Thursday The New York Times published two stories. Their common theme? Killing and death.
The first story: “To Reduce Suicide Rates, New Focus Turns to Guns.” Death by guns, (sometimes known as “gun-inflicted deaths”) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest figures (2010), number some 30,000, of which 20,000 are suicides. The remainder include accidental deaths and those killed by law enforcement officers.
[No proposal to disarm the police has been forthcoming.]
The second story: “Kansas Abortion Practice Set to Replace Tiller Clinic.” The clinic’s original practitioner, George Tiller, was shot and killed in 2009 by an antiabortion activist. (Tiller was infamous for his shoddy and illegal late-term abortion practice that killed tens of thousands, more than half the people in his care.)
Although abortion statistics are routinely suspect, with several states – notably California – withholding the information from the CDCP, the certainly low estimates are nearly 1.25 million abortions for 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available.
[The U.S. has the highest abortion rate (19.4 per 1,000) of any western industrialized nation.]
|
|
|||
Let’s do the math, since those of a socialist mindset refuse.
Death by guns: 2.4% of the 100% deliberate deaths inflicted by mothers on their children through abortion.
As of a study of the CDC stats of 2003, errors and mistakes in hospital setting accounted for more deaths than any other ‘disease’… including heart and cancer! Over 800,000 per year!
Could it be true what the stats show, that even ladders cause more deaths than guns?!
On the bright side, my guns have not caused any deaths recently… especially since we instituted our new training program for them:
“… every other morning we require them to get up at 4 AM, at which time we take them outside, explain to them the dangers they possess and that they are never to go off half cocked and hurt or kill anybody. This is followed by a spanking for good measure, on the butt or the barrel, after which we put them back to bed again!”
My family thinks our old house here in remote Massachusetts has been kinda scary for reasons I’ve yet to fathom. But, the day our guns go n’ get up and kill anybody like all those the news keeps talking about, whoa, we’re outta there!
1.Keep the guv’ment away from controlling guns because personal freedom.
2.Put the government in charge of women’s reproductive organs.
Ah, conservative logic, where gun ownership is a protected right, and bodily autonomy for women isn’t.
1. The word “guv’ment” and the omission of a preposition between the words “because” and “personal” evoke an image of ignorance by the bad grammar you’ve invented. The obvious intent is to sidestep the issue of rulers who consider themselves above the law and are intentionally laying the foundation for a police state by viciously and irrationally ridiculing your ideological opponent, “Arbourist.”
2. No one has ever even proposed putting the government in charge of women’s reproductive organs, except your friends, the Chinese. The argument that preventing women from killing their children is “controlling their reproductive rights” is a direct relative of the argument that slavery is based on the rights of agriculture or that the holocaust was a matter of German self defense.
But expecting someone who justifies the assembly-line extermination of millions of innocent human beings to suddenly embrace reason might be expecting a bit much.
Aborouist,
Been thinking you’d be more comfortable in the 905 & 416, rather than freedom loving western Canada … I am reminded of a young woman who left Ontario, chucking her expensive degree, to ride the range as a ranch hand and shoots gophers for recreation… She exults in good health and having left the stressful pressure cooker of liberal central.
@Roberta
I like the role as embattled progressive here in the western conservative hinterland. It is magical, I can have a lively debate wherever I go, almost instantaneously. :)
@ Doug Parish
The intent was to make fun of hackneyed, crummy arguments.
And do you honestly believe that owning a gun is going to stop any sort of totalitarian takeover (hint:the corporcratic coup has already happened and it was lavishly successful.)?
Good, as I know you love your freedom and your rights, I’m happy to see your position is consistent when it comes to women.
Wow, Nazis! Hitler! The Holocaust! – Channeling Glen Beck’s Nazi Tourettes Syndrome? Perhaps a little less bluster and little more fact would help your argument make sense. Please argue against the actual position as opposed to the ones that you make up.
1. Women possess full bodily autonomy.
2. The uterus is a part of women.
C. Therefore, as pregnancy is use of her facilities/resources – she decides whether to be pregnant or not.
Wow, during the time it took to read your comments about 21 children, mostly from preventable causes,died. I’m thinking we should probably get a handle on saving those children first, rather than adding more to number of children dying per minute; limited resources and what not.
