Planned Parenthood 2
Ethics & Morality

Planned Parenthood aborts babies in a "less crunchy" way. What's wrong with harvesting baby body parts?

 

“A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes,” explains Dr Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of abortion in the United States. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” she adds, as she crunches on her green-leaf salad and swills it down with a nice Chianti. “Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. I mean that’s easy.”

There has been something of a furore over the past month about the revelations that Planned Parenthood is harvesting unborn-baby body parts (or, if you prefer, foetal tissue) and selling them for between $30-$100 per specimen, “depending on the facility and what’s involved”. Dr Mary Gatter is President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Council, and along with her Senior Director of Medical Services she ensures that there is sufficient “dialogue with the person who’s actually doing the procedure, so they understand what the end-game is (because) there are little things, changes they can make in their technique to increase your success”.

The videos of their gruesome discussions and callous haggling over price have been shown around the free world. But in a country which routinely aborts babies as a matter of gender liberty, and which permits vaguely-defined partial-birth abortion as a matter of legal latitude, the price of foetal parts is a matter for the market, surely? Why is the liberal media in a ‘quandary’?

Is it because employees of Planned Parenthood declare rather ruthlessly that babies can be killed in a “less crunchy” way in order to extract unbroken and unblemished organs? Is it the lighthearted banter that they’d like to make enough money from the sales of these body parts to buy a Lamborghini?

On average, Planned Parenthood perform an abortion every 94 seconds, amounting to almost 400,000 a year, for which they are paid $542.4 million in the form of ‘Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements’. With an annual turnover of $1.2 billion, you might think their thriving business was adequately profitable, but where there’s Molech there’s Mammon, and the love of that is the root of all evil.

It is curious that as we in the United Kingdom are content to send our aborted babies to the gas ovens as part of the final solution, that we should object so strongly to a bit of Mengele-like genetic research and human experimentation. If we may ethically shovel buckets full of foetal tissue into furnaces to heat our hospitals as part of a ‘waste-to-energy’ policy, why may we not sell unborn-baby body parts for profitable and beneficial research?

The Department of Health was so appalled by the rise in foetal-central-heating that they issued an instant ban on the “totally unacceptable” practice. And now Planned Parenthood is being threatened with all manner of illiberal menace as the liberal media turn against them.

Why, exactly?

If, as we are consistently and incessantly told, a fertilised embryo becomes a foetus but it is not a human baby until 24 weeks (or 40 weeks if it happens to be disabled), why not treat it simply as refuse and incinerate it along with the rest of the waste? If it is nothing but a “bunch of cells” to be sliced and diced and the mush sucked out with vacuum device, why not recycle their unformed livers and hearts it to derive a modicum of human benefit?

We are not talking here about the mortal remains of miscarried babies, for to dismember them would be grossly insensitive to the grieving parents.

And yet the only difference between a miscarried baby and an aborted foetus is that the former was usually wanted and the latter invariably not, so they are categorised differently: some women “lose children in early pregnancy”; others “abort a foetus in early pregnancy” (or mid or late pregnanacy if it happens to be disabled). The miscarried baby is mourned and deemed worthy of Christian burial or cremation; the aborted foetus is just waste, and the best way of dealing with waste is to incinerate it.

But that is such a terrible waste.

Parliament has determined that a baby in the womb up to 24 weeks (or 40, if disabled) is not a human being with a right to life. They have no identity, no destiny and no humanity: they are like Jews in Nazi Germany, and their mass incineration in NHS ovens is a Shoah of equal horror. But the outpouring of disgust by the liberal-left media at this body-part research and experimentation is a bizarre hypocrisy. If it is ethical to harvest the stem cells of a growing embryo for medical research, why not the body parts of a developing foetus?

If stem cells may inhibit the onset of dementia or Parkinson’s disease, may we not learn more from the partially-formed brain of a foetus? Instead of elective abortion being tarnished by the shadows of Auschwitz, does the procedure not offer so much potential for major discoveries in human health and well-being? After all, the 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to scientists who developed the polio vaccine using cultures from foetal kidney cells. The research is nothing new: it has long been considered ethical to obtain liver/kidney/heart/brain cells from legally-procured abortions in order to advance medical knowledge and save lives.

Is the concern that a market in foetal tissue will lead to more abortions? Is it that the women may desire commission by way of remuneration? Might that lead to abortion as supplementary income? Or is it that the increased demand for unbroken and unblemished body parts will change the way abortions are performed?

Surely, if abortion is deemed to be a moral foundation for female autonomy and sexual liberty, an abortion clinic ought to be free to generate as much income as it desires from the process? Or is it that by shifting the focus away from the righteous ‘left-wing’ themes of sexual autonomy and women’s rights to the unjust and corrupt ‘right-wing’ obsession with the free market, the left-liberal media draw the line? The contradictory assertion becomes that abortion is not wrong, and nor is competition among service providers, but a derivative market in the spin-offs and by-products is ethically dubious.

Why, exactly?

One can understand the argument that research on foetal tissue is wrong because abortion is wrong. But if abortion is right, it cannot be immoral to seek the best use of the produce. The harvest is plentiful. We reap what we sow.

  • The Explorer

    If you believe in the resurrection of the body, then there might be an issue over a borrowed body part: does the part belong to the donor or the recipient? Aquinas raised that point in relation to cannibalism.

    But if you’re going to allow abortion, and you don’t believe in an after life, then the rest seems to me to follow logically. Perhaps it’s just that the implication of what is being done in the first place is rather uncomfortably exposed.

    • Albert

      I’m not sure that the first point counts here. It could cause a problem for transplants, and it is a problem (if it is a problem) in the case of a man who gets eaten by a shark, which had first eaten another man.

      The issue I think is over autonomy over one’s body, and that’s why I think Dr C has got it exactly right. How he reconciles it with his support for David Cameron, is another matter.

      • The Explorer

        I agree, because if you died at 99, your resurrected body would not depend on your worn-out body parts if you still had all the originals. And what about, for instance, an artificial hip or knee joint? I was just raising it as an issue (erroneous, in my view) for some.

  • Albert

    This is an excellent article. Obviously, selling body parts of aborted babies (or to use the medical euphemism “foetal tissue” is not objectionable, once abortion is allowed. People who support the latter immoral practice can hardly complain about the former. And I cannot see how it is more objectionable than this:

    Parliament has determined that a baby in the womb up to 24 weeks (or 40, if disabled) is not a human being with a right to life.

    When you consider what people get worked up about in this country, the fact that there is blatant discrimination against a child’s life, simply because they are disabled, places our society in a depth of moral sickness which makes it hard to regard it as civilized. The comparison with the holocaust is well made.

    But then the paradox is that Dr C writes such wonderful posts but exhorts us to vote for David Cameron, who supports such things.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Of course, should someone deliberately cause the death of a pre-24 week old baby in the womb, contrary to the mother’s wishes, then they will rapidly find that it was a human being with a right to life. What mixed up country we have become.

      • CliveM

        Actually he wouldn’t. He would be charged with Child Destruction under a 1929 act. But not murder.

      • Albert

        It’s barking mad!

    • IanCad

      I do wish we could add multiple upticks Albert.
      I’m neutral on the last paragraph though.

  • sarky

    As someone who is ok with abortion, but only in specific circumstances and within a specified (lower than current) time frame. I must admit I find the saleof body parts to the highest bidder abhorrent, there is something of Burke and Hare about it.
    I also understand that the greatest hope we have in ending some of the vilest diseases we are afflicted with is stem cell research. Profit should never come into this. This area of research should be regulated to within an inch of its life. Some good may come out of someones misery (the choice to have an abortion is always miserable) but it should never ever be to the sound of ringing tills.

    • Albert

      For the benefit, I suspect of several readers, including this one, could you expound on how you reconcile support for abortion with opposition to selling aborted foetal tissue, please?

      • sarky

        Thought I had.

        • Albert

          I wonder if I’m the only person to think you haven’t. I can’t see the reference to Burke and Hare as being particularly helpful, for example, for they had murdered their victims. Which is rather the point here.

          • The Explorer

            You aren’t the only person. He’s said he doesn’t like it; he hasn’t explained why. It’s personal preference, rather than a moral explication.

          • Albert

            But I wonder if, in the brave new world of secularism, “I think X is wrong” means nothing more than “I don’t like X”?

          • sarky

            Ok bad reference. Was thinking more of grave robbers in general. There are many on here who are for capital punishment but would be against that body being sold to the highest bidder. Donated maybe, but never sold.

          • Albert

            I completely get why you don’t like grave robbers or the selling of foetal tissue. But the question is, having swallowed abortion in the first place, can that not liking really carry you morally to oppose the medical benefits of selling the tissue? I don’t think the reference to others who are in favour of capital punishment helps. May be they’re just wrong, and need to defend their inconsistency. But in any case this is different, even I, as an opponent of capital punishment, don’t think capital punishment is necessarily murder. But I do think abortion is murder for the child (unlike say a murdered condemned to hang) is innocent. The only way out of this is to deny that the child in the womb is a child. That being so, what’s not to like about selling the tissue?

            Put the matter another way, a supporter of capital punishment might oppose the selling of body parts of executed criminals because they see those parts as being from a human person. But if that is the case, the argument cannot help a supporter of abortion, for they, by supporting abortion (presumably) deny the humanity, or personhood of the foetus. So, while you don’t like it, I can’t see you have any rational grounds for objecting.

          • sarky

            Its the selling part I object to. Using donated foetal tissue to further medical research, to me is acceptable. The bottom line is you are not going to stop abortion, so if something good can from it, without making a profit, then that’s ok.

          • Albert

            But why is selling worse than the killing? Once you’ve swallowed the latter, what’s the problem? It’s not the tissue of a human person on the abortionist’s view. It’s just meat. You seem to worry about that last conclusion, and I think that if you follow the logic from there, you will have to change your view on abortion. See if you can prove me wrong!

          • sarky

            I dont believe in wholesale abortion for a start. The circumstances in which I believe it is ok are often tragic and I believe should not be profited from.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Trouble is, you can only justify your limited abortion on the basis of ideas that have no reality in fact.

          • sarky

            And what ideas might those be?

          • Martin

            Sarky

            The ideas that you use to justify abortion.

          • sarky

            And what are they?

          • Albert

            In fairness to Martin, doesn’t the burden of proof rest on you here? What are your ideas to justify abortion?

          • sarky

            Not when he has already made up his mind, based on his prejudice.

          • Albert

            Well, I’ve read this thread and I don’t think that that is entirely fair. You can certainly claim that Martin does not know what you think, and therefore cannot make such a judgement. But can’t Martin say that he has had conversations with others on this topic and never seen someone justify limited abortion in a coherent way and that since you don’t appear to be showing how the distinction works, that this prejudice, as you put it, seems confirmed again.

            I for one would like to see how you justify limited abortion.

          • sarky

            I’ve said it before on previous threads.
            if continuation of the pregnancy could lead to the death of the mother.
            If the pregnancy is the result of rape.

            I DO NOT believe in abortion as a form of contraception.

          • Albert

            I’m not asking for examples of where you allow abortion, I’m asking for the rationale of why those examples, but not others.

          • sarky

            Because I truly believe that ONLY in these examples do the rights of the mother outweigh those of the foetus.

          • Albert

            That’s just another statement of the fact. I am asking for the rationale which both permits abortion in such circumstances, but prohibits it in others.

          • sarky

            Abortion should be allowed in the circumstances I have outlined because the mental and physical welfare of the mother must come first. In a time of easy access to birth control there is no excuse for using it as a form of contraception.

          • Albert

            Thank you Sarky. But again, I don’t see this as an argument, rather than an assertion.

            Abortion should be allowed in the circumstances I have outlined because the mental and physical welfare of the mother must come first.

            Why does the welfare of the mother come first in these situations but not in others? In other words, if she has this level of autonomy, where is the authority to deny it to her in other situations?

          • sarky

            Because these are exceptional circumstances, and beyond her control.

          • Albert

            Okay, so why are you opposed to abortion in other circumstances? What is so special about the foetus that you think it s/he should take precedent over the mother’s autonomy over her own body?

          • Powerdaddy

            Isn’t life easy when you live by the instructions of 2000 year old goat herders.
            Meanwhile, in the real world life is much more complicated. …..

          • Albert

            Isn’t life easy when, all you do is follow the regulation issue commands of secular liberalism? If you notice, nothing I have said, I suspect anywhere on this page, has referred to God. All of it has been about philosophy and consistency. Now if you have something intelligent to say in that category, say it. If not stick to ridiculing what you do not understand. I’m sure everyone will applaud you for being intelligent and informed, that way.

          • Powerdaddy

            1st we already know your motivations.
            Secondly I’m more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness.

            But my main point…..do you think the state should force an individual to be a donor (liver kidney lung etc)to save the life of another.

            Would you like to see the day when you have a doctor (and the police incase you resist) turn up at your door because you are the best match, and cart you off to the operating table no matter your views?

            Or would like the right to control the destiny of your own body parts, even though this may lead to the death of another?

            What say you?

          • Albert

            1st we already know your motivations.

            Certainly, my views are consonant with my faith. But I think I would hold them even if I were not a Christian. Moreover, you seem to be committing the genetic fallacy. The validity of my arguments does not stem from my motivation. So you need to answer them.

            Secondly I’m more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness.

            Well, I’ll wait to see the evidence of that, but that fact that you have begun with fallacious reasoning and a false premise (Jesus wasn’t a goat-herder), does not exactly inspire confidence.

            But my main point…..do you think the state should force an individual to be a donor (liver kidney lung etc)to save the life of another.

            No.

            Would you like to see the day when you have a doctor (and the police incase you resist) turn up at your door because you are the best match, and cart you off to the operating table no matter your views?

            No.

            Or would like the right to control the destiny of your own body parts, even though this may lead to the death of another?

            That is too imprecise as it stands. I cannot use my body parts in such a way as directly to kill another.

            What say you?

            I say I will see some more fallacious reasoning on this thread.

          • Powerdaddy

            And yet, under threat of death as some pregnancies can be, you deny a woman the No vote you took. Even though your life wouldn’t be at threat. Not to mention the death of the donor recipient. Terrible double standards. You have rights over your body but a woman has not. Sounds Islamic.
            Why do you not agree to forced medical donations by do agree to forced pregnancies?

          • Albert

            And that’s the logical fallacy I expected – it’s almost as if you didn’t read my post, so quick were you to rush to what you thought was the conclusion. The fact that I do not wish my organs to be removed from me, even though having my organs removed might save a life, does not mean I have the right to kill another. To anyone who is really more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness that would have been obvious.

          • Powerdaddy

            We both know the religious don’t do logic e.g. noahs ark talking animals etc etc etc.

            Anyhow, the fact is no life takes precedence over another we both agree, unless you’re talking about a blob of cells in a womb.

            Would you expect a loved one to go through with a pregnancy even though all the medical expertise has told you they both will most likely die?
            What if this loved one has already 2 or 3 kids and a husband. The most righteous thing to do in this situation would be to terminate. Or should the mother of 2 kids and a husband just slide straight into the grave, so religious nutbags like you stay happy?
            You selfish little man with a selfish little God.

          • Albert

            We both know the religious don’t do logic e.g. noahs ark talking animals etc etc etc.

            We both know then that you’ve never read Pascal, Descartes, Lemaitre, Aquinas or someone like Francis Collins. Besides, I don’t really see the argument here. You refer to Noah and talking animals, and the conclusion is supposed to follow. What is it that I believe about Noah and talking animals that means I don’t do logic and maths?

            Anyhow, the fact is no life takes precedence over another we both agree

            That’s an interesting admission.

            unless you’re talking about a blob of cells in a womb.

            A blob of cells? That’s quite imprecise for someone so informed as you, wouldn’t you say? If you mean something that is nothing more than a blob of cells then we are agreed. But at one level, all human beings are just a blob of cells, and I doubt you think that a foetus of say 30 weeks gestation is only a blob of cells, would you? I mean what if that foetus has been born, don’t you accept they are a human person with the right to life? And if so, how can they be nothing more than a blob of cells? So your position seems ill-thought through to me, but perhaps you can clarify it.

            Would you expect a loved one to go through with a pregnancy even though all the medical expertise has told you they both will most likely die?
            What if this loved one has already 2 or 3 kids and a husband. The most righteous thing to do in this situation would be to terminate. Or should the mother of 2 kids and a husband just slide straight into the grave, so religious nutbags like you stay happy?
            You selfish little man with a selfish little God.

            I’m fascinated by the way that you rush through a lot of questions, and without giving me the the chance to answer them conclude I am a selfish little man with a selfish little God. I thought reasonable people let the conclusion come after all the evidence has been heard, and that reasonable people do not convict others without hearing their defence. But then, what would I know I’m just a follower of retrograde superstitious silliness? Thank you for teaching me that reasonable and informed people draw conclusions without reason and evidence.

            Now aren’t you caught on the case you’ve given? For you admit that no life takes precedence over another? Therefore, if the child in the womb is a life, then no amount of painful and emotive examples will alter the fact that, on your own terms, you cannot end the pregnancy. In which case, isn’t it you just as well as me who is a selfish little man? Moreover, you seem completely to have missed the principle of double effect here, despite being more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness.

            Strange eh?

          • Powerdaddy

            If an adult doesn’t have a right to your body parts, even though he/she may die without them and you agree to this, why does a fetus have the right to the woman’s body?

            She has every right to her body as do you yours. Unless she is pregnant and then she loses all rights to her body. That is absurd.

            If you cannot force people to donate body parts for people who on threat of death need them how can force a woman to do with her body what she doesn’t want? Double standards.

            Is now a good time to remind you your God killed his only son. Does that sound like pro choice to you? Is this not the standard you strive for? God was obviously pro choice. He just took up the option outside the womb and under no threat from anything/one.

            I’m pro choice and so is your God.

            Strange eh?

          • Albert

            If an adult doesn’t have a right to your body parts, even though he/she may die without them and you agree to this, why does a fetus have the right to the woman’s body?

            Because the unborn child isn’t taking those body parts. Moreover, in the other cases the person is already dying of something else. If I don’t give them my spare kidney, I have not killed them, they have died of their illness. But in abortion I do kill them. So I have given two reasons to think the cases are not alike. That’s not double standards that’s just being able to distinguish one case from another. And so your argument collapses.

            Is now a good time to remind you your God killed his only son.

            No, because it isn’t true (pretty obviously).

          • Powerdaddy

            Let’s say a mother of a 2 year was the only suitable donor for her child, a child who has a fatal disease that can only be cured by a donation.
            The law says she cannot forcibly taken for a donation to save the child and you agree.

            In both cases the childs life is dependent on the mothers body.

