Look, I can understand why people disagree on where to draw what lines to protect a pregnancy. What I don't understand is how a movement can become so completely engrossed in labeling their detractors murders at the expense of actually addressing the debate and realistic solutions to it.

I'm going to give folks you some background on me Leon so you can try to understand why I believe as I do. By the time I was a 10 year old I had been sexually molested by not one but two different men. I was fortunate enough that I was not a little older and these men did not go a little farther and so I was LUCKY that my young body was not forced to undergo a process it was far from ready for. I was fortunate enough that I wasn't a citizen of South Dakota where I might have to share parental rights with the person who violated me or risk giving a child to the individual who committed a crime against my body. That was my good fortune and God's grace working to my benefit. I got older and was lucky enough to escape my dysfunctional household. It took me years to look at sex in a "normal" way. Flash forward.......I got pregnant at 23. I wasn't in love with the guy who got me pregnant.....how could I be? I looked at love like the one between my mother and natural father as a weakness. I defenitely wasn't going to give a man that type of power over MY life. Perhaps I hadn't come as far in the 13 years as I'd liked. Anyway, I decided to have my child anyway. The pregnancy, again largely due to good fortune was uncomplicated. I gave birth to a little boy. A little boy who I might add would have been fatherless throughout his life if it weren't for some more good fortune. I met a man. Not just an ordinary man though. One who was blessed with a gift to see beauty in something that was most definitely,from my point of view, broken. We got married. My son was eight months old. I got pregnant again. Pregnancy this time was a little more difficult. I'm a slight thing by nature. I weighed 110 pounds before pregnancy. I weighed 115 at six months. I was sick constantly. We also had concerns because my brother in laws first child died from SIDS and there was some question about an apnea episode. Anyway I had a little girl. I got pregnant for the third time when she was 7 months old. The pregnancy went fairly well. But towards the end of my pregnancy I ended up getting sick with bronchitis. To this day I still war with myself playing against playing the "what if" game. Simultaneously, my husband and I decided that financially 3 kids were more than enough to handle. He had a vasectomy in Guam. My litttle boy died from SIDS when he was a little over two months old. I was devastated. My husband decided to reverse his vasectomy. During my fourth pregnancy I was a wreck. I'd wake up with the image of holding my deceased third child at the ER and all I could do was cry. I hadn't finished the grieving process and it complicated my fourth pregnancy. I was fortunate because the military sent to me to a shrink and sent me to complicated obstetrics during this process. I had a support network. I can't imagine how I would have gotten through the pregnancy otherwise. I had another litttle boy. I got pregnant for a fifth time after I left the service. The pregnancy went swimmingly. If you don't count that I ended up hospitalized and almost developed sepsis. It seems that when they catheterized me for delivery I developed an infection that went unnoticed. Probably because we didn't have insurance. Lucky for me I'm a vet. The VA treated me. I spent a week in the hospital. When the admitted me they officially thought I had lost kidney function. Flash forward a year later I developed a stone so large it blocked off my kidney. Flash forward six years later.......They don't know what is going on with my right kidney but I have recurrent nephrosis probably as a result of the trauma of the stone and 5 pregnancies that indeed do have an effect on the WOMEN who carry the children. I have no doubt that if I got pregnant now that I would be risking my life to bring a child to term because of my kidneys. I would be facing the choice of possibly leaving four children motherless or aborting. It would most likely be the most difficult decision I would be forced to make. Not only that but my gut decision is the polar opposite of my spouses on this issue. He has told me clearly that if he was asked to choose between my life and a fetus. The choice is fairly obvious to him.

Even though I have never chosen to have an abortion because of my life experiences(my 2 experiences where sex was forced upon rather than given freely and a subsequent 5 very different pregnancies along with the idea that a 6th pregnancy could present my family with a life or death choice)my belief is to give people say in a decision that can carry a graet deal of responsibilty and considerable consequences.

I prefer to look to making the world a better place for the children that are brought into it since they really don't get any choice over the matter.

I look forward to hearing and possibly working with you on how we change the fact that poverty has increased among our youngest citizens and how the percentage of homeless families can be decreased. I look forward to hearing more about improving our medical care system so that our infant mortality rate improves and children can thrive in a safe and healthy environment. I also look forward to hearing how we improve the chances of the children that are born into poverty escaping it through education. The first 10 months in utero isn't where the responsibilty to children ends.