Unless of course your objection is not about “saving life” and more about disciplining those uppity women and their rights.
“Arbourist” says, “The intent was to make fun of hackneyed, crummy arguments.”
The problem is that you made up the arguments and pretended they were your opponents’. It’s called the “straw man” and it is not just irrational, it is a form of false accusation.
“Arbourist” says, “… do you honestly believe that owning a gun is going to stop any sort of totalitarian takeover…?”
Irrelevant. The point is that the socialists you support are totalitarians, rule illegally and THEY think that an armed citizenry is an impediment to their power. They always have. Disarming the population is a consistent theme of totalitarian governments and historically effective. But we do not need to know whether or not it is effective. All we need to know is that it is evil.
“Arbourist” says, “the corporcratic coup has already happened and it was lavishly successful.”
“corporcratic” is a good synonym for fascism. Communism is 100% Government ownership and control while Fascism is mixed: private ownership and government control. All liberals fall somewhere between those two. The takeover is not complete, but it IS progressive. You empower them.
“Arbourist” says, “Perhaps a little less bluster and little more fact…” and “Please argue against the actual position …”
To the contrary, “bluster” is making up false dialects and putting them in the mouths of your opponents. “bluster” is intentionally misconstruing the point of simile for sensationalism. You are well aware that I am not bringing up the holocaust or slavery for emotional gravitas but rather because they have the identical argument as the “pro-choicer;” the same rationale, just different choices. “We can enslave because blacks have no human rights.”=”We can round up Jews because they have no human rights.”=”We can torture and murder unwanted prenatal children because they have no human rights.” If the argument for abortion was rational, slavery and the holocaust would also be acceptable. It is the same movement in different cultural circumstances.
“Arbourist” says, “1. Women possess full bodily autonomy.”
No, all human beings posess only limited bodily autonomy. No one has the autonomy to use any part of their body to kill other people for instance.
“Arbourist” says, “2. The uterus is a part of women.”
Of course.
“Arbourist” says, “C. Therefore, as pregnancy is use of her facilities/resources – she decides whether to be pregnant or not”.
When she decides to have sexual intercourse, she has made her choice. She is responsible for the consequences. People who run red lights cannot later claim “I have the full right to travel” as an excuse for a collision that ensues. You can’t kill people to cover up your mistakes. Or even to cover up other people’s mistakes. Or even as a method of eviction.
Landlords who evict tenants do not have the right to exterminate them as a method and if they found that those tenants had abandoned the dwelling, in arrears on rent, leaving children behind, they would inherit a responsibility to take reasonable measures for the children’s welfare, not dismember them, slowly dissolve them with acidic fluid over an 18 hour period, puncture them at the base of their skull to scoop out their brains, living, conscious, defenseless; or throw them, living, struggling for breath, into a bag of bleach, smother them with wet towels on stainless steel tables or abandon them to thirst as do the benefactors of “Arbourist’s” argument.
And you misspelled my name to boot.
@Doug Parris (apologies for the error on my part)
Okay, lets look at this. First, Mr. Parris you say this:
And this is something we can agree on. And that is a good thing. But, once off the hobbyhorse of pointing out supposed strawmen in my arguments. We get this:
The point is that the socialists you support are totalitarians…[...]
How the frack do you know? How do you know which socialist regimes I support or do not? Or is broadly painting your opponents with what you consider to be odious ideology a regular part of your argumentative “style”.
Mr.Parris, you seem to make the right noises when it comes to pointing out others errors in argumentation, but rarely, as evinced in your posts so far, apply those same standard to yourself.
“Arbourist” says, “But, once off the hobbyhorse of pointing out supposed strawmen in my arguments. We get this: ‘The point is that the socialists you support are totalitarians’
How the frack do you know?”
1. By reading your blog
2. By reading your comments, here.
3. By watching the political behavior of the abortuary industry that feeds, politically, on your advocacy.
“Arbourist” says, “How do you know which socialist regimes I support or do not?”
Your support for socialism as a proposition, as a philosophy, supports all collectivist initiative. Two examples:
1. “Arbourist” says, “during the time it took to read your comments about 21 children, mostly from preventable causes,died. I’m thinking we should probably get a handle on saving those children…” You express, here, a collective responsibility (“we”) for the economic needs of the individual. The proposition “from each according to ability, to each according to need” is Socialism in a nutshell. Your assertion covers the second half – it suggests that the government’s role is not Law, but economic benefit. Would you support the sincere efforts of a government to prevent a ‘preventable cause,’ by providing free health care to needy people? I think so. I don’t need to know specifically where in the world such a debate is under way.