            Why are you ok with for the mother to have rights over her body now, when the child is 2, but not if the child is still in her womb?

            P.s.
            Jesus didn’t die on the cross as part of Gods plan? I’ve been told otherwise. …….

          • Albert

            The cases are not alike. You are confusing the outcomes with cases, and that you cannot do (I’ll defend that claim, if you like, but perhaps not at this point).

            In the case of the 2 year old, the child dies of the disease – the child’s death is something we do not cause, even though we could prevent it. But in the case of the abortion, the child dies because of the abortion – the child would have lived, but we have caused the child’s death.

            This is the principle I defend:

            It is always wrong for anyone directly to take innocent human life.

            I think that is just a statement of the right to life. Do you see how it prevents us from killing someone but does not oblige us to save their life if they are dying from some other cause. Do you agree with the principle? If not, why not? If so, how can you defend abortion? That is really the issue here, and in my opinion the question of whether someone believes in the right to life, is really the question of whether someone is moral or not.

            Something similar can be said for Jesus’ death on the cross. God may have planned to permit it, but he did not do it.

          • Powerdaddy

            The similarities of both cases is what interests me. In both cases a life is dependent on anothers body to survive. In one case the body cannot be withdrawn but in the other case it can be. Your morals come across situational like mine.
            Like I said earlier life isn’t as black and white as your religion has you to believe.

            Generally speaking I agree with you, but each pregnancy is different in its situations. I could never demand a raped woman go full term nor could I demand severely disabled woman to.

            It isn’t always wrong to kill, if killing protects your life or others.

            My last example.

            What if going anywhere near full term in the pregnancy would kill both the mother and the foetus? What if the doctors all confirmed there was zero chance of either mother or baby surviving due to fatal medical complications?

            Would you let nature take its course and have both mother and baby die or would you abort to save the mother?
            Would you see your sister or wife die needlessly this way?
            Religion may be black and white, life sure isn’t.

          • Albert

            The similarities of both cases is what interests me. In both cases a life is dependent on anothers body to survive. In one case the body cannot be withdrawn but in the other case it can be. Your morals come across situational like mine.

            Come on! You can’t just say that all you are interested in is the similarities, and then proceed as if therefore the cases are the same, and that therefore my position is situational. All things are similar from some perspectives. The difference here is that they are different in morally significant ways. The view I am taking is not regarded by either friend or foe as situational – because everyone can see the distinction.

            Like I said earlier life isn’t as black and white as your religion has you to believe.

            And that of course is the irony. I am saying the cases are not black or white, but nuanced. You, by abolishing the distinction and making them both white are simplifying reality while accusing me of doing that.

            I could never demand a raped woman go full term.

            In which case you do not believe that innocent human beings have the right to life. Do you accept the execution of children for the sins of their fathers?

            It isn’t always wrong to kill, if killing protects your life or others.

            My principle allows killing if someone is trying to murder someone else, as that person is not innocent. But if the person is innocent, you have no right to kill them.

            What if going anywhere near full term in the pregnancy would kill both the mother and the foetus? What if the doctors all confirmed there was zero chance of either mother or baby surviving due to fatal medical complications?

            Well that’s where double effect would come in. I’ve answered this already.

            Religion may be black and white, life sure isn’t.

            Here’s another fallacy, you think religion must be black and white. But at no point have I argued from religion – I’m just being consistent, and consistency is something that I unclear you have at the moment.

          • Powerdaddy

            I would like clarification from you.(My fault, I’m not as bright as your average Christian so if you could spare my blushes I would be grateful. …..)
            Would you abort the baby to save the mother or let them both die?
            If you abort you are pro choice.
            In a situational sense like me.
            If you would not abort, what is wrong with you?

            As for black and white. ….is your religion and its teachings right or wrong?

          • Albert

            Would you abort the baby to save the mother or let them both die?

            The principle is that you cannot directly take innocent human life. Therefore, it depends on the procedure. Let us suppose a woman as an ectopic pregnancy. You can remove the tube, even though you know that will mean the child will die. But let us suppose you have to kill the child to save the mother then no, that would be wrong.

            If you would not abort, what is wrong with you?

            There’s nothing wrong in believing one should not take innocent human life.

            As for black and white. ….is your religion and its teachings right or wrong?

            Yes, but isn’t that the case with everything? You believe your views and you believe those who don’t accept them are wrong. That’s black and white in one sense. You believe that the situation determines what should be done. That’s also black and white in one sense. So the whole black and white thing becomes trivially true.

          • Powerdaddy

            Not trivial at all for woman in this scenario, is it?
            So they would both die so you could consistent with your beliefs!
            Sounds very black and white to me. ….
            So they both die! Success for Christianity!

            I would chose to save the woman! Failure for immoral secular thinking!
            Idiocy in religion strikes again!

          • Albert

            In saying it is trivially true, I mean it is true for everyone.

            So they would both die so you could be consistent with your beliefs!
            Sounds very black and white to me. ….
            So they both die! Success for Christianity! I would choose to save the woman! Failure for immoral secular thinking! Idiocy in religion strikes again!

            What you mean is, you are going to kill an innocent person to save an innocent person. You don’t have to be religious to see that as gravely wrong. Have you never read any Kant, perchance?

          • Powerdaddy

            You have been told they both will die if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.

            You have decided to let them both die when you could have saved the woman.
            Because of your black and white religion.

            My secular standpoint saves AT LEAST the woman.

            Why is your choice of having them both die morally better than mine?

            1 death is better than 2, always.
            Unless you are religious.
            Go figure. ……

          • Powerdaddy

            Well Albert, thanks for your reply.

            “What you mean is, you are going to kill an innocent person to save an innocent person”

            I think the medical staff would see it along the lines SAVING ONE PATIENT RATHER THAN SAVING NONE. Don’t you think?

            Why let them both die, Albert?

          • Albert

            I think the medical staff would see it along the lines SAVING ONE PATIENT RATHER THAN SAVING NONE. Don’t you think?

            If that is what is happening then certainly that would be the right thing to do. But is that a truthful description of what is happening? Let’s return to your organ donation scenario. Suppose there are 10 people who will die unless they are given a transplant of a different organ each. Suppose also that there is an elderly or sick person dying in the same hospital who is a perfect match. There is nothing to be done to save the elderly person, but s/he is not dead yet. Would you kill the elderly person to save the lives of the others, even if the elderly person did not give consent? Would you think it was honest to say the medical staff are not killing an innocent person to save 10 innocent people, rather they are SAVING TEN PATIENTS RATHER THAN SAVING NONE?

            Why let them all die, Powerdaddy? Therein lies the difference between letting the illness kill people and killing them ourselves.

          • Powerdaddy

            My donation scenario as I wrote it, only had the child die if the mother refused her body parts and the mother herself was not at risk (major surgery aside.) She was never at risk of being chopped to bits as in your scenario. Anyway, you agreed the mother doesn’t have to give the child her body parts. Unless we are talking wombs.

            I said from my 1st post on this thread, life isn’t black and white.
            You don’t agree.

            Abortion in the scenario I have given is the only way any good will come of this situation.
            Saving the mother would best outcome morally, would it not?

            You still haven’t answered my question.

            Why would you let them both die?

          • Albert

            I have altered the scenario to take account of how you have developed the question. For in your scenario you are now having to kill the child to save the mother. You ask Why would you let them both die?, and I answer, because I don’t believe in taking innocent life and that is what is required to save the mother in this scenario. If you reply that it is immoral not to kill the child to save the mother, then I ask why you wouldn’t kill the elderly or sick person to save 10 people. Surely, the case for killing only one person to save ten is more compelling than killing one person to save one. And yet, I assume you wouldn’t actually kill that one innocent person to save ten. And the reason you give for that opinion will count all the more as my reason for not killing the child to save the mother.

            I said from my 1st post on this thread, life isn’t black and white.
            You don’t agree.

            I say it is either trivially true that life is black and white or else that it is false that life is black and white. Let me develop that to show what I mean. I oppose abortion. But let us suppose the mother has cancer of the womb and has to have chemotherapy or both she and her unborn child will die. But let us admit that if does have chemotherapy it will kill the child. I expect you think I would say she mustn’t have chemo but must simply die. But that isn’t my position at all. This would be covered by double-effect. I am black and white on the principle that it is always wrong directly to kill innocent people. But that’s true for everyone who isn’t psychopath. When it comes to actually cases, saying it is black and white can be confusion, because the reality, although it may not be grey, may yet be more complicated.

          • Powerdaddy

            In the scenario you have already been told the pregnancy is non viable.
            The choice as given to you is they both die or the mother can be saved. The baby is doomed either way.
            Why let them both die?

          • Albert

            In the scenario I have given in reply, the elderly person is non viable as well. Why let the 11 die instead of just killing one. The one is doomed either way.

            And let us just notice that your baby dying scenario is a far more extreme than what you actually allow, as far as I can see. For, on your terms, as I understand them, you allow for the mother to kill the child just because it is her womb. She doesn’t need to be dying, the child can be perfectly viable. On those terms, it is very hard to see how you cannot kill the elderly person to save the 10, given that you are content to kill a child to save no one.

            And by the way, what is your view on what this post was original about – the selling of the body parts of aborted children?

          • Powerdaddy

            It is a difficult subject.
            Generally speaking I’m against many reasons why women choose to have an abortion, but I am pro choice.
            Abortion should not be used as contraception or career choice etc but this is just my opinion. The bottom line is everyone should have a sovereign right to their body. It’s the same reason donations can’t be taken forcibly from anyone. No one has the rights to any others body, no matter their age.

            As for selling body parts, obviously I’m against it. Medical research I’m fine with.

            I disagree with your reasons for not saving the woman in my scenario. Morality, for me is situational not black and white or dogmatic.

          • Albert

            I disagree with your reasons for not saving the woman in my scenario. Morality, for me is situational not black and white or dogmatic.

            And this is the heart of the issue, that sheds light on what you must admit is now a somewhat confused position you hold. You don’t actually believe that it is always wrong directly to take innocent human life. But that’s the foundation of all morality and all human rights. For clearly, if we do not have the right to life, if we can be killed by another, then we cannot claim any other rights. But if we don’t have human rights, then it cannot be the case that everyone should have a sovereign right to their body. Indeed, you have directly contradicted that in the scenario because the mother has the sovereign right over the child’s body. And what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we no longer have rights and we no longer have rights over our own bodies, then the woman does not have those rights, and so your position descends into incoherence.

            At the heart of this is your constant use of the terms black and white. It seems to me that you end up denying the law of non-contradiction. In the end, it is either true that everyone should have a sovereign right to their body. That has to be black or white, but with you, it isn’t, it’s situational.

          • Powerdaddy

            “And this is the heart of the issue, that sheds light on what you must admit is now a somewhat confused position you hold.”

            My position is not confused. It is situational.

            “You don’t actually believe that it is always wrong directly to take
            innocent human life. But that’s the foundation of all morality and all
            human rights.”

            I think it is always wrong to take a life. Innocent or not. I don’t know why you are clouding this with the word innocent anyway. A psychiatric patient serverly affect by psychosis may be very danagerous to the point of attempting homicide, but would be innocent by way of having no choice over the psychosis that blights his life. Aswell you know in this scenario, the woman is also innocent, you wouldn’t choose to have a pregnancy that is fatal would you? But you would let this innocent woman die for the sake of a simple medical procedure.
            “Innocent” is open to interpretations by the individual and not always relavent or assumed correctly.

            “But if we don’t have human rights, then it cannot be the case that everyone should have a sovereign right to their body.
            Indeed, you have directly contradicted that in the scenario because
            the mother has the sovereign right over the child’s body. And what’s
            sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the child does not have
            rights over his/her own body, then the principle of rights over our own
            bodies is false. And if it is false, we no longer have rights over our
            own bodies. And if that is the case then the woman does not have those
            rights either, and so on your grounds, following the logic, you deny
            her the right to abortion. And so your position descends into
            incoherence.”

            If you agree that you have sovereign rights over your own body, ( you must do or you would have agreed to donations taken forcibly), then also you must agree the host calls the shots. The baby is dependent on the mothers body, sovereign rights to your own body and dependency on some others body are very very different things.
            You, me and her, we all get to say what goes in, on, around or out of our bodies do we not? How is that incoherent?

            Life is situational. So are morals. Some murders are forgiven (in law at least) because of the situation it occurred in. Others are not because of the situation.

            “And so that principle is no principle at all.”

            And your principles have let the woman die in this stiuation. She is as innocent as the baby in this scenario.The baby cannot be saved either way. But she can be saved. Through abortion.

            My situational morals would have saved the woman. Your dogmatic principles would see her dead.

          • Albert

            I think it is always wrong to take a life. Innocent or not. I don’t know why you are clouding this with the word innocent anyway.

            In discussions of moral philosophy, the word “innocent” is often added so as to allow for self-defence, defence of the innocent from a murderer, and just war.

            Aswell you know in this scenario, the woman is also innocent, you wouldn’t choose to have a pregnancy that is fatal would you?

            She is certainly innocent. But sometimes innocent people die. The principle is that we cannot kill innocent people (and this you have accepted with a worry about the qualification “innocent”), and therefore, what you say next is excluded on your own terms, if the Medical procedure involves directly killing and innocent human life (the baby):

            But you would let this innocent woman die for the sake of a simple medical procedure.

            Now if the procedure does not involve directly killing an innocent human life (e.g. a case of double effect), then I have no objection to the procedure. The problem is, that you seem to have an objection to that, for you say:

            I think it is always wrong to take a life. Innocent or not.

            So my question becomes, Do you think there are some situations when it is acceptable to take an (innocent) human life?

            “Innocent” is open to interpretations by the individual and not always relevant or assumed correctly.

            In this context, I mean someone who is not intending to take an innocent human life.

            If you agree that you have sovereign rights over your own body, ( you must do or you would have agreed to donations taken forcibly), then also you must agree the host calls the shots.

            No I don’t. Because the principle prevents her from acting on the sovereign rights over another body. Sovereign rights refers to self-defense against a non-innocent aggressor. We don’t actually have endless sovereignty over our bodies. For example, suppose the woman has already given birth. Suppose she refuses to feed her child and the child dies. We wouldn’t accept as a defence “She has sovereign rights over her body” would we? Ergo.

            Life is situational. So are morals. Some murders are forgiven (in law at least) because of the situation it occurred in. Others are not because of the situation.

            This is confused. It does not cease to be murder because of the situation. It’s just that we judge the guilt less harshly because of the situation. I would certainly accept that in the case of abortion, but it does not alter (in either case) the wrongness of the act.

            My situational morals would have saved the woman.

            Yes, by killing an innocent person. But you say:

            I think it is always wrong to take a life. Innocent or not.

            Therefore, your situational ethics are confused.

          • Powerdaddy

            You agree murder can be justified in self defense? You must be confused. Are you?
            That’s situational morality.
            It’s making the best possible call in whatever situation you may be in. It’s what life is all about.
            I hope no one you have any influence over finds herself in this womans position.
            Cutting out something or someone from your body that will kill you IS self defense. The woman is justified even if the baby is innocent. She should not just roll over and die.
            2 innocent lives lost instead of 1 is not the better outcome morally speaking. Do you not agree?

            II KINGS 2: 23-25
            Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths”

            What does your black and white morals make of that?
            Seriously?

          • Albert

            You agree murder can be justified in self defense? You must be confused. Are you?

            If it is self-defense it isn’t murder, for then the person isn’t innocent. That’s not situational.

            I hope no one you have any influence over finds herself in this womans position.

            And I hope the same of you, for the sake of the child whom you would kill.

            Cutting out something or someone from your body that will kill you IS self defense.

            Not so, because the child is innocent. Let’s try a different example. Supposing she has given birth already, but the child has a contagious disease which will kill the mother. We might be very sympathetic to the mother if she kills the child to save herself, but there’s no doubt it would be wrong. The fact that the child is sick means the mother has a greater responsibility to care for the child, not less.

            2 innocent lives lost instead of 1 is not the better outcome morally speaking. Do you not agree?

            If we are looking simply at outcomes that is true, but morality (unless it is purely consequentialist morality) is never just about outcomes.

            I don’t need to comment on II Kings 2 as I am not a fundamentalist. But I would point out that Elisha does not in fact kill the boys.

          • Powerdaddy

            If we are looking simply at outcomes that is true, but morality (unless it is purely consequentialist morality) is never just about outcomes.

            Tell me how do will judge morals if not for their outcomes?

            What use are morals if something else other than the outcome is more important?

            How do you apply morals if the outcome isn’t the only thing that counts?

            And you say I’m confused. ……

          • Albert

            Tell me how do will judge morals if not for their outcomes?

            There are a whole range of ethical theories, e.g. Deontological, Divine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, Virtue Ethics, to name but a few. I could explain each of these, if you like, but it will take time and you can do your own research. Now these are standard forms of ethical theory, and none of them is a consequentialist theory. Now I don’t blame you for not knowing this, but you have set yourself up a bit by saying this:

            I’m more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness.

            You clearly aren’t.

            When you say I think it is always wrong to take a life you are being non-consequentialist. But when you say it is situational, you are being consequentialist. So I think you are confused and it just isn’t clear to me where you stand. Do you still uphold the “always wrong to take a life”?

          • Powerdaddy

            If course, I think it’s wrong to take a life. I also think it’s more wrong to take 2. You agree.

            Morals that have consequences in this world are the only kind I’m interested in.

            If you kill an attacker in self-defense, is it a good thing?
            I Would say no.
            But in the situation there may have been no other way out. It would have been the best thing to do morally in that situation.

            How do you use and judge morals if the consequences that arise from them are secondary to something else? What is the something else anyway?

          • Albert

            Of course, I think it’s wrong to take a life. I also think it’s more wrong to take 2. You agree.

            Yes, but in the scenario we are discussing you are not taking a life.

            Morals that have consequences in this world are the only kind I’m interested in.

            If you do not know the other moral theories, you do not know their critiques of consequentialism, so how can you make a judgement?

            If you kill an attacker in self-defense, is it a good thing?
            I Would say no.
            But in the situation there may have been no other way out. It would have been the best thing to do morally in that situation.

            It’s not a good thing in itself, certainly, but defending oneself is a good thing.

            How do you use and judge morals if the consequences that arise from them are secondary to something else? What is the something else anyway?

            Certain things are just held to be wrong, like killing innocent people. The holocaust was wrong even if you could argue that the consequences of having done it were better than not. It’s just wrong to kill innocent people. We can talk about what it makes it wrong, but it isn’t wrong because the consequences are bad (although they are), it isn’t wrong because one has made a mathematical error in calculating the goods against the evils of the act. It is just wrong. End of. There are plenty of examples of his: is it wrong to torture small children for fun? Yes it is wrong. No amount of good consequences (e.g. sufficient pleasure to adults that outweighs the suffering of the child) will make it right. Because of examples like these, I don’t myself regard consequentialism as a form of morality, it is more a calculus of expediency.