Oh, you want me to spare you the sanctimonious prattling? That's absolutely precious, especially in light of statements like:

Leon needs to read his Bible more often

and

As someone who served as a minister for 10 years and who has a Master of Divinity from a conservative graduate school of religion

and

it is not really a cut and dry issue that one should use to make moral judgments about others

I really could go on, but if your own sanctimony didn't smack you in the face as you wrote those posts, I see no reason to believe that you'll recognize it when I point it out to you.

You accused my friend, someone you don?t even know, of having fake grief over the lives of our soldiers who have died in Iraq. You were basically accusing him of pulling a cheap politically motivated stunt.

Yes. What I missed is where I called him a hypocrite. If you're going to spend the rest of the time here offering me lectures about stuff I didn't say, I fail to see how engaging in this discussion is going to be a productive use of our time.

You also implied that he was ?unstable? for suggesting that someone who sends soldiers to war, on pretenses he knows to be false, is ipso facto a murderer. That was in poor taste, showed ignorance and poor judgment, and actually did nothing to advance your cause.

Actually, even if one were to grant this ludicrous proposition, it would have nothing to do with Meteor Blades' assertion that it was equivalent - either morally or philoosphically - to tying them up and beheading them. That doesn't demonstrate poor taste, that demonstrates a grasp of the obvious.

Furthermore, four weeks is an arbitrary place to draw the line. Dobson draws it at conception. Why do you differ with him?

Why do you differ with Peter Sanger, who draws the line (as best I can tell) at one year after birth?

I don't know about you, but I don't find it very satisfying to argue against people who aren't actually in the debate.

However, I would point out (and this goes for others in this thread who have made this error), that I did not draw a line at four weeks, which declared that an embryo of less than four weeks is fair game - I pointed out that discussions about embryos of less than four weeks' age are outside the bounds of this particular discussion, as abortions generally do not occur before then.

What is wrong with the first trimester as a limit except in cases where the mother?s health is in danger? (As Planned Parenthood suggests here.) Do you feel that the baby is too developed at that point? What makes you qualified to say that it is too developed? Why is your opinion more valuable than others? Let me clue you in: it isn?t.

I'm glad that we're in agreement that all such arbitrary lines are worthless, even if you've phrased it in such terms as to indicate that they're only worthless when drawn by me. Handily, I haven't drawn any such lines, but with all the straw that's been flying over the last two days, I wouldn't expect you to stop now.

Arguing about when life begins is a waste of time and effort because people will never agree.

"Democracy: a giant waste of time!"

I tried to clue you in yesterday as to why your abortion claims fall on mostly unsympathetic ears but you evidently chose to ignore that. Your words are not accompanied by obvious care for the living.

I find it... interesting... that you (may I use the word "sanctimoniously"?) lecture me about making judgments about Meteor Blades (whom I've never met), whereas you recapitulate the same error about me. There's an explanation for this phenomenon contained in this comment . I trust that someone who reads his Bible so much more than I do won't need to be told which particular teaching of Jesus is at issue, here (although you do apparently need to be reminded that it exists, so perhaps I'm wrong. Let me know if you need help).

I will go further and say that anyone who spews hate speech towards political enemies who have done him no physical harm and cheers the mention of the deaths of Democrats (as I hear you have done at Redstate.com) has no business calling himself a Christian.

I am not Thomas, no matter how many people fervently wish to believe that it is so.

Were you happy to see the images of radical muslims cheering when they saw the Twin Towers fall? Of course you weren?t. You recognized that they were wrong. But the only difference between you and them is that they hate all Americans. You just hate Democrats. Yes there are some Democrats who spew hate speech at Republicans. They are also wrong.

If you want, I can arrange for you to have Thomas's email, I'm sure he'll be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

Dehumanization of political enemies is worse than abortion because it lets hate enter our hearts and eat up our souls.

That's a rather interesting view towards the moral equivalency of taking human life.

Anyone who says he loves God and yet hates his fellow man is a liar.

I don't hate Meteor Blades (as I've never met him), but I disapprove strongly of what he's done, and what his ideological fellow-travelers have wrought in this country, and I will condemn it in the strongest terms. I am on good Biblical footing in doing so - but you already knew that, right?