2. You openly pronounce, “I like the role as embattled progressive here in the western conservative hinterland.” The word “progressive” is the latest iteration of “liberal.” It is a mindset that supports the socialist philosophy piecemeal. In some people this is clever and evasive, in others it may be the unconscious inability to diagnose the philosophical underpinnings of their “feelings,” but it consistently exalts the ideals of government economic role and “progressive” taxation.
“Arbourist” says,
“Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”
This is a description, not a definition, but not bad. Let me make minor corrections.
“Fascism is a governmental system of totalitarian control, but allowing some private ownership and economic management, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.”
What a government “emphasizes” is marketing, what it does, by force, is its essence.
Now let’s entertain a similar definition of Communism.
“Communism is a governmental system of totalitarian control, allowing no private ownership or economic management, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.” Communism is FULL Socialism, where the “fairness” of progressive redistribution of wealth is total having eradicated all private ownership and control.
Both Communism and Fascism are evil, but the economic structures of Fascism (“corporcrat-ism” as you call it) are more efficient. Both are socialist. To whatever degree socialism exists it is counterproductive and evil.
“Arbourist” says, “…none of the groups in question [blacks under slavery, Jews under Nazis] except for the fetus is inside a woman and using her resources for their benefit.”
Irrelevant. It was, in fact, the abrogation of the rights of the victims in each instance that was referenced in my argument and ignored in your parody of it. You ignore the rights of the people whose murder you are advocating. You and your fellow travelers in the advocacy of a woman’s right to kill her children are joining a storied tradition of the collective abrogation of rights to a specific group.
“Arbourist” says, “Funny… soldiers… indiscriminately kill people…”
The indiscriminate killing of people is always wrong.
“Arbourist” says, “…not supporting legislation that restricts guns is completely consistent with the ‘pro-life’ …position.”
Disarming innocent citizens has nothing to do with preventing a war, nothing to do with disarming soldiers, and, in fact, has everything to do with socialism, increasing crime and implementing a police state
“Arbourist” says, “…(forced birth)…”
Nature “forces” birth, much as it does breathing and digestion. We only advocate laws that prevent murder.
“Arbourist” says, “… a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy does not change after having sex…”
A woman has no right to murder innocent human beings before or after sex.
“Arbourist” says, “… the full range or reproductive care…”
Killing children is not reproductive care. It is genocide.
“Arbourist” says, “…she is the best person to decide what is right for her body and her family.”
…until she decides to kill a family member.
“Arbourist” says, “…when landlords and tenants share the same body and resources”
Landlords and tenants DO share the same resources. Pregnant mothers do NOT “share” their child’s body. Women do not have two hearts, four legs or twenty fingers.
“Arbourist” says, “…anyone has the final say on how the resources of their body are used…”
Until they try to murder someone.
“Arbourist” says, “Mr.Fetus, who is going to die without access to use of my body, does not have the right to use them I[f] I do not consent to their use.”
Yes, Mr. Fetus does. You weren’t listening during the Landlord analogy and you don’t know much about biology.
1. Parents, both of them, are responsible for the welfare of their children even if they don’t like spending the money on stuff like food and clothing.
2. Even people who aren’t parents, like landlords, but are found with children involuntarily in their custody, are reasonably responsible for the welfare of the child until proper custody can be established.
3. Mr. Fetus is not necessarily going to die without the use of “your” body. He is an individual human being at conception, capable of life outside the womb, but is, like all children subject to the will of responsible adults to provide the needs we all have, shelter and nutrition. I have a nephew, who, once evicted involuntarily from the womb (by nature) weighing less than one pound, is alive several decades later.
4. The right to life of innocent human beings supersedes any property right to “your resources” and all rights to your “use” of your body.
“Arbourist” says, “…do not have access to my body, then neither does the fetus.”
If the fetus did not have access to “your” body, it would not be inside “your” body. But it is not there by its own willful act.