            Now if you want fuller answers to the last two questions of your post do some reading. Here’s a good place to begin:

            An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Christian Ethics by Fr Alban McCoy.

            I recommend this for two reasons: firstly because it will give you quite a good critique of some of the moral theories, including consequentialism, and secondly, because it will cure you of you belief that you’re more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness.

          • Powerdaddy

            The best possible outcome for the group and or for the individual in whatever situation.Thats all there is to it.Extreme situations sometimes call for extreme actions to achieve the best outcome.Morals don’t come in a one size fits all package. Labels count for nothing.
            You keep your principles, you can keep your “Deontological, Divine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, Virtue Ethics” as the woman loses her life even though the baby couldn’t be saved.
            Doesn’t seem like a good deal to me or to the woman or everyone that knew her.
            Every time an identical situation were to arise like this, I would choose to save the woman.
            Let’s get back to your old man, ten patients scenario.
            What if a doctor approached the old man and put the question to him?
            What if the old man says he has lived an enjoyable and long life and was happy to die adding that he was in great pain and was aware things were only going to get worse. What if he agrees that the doctor can kill him to harvest his body parts to save 10 others?
            Should the doctor turn off his life support?

          • Albert

            The best possible outcome for the group and or for the individual in whatever situation.

            What is meant by “best” and who is more important, the group or the individual, and if the latter, which individual? And where in all this is your view that you don’t think it is ever right to take (innocent) human life?

            You can keep your principles, you can keep your “Deontological, Divine Command Theory, Natural Law Theory, Virtue Ethics” as the woman loses her life even though the baby couldn’t be saved.

            Then you don’t believe your own principle – of not taking human life.

            Doesn’t seem like a good deal to me or to the woman or everyone that knew her.

            Killing babies is not a good deal for anyone.

            What if a doctor approached the old man and put the question to him?
            What if the old man says he has lived an enjoyable and long life and was happy to die adding that he was in great pain and was aware things were only going to get worse. What if he agrees that the doctor can kill him to harvest his body parts to save 10 others?
            Should the doctor turn off his life support?

            This is now a doubly different question: firstly, because the victim is giving their consent, and secondly because they are being taken off life support, rather than being directly killed. The latter elements means this scenario does not result in direct killing and so isn’t blocked by the principle I gave. It could be blocked by other principles – for example that he is being used as a means to an end. But no human being should be used, every human being is an end in himself.

          • Powerdaddy

            lol

            Try walking into a hospital, turning off the first life support you spot and then, after your inevitable arrest, claim your victim died of natural causes and that you didn’t ‘directly kill’ him/ her. Do you think the judge would agree? Very funny Albert.
            Anway…….
            Let’s give you a little less wiggle room.
            The doctor says the kindest way to end the willing donors life would be by lethal injection. He just passes peacefully in his sleep. No seizures or heart attacks or the possibility of many painful hours while his body fails after the removal of his life support. So the doctors decide to use lethal injection therefore killing him directly. No wiggle room.
            So you have already stated you would be against this (but bizarrely, you are ok with pulling the power, as this is not deemed killing him directly! What would a judge say! ).
            You are morally against this act of kindness and keep the old man alive (against his wishes and in great pain) .

            So in the two albeit extreme scenarios I have put to you, you had the option to save 11 peoples lives.
            (Saving the old man and the baby was not achievable).

            Your dogmatic principles and childish black and white morals have ignored the plight of these 11.Please be reminded of the baby and the old man, they were both doomed, and the old man even offered up his body in the noblest of gestures. Only for you to refuse his help to the others.

            What good are morals if they don’t serve the people?
            How have your morals helped when they see everyone in both scenarios dead? Who do these morals actually serve?, because is not the people involved, maybe sky fairies or woodland spirits perhaps? Who knows.
            You get to keep your principles while EVERYBODY IN BOTH SCENARIOS DIE. And for what reasons? Tow the party line?

            Are you sure the use of your morals are either for the good individual/ group or good in any way?

            Smart use of all your ‘theories of morality’ Albert, well done.

            As for your book recommendation, seeing as its teachings currently run at death for everyone and actually helps no one in our scenarios , I think you’ll understand why I will pass on it. I mean, the title is an oxymoron in itself, if ever I did see one.

            So to sum up everyone dies and your morals are still good.
            Sound wrong to you Albert? It should do.

            So Albert, just before I put you gently back on the stupid pile with all the other believers of retrograde religious silliness with its backwards psychology and useless (dangerous?) morals , I shall ask you one more question just to laugh at your childish attempt to apply morals in any ‘good’ way. Don’t worry it’s an easy one. 🙂

            Genocide. Good or bad?

          • Albert

            Try walking into a hospital, turning off the first life support you spot and then, after your inevitable arrest, claim your victim died of natural causes and that you didn’t ‘directly kill’ him/ her. Do you think the judge would agree? Very funny Albert.

            It’s strange how you laugh at my post. I was, after all simply developing your own utterly illegal suggestion. Do you not understand that philosopher make up scenarios not because they expect to be in them, but to isolate the points. Now the irony here is that it is permissible, both morally and legally, in some circumstances to turn off life-support, just not for the reasons you might give.

            The doctor says the kindest way to end the willing donors life would be by lethal injection. He just passes peacefully in his sleep. No seizures or heart attacks or the possibility of many painful hours while his body fails after the removal of his life support. So the doctors decide to use lethal injection therefore killing him directly. No wiggle room.
            So you have already stated you would be against this (but bizarrely, you are ok with pulling the power, as this is not deemed killing him directly! What would a judge say! ).

            But withdrawing the life support is legal, in some situations. Because the law follows the principle that I am defending: you cannot directly kill innocent human life. The law isn’t consequentalist as you are. It understands the difference between letting the illness kill someone and the doctor killing them. Can you really not see the difference here? It’s so obvious! Now you are the one who said you thought it was always wrong to kill people, and yet now you are mocking me for thinking it is always wrong to kill people. Can we have some consistency, please? Or it just that, despite so informed, you have never thought all this through?

            So in the two albeit extreme scenarios I have put to you, you had the option to save 11 peoples lives.
            (Saving the old man and the baby was not achievable).

            What you propose is illegal, because everyone has the right to life. This isn’t some strange Catholic eccentricity. It is the law. Do you have no knowledge of all this? The law protects innocent individuals, however sick, from being used as a means to someone else’s end. This is the most basic and fundamental right. Even if euthanasia comes in, it will specifically disallow what you take to be so obviously correct. The fact that that this concern contradicts what the law says on abortion just shows that the law on abortion is irrational.

            Are you sure the use of your morals are either for the good of the individual/ group or good in any way?

            Great, so now you’re some kind of collectivist. May I suggest you send your ideas to your MP and see if he wishes to bring forward a bill to permit it?

            because is not the people involved, maybe sky fairies or woodland spirits perhaps?

            So you have no idea about moral theory. You have no idea about the law, and yet you think this is all down sky fairies or woodland spirits? You are so underinformed, you don’t even know it.

            As for your book recommendation, seeing as its teachings seemingly currently runs at death for everyone and actually helps no one in our scenarios , I think you’ll understand why I will pass on it.

            Okay fine. Dismiss 90% of the Western moral philosophical tradition. But at least read it first – read something, even if you don’t read that book.

            <i.So Albert, just before I put you gently back on the stupid pile with all the other believers of retrograde religious silliness with its backwards psychology and useless (dangerous?) morals

            And there goes the UN Declaration of Human Rights and probably the legal system and their judges of every Western nation onto the “stipud pile”.

            Genocide. Good or bad?

            Obviously bad. The fact that you ask suggests you don’t understand a single word I’ve said. Moreover, you don’t realise that once accept killing for the sake of some wider good of someone else, that that is the principle on which genocide rests.

          • Powerdaddy

            Couple of points.
            Fatal pregnancy is one of very few reasons I would accept the use of abortion.
            The old man doesn’t need protection from law as he was a willing donor, your morals refused his ultimate act of charity. But my point being if I turned off a life support to a patient and they died soon after I would feel responsible for their death. You seem to indicate you would not. The act of switching off the machine is death by natural causes, no blame to be had anywhere, apparently.
            You pull the plug you kill them.

            (This has nothing to do with the medical profession having lawful right to withdraw treatment in certain circumstances anyway.)

            And for the law?
            Race segregation.
            Degraded Woman’s rights.
            Chemical castration for being homosexual.
            Etc etc. ..
            The law isn’t always a good starting point is it, morally speaking?

            These laws have been changed in spite of Christianity not with its help. I’ve seen Christians on this very website calling for all three of those examples to be brought back and to revert back to the good old days.

            Let it be known I don’t usually run around encouraging the topping babies and old men. These extreme scenarios were just to expose the consequences and the very real uselessness of your black and white ethics.

            I hope you are not sticking to those morals in these two scenarios that killed everyone in them?
            I hope you are not going to tell me the group in the two scenarios were best served by your morals. If so you are an idiot, plain and simple.
            Can morals be deemed good if they kill the entire group they serve, and if so how are they good?

            So you vote genocide bad do you?

            God drowns the whole earth.
            In Genesis 7:21-23
            God kills half a million people.
            In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18
            God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.In Exodus 12:29 (baby killer! Your God killed babies! Right on point.)
            I have plenty more examples. So do you in your good (lol) book.

            Your worship figure seems fine with it.

            How do your black and white morals handle that?
            Please explain?

            What’s that Albert? You don’t have to answer that because your not an apologist?
            Very funny Albert!

            This part was particularly dumb even for you.
            “Moreover, you don’t realise that once accept killing for the sake of some wider good of someone else, that that is the principle on which genocide rests.”

            Please explain to me in your most best intellectually superior voice GODS perfect plan of kill Jesus on the cross for some wider good of his creations? ? ?

            (And don’t try to tell me again God didn’t want it to happen this way again Albert, that is a very very dishonest thing for a Christian to say.)

            So again was Jesus KILLED for some wider good? ?

            You strange fellow you….

          • Albert

            In brief, because it’s late.

            Fatal pregnancy is one of very few reasons I would accept the use of abortion.

            How do you reconcile that with your earlier claim that killing human life is always wrong?

          • Powerdaddy

            Answer my post properly. I can wait. My answer will follow yours. …

          • Albert

            I don’t have to do anything that you command, Powerdaddy. I hope I’ve already made it clear that I do grasp these issues and if you do think you have asked difficult questions, that is only because you are unfamiliar with this material.

            Fatal pregnancy is one of very few reasons I would accept the use of abortion.

            In which case, you contradict one of your own principles.

            The old man doesn’t need protection from law as he was a willing donor, your morals refused his ultimate act of charity.

            The fact that someone does something willingly does not mean they aren’t being harmed by it, and does not mean they shouldn’t be protected. Just ask the people who clear up the bodies of suicides, and ask their families.

            But my point being if I turned off a life support to a patient and they died soon after I would feel responsible for their death. You seem to indicate you would not. The act of switching off the machine is death by natural causes, no blame to be had anywhere, apparently.

            You really, really must stop jumping to conclusions – you just don’t know enough about this topic to do so. An act may not be wrong in itself, but still be wrong for other reasons, such as if it is done for a bad motive. So in this case, it would depend. If I switched it off because I wanted to hurry up my inheritance then that would be murderous. But if I switched it off (and it would depend, BTW on what kind of treatment was being given) because all treatments have failed, are burdensome to the patient and just prolonging the agony, and I did not switch off with the intention of them dying, but just with the recognition that attempts to save them had failed, then that would be entirely acceptable – merciful even. I don’t know how I would feel, though.

            (This has nothing to do with the medical profession having lawful right to withdraw treatment in certain circumstances anyway.)

            So why attribute all that rubbish of your previous paragraph to me?

            And for the law?
            Race segregation.
            Degraded Woman’s rights.
            Chemical castration for being homosexual.
            Etc etc. ..
            The law isn’t always a good starting point is it, morally speaking?

            Do keep up. I wasn’t using the law as a moral guide. That ought to have been obvious to anyone who understood my post, after all, I said of the law The fact that that this concern contradicts what the law says on abortion just shows that the law on abortion is irrational., My purpose in citing the law was simply to show that the position I take, and which you mock, isn’t some strange Catholic eccentricity, but is sufficiently widely held to be the law.

            These laws have been changed in spite of Christianity not with its help.

            Well that’s another set of things that you are prejudiced and ignorant about, then.

            I’ve seen Christians on this very website calling for all three of those examples to be brought back and to revert back to the good old days.

            A third of the world is Christian, Powerdaddy. You cannot take a small sample and infer from it the views of Christianity. That is just utterly irrational.

            Let it be known I don’t usually run around encouraging the topping of babies and old men.

            Not usually, just sometimes.

            These extreme scenarios were just to expose the consequences and the very real uselessness of your black and white ethics.

            Hang on. In a previous post, you criticized me for inventing extreme scenarios. Also, isn’t my position just the outworking of your own claim that you are always opposed to killing people. Again I ask, can we have some consistency, please?

            I hope you are not going to tell me the group in the two scenarios were best served by your morals. If so you are an idiot, plain and simple.

            So let’s just be clear: I apply principles you said you hold (“always” was the word you use) and yet I am an idiot according to you. Doesn’t that make you doubly an idiot just as much as me (for holding a false principle) and also for then condemning me for holding something that you, if you were logical, hold also?

            In Genesis 7:21-23
            God kills half a million people.
            In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18
            God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.In Exodus 12:29 (baby killer! Your God killed babies! Right on point.)

            I don’t think you are in a position to talk about biblical theology – you haven’t even cited the passages correctly. And since you have continued in this line, you obviously understood my comment that I am not a fundamentalist (not, as you say an “apologist”, which is something quite different).

            Please explain to me in your most best intellectually superior voice of GODS perfect plan to kill Jesus on the cross for some wider good of his creations? ? ?

            I’m not your intellectual superior. Remember, this conversation started with you saying I’m more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness. But here again, you just don’t understand what you critique. God does not kill Jesus on the cross. If you were serious about this topic, and you are not, I would explain my take on the cross.

            And don’t try to tell me God didn’t want it to happen this way again Albert, that is a very very dishonest thing for a Christian to say.

            Powerdaddy, you are just not in a position to have this discussion.

            So again was Jesus KILLED for some wider good? ?

            He certainly was: it is better for you that one man diefor the people than that the whole nation perish. It’s just the wider good for which people killed him, did not in fact justify the killing.

            You strange fellow you….

            What’s strange is that you set yourself up as some kind of superior authority on these matters but then speak endlessly, and rather publicly on matters that you clearly do not understand and cannot think coherently about.

            Now perhaps you will answer the question I asked you:

            Fatal pregnancy is one of very few reasons I would accept the use of abortion. How do you reconcile that with your earlier claim that killing human life is always wrong?

          • Powerdaddy

            Genocide bad, God bad?
            Sidestepping much?
            Not getting drawn into God killing babies? How are your morals with this?

            You said

            “He certainly was: it is better for you that one man diefor the people than that the whole nation perish.”

            Same thing smaller scale.

            If it’s good enough for God it’s good it’s good enough for us ……Not hard is it Albert?

            Better that some people come out the other side than none at all.

            Can we save the people in the two scenarios now?
            Or are we still insisting no one comes out the other side?

            Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

          • Albert

            Not getting drawn into God killing babies? How are your morals with this?

            If you’ve followed the argument so far, you will know that I think genocide is wrong. Remember: it is you that has the principle that allows genocide – killing in favour of some greater good. At least, that is one of your principles. The other one of course, completely excludes that, your belief that it is always wrong to kill people. Strangely you don’t seem to have had the space in your long post to explain whether you do, or do not hold that principle still. Doubtless, with the great grasp of these matters, of which you boasted at the beginning, you are able to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time. Something we followers of retrograde superstitious silliness are incapable of doing. But then doublethink is for the strong – such as those still surviving in Oceania.

            The issue of what the Bible says is a question of exegesis. And this does not seem to be your strong suit, as you have, it would appear, interpreted it is better for you that one man diefor the people than that the whole nation perish in the exact opposite sense from that intended by scripture. But then irony seems to something you create without appreciating. You look like you feel triumphant in your post, but anyone with even a cursory biblical knowledge will see that you have it entirely back to front and are shooting yourself in the foot with your misunderstanding.

            Now you said you would answer my question, but you have not. Would you please answer it:

            You saidFatal pregnancy is one of very few reasons I would accept the use of abortion.

            How do you reconcile that with your earlier claim that killing human life is always wrong?

          • Powerdaddy

            ALBERT!

            FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

            The ONLY reason I could think of, of why I would be in favour of genocide, is if I knew it was the ONLY way to prevent a much bigger one. It isn’t difficult. The crux of the matter is even if you knew this too you would still head straight for the much bigger genocide anyway.

            I hope you are not sticking to those morals in these two scenarios that killed everyone in them?
            I hope you are not going to tell me the group in the two scenarios were
            best served by your morals. If so you are an idiot, plain and simple.
            Can morals be deemed good if they kill the entire group they serve, and if so how are they good?

          • Albert

            The ONLY reason I could think of, of why I would be in favour of genocide, is if I knew it was the ONLY way to prevent a much bigger one. It isn’t difficult. The crux of the matter is even if you knew this too you would still head straight for the much bigger genocide anyway.

            Let’s just look at this you have said that there are circumstances in which you would be in favour of genocide. I’m shocked by two things: firstly that there are any circumstances in which you would think genocide was the solution. Secondly, that you say this as if anyone who thinks differently from you is somehow mad. I doubt many people would agree with you.

            Now as to this genocide to prevent a bigger genocide. Are you so lacking in history, that you don’t understand that that is the kind of reasoning that in real world scenarios was used to justify genocide. When a nation feels a minority is threatening, that they are growing, that their influence is perceived to be dangerous, then genocide becomes a danger. And if people think like you they will fall for it. If you weren’t so culturally illiterate, you would realise that this warning at the beginning of the Bible:

            Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war befall us, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens; and they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Ra-am’ses. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they made the people of Israel serve with rigor, and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field; in all their work they made them serve with rigor. Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph’rah and the other Pu’ah, “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.”

            I thought everyone knew that story. Obviously not.

            And even if I accept your case for genocide, it still doesn’t allow you to support abortion in any case except where both mother and child will die.

            I hope you are not sticking to those morals in these two scenarios that killed everyone in them?

            I am not going to kill innocent people. As you yourself said: killing people is always wrong.

            I hope you are not going to tell me the group in the two scenarios were best served by your morals. If so you are an idiot, plain and simple.