If you really want others to do something to stop abortion then stop arguing over arbitrary timelines and do something like setting up a network of families willing to help take care of the pregnant mother and then adopt her child. Find some way to show your care for the lives of others other than mere rhetoric.

"Truly, they have their reward."

Cwaltz - Thank you for sharing your very painful experiences, and I commend you on your personal strength and commitment to your children. They are to be lauded and emulated.

Questions of poverty admit of no easy answers. I think that we can say that the Great Society was by and lage a failure, and I remain skeptical that government can fix the problem. I think that you've hit on something when you note that education is a big potential help; but before even that can become efficacious, we have to seek to change the norms on a lot of impoverished communities, which place no value on education, and active resentment towards anyone who would seek a higher education. How would we do this? I haven't the foggiest.

I will say this, I place a lot of blame for the situation on the increased worldliness of many Christian Churches - which spend such ludicrous amounts on palaces of worship, and high tech worship consultants, and so many other things, that they have very little or no money left over to help the poor.

Properly, this is a discussion that demands an entirely different thread. I will certainly agree that more should be done (by one entity or another) to help the impoverished, but I don't view this as a necessary prerequisite to believing that the unborn should not be killed.

Okay that chart I tried to make out didn't exactly format the way I wanted.  This is what I was trying to say:

1. Not a human being, No rights: Choice = okay

2. Human being, No rights: Choice = okay

3. Human being, Rights: Choice = not okay

If that makes sense

You do need to read your Bible more often. You may know the letter of the law but you certainly do not know its spirit. Saying so doesn?t make me sanctimonious.

I like how you can say sanctimonious things, and then say, "I'm not being sanctimonious." The internet is a poor medium in many respects - for instance, I can't tell if you're doing it with a straight face or not.

It makes me discerning.

And yet, when I perform the same exercise on MB, I'm "sanctimonious." For the first time in this debate, I'm ready to use the word "hypocrisy." I'm sure you'll be glad.

That is a difference you are surely aware of.

I am, which is why I don't feel the faintest compunction about my comments with reference to Meteor Blades. You, on the other hand, seem only to be aware of the distinction when it applies to other people, and then only have the capacity to apply it incorrectly.

Your attack on MB was the equivalent of hate speech, whatever other label you want to try and put on it.

Your attack on me was racist, whatever other label you want to try and put on it. Assertions are fun, and easier to form than arguments, too!

And you used the word ?faux? to describe his grief, which implied that it was a fake sort of piety, the very meaning of hypocrisy.

Actually, I called it an artificial form of grief, which is also not a synonymous concept with "hypocrisy." I'm beginning to see, however, that you are the sort of person who knows one sort of epithet to throw at his opponents, and applies it with reckless abandon even when he is properly complaining about something else. For many people (especially liberals) this word is "racist," for you it's apparently "hypocrite."

Thomas might be the most extreme member there, but he has comments were cheered by the community and you have endorsed them by your failure to denounce them.

You've endorsed the statements of Peter Sanger by failing to denounce them. I'll take the trade.

Yes you are sanctimonious. Your religion, if your online persona is any indication, is based more on positions you take rather than the way you treat your fellow man.

I was under the impression that it was wrong to make assumptions about people you don't personally know - or does that only apply to assumptions about the great Meteor Blades?

You are so full of hate that you have lost the ability to recognize the hatefullness of your own remarks. I stand by my comments.

I can't be responsible for any failures in your reading comprehension skills, or your selective application of standards to me. I stand behind mine.

I have no idea who Peter Sanger is.  You are part of a community with Thomas and encourage his ugliness.  That's a difference I'm sure you already knew but wanted to pretend otherwise with that intentional false parallel. 

What exactly is "artificial" grief if not fake?  This is not the same as using the word faux to describe something like pearls.  You just want to play word games and pretend you didn't say something we both know you did say.  You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between your own false accusations about someone you don't know (and which you refuse to apologize for in any meaningful fashion) and my observation that your online remarks (OK I haven't met you but I've read plenty of your publicly made remarks) are filled with hate.  Are you saying I am falsely accusing you of being hateful and are you thereby trying to draw another one of those false parallels you seem so fond of? 