“Arbourist” says, “… when you are prepared to make a list of which organs of yours the state has legislative power over…”
The state has legislative power over all functions of the human body capable of lethal acts, principally things like fingers that pull triggers and arms that wield knives or surgical instruments, but also fingers that sign contracts for others to do the killing. It is not the instrument, but the act. Legitimate laws do not legislate against guns or fingers or wombs, but against immoral public acts of responsible people, like murder and theft.
“Arbourist” says, “….the power to coerce you into certain actions”
There is no coerced action indicated at all. It is you who torture logic. Forcing people not to commit murders isn’t coercing them to act it is forcing them NOT to act, specifically, not to kill innocent people. That’s what ALL legitimate laws do. They say that some acts are not tolerated.
@DP
I’m going to skip the Communist/Fascist bit, as it serves as nothing but an attempt to poison the well and distract from the argument at hand.
The rights are not being ignored, but ordered in a coherent way as to preserve the bodily autonomy of the woman. Adult human beings do not have the right to use my resources, whatever the situation may be and I have the right to defend myself from unauthorized of my body.
Please stick the argument, your use of the guilt by association fallacy is tiresome, irrelevant and indicative of your lack of charity.
So tough luck for the women who have ectopic pregnancy or other complications. Nice.
Ah, so what is natural is right? Do try and avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Otherwise you’ll be arguing against killing tapeworms and cutting hair to remain consistent.
Full marks for emotive language. Anyhow, women have the right to decide what goes on in their body and how to allocate her resources. Consent is required for the use of her body and can be withdrawn at anytime.
Children are usually what we get afterthey are born. Genocide? Did you want the award for biggest appeal to emotion combined with inaccurate use of language?
And you question my grasp of biology. I have not seen too many blastocysts walking around, getting high tea. If the technology existed safely extract viable fetuses from the mother, I would fully support that. However, it does not, and thus we need to maintain women’s rights to the use of her body.
I’ll be needing use of your kidneys, please hand one over. My right to life supercedes “all rights to your “use” of your body. Did you want to explain how innocent/ not innocent right to life is different? Perhaps it is your inner authoritarian getting ahead of your rational though process, but if I was you, I’d try and walk this statement back a bit, or it might sound like you advocate for state control of our bodies – in the noble pursuit of saving life.
Irrelevant. Adults do not get to use my body without my consent. The fully rights bearing individual (wrongly ascribed of course, but for the sake of argument) that happens to be inside me *also* does not get to use my body without my consent.
Once you are pregnant, by your supposition, there is no way to terminiate the pregnancy (i.e. what goes in a woman’s body) legally. That would fit any reasonable definition of coercion by the state. Women will still seek and have abortions, and more will die because of unsafe conditions if the dystopian positions you advocate come to fruition.
And thus, the reason for being here, to counter the rhetoric that would strip women of their rights and autonomy.
Well… what was that?
It is becoming obvious that ‘Mr. Parris’ is the teacher and ‘The Arbourist,’ the student. But the student is not paying attention and I doubt he is ‘discussing the sermon.’
After winning the 1976 Nobel prize for Linoleum, we fully expect Mr. Parris to follow that up with garnering the 2013 Noble prize for patience.
Arbourist, you might want to contact a health care professional to be checked for Semantic-Pragmatic Disorder. You exhibit several of the symptoms. The parrot-like repetition of scripted phrases, for example. You keep repeating the phrase “full bodily autonomy” as if it had sacramental or magical properties. You can’t possibly believe repeating the phrase gives pregnant women the right to kill their children, but can’t stop yourself from doing so. “Full bodily autonomy” means the independence of the body, the freedom of the body to act without restriction. But you use it to justify killing innocent people. And that argument has already been shown to be spurious.
There is no reason that a woman, having become pregnant, acquires the right to kill her child anymore than a man, having become married, acquires the right to kill his wife. But and if she did have that right it would still would not be “full bodily autonomy,” the right to do whatever she wants with her body without restriction. Breaking and entering, for instance would be frowned upon even though it is an act that can be justified by simply repeating “full bodily autonomy.”
Nevertheless, as a substitute for reason, you assert that the phrase (apparently if it is continually repeated) confers James Bond’s “license to kill” upon women. It does not, but, more importantly, no one has “full bodily autonomy” or there would be simply no such thing as law. People would have the “right” to do anything. Might would be right.