            Can’t you see that you are calling yourself “an idiot, plain and simple”? Now will you answer the question I put to you, do you stand by your assertion that it is always wrong to kill people? Or did you just say that before you had given any thought at all to this question, despite being more informed than followers of retrograde superstitious silliness?

          • Powerdaddy

            You have missed the point entirely.This is totally hypothetical.There is no way of knowing if a lesser genocide would stop a larger one, so it follows there is no way I could be for a genocide.Doesn’t it?

            The ***ONLY**** reason I could ***think*** of, of why I would be in favour of genocide, is if I knew it was the ONLY way to prevent a much bigger one.It isn’t difficult. The CRUX of the matter is even if you knew A SMALLER GENOCIDE WOULD STOP A MUCH BIGGER GENOCIDE you would still head straight for the much bigger genocide anyway.

            You always seem to be up for the most number of deaths possible in all these scenarios.

            Have you noticed this trend yet?It’s quite worrying……. “better” morals tend to kill less people, as a rule of thumb don’t you think?
            But what are lives when you have principles, eh Albert?
            I hope you are not going to tell me the group in the two (three?)scenarios were best served by your morals. If so you are an idiot, plain and simple

            I stand by my assertion killing is always wrong.You seem happy with it in self defense.I wouldn’t be.

            Although I would be happy for the old man to be killed, because he gave permission he was in pain and whatever you gave him was terminal and I probably would give the green light for the injection if i were in his position.

            p.s.
            Samuel 6:19
            And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

            Gods (your?) morals…………………

          • Albert

            The fact that you would be in favour of genocide in any context is worrying enough. Killing people is always wrong – as you said. Moreover, you have in fact come up with one of the objections to consequentialism: you don’t know the full consequences. You never do. By having a genocide to stop a genocide, you give genocide a kind of legitimacy. Which in turn makes genocide more likely elsewhere. So even if in a particular case, you save lives, in the long run, you lose them. Perhaps by permitting abortion, in one case to save life, you end up creating a culture in which more people die. That is almost certainly what has happened. Thus, even on consequentialist grounds, your position makes no sense.

            But you are still refusing to answer the question whether you believe what you said about it always being wrong to kill people.

          • Little Black Censored

            I deleted a rather intemperate comment here.

          • sarky

            I dont. But why should I as a tax payer,pay for a surgical procedure because of a women’s stupidity in not taking advantage of the plethora of contraception available.

          • Albert

            So you support all abortion, but you are opposed to paying for it, if it is the woman’s fault? Suppose she used contraception, and used it properly, but it failed? Would you pay, through your taxes, for her abortion, then?

          • sarky

            Falls under exceptional circumstances (not her fault).Also, if women had to start paying for the procedure then I think you would find the rates dropping dramatically. At present abortion is a get out of jail free card.

          • Albert

            I certainly agree with the idea that if people pay for things they are likely to become more responsible. But your position is that you are not opposed to any abortion in principle, you just don’t want to pay for them when it is the mother’s fault that she is pregnant? Is that your position?

          • sarky

            Think I’ve said enough for my position to be clear.

          • Albert

            Fair enough, but I’m not sure that your position is the one you set out yesterday:

            As someone who is ok with abortion, but only in specific circumstances and within a specified (lower than current) time frame.

            Besides, if you do support abortion in all cases (albeit not provided by tax payers) then I can’t see your beef with those who sell foetal tissue.

          • Little Black Censored

            Sarky was waiting for a chance to leave off, because even he was beginning to realize he did not understand the arguments. All we need now is for Linus to join in – Oh, I see he has.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            You know your views. Or are you now saying you think abortion is always wrong?

          • Little Black Censored

            These particular body-part harvesters don’t call the money they get profit; they call it compensation, to meet the expenses of charitably crunching up unborn children.

  • Linus

    If Christians want to ban abortion, they should fund research into the development of gestation tanks where women can deposit their unwanted foetuses.

    After birth (or decanting), the child would become the legal ward of the Church, and could be farmed out to a dad’n’mom family wishing to foster or adopt (in consideration of a small “donation”, of course), or raised behind bars in a battery orphanage (the bars being necessary to protect the child against the depredations of improperly motivated monks, nuns, pastors or priests, thereby preventing any repetition of the sex abuse scandals that have so rocked the Church in recent years).

    It sounds like the perfect solution to me. In fact it might even encourage other women, who under normal circumstances would never contemplate abortion, to delegate the task of motherhood to the Church. It would free them up from the onerous tasks of gestation, birth and child care, and ensure that many more children would be raised according to the strictest interpretation of Christianity.

    The number of vocations would skyrocket, as it’s a well-known fact that many children consciously or unconsciously emulate their parent or carer’s career choices. And in its vastly expanded role as a nursery for unwanted offspring, the Church would move once more into the mainstream of society as a provider of essential services. It might even make a bit of a profit, although clearly not at the receiving end. I mean, it couldn’t pay for unwanted foetuses (a bit like the bounty on returned glass bottles) without falling foul of legislation designed to prevent human trafficking. But the “donations”‘linked to adoptions would provide a nice income, which it could supplement by training up the least talented of its charges as laundresses, let’s say, and then selling their services to paying clients and skimming a nice profit off the top.

    What a great idea! I wonder why it’s never been tried before?

    • The Explorer

      And a marvellous solution for a same-sex couple wanting a kid. (Which I personally sympathise with: parental impulses run deep.)

      • Linus

        Ah, but the Church would never sell give over a child into the care of a same-sex couple. It’s against their principles.

        Of course such discrimination is also against the principles of most Western governments, so these baby vats and attendant orphanages would have to be situated on Vatican territory, or at least in countries sympathetic to the Church’s stance, like Russia or Poland.

        So the foetal donation procedure for most people would involve getting on a train or plane and traveling abroad. It would be a bit like going to Dignitas in Switzerland, only in reverse…

        Or perhaps they could set up collection centres in cities around the world and then ship tubs full of foetuses to their Eastern European baby factories.

        The logistics of such an operation would be extremely complex, but I have no doubt the Church would apply itself to the task with the greatest of vim, vigour and a renewed vitality. After all these years of slim pickings, the prospect of a thumping harvest of new souls for the Lawd would motivate them like nothing else. That and the money, of course…

        • The Explorer

          You’ve really thought about this, haven’t you?

          • Ditto my reply to Albert

          • The Explorer

            I disagree. I don’t imagine for a moment that anything I say will have any influence on Linus. But he represents the views of the secular world. When he is not being flippant, or simply neurotic, he does so effectively. Not to address the points he raises might give the impression to some that they are unanswerable.

            He uses the methods and arguments of the world beyond this Blog. I find that to rehearse arguments against him here is good practice for when I encounter them elsewhere.

            But I can see the similarity to the argument about not feeding seagulls. If the majority opinion is that the Blog would be better off without him, and the way to get rid of him is not to respond to him, then I will go along with the wishes of the majority.

            The ultimate decision, of course, rests with our Host.

        • Albert

          I think the fact that you are evading this issue with such bad humour shows you cannot defend what is going on.

          • Please don’t dignify him with a response – all of us can see what an inept, amoral fool he is. Don’t feed the trolls.

          • Albert

            I’m inclined to agree, he isn’t making any serious contribution. Moreover, he is of course playing up the idea that only religious people oppose abortion, a move which plays into the standard framework that all these issues are about religion against freedom. All of which misses the real issues. I suspect he is the only person to have mentioned religion here.

          • He never does. I stopped reading his comments many months ago. He’s like the precocious child at an adults dinner party: the polite adults tolerate him for a while out of respect for the host but eventually the grown-ups just go to another room to talk until the tiresome oik goes to bed.

          • Linus

            It just goes to show that what you think is worth very little indeed.

            Abortion is an emotive subject because it touches the lives of your own children, or the children you may hope to have. I have no children and certainly never will. Neither do I desire any. So as far as I’m concerned, abortion is something that affects other people and I can treat the subject with a level of humour that others may not appreciate.

            But you know what? Too bad for you if you don’t like that! The gay community has been the butt of jokes for centuries. Nobody ever thought how offensive they may be to us. So if you’re offended by my sense of humour, just get over yourself! The way I’m often told to get over myself when I object to “poofter” jokes.

          • Albert

            The gay community has been the butt of jokes for centuries.

            Of course, it’s all about you in the end.

        • Martin

          Linus

          A ‘same sex couple’ aren’t really a couple though, are they, they are two of the same. Indeed, the whole point of being two vanishes when you are the same sex, since it is entirely based on the fact of two genders.

          All in al you demonstrate the nonsense of your position, you cannot be joined to one who is different because you are the same. You cannot have real marriage.

          • Linus

            No, you’re quite wrong. My husband and I are married. We have the legally witnessed documents to prove it.

            You see, the black magic you rant on about that makes two men or two women repel each other doesn’t exist in nature, only in your tenuous and superstition-riddled mind. Magnetism exists, but it only applies to metals, and neither my husband nor I are robots, or even evil androids from outer space, or demons come to destroy you.

            No, were just a couple of married and law-abiding citizens whose lives are so perfectly unaffected by your ranting opposition to the reality of our marriage that we just laugh at your prejudice and then pity you for the lack of intelligence and common sense it betrays.

            Your problem though.
            Certainly not ours. How can your opposition possibly affect us? Who cares what some gibbering maniac of a religionist believes, unless he arms himself and starts exacting revenge on all those he hates so much. In that case we’d certainly be first in the firing line, and would therefore be deeply concerned by your obsessive mental derangement, and be forced to appeal to the authorities to lock you up in a place where your condition could be treated.

            In the meantime however, you’re just another religious kook who uses faith as his excuse to vomit hatred over everyone he disapproves of. Carry on, by all means. We’re impervious to your hatred, so vomit away! Perhaps if you empty your system of all that bile, you may start to see things differently. Unlikely, but we can live in hope…

          • Martin

            Linus

            No, you aren’t married, your documents are worthless, you have been conned.

            What magic did I speak of, none, I spoke of what God commands and all that He commands is for our good. Prejudice is a good thing, especially when it is against what is evil, for what is evil destroys. My opposition to your evil doesn’t affect you, but your evil certainly affects you for it causes you to come under God’s wrath.

            Yet God still offers you mercy, for your rebellion and self-worship. Therein is real love for a love that saves an enemy cannot be bested. Where is the hatred in pointing you too that mercy?

          • Linus

            Yes, I am married. My documents are worth every bit as much as any married couple’s documents. For absolute proof I can refer you to the Wills my husband and I just drew up, which were registered and confirmed by the State.

            Mine makes my husband my legal heir, much to the rage and chagrin of my avaricious and unpleasant cousin, who would have received everything one day had I remained single.

            What’s worthless is your bogus claim that the law hasn’t been changed and that marriage is still limited to opposite sex couples. You have conned yourself into thinking that your word is the law. It is not, poor deluded Christian…

          • Martin

            Linus

            Lets see, marriage is between a man and a woman. It was created by God about 6k years ago. Are you married to a person of the opposite sex? If you’re not you are not married. Wasn’t that easy?

            The state has no authority over marriage, it cannot change the definition. Your wills have no relevance to the question and the law cannot change the definition of marriage.

            Sorry about that, seems you aren’t really married, just playing like children do.

            But remember, God offers you mercy.

          • Linus

            Ah, I see the full extent of your delirium now. You’re a creationist, aren’t you? You believe that Adam and Eve were real and that we all descend from them, and there never were any dinosaurs, or evolution, and there really was a garden of Eden and a serpent, etc., etc.

            I wondered how crazy crazy could get, but now I know.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Why would I think there were no dinosaurs? The Bible mentions them and where else do you think stories of dragons have come from.

            As for Evolution, has anyone demonstrated it by creating all the variety of life we see today from a prokaryote by breeding?

    • Albert

      Extraordinary that you take such a tragic and disgusting issue and turn it into such bad humour. But I suppose, if you can’t defend your position against the opposition, the next best thing is to mock the opposition. Certainly, that’s been the policy of secularists of late.

      • CliveM

        It also reflects the value given to human life. Why not treat it as a joke, the individual doesn’t matter and life is meaningless anyway. Linus is simply being consistent.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Maybe we should arrange for him to perform some abortions – I think he would rapidly change his mind at that point – unless he really is an utterly heartless……

          • CliveM

            I’m not sure he would be willing to forego his morning Pain Au Chocolat. It would entail facing the reality of what he glibly identifies as worthy of turning into a joke.

            Linus is good at glib.

      • Linus

        According to the secular viewpoint, a woman has absolute sovereignty over her own body. This includes her uterus.

        Any foetus taking up residence in a woman’s uterus must therefore be subject to her right to evict it at any moment.

        If the eviction takes place before the foetus is capable of fending for itself, it will die. This is bad luck for the fetus, and will probably influence many women to put up with their unwanted tenant until it can move out and survive on its own. But others will take measures to expel it immediately, and in doing so, condemn it to death. This is their right. It has to be, otherwise they are reduced to the status of slaves. You cannot oblige a woman to bear a child she does not want.
        Try and you’ll simply force her to take matters into her own hands.

        Anti-abortionists act as though all we have to do is change the law to stop all abortions from happening. They forget that before modern abortion laws, just as many abortions took place, but illegally, in “back street” circumstances, leading to much death and serious injury. And those rare women who were forced to carry unwanted children to term often suffered terribly as a result. The children too.

        I went to school with a boy whose mother had been forced by her devout husband to give birth to him. Like many pious Catholic families at that time, they had a huge number of children and the woman was quite simply fed up to the back teeth with having to care for squalling infants she didn’t want, but had no choice but to keep on pumping out.

        When her last child came along, she finally rebelled. She would probably have consigned it to a nanny had her husband not vetoed the idea. She was the child’s
        mother and therefore had to act like a mother. So with her bully of a husband breathing down her neck, she was forced to look after the child. Which she did, physically at least. But she had her revenge in other ways.

        As I said, she took care of the child, but she gave him no love at all. Quite the reverse. She loathed him. He represented everything she hated about her situation and her life and she treated him like a despised animal that she was being forced to care for against her will.

        You will hardly be surprised to hear that this child grew into a deeply damaged boy. Whiny, clingy, utterly unhappy and virtually incapable of sustaining any kind of human relationship. He was hated at school just as much as he was at home, because anyone who took pity on him and tried to extend a hand of friendship found himself the target of such an overwhelming maelstrom of neediness and anger that he was swamped and could only beat a hasty retreat. A young boy could not provide the love this child was so desperate for. I doubt that anyone could have. He was broken beyond repair.

        As I completed my last year of school in England, I wasn’t around to witness the terrible events of this boy’s suicide at the age of 18. His body was found by a lay brother swinging from one of the beams of a barn situated on the school estate. Even though I had fled from the boy just like all of my classmates, I wasn’t insensible to the tragedy of the situation, so the news affected me deeply, and I asked for and was granted permission to attend the funeral.

        I’ll never forget the serene countenance of the boy’s mother, who seemed completely untroubled by the task of burying this unwanted son. The father just looked angry, and the many brothers and sisters resigned and browbeaten.

        As it was a suicide, the funeral was a very “hole in a corner” business, and that’s where he was buried, in a hole in an unconsecrated municipal cemetary. Last time I looked, there wasn’t even a headstone. Perhaps he never even existed and it was all just a bad dream…

        It certainly was for him. And his mother. She also took her own life, many years later, as did two more of her children. So four lives were lost as a result of one man’s act of tyranny. That’s what happens in a world where abortion is outlawed and women are forced to have children they don’t want. And you want to take us back there?

        Good thing you don’t have the numbers to do it.

        • sarky

          Thank you Linus for presenting the other side of the coin in such a powerful way.

          • carl jacobs

            sarky

            “Let me kill my child because otherwise I might kill my child or treat him so badly he might kill himself” is not a powerful argument. His entire argument would hold if the woman in question had only one child. It does not turn upon the objective value of the child’s life but upon the subjective expectations of the adult to happiness and comfort and leisure. Love is not a feeling. It is a choice to act in the benevolent interest of another. You don’t get a free pass because things are hard.

            And thank you for making me read one of his comments. I try to avoid that, you know.

          • avi barzel

            Yes, powerful. Few views can trigger my gag reflex.

          • sarky

            Oi play nicely!! Everyone’s entitled to their opinion!

          • avi barzel

            True, and that includes me.

        • VivM

          I have lurked here for a while, but this is my first comment. I signed up because this kind of emotive rubbish needs challenging.

          I too was an unwanted child, deeply damaged by my mother, and ostracized at school. In my 20s I came close to suicide. Fast forward 20 years,and I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, happily married, and with two children I don’t abuse.

          I’m very clear that you don’t get to use the stories of abused children as pro abortion propaganda. My life has been tough at times, but it’s been better than being dismembered in the womb and having my body parts flogged off to the highest bidder. You do not speak for me.

          The dynamics and causes of abusive families are complex, and sadly will always be with us. The answers lie in loving communities and churches that can support, heal and show better ways. Without a doubt there was more going on in the family you describe than a prohibition on abortion. Simply killing unwanted pregnancies off will not, indeed has not, led to less broken childhoods.

          • Linus

            So you turned to an imaginary god for solace and found everything you needed, eh? What a surprise! Of course you did, because you made it all up for yourself.

            Where is this ever-loving god of yours? Show him to me if you can. No? You can’t? That’s because he only lives in your head. He’s no more real than Mr Right or Mr Darcy or any other literary hero.

            Still, far be it from me to tell you you were wrong to retreat into your own fantasy world. The subconscious provides all sorts of coping strategies for dealing with trauma. Religion is one of them. If it works and stops you from topping yourself, it’s all well and good. Deluded and alive is better than lucid and dead, especially if you have children to take care of now.

            I’ve never advocated the outlawing of religion. We’re all free to delude ourselves as much as we like. I do advocate the outlawing of religion’s power to impose its demands on those who do not believe in it. So believe what you like. Have as many children as you like. But if you try to prevent anyone from exercising her legal right to terminate her pregnancy because of your religious beliefs, then expect determined and implacable opposition from me.

          • VivM

            Nope, I’m not going to defend my faith, because it’s a red herring. Nice try, but no.

            The issue is of using stories of abused children to defend the right to abortion. The logic seems to be that a child is better off aborted and dead than alive and abused. This is nihilistic, illogical and utterly morally incoherent.

          • The Explorer

            Linus loves red herrings. Well spotted.

          • Linus

            So you prefer to force women to have children they don’t want. You’re morally happy to reduce them to prisoners to your religious scruples. They must resign control of their bodies to you, must they?

            You’re a typical example of how religious morality is just a mask for an utterly amoral world view. You claim the right to make your own decisions, yet want to deny this to others. It’s “my way or the highway”. Narcissism writ large.

