8.) You intend to "encourage" your daughters to be homemakers instead of encouraging them to find their unique talents and passions and make the most of them. That's a shitty thing to do to a kid.

9.) You hit your kids.

**I asked you all of these questions (with no cursing involved) on page 2 of this thread. You didn't answer any of them.

What exactly do you think the communists and socialists are going to do to you? Move you out to one of those communes they have all over the place? Put you up against the wall come the revolution? Do you think that's imminent? How many communists have you ever met in person? Have you ever checked out their website to see what their goals are and how they hope to accomplish them? Or are you just afraid of a word while having no understanding of what it means?

I didn't start out this conversation cursing at you. Your complete inability to reason and your constant backtracking when you find you've talked yourself into a corner frustrates me. You refuse to admit that you're wrong even when your fail is so enormous that it can be seen from space. Somewhere deep inside of you I think there might be a kernal of a person who could get a clue, but you choose to throw it in a dark box and padlock the damn thing closed.

And the difference between me and you (and other fundies) is that I don't give a fuck what you do with your reproductive organs and I'm not trying to control you. Have an abortion. Have ten kids. Use the pill, get a shot, never use any contraception at all. It's up to you and I won't try to stop you or vote for politicians who would try to stop you. I'm not trying to run anybody's life but mine, I'm just kicking around the internet.

Saying mean things on a forum where the rules state that people will say mean things is in no way equivalent to taking away someone's personal freedom. If you don't like it here you can shut the window and never come back. If you and people like you succeed in making abortion illegal, that's going to affect my life no matter what. Please for the love of dogs tell me you understand the difference.

[formergothardite]

http://catholicexchange.com/2008/02/01/90528/

This is a link to explain the view on prosecuting the doctors only. They explain it much better than I could.

This has to be one of the lamest things I have read in a long time. And it shows that no matter what you are saying, you don't really believe a fetus is a real baby. Because if you did, you would have no qualms in prosecuting the mother too. Heck, I'll admit that if I thought a fetus was a baby I would want the mother prosecuted. There is no excuse for hiring someone to kill a baby none. And the fact that you are trying to say that a fetus is a baby but then at the same time justifying not prosecuting women who hire someone to kill what you say is a baby is deplorable. You have horrible morals. That you can sit here and say that a fetus is a baby and then the next line want to defend people who take part in killing said babies is just awful.

I bet you and the Catholic church wouldn't even pause to debate this if it involved a two month old or even a two day old.

[formergothardite]

Crazy Jericho was right about one thing. If you are arguing that abortion kills a baby but then at the same time don't want to prosecute women for assisting in the murder of their child, your whole "it is a life being killed" argument falls apart.

[JesusFightClub]

Crazy Jericho was right about one thing. If you are arguing that abortion kills a baby but then at the same time don't want to prosecute women for assisting in the murder of their child, your whole "it is a life being killed" argument falls apart.

Yes, this: it makes no moral, legislative or ethical sense to simultaneously argue that abortion is murder and that women obtaining abortions should not face the legal penalty for murder.

I am the extreme opposite end of the argument from you, ITOG (and indeed many posters here). It is that I am very pro choice, do not accept that a woman should be forbidden to abort for any reason (even "can't squeeze into my best dress" and all the other mostly made up fundy caricatures) or at any time, and agree with Peter Singer that the distinction between "born" and "not yet born" is arbitrary and invalid. So I am not typical even of prochoice FJists.

This is why I am saying to you, ITOG, abortion and the ethics surrounding it = a matter of the highest importance for logical consistency. If you believe Treemom killed a disabled baby, and you believe killing babies is always wrong (an assumption I don't share, but we will set that aside) you believe she murdered, with malice aforethought and full understanding of her crime, a disabled person. That is a very serious allegation indeed. There's not going to be "a fine" or "community service" for that in Gilead, is there? And it is utterly disingenous to pretend there would be.

Unless, whisper it, foetuses and people aren't precisely the same...

[formergothardite]

It just makes no logical sense to say a fetus is a baby and then not treat an abortion like a murder. None at all. The only justification for it is if you don't really think a fetus is a baby but don't want to admit it.

And the whole "they didn't know what they were doing" argument falls flat too. I can't hire someone to kill my children and then claim that I didn't realize that they were really children, that I had been told they didn't turn into children until they were older and get off with it.

Or even the other excuse from that website, that it doesn't make sense to punish the woman because the child is already dead doesn't hold up either. Unless you are going to change all the laws to say that if people hire someone to kill another person they can't be prosecuted, you are admitting that a fetus isn't a real life.

So ITOG, using your own words, tell us why if a fetus is a baby, the mother shouldn't be prosecuted for assisting in murder.