“The rights are not being ignored, but ordered in a coherent way…”
So when you kill people you aren’t ignoring their rights. Repeat code word: “autonomy” six times. It’s magic. Right.
“the guilt by association fallacy”
you assert the right to strip an entire class of human beings of all rights and advocate the right of others to slaughter them, torturously, in an assembly line fashion and yet feel that my pointing this out exhibits a “lack of charity.” Wow. You might also want to be checked for spiritual blindness.
When I agree with you that indiscriminate killing is wrong, even for nations, you construe it as having something to do with ectopic pregnancy. There are moral solutions to ectopic pregnancy, but if there were not and if, only for the sake of argument, we assume that an abortion in that circumstance is morally and legally wrong, it would still not make that act an indiscriminate killing since it is very specifically targeted for a very specific reason. The jury is back. You are incapable of rational thought.
“Ah, so what is natural is right? Do try and avoid the naturalistic fallacy.”
I said nothing that could possibly be construed to mean “what is natural is right.” Please try and avoid the reading comprehension fallacy. If you fall out of a plane through your refusal to obey the warning on the emergency exit door (exercising your full bodily autonomy) your descent to earth is governed by the laws of gravity (nature) and cannot be blamed on the warning sign or the door.
“Full marks for emotive language.”
I keep pointing out the truth and you keep getting emotional. Don’t blame it on me.
“Consent is required for the use of her body and can be withdrawn at anytime.”
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” does not convey a right of restauranteurs to shoot customers.
“Children are usually what we get after they are born”
Nope. This is a lack of science, Arby. They are children at conception and there is no rational alternative conclusion.
“I have not seen too many blastocysts walking around, getting high tea.”
You haven’t seen too many babies walking around getting high tea three months AFTER birth, either, Arby, but if you actually DID have the legal power to kill someone like that (who is using your resources) and were to chop its little head off, you would next be excoriating me for “an appeal to emotion” when I pointed out that your act was monstrous.
Since its first clinical application was reported (Trounson and Mohr, 1983), cryopreservation of human embryos has been universally recognized as practical. It is incontrovertible proof that the fetus, independent of the natural mother, AT CONCEPTION, is viable. The moral consequences for your argument, however, are fatal.
“If the technology existed …”
If the technology existed to go back in time and save the victims of the killing fields, I’m sure you would fully support that, too. But the fact is that the technology does exist to avert the mass murder currently taking place in abortuaries… and you don’t care.
“it might sound like you advocate for state control of our bodies – in the noble pursuit of saving life.”
Nope. Enforcing laws against murder does not give “the state” biological eminent domain. The argument is absurd on its face. “Keep off the grass” signs don’t prevent the use of streets or sidewalks. The slopes aren’t that slippery.
“there is no way to terminiate the pregnancy legally”
Please state that accurately. “there is no way to intentionally murder the child legally” is accurate.
“reasonable definition of coercion”
What was in quesiton was not “coercion” but “coercion to act” as opposed to coercion NOT to act. All laws are coercion of man’s autonomy. Coercion against acts are sometimes legitimate; coercion to act is usually not.
“Women will still seek and have abortions, and more will die…the reason for being here, to counter the rhetoric…”
Ahh, but there are many more uses to which Arbourist’s rhetoric can be put:
“If men are not given the right to euthanize their wives (We’ll call it “Schiavo’s law”) they will still seek and have wife terminations and more men will die in the process as we return to the days of knives and guns. The state should not violate men’s full bodily autonomy or interfere with their use of their resources. Women can be terminated safely in full accordance with men’s rights.”
The dystopian positions are all your own, Arbourist, but when I point to your dystopia you call it “an appeal to emotion.”
The Arbourist: “Children are usually what we get after they are born”
Mr. Parris: “Nope. This is a lack of science, Arby. They are children at conception and there is no rational alternative conclusion.”
Ruled in favor of Mr. Parris… in fact the child, at conception, gains rights in law and common law. Civil and Criminal.
At conception there are civil rights, as heir. among others.
Further, if the child dies in the womb as a result of a criminal act by mother or other criminal, it becomes another unjustified homicide added to possibly the homicide of the mother… either aggravated (1st degree), 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter, etc., depending upon the state for the nuance in law.