            Sorry, we won’t let you do it. We know what the world was like when it was run by people like you and we won’t let that happen again.

          • VivM

            This is not a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue. Either the right of the child to life takes precedence over the woman’s right to freedom from pregnancy or it doesn’t. You clearly believe the woman’s rights take precedence. I didn’t post to argue that, one way or another. I posted to suggest you back down from using an abused child as an example of why abortion should be allowed. Since you’ve retreated from that position, (covering yourself with a fig leaf of inflammatory anti religion rhetoric on the way), and fallen back on confirming what you really care about is the women’s right, my work is done here. 🙂

          • Linus

            I recommend you re-read my posts on this subject. Nowhere have I suggested that child abuse should be used as an excuse for abortion. I merely cited an example of the kind of tragedy that can result from women being denied the right to terminate their pregnancies.

            A woman’s right to control her own body is certainly the crux of this matter. You want to limit that for the sake of a mindless clump of cells that might grow into a child, or that might be miscarried. But an embryo is not a child. It is an embryo. Not until it can survive outside of the womb can it be considered a child.

            Look at it another way. A chicken’s egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken. The little brown speck you sometimes see on a fertilized yolk when you crack an egg open is not a chicken. You don’t say “what a delicious chicken I’ve just eaten” when you eat a boiled egg containing that little brown spot. Of course you don’t, because what you’ve eaten is not a chicken. It’s an egg. Yet somehow you want us to believe that the equivalent of that little brown spot in a human uterus is a fully fledged human being. It isn’t. It’s just a little brown spot.

            Nature takes care of many of these little brown spots, or the little brown blobs they grow into, by spontaneously aborting them for all sorts of reasons. And of course there will come a time when, if it hasn’t been ejected from the womb by natural processes, that little brown blob will start to resemble something vaguely human. It’s at this point that we can start speaking of a foetus rather than an embryo. And as foetal development continues, another milestone will eventually be reached when it becomes capable of independent life.

            Current abortion legislation in most of Europe limits abortion to the period before a foetus reaches the point of development where independent life is possible. The law judges that before this moment, as the foetus is not viable on its own, it is therefore a part of somebody else’s body and has no independent rights apart from that body. Once it becomes capable of independent life however, then the law deems it to be alive – or at least capable of life – and starts to protect it.

            It’s at this point that a woman’s right to control her own body can be constrained. Up until that point she can do what she likes. But after the foetus becomes viable, its right to continue its development starts to conflict with the woman’s right to control her own body, so some form of hierarchy of rights has to be imposed in order to ensure the best outcome for everyone.

            If a viable foetus is aborted, it will die, which the law considers to be a bad thing because a basic principle of our society is that life should be protected. But if a woman is forced to carry a viable foetus against her will, this is also a bad thing, as her sovereign right over her own body is being taken away.

            Weighing the two wrongs against each other, it’s clear that the foetus has more to lose, therefore its rights have to take precedence over the woman’s rights. This is the justification for the ban on late term abortions and it makes perfect sense to me. A foetus that can survive outside the womb is alive, a little brown blob is not. It’s as simple as that.

            This is the law as it stands and this is how it will continue, because it enjoys broad support across all sections of society. Some religionists want it changed, but until they can form a majority and elect a government that will be able to push the necessary legislative changes through parliament, the law will stay as it is. As the takeover of any Western European country by the forces of Christianity doesn’t appear to be imminent, I think we can safely say that abortion is here to stay. Rant and rave about it all you like. But there just isn’t anything you can do to stop it.

          • VivM

            “I recommend you re-read my posts on this subject. Nowhere have I
            suggested that child abuse should be used as an excuse for abortion.”

            No, you insinuated it, and I called you on it.

            “I
            merely cited an example of the kind of tragedy that can result from
            women being denied the right to terminate their pregnancies.”

            The implication clearly being, that if the boy in the story had been aborted, it would have been better all round, and magically fixed an abusive marriage and a mentally ill mother. I don’t think so. And the boy would have died without hope and without chances.

            But never mind – he’d have died at medical hands before an arbitary cut of point of ‘viability’ (not a meaningful concept when premature babies are kept artificially alive, and grown toddlers are totally dependent on care for their ‘viability’), so he actually wouldn’t have existed, so that’s ok then.

            But I’m done here, because your abusive tirades and red herring waving are getting boring. Actually, I agree with you that there are abusive forms of religion. If you wern’t so busy calling me a deluded, ranting, amoral narcissist, then you’d find we might have common ground regarding some of the churches errors. But you are so determined to tar all ‘religionists’ with the same angry brush that there’s no talking to you. You’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where you and your ilk are going to get rid of religion and we’d all live happily ever after.

          • Linus

            We’ll never get rid of religion completely because human beings are always going to thirst for power over others, and they’re always going to be so in love with themselves and their own ideas that they take them for absolute truth.

            What we can do is relegate religion to its rightful sphere. Religious fantasies are private matters and have no place in public policy making. No-one who is not a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew) should ever be subject to Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) religious law. The law of the land should never be confused or conflated with religious law.

            That is the state of affairs towards which we are moving. And when we arrive there, that’s as far as we’ll be able to go.

            And as for what you claim I “insinuated”, your interpretation of my words engages nobody but you. Once again, a religionist takes her interpretation of a text and erects it into indisputable truth. A very good illustration of why religion is so dangerous.

          • Little Black Censored

            “…the point of development where independent life is possible.”
            When did you become “viable” outside the womb? At time in your teens I should guess. Before then your life, before and after birth, was a continual process of protected development. Yours is an argument for infanticide.

          • Linus

            Utter nonsense. I refer you to my comment above. If you don’t understand the difference between independent life and the life of a body part, one wonders why you aren’t picketing hospitals and demanding an end to all amputations, appendectomies and wisdom tooth extractions.

          • Little Black Censored

            The child in the womb is not a “body part”. I am astonished that you need to be reminded of this.

          • Linus

            The non-viable foetus is not a child, it’s a non-viable foetus. Detach it from a woman’s body and it withers and dies, just like any other body part. It has no independent life, and for a child to be a child, it has to be independently alive. I am astonished that you need to be reminded of this.

          • Barzini

            most pro choicers believe it is a crime for a woman to abort a 7 month fetus

          • avi barzel

            A good response, although wasted on Linus. “Feck off, sick moron,” would have sufficed but, hey, you’re new here.

          • carl jacobs

            I shouldn’t upvote that comment, but it made me laugh so hard, I was morally compelled to do so.

            Bad Avi. Bad! Bad! Bad!

          • Owl

            No Carl, Avi’s comment was perfectly correct!

          • carl jacobs

            Owl

            We must always treat our opponent with respect -even if they don’t reciprocate.

          • avi barzel

            I was just as conflicted and troubled to offer such consultation, but after approaching the issue from this and that, angle, I saw no other ethically permissible option.

          • Little Black Censored

            He reduces every discussion to the existence, or not, of God. One might almost think he is worried about it.

          • Albert

            What an extraordinarily callous post. One minute you tell us an emotional and tragic story to persuade us of the goodness of your cause, the next you reply to someone who tells a similar story which undercuts yours in this way.

        • So, would you grant your mother the right to have aborted you, Linus?

          • avi barzel

            Linus won’t reply because this question is too close to home. Just as feminists are now up in arms about female-selective abortions, the prospect of abortions based on real or imagined identification of homosexual fetuses will not be shrugged off by the LGBT without whining about genocide. Linus is bright enough to know that he is walking into your trap where he has to defend arbitrarily or politically protected classes without a reasonable argument.

          • It’s a question Jack asks all those who claim a woman has the right to abort her child – not just homosexuals or those with so called protected status.

          • Linus

            I can’t grant rights to anyone, because I don’t have the power to do so. I’m not a dictator. Unlike you, I don’t desire to wield power over others and tell them how they should live their lives. This is why we have representative parliaments, elected by the will of the people. Social policy isn’t controlled by one person’s opinion.

            Of course in my opinion, my mother should certainly have had the right to abort me. When I was born in the early 1960s, no woman in France had that right. It wasn’t until 1975 that common sense prevailed and women were given control over their own reproductive decisions. There is a large consensus of public opinion in France in favour of making no change to the current abortion laws. So whatever backwards and reactionary Catholics might want, women will still have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And there’s nothing you can do to change that.

            Thwarted again, eh? Such a shame for you to have the personality and desires of a megalomaniac dictator in the 21st century when such job opportunities are rare.

          • Linus, as difficult as it is for you, think logically. How could you grant your mother the right to kill you?

          • Linus

            Sad Jack, just for a moment, stop pretending to be an omnipotent god and try using the (remains of) the logical human brain that one assumes must still be rattling about in a desiccated state inside your ancient skull.

            You can’t grant rights to anybody. You don’t have the power. Neither do I.

            Had my mother wished to abort me, the law (as it was then) prevented her from obtaining a legal abortion. She could always have gone abroad, or persuaded a French doctor to perform the procedure illegally, which was common enough. But she didn’t, because she didn’t want to abort me. So here I am.

            Had my mother wished to abort me, she could have done so at any time. I didn’t have any wishes in the matter because I was just a clump of cells in her womb, and clumps of cells can’t wish for anything, nor are they even independently alive. It was my mother’s sovereign (although not at that time legal) right to abort me, or carry me to term, as SHE wished. Once I became capable of independent life, I became a distinct entity from my mother and my new life was mine rather than hers. She could still have aborted me, but that would have been the taking of a life, no matter how dependent on her that life may still have been, as opposed to the removal of part of her own body.

            Women who abort pre-viable foetuses are not killing their children. They don’t have any children to kill. End of story.

          • … and you are only here to pass these comments because your mother decided to protect your life in her womb – those clumps of cell – law or no law. No one has the right to end a life. Funny how its only those living who glibly deny the right of life to those being formed in the womb and claim they are just clumps of matter.

        • Albert

          Linus,

          It’s good to see you actually engaging in the issues, rather than just evading them. But how convincing is this?

          Any foetus taking up residence in a woman’s uterus must therefore be subject to her right to evict it at any moment. If the eviction takes place before the foetus is capable of fending for itself, it will die.

          That simply didn’t follow. We don’t have the right to evict people if it means they will die. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

          otherwise they are reduced to the status of slaves

          Human rights means we have responsibilities to others. Providing these rights, does no make us slaves, it makes us human.

          They forget that before modern abortion laws, just as many abortions took place, but illegally, in “back street” circumstances, leading to much death and serious injury

          In Ireland, where abortion was illegal, rates of death from this sort of thing were less than in countries like our where it was legal. Death from these things occurs because of lack of care of mothers, and strangely enough where the children are cherished, so are the mothers. Back street abortions were so called, not because you bumped into a dodgy old woman with a knitting needle in a back-street, but because, as they were illegal, a proper surgeon would only perform the procedure if it went unnoticed – so you entered the practice by the back door. So your argument here is not based on evidence.

          Since you so like telling stories, let me tell one. In the town where I grew up there was an IRA bomb. It exploded before it was supposed to, killing the two terrorists who had intended to kill innocent people. The body parts of the terrorists were found on roof tops a surprising distance away. When people do bad things, sometimes they get hurt. You seem to think there is a moral significance to this – if abortion is illegal sometimes women will get hurt. Setting aside the issues of fact there, you cannot draw the conclusion “therefore we ought to help them do their abortions”, for if you do, you will need to help terrorists so they don’t get hurt. Thus the issue of abortion has to be decided on quite different grounds from those you set out.

          As for the story you have told, it is tragic, but it seems to have been dealt with by people better qualified to comment than me. I would simply observe though that a woman who treats her children like that, even if she has so many isn’t normal. Now whether that is down to something mentally wrong with her, or with her husband’s treatment of her, no moral conclusion can be drawn about abortion. After all, many women after the birth of their children cannot bond with them, and this clearly harms the child. It doesn’t give us the right to kill the child though. Therefore, again, the moral issue has to be decided on other grounds. I would suggest the right to life is a good place to begin. It requires no religious convictions to accept and it isn’t answered by your post here.

          • Linus

            A foetus that cannot survive outside of the womb is not a person. It’s only part of a person, in much the same way as a kidney or an appendix.

            A kidney or an appendix won’t survive outside of the body they form a part of. Neither will a non-viable foetus. The only life it has comes from woman in whose body it is growing. Remove it from that body and it will cease to live. It is therefore not alive in its own right, and if it’s not alive, it has no rights under the law. It can be evicted at will.

            That’s how the law stands and will continue to stand. No major political party in the UK or France has any plans to prohibit abortion. No political party could win an election with such a proposal in its manifesto. So no matter how much you hate abortion, it’s here to stay. Look at what happened in Spain when a right-wing government tried to prohibit virtually all abortions. Mass rallies against the plans with more than 75% of the population supporting the status quo. Rajoy’s government was forced to back down, which showed very clearly that conservative governments have no mandate to try to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Abortion is here to stay. So you’ll just have to live with it.

          • Albert

            I note first of all that this argument seems to have moved on entirely from where you were. All the stuff about backstreet abortions, children born to suffering, evictions etc., none of that make any sense without an argument for the non-personhood (shall we say) of the foetus. All that stuff was just emotive stuff. It didn’t work intellectually. Now you get down to the issues and that is something

            A kidney or an appendix won’t survive outside of the body they form a part of. Neither will a non-viable foetus. The only life it has comes from woman in whose body it is growing. Remove it from that body and it will cease to live. It is therefore not alive in its own right, and if it’s not alive, it has no rights under the law. It can be evicted at will.

            The difficulty is, is that all of that is basically true of a viable foetus. In the end, a newborn still needs his/her mother (or someone) to be viable. This is why the viability of the foetus is so dependent on the environment into which they are born. With good medical facilities a premature baby will survive at an earlier stage than somewhere else. Now you want to make the child’s rights and whether he is a person or not depend on whether the child is viable. But whether he is viable is dependent on his local environment. But whether a someone is a person or has rights does not depend on their environment – they are inherent and inalienable, that’s the point of rights. Therefore, the premise of your argument is false and so the conclusion does not follow. Therefore, you have no grounds to excuse your support of killing babies.

            The whole idea that personhood and rights is dependent on viability just seems wrong-headed to me. In some places, where the lack of facilities would mean a child will die later than others, a child would be capable of feeling pain independently of the mother. But how can the child be capable of feeling pain independently of the mother if the child is not alive in its own right? Therefore, your argument about viability fails, and you have no defence against the charge that you support child killing.

            Moreover, if, as you say, he has no rights in such a circumstance (not viable, but capable of feeling pain), you cannot have an objection to the child being tortured – or “live aborted” to be sexually abused or tortured in the moments when it is still gasping for breath. But such behaviours, although they are permitted on your morality are clearly immoral. Therefore your morality is no morality, and it does not support your defence of abortion. Therefore, I cannot see that you have a defence against the charge of supporting child murder.

            Abortion is here to stay. So you’ll just have to live with it.

            While others die with it. I wonder if all those people in favour of abortion would have been so enthusiastic if they hadn’t already been born. Perhaps all those who turned out to rally for abortion should go to a Saturday afternoon’s entertainment in which a non-viable child is aborted and then tortured. I wonder if they would feel very happy about that. And if not, I wonder if their position makes any sense at all.

          • Linus

            Now who’s being emotive?

            Using words like “child” and “torture” and “abuse” to refer to a non-viable clump of cells is not only manipulative, it borders on the hysterical.

            Medical science is not capable of giving an exact date and time at which a foetus becomes viable. It depends on the development of the foetus and the ability of the medical team delivering it to keep it alive. The law tries to take this into account by imposing an upper limit on abortions, which may not take place after a certain number of weeks of gestation on the premise that after that amount of time, the foetus is viable. Advances in medical science will tend to shorten that time as new techniques, technologies and drugs will make foetuses capable of sustaining independent life earlier in the gestation process. Legislation may therefore need to be reviewed from time to time to take this into account.

            However, there will always be a cut off point at which no foetus can survive outside of the womb. The woman’s right to terminate such pregnancies trumps the right of the foetus to continue its development precisely because the foetus is not yet an independent living organism and therefore cannot possess any rights at all.

            Legally speaking, rights are not acquired until birth. However an obligation may be laid upon a woman to continue with a pregnancy if the foetus she is carrying would be capable of independent life were it outside her womb. That is the basis of all European abortion legislation and a wide consensus of opinion supports it. Christians do not, but Christians don’t get to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

            Rant as much as you like about the “torture” and “abuse” and “murder” of “unborn children”. None of this takes place in Europe, although if I understand the principle of “partial birth abortion”, it may well do in the United States. In which case I would support moves to impose time limits on abortions in that country along similar lines to European legislation.

            This is a battle you may be able to win because science supports the recognition of viable foetuses as independent living organisms whose right to life trumps the rights of their mothers to terminate their pregnancies. But attempting to outlaw all abortion is doomed to failure. Your basic premise is dogmatic and therefore completely flawed. A clump of cells is not a child. End of story.

          • Albert

            Using words like “child” and “torture” and “abuse” to refer to a non-viable clump of cells is not only manipulative, it borders on the hysterical.

            That’s not emotive. It’s how philosophical arguments work. On the basis of a set of commitments, you see what is entailed. You see whether you are happy with what is entailed. It’s logic, not being emotive. That’s quite different from what you did. You gave a sad story and hoped people would draw a conclusion. Unfortunately for you, someone came along, the victim of similar circumstances and drew the opposite conclusion. What I have done here is follow the logic to the conclusion. That’s quite different from what you do.

            Medical science is not capable of giving an exact date and time at which a foetus becomes viable.

            The issue is not about Medical science. It is about whether viability makes any sense at all as the point at which we recognize a foetus as a person. The difference between a viable and a non-viable foetus, as I understand it, is the development of the lungs. Since when does having adequate lungs constitute being a person (quite apart from all the abhorrent implications I gave already)? It’s just obviously silly. Lung development cannot be shown to be morally significant. No one would think personhood rested on lung development (why would it?), were it not for the fact that it is necessary to do so to enable the pro-abortionist to kid himself he isn’t in favour of killing babies.

            Legally speaking, rights are not acquired until birth.

            Who cares what the law says? Did not the law persecute homosexuals in Nazi Germany? The law is no authority, on anything.

            Rant as much as you like about the “torture” and “abuse” and “murder” of “unborn children”. None of this takes place in Europe, although if I understand the principle of “partial birth abortion”, it may well do in the United States.

            The issue is about whether these things are entailed by your position, not whether they actually happen.

            Your basic premise is dogmatic and therefore completely flawed. A clump of cells is not a child. End of story.

            No, your premise is dogmatic, since it assumes we know – you have to know you aren’t killing a child in order to perform an abortion. You have to define the foetus as a clump of cells, even though it is obvious that it is more than that. But you must make that move dogmatically, because it is not evident. And then you add “End of story” as if a fiat from you closes the discussion. It doesn’t!

            In case of interest, one of the most persuasive things in making me totally opposed to all abortion was an article, by Peter Singer arguing that there is no intelligible cut off time for abortion, not just in the womb, but until long after the child was born. His view therefore was that we should have infanticide. I found his case totally convincing and therefore drew the opposite conclusion.

            The reason people favour abortion is because they do not think about it, and do not see the reality. They don’t want to.

          • Powerdaddy

            You have been told they both will die if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.
            You have decided to let them both die when you could have saved the woman.
            Because of your black and white religion.
            My secular standpoint saves AT LEAST the woman.
            Why is your choice of having them both die morally better than mine?
            1 death is better than 2, always.
            Unless you are religious.
            Go figure. ……

            I would like a reply. ……..

          • Linus

            The reason people favour abortion is because they realize that women have a sovereign right over their bodies and cannot be constrained to bear a child they do not want. They realize that a woman’s right to choose cannot be abrogated without turning her into a slave to their conscience. And they realize that a mindless clump of cells is not a child. If left to develop, it may turn into a child, but is not a child in its unformed state any more than a bowl full of flour, eggs, sugar and leavening is a cake until cooking has turned it into one.

            These beliefs are no more dogmatic than your claim that an unformed clump of cells really is a child. Because you want it to be. If you accuse me of defending a dogmatic premise, first accuse yourself.

            As my “dogmatic premise” tends towards making such decisions the province of the woman they most concern and therefore affirms her autonomy and her free will, whereas yours makes her a prisoner of your conscience and reduces her to the status of a serf under your authority, in a society that favours the dignity and equality of women, my view must prevail. And it does. Except in backwaters that haven’t yet completely freed themselves from ecclesiastical control. Like Ireland, although I note with satisfaction that the Irish recently voted by a large majority to institute same-sex marriage, so clearly what little influence the Church still exercises over that country is fast on the wane, which must be a cause for celebration.

            And that really is the end of the story, because I CAN end by fiat any discussion in which I am engaged. Carry on talking to yourself if you wish. Religionists love to proclaim and declaim, and seldom require a response. But my points have been made, and nothing you have offered has rebutted them in any convincing way.

            To summarize, you think a small brown blob is a baby, whereas I think a small brown blob is a small brown blob. If we want to define what the law should be regarding small brown blobs, we ask our parliamentary representatives to choose between the two opposing notions. They have, and they chose my notion, which is why the law is the way it is. No matter how much you may disregard it, the law is still the law and allows what it allows no matter what you may believe it should allow. Women can still obtain abortions and no amount of ranting and raving about “murdering unborn children” alters that. By all means continue to accuse these women of being murderesses. If I were one of them, I might consider an action against you for libel. But that’s their decision, not mine. Although the accusation does anger me and strengthen my resolve to defend these women against people like you who want to enslave them.

          • Albert

            The reason people favour abortion is because they realize that women have a sovereign right over their bodies and cannot be constrained to bear a child they do not want.

            I can favour something I think is wrong. You’ve given something like the reason people favour abortion. But it’s not the reason people think it is acceptable. That is found here:

            And they realize that a mindless clump of cells is not a child.

            That is the issue. What is the foetus? If it is a child then this makes no sense:

            They realize that a woman’s right to choose cannot be abrogated without turning her into a slave to their conscience.

            For if it is a child, then the child has the right to life. Now someone who provides for that right in someone else isn’t a slave. We do not become slaves because we have to do things to fulfil basic human rights in others. Therefore, this entire question comes down to the status of the foetus.

            Now it seems to me that you think there are two possibilities: it is either a child, or it is just a clump of cells. I think that that distinction sets out precisely why abortion is wrong. For on this analysis, if it isn’t just a clump of cells, it is a child. Now an unborn child of 30 weeks in a culture without medical treatment is probably not viable, but it is not just a clump of cells. It can feel pain, and it would survive in a better envronment. But on your terms, this child could be aborted because, as it is not viable, it is just a clump of cells. But that’s absurd, for the reasons, I’ve given. And since the only alternative is that it is a child, it follows you support infanticide.

            These beliefs are no more dogmatic than your claim that an unformed clump of cells really is a child. Because you want it to be.

            No, that’s what you wish I had done. In fact, I gave reason for thinking that – I pointed out that even serious pro-abortionists like Peter Singer think there is no rational cut off point between conception and childhood. And since (unlike Singer) I think infanticide is wrong, I draw the conclusion that therefore all abortion is wrong. Against this, you have given this rather lily-livered argument about viability. I have attacked that as lacking in moral significance, as yielding abhorrent consequences, and as lacking intellectual cogency. You have given no answer to all this, but just persist with your dogmatic claim that viability is the cut off point. That means you are dogmatic, not me.

            As my “dogmatic premise” tends towards making such decisions the province of the woman they most concern and therefore affirms her autonomy and her free will, whereas yours makes her a prisoner of your conscience and reduces her to the status of a serf under your authority, in a society that favours the dignity and equality of women, my view must prevail.

            Isn’t it obvious that object of the abortion is not the woman, but the foetus? Therefore, if you have an abortion you remove everything about the foetus. You can hardly do that in the name of freedom.

            And that really is the end of the story, because I CAN end by fiat any discussion in which I am engaged.

            Exactly. You think lots of people believe X therefore X is true. Brilliant. Completely destroys every argument. Well done!

            Religionists love to proclaim and declaim, and seldom require a response.

            I find it odd that you say that on this blog. For surely what is going on here is precisely that.

            But my points have been made, and nothing you have offered has rebutted them in any convincing way.

            On the contrary, I have answered your claims but received little by way of response, besides of course a serial ad populum.

            Your last paragraph continues to ignore the case against you. It’s quite a serious charge I’ve laid at your door, and yet you do not answer it. If someone laid that charge at my door, I would answer it, if I could. Does it trouble you that you cannot defend your views on abortion? It should do.

            If I were one of them, I might consider an action against you for libel.

            Of course, legally, it is not murder, and in that sense, they might have a case (although of course, in practice they wouldn’t because this is about freedom of speech and we are discussing an argument and where it leads – though it’s interesting given all you’ve said about a woman’s freedom that you may be implying views like mine should be shut down). But then again the killing of homosexuals in Nazi Germany was not murder in the legal sense either. And we both think that is wrong. So we are back to where we were before: the law is a power on this, not a moral authority. You cannot hide behind the secular law – not unless you are happy to endorse every wicked thing that has been legal.

          • Little Black Censored

            Infants can’t survive outside the womb either. So is it all right to kill them if they are in your way?

          • Linus

            Infants most certainly can survive outside of the womb. They breathe and jerk their arms and legs about and have measurable brain activity and, if correctly nourished, will continue to live and even grow.

            Of course they can’t fend for themselves and need to be fed and taken care of. But if you leave them lying in a cot alone for a few hours, they don’t die. This is because they possess their own independent life that must, like all life, be sustained. But it doesn’t wither and die in a matter of minutes when deprived of its umbilical connection to its mother.

            Try plonking a non-viable foetus in a cot and leaving the room for a few hours and see what happens. Then you might understand what “alive” actually means.

        • Barzini

          So you think a woman should be allowed to abort a 7 month fetus for lifestyle reasons?

          If not you don’t believe woman should be free

          If you do, you are not inline with the majority of pro-choice people, most of whom would be appalled by such an abortion

          • Linus

            With all freedom comes a certain measure of responsibility. I have stated elsewhere on this thread where I believe that a woman’s individual freedom gives way to her responsibility to the foetus growing within her. I have no intention of repeating myself.

          • Barzini

            So you therefore don’t believe women should be free to decide for themselves. Just like pro-lifers, you also want to control how much freedom women have over their own bodies – you just aren’t as extreme.

            This isn’t a simple black and white issue, it’s subjective and there’s lots of grey……

      • carl jacobs

        The idea of the surrogate womb is the penultimate goal of the sexual revolution. If you think of the sexual revolution as a flight from responsibility, then the obliteration of biological motherhood is the pinnacle of that flight. Women are currently granted an absolute right to abort within a certain window because women acquire a legally enforceable obligation when the child is born. We haven’t found any other way to separate sex from procreation. The surrogate womb would achieve that. The number of children would be strictly regulated, and sex could be devolved into the fulfillment of personal gratification with no attached obligations whatsoever.

        Confer with “Logan’s Run”

        • Linus

          Logan’s Run without Carrousel. One version of secular paradise, although not every woman wants to be relieved of the burden of motherhood.

          Of course the negative condition of life being terminated by force at 30 was introduced into the movie as a plot device to create tension and a reason for “running”. But there’s no reason it need ever exist in reality. It’s perfectly possible to envisage a society where birth is no longer a biological function. There would be no need to set an upper age limit after which people must die. Any question of competition for resources could be handled by restricting new births, something that would be much easier to manage if reproduction took place via technological means.

          Of course the real issue would be one of power rather than babies. The centralisation such a society would have to develop would be open to abuse and might end up as a dictatorship. The development of artificial intelligence might be a way around that, or depending on how it was implemented, could make things worse.

          If that’s where we’re heading, time will tell. Will Hal 9000 be any less murderous and controlling than god, or random chance?

  • Jill

    I don’t really understand the view that it is perfectly okay to kill unborn babies but abhorrent to sell their body parts.

    I hope this will be a turning point in the abortion debate, in that it awakens people to the full horror of abortion. For too long we have been able to convince ourselves that a foetus is not fully human, and the grim details coming out here clearly show that harvestable body parts are not merely a ‘clump of cells’ but a real living person.

    • Albert

      I agree, but I don’t think it will change anything. There have been any number of scandals about abortion, where support for the practice directly contradicts the moral principles of more or less everyone (sex-selective abortion, discrimination against the disabled etc.) but none of it changes anything. The story just quietly dies a death because it cannot be handled intellectually. And that’s the issue here. Morality in our society, is no longer guided by reason and consistency, but by feeling. That’s why people support abortion but oppose the selling of body parts.

      We will see if anyone here who takes that position can defend what seems and obvious inconsistency.

      • Jill

        I think a lot depends on how the mainstream media handles this story. I do think some minds have been changed over the recent images of the foetus thanks to technology, but people don’t really like to think about the nitty gritty of the actual procedure. They don’t like the images being thrust in their faces, so the discussion of actual body parts does bring home the reality. If the media ignores it we will be able to turn a blind eye as usual.

        The tide is definitely turning in the US, and encouragingly many anti-abortion activists are young people.

        I agree with what you say, though, about morality – at least for now.

        • Albert

          I agree, but the media will ignore it because they can see, as with the other cases I mentioned, that logically, it undermines a “freedom” they want to defend.

          The US situation is heartening, but there are three differences: the US law is more liberal than ours, less democratic (since, like same-sex marriage, it came from the court not Congress) and America is more conservative than we are.

          Having said all that, I am optimistic about the future, because I just don’t think societies face the same direction for too long, and it is increasingly obvious that the direction of our society is undermining our society.

          • CliveM

            Re your last paragraph I hope you are right. I don’t see where the change will come from though.

          • steroflex

            Clive, I used to be like the writers here – until my two grandchildren were born.
            My daughter, a keen professional, changed radically into a Mum. Her whole life stopped centring on her promotion prospects and homed in on the small independent part of her body that had magically turned into a baby.
            My Malay grandchild produced exactly the same result.
            Neither woman was the same: both just wanted passionately to be with their baby – now their toddler.
            Once we can get men back where they belong – in work – and allow women to be what they are – mothers and family builders, the better.
            OK I have met several Lesbians, gay people, confirmed bachelors etc and they are seriously useful members of society. God bless every one of them. But for most people, what I have said will soon cause a revolution when the rich do what they are programmed to do and the rest of us follow.

          • Hopefully Clive it will be from preaching the gospel.

          • CliveM

            Hopefully. However I feel its a cancer that won’t be removed until Christ returns.

          • Albert

            Certainly we will not see perfection until then, but in reality we have seen wickedness rise and then fall, over and over again. The present ideology is radically incoherent – as this abortion debate shows – all it will take is for it to cease to appear useful (and since it is undermining family and society, that will happen), and then it will collapse in the blink of an eye. And then everyone will say they knew it was rubbish all along.

            Of course it may not happen in our lives, but please God we will witness it, only upon another shore and in a greater light.

      • Coniston

        “Morality in our society, is no longer guided by reason and consistency, but by feeling.” Very true. The historical origins of this ’emotivist’ society are explained clearly in C. S. Lutz’s ‘Reading Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue.’

        • Albert

          Thank you for the tip!

    • CliveM

      Jill,

      I think Alberts response says it all. The truth is people want the right to a cost free shag, with no obligations and a fall back method of clearing up the problem if contraception fails. How can a human life measure up against this sort of right?

      Of course some people attempt to muddy the water by bringing into play rape and disability etc, but these are simply covers to excuse selfishness. The vast majority of abortion is simply about sexual incontinence.

      • Albert

        Hard cases make bad law, is a general principle, except when it suits liberals in which case hard cases simply make law.

      • David

        You’ve hit the nail on the head !
        It’s “I want it so it’s right”. They say sod the consequences, but don’t make me confront the ugly, bloody consequences of my selfish actions.

      • Phil R

        A baby is not a cost Clive

        • CliveM

          And I don’t think it is. What I was intending was to reflect the attitude of so many. Btw cost wasn’t meant to be simply pounds, shillings and pence either.

  • James60498 .

    Excellent article, Your Grace.

  • It is heartening that when confronted with the unpalatable truth about abortion, many rational, compassionate people are willing to change their minds. We can only hope & pray that these videos, which lift the curtain on the despicable callousness of the abortion industrialists, causes the light to dawn on many more.

    • Ivan M

      You are doing good work. Young people can easily see that the remains of the abortion could have been one of them, or their friends. The future belongs to us, not the PP monsters or their rationalisers.

  • Martin

    Isn’t it strange how people throw their arms up in horror at such behaviour, and even at the sex selective abortions, yet nothing has been done about the proven illegal abortions where forms have been forged in order to perform the abortion. It is amazing how the UKs prosecuting authority has deliberately passed over these illegal acts.

  • The Explorer

    For those who don’t know it, I recommend the book ‘Psychobabble’ by Arturo Raymond. Simply a series of definitions.

    Abortion: …an act of kindness that saves the unborn from the onslaught of capitalism, exploitation, White men, Christians, the Tea Party, and conservatives.

    Baby: A substance sucked out of the womb after unprotected sex.

    • Little Black Censored

      It’s a tissue issue.

  • steroflex

    Abortion. Naughty but necessary.
    Women’s rights. Obviously a Good Thing. Glass ceiling, equal pay, women bishops – all obviously right.
    The flip side and the cost:
    1. Families decay. Children are no longer the centre. Love between the parents is the centrepiece – with catastrophic results.
    2. Women take on men’s jobs, but the family comes first. So my wife cannot see her doctor, who is pregnant. The local Vicar is on edge when she is alone in her (empty) church. Mr Vicar is useless, unknown and unwanted. The one baby comes late in life once the more important business of Women’s Promotion and Rights has been settled in the chosen profession.
    3. We are a society of very old people – compare us with the Kenyans on TV who are young, vibrant, with enormous quantities of children.
    4. Immigration by the young, vibrant, energetic and mobile Africans to Calais, Lampedusa and London. Closely followed by the members of other societies where children are still being born in family size quantities.

    • Albert

      Glass ceiling, equal pay, women bishops – all obviously right.

      If the latter is obviously right, you must have a good answer to those who oppose women bishops. What is it?

      • …. Jack thinks he was being ironic, Albert.

      • Mike Stallard

        The flip side and the costs.

    • Little Black Censored

      O to be vibrant!

  • David

    Well done Your Grace for screening this blunt truth.
    This article brings out the ugly, bloody consequences of sexual selfishness, the inevitable results of the “free love” movement that started in the 60’s.
    The system pretends that the foetus is not proto- human, pushing them into a, oh so neat, hygienic sounding legal definition, to justify the awful barbarity visited upon the innocent and helpless. But faced with the hard commercial reality of profiteering from the grim “harvest” of human organs, they shrink back. This is because they know in that inner, still containing a trace of God’s beauty part of them, the normally deeply hidden soul, that a foetus is a gift and a potential human.
    So their hypocrisy and selfishness is laid open, exposed and bare for all to see.
    Their reaction ? As ever when Bible truth is presented – anger ! !

  • CHBrighton

    I really fail to see what the issue is here. Woman have abortions and other people can use what the abortion produces in order to help save other peoples lives. What’s so terrible?

    • carl jacobs

      What would be so terrible about snatching someone off the street in order to kill him and harvest his body parts for research or transplant? Other lives would be enhanced or perhaps saved. And we could make a nice profit from the trade. Kidneys aren’t cheap, you know.

      What’s so terrible?

      • Linus

        Using the donated body parts of an aborted foetus is no worse than using an organ donor’s body parts.

        What’s unacceptable is the SALE of body parts. It commoditizes the human body. The same is true for commercial surrogacy. It’s a form of prostitution, and prostitution always involves the objectification of the human body, which is the first step towards all kinds of abuses.

        Of course the harvesting of donated body parts costs money. Medical establishments can therefore expect to be compensated on a cost basis for the work they undertake to prepare and transport donor tissue for use in medical procedures. The courts agree with this and allow for reasonable compensation for work performed. But the profit motive cannot be allowed to obtrude into this process otherwise the line is crossed from medical treatment into human trafficking.

        This is all so crystal clear and entirely justifiable that the only way Christians can whip up opposition to it is to take a bad joke made by someone who works as a provider of donor tissue and spin it into a story about Lamborghinis and greedy human traffickers. And all this in direct contravention of the Christian prohibition on bearing false witness.

        More evidence, if any were needed, of just how malevolent they are, and how they will stop at nothing and stoop to anything in order to advance their pernicious cause. Good thing they’ve cried wolf so often that nobody listens to them anymore.

        This is religion for you. A tale of good put about by evil people. Their single thought is that YOU must obey THEIR will.

        • The Explorer

          “Their single thought is that YOU must obey THEIR will.” PC advocates have the same priority, and they aren’t religious.

          • Linus

            No, PC forces nobody to follow its will. It prevents you from imposing your will on other people. That’s why you hate it so much. It interferes with your right to play god.

          • The Explorer

            PC advocates (where they have power) prevent you from forcing your will on others by forcing their will on you. (threat of imprisonment, loss of livelihood).

            Forcing your will on others is fine when the cause is good. (PC for instance.) The Nazis said the same. (Nazism, for instance.)

            I’d say the Asher Bakery episode was a case of PC forcing others to follow its will. The bakers were minding their own business when a PC devotee sought them out and requested a slogan that went against their beliefs. They gave a refund. The cake was made elsewhere, and they didn’t try to prevent this from happening. They didn’t take the PC devotee to court in pursuit of their beliefs; but they have had his opinions forced upon them when he did it to them. PC did nothing to prevent him from imposing his will on other people.

          • Linus

            Your first sentence says it all. What you want is the power to force your will on others. The law exists to prevent you from doing so. It weighs your right to force others to do what you want against their right to live their lives unmolested, and it finds in their favour.

            And then you bleat about oppression and Nazism.

            The Nazi who complains that the law preventing him from persecuting his intended victims is unfair because it’s his right to persecute his victims is basically just a loon who needs to be ignored. And generally is…

          • The Explorer

            Not exactly the phrasing I would have chosen, but necessary to reflect the wording of your own previous statement. Do keep up, old fellow. And the Nazi wasn’t complaining about not imposing his will; the Nazi (like the PC advocate) was glorying in being able to doi so. The-will-to-power syndrome. Nietzsche, and all that.

          • … and killing a child in its mother’s womb isn’t playing God and it isn’t imposing one’s will on another?

          • CliveM

            But that’s different, but don’t ask me how…………

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, c’mon, Jack. It’s not a child. It’s a … fetus … sort of … thing. And that’s completely different from a child. Two totally different concepts.

            Why, the difference is obvious to anyone.

          • Ah, of course. Silly Jack. Unless said ‘material’ is female, or someone thinks it might be homosexual, or it will have blue eyes .. or the mother actually wants her baby. Then the ‘material’ is worthy of protection … sort of.

        • GKoH

          ‘”Using the donated body parts of an aborted foetus is no worse than” removing someone’s body parts as ‘donations’ without their consent.’ Fixed that for you.

        • GKoH

          Also, as a technical point, it’s worth pointing out that PP abortions are paid procedures. As such all labour involved in extracting the culled body parts is covered as part of the procedure. Additionally, in many clinics, in a move to reduce costs, the for profit agencies who want the tissue are permitted to have a presence within the facilities in order to sort, through, test and collect the culled body parts themselves. In these instances one wonders just how much ‘cost’ is involved in these efforts and how it’s calculated. Oh, and just an aside, PP not only permit but are enthusiastic about these for profit organisations doing the work of obtaining consent from the women themselves. Evidently PP would rather not have that ‘extra workload’ and it’s seen as something of a nuisance, according to Nucatola.

        • avi barzel

          Not sure about the “no one listens” part. You must learn to separate your wishes and rationalizations from reality Linus, if you don’t want to be laughed at as much. Abortion is on the the decline, perhaps as much as 30% from a decade ago.

        • carl jacobs

          It is the height of moral inversion to compare abortion to organ donation. Do you know how you become an organ donor in the US? You check a box when you apply for or renew your driver’s license. The key point being that it is a consensual process. An aborted child is not properly analogized to an organ donor since the child has no say in the matter of the abortion.

          So what have concluded from your argument is that it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone for body parts as Iong as no profit is taken, but only reasonable costs. I suppose consent from the next of kin might be required as well. What passes for moral judgment in the post-Christian West.

          • Linus

            In Europe at least, there are no (or at least very few) aborted children. Just aborted foetuses.

            A foetus incapable of surviving outside the womb is no more alive than a kidney or an appendix, and nobody thinks of asking kidneys or appendices for their permission before removing them.

            Christians want us to accept that life begins at conception. It does not. Life begins at the point at which a foetus can survive outside the womb. Before that, it’s part of the woman in whose body it is growing. Her life is its life and without her life, it has no life. The only consent required to remove it is hers.

            So the harvesting of foetal tissue is exactly like donating an organ. The consent of the donor is of course required. Without consent, removing organs is grievous bodily harm.

          • GKoH

            Linus, it is absolutely, 100%, scientifically incorrect to state that life only begins at the point of ‘viability’. The established reality is that life beings at conception. From the earliest stages it is only the case that we’re talking about a human life. He or she is distinctly ‘alive’ and genetically human. The word you’re looking for is ‘person’ or ‘personhood’ – which is, supposedly, more flexible, if not a euphemism.

            There really is no logical, consistent, argument for the continued practise of abortion where one also wishes to maintain the notion of human rights and a right to life. It always comes down to preference and ease and subjectivity. Maybe that should be enough, I don’t think it is, but certainly the idea should be put to rest that it’s a consistent logical, scientific and moral argument.

          • Linus

            The established reality is that independent life begins at the point at which the foetus is capable of sustaining it. It’s no more arbitrary a starting point than conception.

          • GKoH

            “Independent life” is that supposed to be a technical term or are you just substituting it for ‘viability’? Please note that you’re comparing a relative point to an absolute point. Conception is definable and measurable. It is always the point at which the gametes come together to become one new, genetically unique organism which is alive and interacts with its environment as an individual entity. The point of viability is a relative term that one cannot specifically identify either in general or for the individual without actually ‘trying it’. What’s more it’s a ‘point’ which has moved a lot as medicine and science has progressed. The fact is that the true ‘point of viability’ is not and cannot be used to determine whether or not an abortion is performed. Instead, a general date is assigned based, one presumes, on a majority of cases. For the individual however, such a point may not have anything to do with their actual point of viability.

          • Little Black Censored

            “Life begins at the point at which a foetus can survive outside the womb.”
            Are you saying this ex cathedra? We need to know.

          • Linus

            My opinion is no more arbitrary than your god’s. The only difference is that I admit my opinion is my opinion, whereas you pretend that your opinion is actually the opinion of an invisible and omnipotent sky fairy, and you’re just repeating what he said, although nobody’s ever heard him say it.

            “Ex-cathedra” is just the Church’s way of attempting to put its opinion beyond question and criticism. It’s a paltry stratagem worthy only of simple-minded children. “My invisible friend says this, so you’d better watch out because if you don’t do what he says, he’ll punch you on the nose!” is basically what religion is saying. It’s the stuff of the playground.

          • Little Black Censored

            “Life begins at the point at which a foetus can survive outside the womb.”
            You don’t seem to be stating a mere opinion there.

        • Little Black Censored

          Therefore God doesn’t exist! He’s done it again.

      • CliveM

        Initially I thought he was trying to be ironic!!

        • avi barzel

          So did I.

      • avi barzel

        Naughty fellow you are. Clearly CHBrighton draws a learned distinction between an intrinsically valueble “someone,” such as himself, and raw material he calls What the Abortion Produces. To extract the philosophical basis of his position, “I comment on blogs, therefore I am.”

        • carl jacobs

          Of course, the kidneys of a fully formed young “someone” would be much more desired. Abortion is a poor substitute. There are opportunities here for an ambitious entrepreneur. And there is plenty of material to harvest. It would be a twofer. Rid the world of people who don’t read the NY Times and provide needed medical care to their betters.

          It just takes a little more progress towards enlightenment.

          • avi barzel

            Except that young Someones tend to muck-up the costs-to-benefit ratios in capture and harvesting operations. Their troublesome size, mobility and in the case of many non-readers of the NYT,a tendency to resort to non-verbal refusals to comply, such as illegally discharging a firearm into the astounded face of the harvester, present unsustainable expenses and unacceptable types of workplace accidents.

          • The Explorer

            There might even be a verbal refusal as well, based on a scabrous speculation as to the harvester’s relationship with his own mother.

      • Ivan M

        Not too far a stretch. Its pretty commonplace in India and China for the poor to offer up their body parts for the greater good.

        http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/hyderabad-police-bust-global-kidney-racket-4-held/

        • Minxey

          Don’t forget executed prisoners in China.

    • Let’s use this feedback to do the following thought experiment:

      Vampires need blood to live.

      Would they or humans be morally right to breed other humans in order to take their blood? (According to utilitarian philosophy, which is basically what you are arguing).

      And as a subset question:

      should these “blood harvest” humans(okay they’re not really human as they are bred like cattle) be:

      Organic

      Free range

      Barn

      Or caged?

      • Sam

        That’s wrong and disgusting : to think that we’d breed human beings like chickens for …..Oh I see your point. But how would you stretch out the analogy re “free range” /”battery”.

    • Little Black Censored

      QED Problem solved.

  • carl jacobs

    Body parts come from people. A great deal of effort is exerted to cover up this basic fact. We present abortion as the equivalent of cleaning up a glass of spilled milk with a towel. And we do this in order to create moral distance between ourselves and the object of abortion. “It’s not a child. It’s a mass of undifferentiated tissue.” Then along comes Planned Parenthood’s very own Cabman, John Gray, to prove otherwise.

    The sale of a stray liver exposes this fiction. It says out loud what men prefer to keep unspoken. We know it is a child. We want to pretend it is a glass of spilled milk – undifferentiated and devoid of human characteristics. As it is written “Men fear the light because their deeds are evil.”

    We kill because we derive benefit thereby. But we prefer to pretend it isn’t killing. And it is most distressing to have the reality of abortion exposed for all to see.

    • The Explorer

      Body parts come from people. Meat comes from animals. A man-woman sex act can produce a baby; a man-man, woman-woman combination can’t. These things need to be repeated to the world, for the world has ceased to know them.

  • The Explorer

    We’re entering the era of Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let me Go’: clones bred for their body parts and “completing” after three donations to real humans.

    Hell, why stop at foetuses? Wouldn’t adult body parts be better? Let’s breed a helot class who can contribute their organs,

    • Pubcrawler

      That’ll be the scenario of Jefferson 37, currently getting another airing on Radio 4 Extra

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007gdsc

      • The Explorer

        Didn’t know about it. Quite eerie to call up your link and see the reference to clones being farmed for their organs.

        LInus may say we mustn’t objectify the human body. The porn industry isn’t taking much notice. Nor are the Eastern-European sex traffickers. Why shouldn’t the mind set that drives those enterprises turn itself in a medical direction?

        • sarky
          • IanCad

            Not only organs but children.
            Big business there, selling newborns to homosexual couples.

          • The Explorer

            We’re told that homosexual sex is exactly equivalent to heterosexual sex. So why don’t the same-sex couples generate the newborns for themselves? They can’t? But I don’t understand. What happened to exact equivalence?

          • IanCad

            In a way they sort of reproduce. The sperm of one or both!? into a surrogate mother. Then fly back home with baby.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, but the equivalence would be with a heterosexual couple where the wife was infertile. And in that instance, it’s because something has gone wrong. Who would want that sort of equivalence?

          • IanCad

            I understand.

          • It seems God never attended Equality and Diversity training. Still, according to some, He is evolving. Perhaps he’ll catch humans up and actually design males who can get pregnant. Of course, He’ll have to pay compensation for all the hurt His original oversight caused.

          • Sam

            If God didn’t, Death definitely did attend a equality and diversity training course. After all , death comes to everyone regardless of species, race, gender, sexuality, disability, political views or socio economic status.

          • The Explorer

            Transhumanism is working on that: the brain living on in a machine etc.

          • Sam

            Interesting question would be , how human would you be after that though? Would you end up like cybermen?

        • Pubcrawler

          True, it’s buried away in those parts of the schedules that only radio buffs venure into, but I wasn’t suggesting that you’d nicked the idea (if you thought I was); i just thought it was an uncanny coincidence.

          I wouldn’t bother making the effort to listen to it, though: it’s not terribly good drama — or indeed acting.

          • The Explorer

            Agree about the uncanny coincidence. Ishiguru, I remember, got flak from biologists when his novel came out for misrepresenting cloning, and scaring the reading public about something harmless and beneficial. Now it seems Ishiguru might have been onto something. Life is starting to imitate art.

  • IanCad

    Sickening and depressing.
    How long O Lord? How long?
    But then again, there will always be a remnant. Those who will not bow the knee to Baal.
    With but a few exceptions this blog is a roll call of that small group.
    In that we can all take heart.

  • This ‘progressive’ Jewish ‘rabbi’ argues there is a moral imperative to harvest these body parts if they can be used to save the life of another:

    “These two Planned Parenthood staff members seem to have a scientific, materialistic attitude toward fetal tissue. But many of us have fervent religious beliefs about it: namely, that if utilizing it for medical research can save a life, it is a moral obligation to do so.

    As a rabbi of progressive Judaism, that is my view …. But religiously, in my tradition, it is a mitzvah, a commandment, to save a human life. And if the remnants of a potential life can help save an actual one, then God bless all those who make it possible to do so.

    Perhaps these medical professionals are exercising their right to freely exercise their religion, or the lack thereof. Perhaps they are even doing God’s work.”

    http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/07/26/to-some-planned-parenthood-is-immoral-to-others-its-doing-gods-work/

    Of course, he has a beef against Christianity … well, Catholicism actually:

    “Catholic Charities is the leading provider of adoption services in many states …
    And according to their sincere religious beliefs, my partner and I are unfit to be parents, because we are both male …

    They’ll never place a child in my family, no matter how moral I am, how fit I am to be a parent, how sincere my own religious beliefs. That is, to put it mildly, offensive to me.

    In fact, Catholic Charities’ discrimination is actually a worse offense than whatever those Planned Parenthood staff members said. They’re telling me I’m less than fully human, and acting on that belief. Not only are they telling me I’m less than fully human, they are acting on that belief, and causing me harm — not just offense.”

    • CliveM

      Sounds whiny and self pitying to me.

      • …. and one knows why too.

        • ELITEGEEKS

          because religion.. messes up everything

    • avi barzel

      Jack, Jay Michaelson is a liberal journalist, an LGBT activist, anti-Israel, pro-BDS radical who enthusiastically defends and supports antisemitism from the Left. He has been a darling of the MSM, winning awards and acolades, but I cannot find any organization that ordained him, and in fact he may just be a self-declared “rabbi” like many of his ilk; perfectly legal in the US and most countries, where you and I, and our cats as well, can declare ourselves as “rabbis.”

      • CliveM

        Interesting. So he says what his audience wants to hear and consequently says nothing worth hearing.

        Does he run a synagogue? Or is he simply a self promoting free lancer?

        • avi barzel

          Can’t find anything on his, um, devotional work. A smikha/rabbinic ordination is conducted by a convention of a court, a bet din, consisting of three rabbis who examine your ability to trach and inyerptet Jewish law…there is no ceremonial function a rabbi conducts that a learned layman can’t. But in the liberal sphere, you don’t even need that in many sectors and there is nothing to stop you from self-declaring.

          • IanCad

            You typing while driving, Avi?

          • … big fingers and poor eyesight, IanCad.

          • CliveM

            And arthritis.

          • CliveM

            Thanks Avi, think you’ve answered both comments.

      • Jack would shorten that description to – “tosser”. And, as Jack understands it, he has misrepresented orthodox Judaism’s position on abortion too. What in God’s name a supposedly Catholic site thinks its up to posting this shite is beyond Jack.

        • CliveM

          Being a bit opaque on your views here aren’t you Happy Jack!

          • Yes. Jack is in one of his calmer, more reasoned moods today.

          • CliveM

            Glad to hear it!

            On a more serious note, I assumed the site is to Catholicism, what medicinal alcohol is to a decent malt.

          • It’s articles are liberal and modernist for the most part, yes. However, there are a fair few bloggers with orthodox Christian opinions who post there.

            It’s good to keep an eye on the enemies of the Church. Just as the Inspector soils himself with his forays to PN, Jack visits this and another more heinous site to challenge the misrepresentations of his faith.

            It’s a strange state of affairs when so called Catholics appear to hate the Church and her teachings more than the virulent anti-Catholic Protestant Truth Society.

          • CliveM

            You do wonder why they bother to stay. It’s not like they believe Church doctrine to be inspired or infallible. Personally I wish all the extreme Liberals would bog off and wreck their own Church. I’m sure the Unitarians (both of them) would accept them.

          • Tares and wheat, Clive. Who knows, some may eventually find the truth through exposure to the Gospel and having their notions challenged.

          • CliveM

            Perhaps HJ, but in the meantime they sow dissent and damage the body. I would be happier if they did it elsewhere.

          • They test the Body of Christ, Clive, and place temptations in the path of others. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and those foreknown to God cannot be led astray. Jack regards it as so much ‘white noise’.

        • avi barzel

          Tosser Michaelson sounds fair to me. And yes, he misrepresents halakha on abortion and to be fair, his current defense of Planned Parenthood has no basis even in the statistically more moderate liberal sectors, such as Conservative and Reform.

          • Then, in erudite circles, he shall be known from this day forth as: Progressive Tosser Michaelson, a member of the Shites. Wonder if he’s met the Bishop of Buckingham.

          • avi barzel

            You are now taking a swipe at a bishop and, potentially, Shi’ites, who might rightly object. I’ll have no part of this.

            Anyhow, I’m becoming more and more convinced that push-back against progressive ideology is, in many cases, counter-productive; it energises them and gives them imagined legitimacy, which then helps them in winning legislative victories. They are doing a great job of progressing themselves into oblivion demographically and it’s best not to interfere. In this case, the spin from the Left is that an “employee” with a “rational” approach (according to Tosser Michaelson) was unfairly represented through editing by an extremist organization. I don’t imagine that one will go over too well with most people.

          • Shi’ites like Tossers Michaelson and Wilson need to be challenged. Besides, it’s not in Jack’s nature to stay silent when the sanctity of life is affronted.

          • CliveM

            You are probably right, they all tend to be media tarts.

          • Little Black Censored

            That particular bishop deserves any swipe taken at him.

      • CliveM

        Hi did a little reading of my own, in a Jewish context what does this mean? (From his own web site)

        “Jay is himself a rabbi, having received rabbinic ordination from his longtime teacher, Rabbi David Cooper”

        • avi barzel

          There two Rabbi Coopers; one is an Orthodox chap living in the Old City of Jerusalem, another one is the fellow who has been splicing Buddhism to Judaism, teaching meditation at liberal synagogues all over the country. As you may well imagine, Orthodoxy does not accept the Judaism, ordination, and many cases even the Jewish status of such “rabbis” and congregations.

          • CliveM

            So self perpetuating and intellectually incestuous.

      • Rabbi Happy Jack and his two cats – Rabbi Fuego and Rabbi Zoro.

        • avi barzel

          Rabbi Fuego is already taken by Rabbi Solomon Gaon of a Sephardic congregation.No Zoros I can find.

          • No, no, Avi, he wrote a book on “The Land of Fire” but never claimed the name.
            Do Rabbi’s have to take original names?

          • avi barzel

            Ah, thanks for that bit of rabbinical trivia! No, but imagine how poor Rabbi Cooper, the real rabbi in Jerusalem, feels about sharing his name with a nutter who is more popular than he.

          • Sam

            Another bit of trivia a Cooper used to be a chap who made beer barrels (which if I’d have known I’d be the winner of last weeks pub quiz).

          • Pubcrawler

            Any type of barrel or wooden bucket/pale. There’s still a couple left working — Theakston’s remains the last brewery to employ one, I believe — but it’s very much a dying art, sadly.

          • Sam

            I did a tour of the hook Norton brewery in Oxfordshire once and they said they stopped making wooden barrels , not due to cost, but because of theft.

          • avi barzel

            A worthwhile occupation, that; making beer barrels.

          • carl jacobs

            Does Coors Light come in barrels then? That would surprise me but you are the expert conniseur of Coors Light. I would defer to your expertise.

          • avi barzel

            You know, Carl, I think you’re forgetting the circumstances of our discussion. For the record, I favour the original Pilsner beer, the Czech import, Plzensky Prazdroj or Pilsner Urquelle. We have a few local microbreweries in Southern Ontario, whose products I’m impressed with and in favour of supporting, and I’ll also pick up Vienna’s Grolsch and the Dutch working man’s (but highly overrated) Heineken. Americans do a lot of things well…especially the new crop of boutique bourbons…but beer is not one of them. I do admit for tolerating weak, cold swill like Coors, Corona and Budweiser on hot, thirsty days at barbecues because they quench the thirst without being sweet and tend not to interfere with food flavours.

          • carl jacobs

            You wouldn’t be implying that I might have deliberately “forgotten” circumstances just to create a false impression, would you? Because you know I would never do any such thing. That would be highly unethical.

          • avi barzel

            Heavens no! But you are getting on in the years, you know….

        • Wasn’t Zorro Mexican? I’m sure Antonio Banderas (my husband is a lookalike, spoons a bit) was Zorro !

          • Spanish, of native Californian descent, Jack understands. In “The Mask of Zorro”, 1998, he was played by Anthony Hopkins with Antonio Banderas being groomed to become the new Zorro.

            Zorro, the cat, has facial markings resembling a mask and he has a very independent nature. Hence the name.

          • Sam

            Dude

            And the film had Catherine zeta Jones : what a voluptuous babe!!

          • Sweetheart … and, yes, in this instance, a Babe.

          • Eh ? You aren’t flirting with Sam? (:

          • Esther, sweetheart, the term is a non-sexist and asexual term of endearment. If Jack had called him “babe” you would have cause for concern.

          • True and I guess I shouldn’t berate Sam so much: my eldest is somewhat of a teenage nightmare. Yet we’ve spent Shabbat and the weekend with Sam and Hanna. But he’s been respectful and even participated in Shabbat and the Tisha B’Av fast. I have my boy back. Not sure what my siblings said to him, but he cried on both the shoulders of I and my husband and we did Teshuvah together.

          • Sam is your child? (*lowers voice*: you have Jack’s sympathy)How wonderful when a family reconciles.

          • Reconciliation between family and God.My son is named after my brother ,if that’s what you mean (Sephardic custom is to give names to your children from living relatives).

          • Pubcrawler

            She is indeed, and pretty much exactly my type; but even in that film she leaves me cold for some reason.

          • Sam

            Perhaps because she’s very feisty and fierce in the film?

          • Pubcrawler

            Nope, that’s not something that bothers me: quite the opposite. But I don’t think this is the place so I shall reveal no more.

          • CliveM

            Intriguing. Now I’m interested.

          • Pubcrawler

            Down, boy 🙂

          • Sam

            Tell, tell….

          • CliveM

            It’s got to be a let down after all this suspense, but I do want to know!

          • Pubcrawler

            What? All I’m saying is that, although pretty much everything about Catherine Zeta Jones ought to have me getting hot under the collar, especially how she was in The Mask of Zorro, nevertheless for some reason she leaves me cold. Always has. And it’s not that I have a problem with women who have a bit of a spark, because I don’t — rather that than a boring mouse.

            Now, Kathleen Turner in Body Heat, that’s quite a different matter . . .

          • Sam

            He was good in evita as the avatar wot “rebel saint” uses (NEVER got why a devout Christian has a Che Guevara photo, I assumed this was Christian satire)

          • Pubcrawler

            It’s not Che, he’s just cunningly appropraited the iconography. Look closely: crown of thorns, not beret

          • Sam

            Oh, you are quite correct. Plus there’s no Havana.

          • This isn’t a prelude to your “big Cuban “gag?!

          • Sam

            Although “oh what a circus , oh what a show” seems appropriate to this current discussion.

          • Well my husband is Moroccan Jewish , via France and Israel. I remember my own noche de novia (night of the sweetheart ) very well, although having the courage to be in the buff for the mikvah was a challenge. Until my 80 year old auntie, along with my mother in law to be , held my hand as we dipped in the holy water and said “don’t worry we’ve survived the shoah and Farhud- you can do this!” .

          • Lol …. God gives us strength when we most need it.

    • It sounds like apikoresim

      • Indeed, and he gets so much coverage from the media just like high profile heretical Catholics and other liberal, progressive types.

    • ELITEGEEKS

      I have no beef and I agree with him.

  • Anton

    30 pieces of silver…

    • ELITEGEEKS

      or a Pope Crown, Staff or Challus!

  • Mungling

    I think, for me, the most damning piece of evidence that Planned Parenthood was doing some wrong comes from the response of Planned Parenthood. I’ll admit that I, personally, agree with the tone of ABC’s post and believe that if its OK to kill an unborn child then how can it be wrong to sell it. If PP had downplayed the incident, and pretended that it was no big deal, then I would have seen it as nothing more than an unfortunate part of the abortion business. However, by first claiming that the videos were deceptive (when they weren’t) and then by trying to sick the government on the people who exposed them, it seems like they knew they were doing something wrong and doing it anyways.

    • ELITEGEEKS

      yea, lets overpopulate the planet till there is no resources and the ecosystem is running away from us.. oh wait, it is..

  • preacher

    Abortion can never be deemed right, whether it’s from a back street abortionist in a dirty kitchen, or in a sanitised operating theatre with masks & gowns.
    Whatever it’s called, ” Murder of the innocent ” or ” Termination of a foetus “.
    The absence of moral responsibility is the cause of most unwanted pregnancies, in a recent T.V programme the modern view of a liberal woman when speaking of extra marital affairs was akin to seeing sex as a necessary emotionless act, which could even prove ‘Beneficial’ in saving marriages. So apparently sexual promiscuity is in the liberal mindset in harmony with enjoying a Burger, & we wonder why there are problems!.
    But hey! why worry about murder when there’s profit to be made ? As long as it’s legal, & if the practice can be justified & protected, pass the Chablis & Caviare.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Abortion can never be deemed right …

      What if it is to save the life of the mother, or wouldn’t you care about her?

      • preacher

        Roy, We’re talking about the abortion on demand & spare parts for sale issue. Not the question of one life or another, I hoped that my posting was clear on that.
        Although the love & maternal instinct of some mothers has led them to refuse medical treatments so that their babies can live. That my friend is incredible love & sacrifice that only a mother could show.
        A very different scenario to the immoral Butcher’s shop of money for parts above.

        • ELITEGEEKS

          “spare parts for sale” get the story facts first, the fee was pure shipping, you go buy a Box to ship frozen chicken overnight it and tell me if its $50 to $100, which is what the woman in the video said it was for, nothing was for sale.

    • sarky

      Hold on a minute, think you will find nearly all of us, christian, atheist or whatever, are against ‘parts for profit’.

      • preacher

        So we agree, not surprising eh ? surely that’s what Dr C’s posting was about welcome aboard bro’ it shows what can be achieved when we work together eh ?.

      • ELITEGEEKS

        WHAT Profit?!?! The Fee was for Shipping!! It was UNDER $100!! To package and ship overnight human tissue, which must be taken care of, you cannot sell them, not like the person in the video even ONCE said, give me $$$ for the Fetus, YOU get FEDEX or DHL to Overnight for Free and there will be no Fee at all, the REAL People Doing Research ARE going to Profit when medication advanced and grants by Medical studies, you people need to get the story straight..

        • sarky

          My bad. As you have said there are no allegations of wrong doing. That will teach me for not researching further and getting my info from a site with an obvious agenda.

  • Shadrach Fire

    You are right in your simple assessment. Why should anyone care what happens to an aborted fetus.
    Thats for them though. Those who have no care for the sanctity of life. Their stance is hypocritical.
    Those who oppose abortion, whether Christian or not would have a greater concern for the unborn child.
    Yes, medical research is important but not at the price of the life of an unborn person who has no choice in the matter.

    • ELITEGEEKS

      The sacrifice of few outweigh the needs of the many. While tens of thousands of aborted children have happened a handful given to the right people have saved MILLIONS of lives. At what point does the Fetus become Human? If I took you right now and Ground you up into Mash and tested your DNA and then find out CORN has more DNA does that make it more important? nope, ask a fetus at what point does he get past Corn? ( i know sounds stupid but there is a point ) There are MILLIONS of starving kids even in Haiti who eat dirt/mud pies and not corn, yet people fight Tooth and nail over a few thousand. how about putting all that pent up Energy into pushing the Pope to buy Corn and send it to them? What, its not in your backyard so who gives a poop? watch the video, then think of how stupid this argument is over a fetus.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0RQQ2JIIuE

  • The Explorer

    In ‘The Time Machine’, the above-ground Eloi are bred as food for the underground Morlocks. Let us hope that Wells was not prophetic in his prediction of the use to which one segment of society may reduce another.

  • prompteetsincere

    The godless brown-booted Herbivores have become the demi-god black-booted Carnivores.

    • avi barzel

      Macroevolution in action before our very eyes. Emergence of a new species through the mechanism of a sudden and overwhelming desire for a Lamborghini.

  • Philip Lishman

    Burial of the dead is one of the corporal works of mercy. Therefore we as Christians should make it our business to provide for the burial of these murdered children, and to remember them with headstones and flowers, as befits the mourning of a loved child.

    We should set up Christian charities for this purpose.

    • ELITEGEEKS

      With science we shall over come all, including religion.

      • preacher

        ROFL !!!!

        • len

          Me too preacher just come across this howler…..

          • ELITEGEEKS

            where is the joke? I see no humor, I see people fanning the flame of ignorance. I see the oppression of science. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/129764063.html

          • Martin

            EG

            You did realise that non-foetal stem cell research shows more promise than foetal?

      • len

        Well you atheists/humanists have had 6,000 yrs to come up with a fair system of Government and not succeeded yet?.
        Time is fast running out……

        • ELITEGEEKS

          Oh so Billions of years of the planet Spinning comes down to the next what? 20 years? 20 thousand? or Billions more? I say I have 5 billion to go before the sun goes out.. Humans have had 6000 years on earth? I am sure that given enough time and if we lived forever we would see this topic of religion end one way or another.

      • Philip Lishman

        ..Or we will discover that everything that Christ told us is true.

        • ELITEGEEKS

          Not if everything we are told is in the hundreds of variations of the bible.. you do know that the bible is a book that is re-written dozens of times by powerful men right? So who you going to believe? Plato who changed it in 427 BC? Or Homer? or the “New Testament” written 50 to 100 years AD? OH I know how about Aristotle! It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially in the New Testament documents, are better in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. The question is not into documents a reliably transmitted to us. In the question is whether or not the biblical documents record actual historical accounts. AND there is the problem, here we are interpreting things that were said and done 2000+ years ago and to many today who are 80 years old, the cell phone is magic, can you imagine the Magic that was seen then man first learned half the stuff they did and retold the stories? Embellishment is in the human DNA, I for one see no facts in the bible, but just stories.

          • Philip Lishman

            Good luck my friend. You’re going to need it.

      • Martin

        EG

        I’ll bet you suspend your belief in science sufficiently to believe in Evolution.

        • ELITEGEEKS

          you know I grew up in a house as with a Grandma who was a Nun for a time, I was raised Roman Catholic and Schooled in a Private School, Lutheran on Francis Lewis Blvd in NYC, I have studied many religions, have deeply researched the wars that even to this day rage on about religion ( taliban, isis, crusades, even the Pope, Pope Urban II coined it Holy War.. Its all about control and community standings. Science is not a Religion, it’s a way to find facts, one day a fact will pop up that terminates a belief in a person and then they move on, evidence of the facts of religion is one that is of control and is no longer needed, now DO NOT get me wrong, I believe in a Churchy Environment, I believe that all humans should work together to better other humans, but a all seeing all knowing super something killing other humans for sport,… .errrr no.. If a Fetus is Aborted and simply tossed out, Science was robbed, so while the “SALE” of a Fetus is misrepresented and is only the fee of shipping and while its tragic that the person who had the fetus was either unable to deal with or care for a baby, it’s their choice. Not yours not mine and certainly not the Pope. Religions want more Babies to Grow the Flock, More Christians = larger percentage against say islam or buddha, but in the end the way things are going in just a few decades church will be more of a community gathering spot for those who seek peace in something, food, help or someone to talk too. btw, science is evolution. I can use science today to make a half breed plant that would over take another breed of plant, ( like modified corn ) and it took the planet billions of years and many tries to get it to where it is. Everything evolves, including church. recently Pope accepting gays was a start, If you were attending a church worship service in 1955 and then returned to the same church in 1975, the changes would be noticeable but not dramatic. Churches were slow to change over that 20-year period.

          If you, however, attended a church worship service in 2000 and then returned to that same church in 2010, there is a high likelihood you would see dramatic changes had taken place in only 10 years. Imagine what’s in store in the next 20 years…

          • Martin

            EG

            So there you go, abandoning science for a belief. Your religion is inherent in everything you say and your religion is self-worship.

            Since you can create that modified corn I’m sure it would be easy for you to start with a prokaryote and from it produce a variety of life like we see today. After all you can produce a corn better than the one nature produced much quicker.

            The trouble with your modified corn is that you haven’t actually added anything, you’ve taken away. And if among the parts you have taken away there is something that allows the corn to resist a disease you may find all your crop destroyed. That is why there a banks of preserved wild grasses of course.

            It is also an indication that what you did with that corn isn’t like your claim of Evolution. Indeed, what we see happening, in speciation, has no association with Evolution at all.

            You mentioned wars, it seems to me that wars are not about religion but about men wanting power. Most religions have the same source. We can see it in the grasping of anything that gave power by the bishops of Rome, but also in those communist lands who claim that they are motivated by science.

            But God created Man for a purpose, that we might worship Him. He placed on every human a value, a value that is neglected by the abortionist. He gave to mankind the ability to love, an ability that we have debased to the point where we love ourselves so much that we mus marry a mirror image. Now isn’t that a joke, marriage designed for the joining of the two different change into the joining of the same.

  • ELITEGEEKS

    If you watch the ENTIRE video the selling them for between “$30-$100” per specimen is just Shipping Fees, they do not make a dime, they are not in it for money, they are in it for science, to one day not need to experiment to know how a a human can live longer, Unless you people want to go back to living like we were 200 years ago when we died at the ripe old age of 45, I suggest you let go a little and think of the good the sacrifice made us. Its like the Pop insisting the World is Flat… at some point you just need to understand that while the Human is a sacred device it gives in life and death,

    • CliveM

      Most of the increase in life expectancy had been achieved through public health provision such as clean water and decent sewage disposal. The big impact by medical science has been in the sphere of public vaccination programmes. None of which has required the dismembering of unborn babies.

      • Mainly true Clive, but the extra 10 years life expectancy added during my medical career since 1979 ( I don’t claim all the credit) owes a lot to medical advances in hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancer care eft, plus less smoking.

        I am not aware that any of the good science behind these improvements owed anything to abortion material or in any other way threatens true religion. The ‘science versus religion’ warfare paradigm reflects badly on the intellect and general education of anyone who uses it.

        • CliveM

          Stephen

          Thanks for the correction, you are right I wasn’t giving enough credit to medical science.

      • ELITEGEEKS

        HEK293 cells have been used to synthesize human proteins such as insulin and blood-clotting factors. They allow researchers to coax adult human stem cells into becoming nerve, heart, liver and pancreatic cells. Most recently, HEK293 cells have been used to produce gene-delivery viruses that could help generate the cells that many believe hold the cures to Parkinson’s, Lou Gehrig’s and Huntington’s disease – diseases for which there are no cures and very little offered in the way of treatment. There is also great hope to develop treatments for diseases that affect millions of people, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

        Without these cells and their derivatives, our understanding of and our ability to treat human disease would be at best rudimentary. It is clear that the commercial and therapeutic benefit of these cells is incalculable and is estimated to be in the billions of dollars with millions of lives saved.

        Recently, a bill (2011 Assembly Bill 214) has been introduced by a number of Wisconsin representatives that would make the use of these fetal cells by biomedical researchers and the biotechnology industry a criminal offense in Wisconsin. The rationale for this antagonistic stance is that the tissues used to produce the original HEK293, WI-38 and MRC-5 cells were isolated from fetuses obtained from legally terminated pregnancies over 40 years ago.

        Although many find abortion morally unjustifiable, it is important to realize that the original pregnancy terminations were not carried out with the intent to produce cell lines, vaccines or therapeutics. Rather, these cells were generated after the fact, from fetuses that were no longer alive.

        The generation of the cells and their use to save millions of lives is morally distinct from the original abortions. Indeed, this argument has led many pro-life advocates, including Edward Furton of the National Catholic Bioethics Center as well as the St. Louis Archdiocesan Pro-Life Office, to support the use of vaccines produced in these cells.

        • So you concede, buried among much verbiage, that no actual diseases have been cured so far by research based on embryonic stem cells. ‘It is clear that the commercial and therapeutic benefit of these cells is incalculable’ is basically saying that while much is hoped, little or nothing has been achieved.

          This admission is a very long way from the bold assertion in your original post.

          In what specific and particular ways have tissues from aborted children ‘saved millions of lives’. Or even tens?

        • CliveM

          I think Stephen has said all that’s needed. Lots of hope, very little delivery.

    • Could you remind us (A) which of the medical advances we enjoy is owed to experiments on aborted children, and (B) which Pop (?pope) said the earth was flat.

      Look up ‘ flat earth slander’ it’s 19th century propaganda, not historical.

      • ELITEGEEKS

        Google ”
        The many benefits of fetal cell research” The three types of cells cultured from those fetal tissues – known to scientists as HEK293, WI-38 and MRC-5 – have revolutionized the prevention and treatment of human disease. But you know, logic. Sorry, Typo, I do not argue over a typo.. BUT you were smart enough to figure out the missing letter, so let the advanced people on the planet figure out the advanced medications used in research of better medications,

        • I make typos too, no big deal. But I asked about your use of the flat earth slander. Did you not know thiat supposed belief in a flat earth was an atheist propaganda lie invented in the 19th century and falsely attributed to the mediaval church.

          It’s not my job to prove your assertion that foetal cell research has cured diseases, you made it, you support it with facts.