If your screeds at redstate.com are not hate-filled then what are they?  You constantly seek to dehumanize Democrats and when called out for your over the top comments there is no humility, not even honest discussion about what you actually said.  It's all a game to run in circles and evade responsibility for the ugliness of your comments.  You called him a hypocrite (even though that specific word was not used) because he wants to remember our war dead in a meaningful fashion.  That was wrong and hateful. 

What's wrong with wanting to remember our war dead? It seems to me that the real problem you have with Meteor Blades is that he hit a nerve by laying the blame for the death of these soldiers at the feet our lying President.  And to try and make that blame go away you try to paint MB as crazy.  I say that if President Bush isn't willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his lies then you should not cover for him with ugly false accusations against other people.  And when called out for those ugly false accusations you need to be honest about what you said.

That wasn't bragging. It was just explaining why I felt qualified to comment.  I think you are projecting your own actions onto me.  You are the one who equated the deaths of our troops with the death of fetuses.  You are supposedly a minister... don't you know that abortion and the value of life are religious issues as well as political ones?  I'm not your judge but I can say that the hate I see in your comments at redstate is likely eating away your soul.  At the judgment you will perhaps have mitigating circumstances that get you forgiven for the hatefulness.  I certainly hope so.  So I make no claim to know your final destination.

I have no idea who Peter Sanger is.

Apparently neither do I, as I've been misspelling his name. A fairly accurate summary of his work is here .

You are part of a community with Thomas and encourage his ugliness. That?s a difference I?m sure you already knew but wanted to pretend otherwise with that intentional false parallel.

I see no particularly compelling reason for me to give an opinion on every single comment from every single person who writes at redstate.com. Thomas is his own person, and can answer for himself. I will say this - a great preponderance of the people who died on 9/11 were probably Democrats, and I did not have a pizza party that day.

What exactly is ?artificial? grief if not fake? This is not the same as using the word faux to describe something like pearls. You just want to play word games and pretend you didn?t say something we both know you did say.

I've never denied saying that his grief was fake. The only problem here is your continued and stubborn insistence to lump all criticism under the header of "hypocrisy."

You seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between your own false accusations about someone you don?t know (and which you refuse to apologize for in any meaningful fashion) and my observation that your online remarks (OK I haven?t met you but I?ve read plenty of your publicly made remarks) are filled with hate.

That's because there is no difference. Except that when I do it, I'm "filled with hate," and when you do it, you're "making observations." So we're abundantly clear, I made an observation baseed on someone's comments (which they certainly didn't apologize for) and drew a conclusion from those comments about the genuiness of a particular belief they espoused. You condemned me for doing this, despite the fact that you've made observations about my online comments (which I haven't and won't apologize for), and made conclusions from them about the genuiness of my belief in the whole of Christianity.

See there? I've just charged you with "hypocrisy." Examine and see if this is in any way distinguishable from charging you with insincerity.

If your screeds at redstate.com are not hate-filled then what are they?

They are demonstrative of inconsistency, and they denounce those who actively contribute to the unjust taking of human life. Sorry you find that "hateful."

You constantly seek to dehumanize Democrats and when called out for your over the top comments there is no humility, not even honest discussion about what you actually said.

Calling someone "inconsistent" or "insincere" is not dehumanizing them, as inconsistency and insincerity are traits rather frequently found in humans.

It?s all a game to run in circles and evade responsibility for the ugliness of your comments.

I don't recall disavowing anything I've said, or offering any excuses for it. Over 3,000 unborn human lives are unjustly taken every single day in this country - I get irritated when pundits who are clearly involved in the cynical manipulation of the feelings of the electorate express this outrage (and yes, I will call it "faux," even if MB has embraced it for so long that to him, it is genuine) over 2500 soldiers (each and every one of them precious human lives) in an attempt to score election-year points.

You called him a hypocrite (even though that specific word was not used) because he wants to remember our war dead in a meaningful fashion.

Are you under the belief that if you say this enough times, it will actually become true?

What?s wrong with wanting to remember our war dead?

Not a thing in the world. And by all means, let's keep pretending that that was my beef. I'd hate for you to have to actually address something I said.

It seems to me that the real problem you have with Meteor Blades is that he hit a nerve by laying the blame for the death of these soldiers at the feet our lying President.

As I said before, I granted, arguendo, that someone might have this perception, even though I disagreed with it. In other words, it is a point about which reasonable people may disagree. The whole beheading bit, not so much. And MB knows it. Or should.

And to try and make that blame go away you try to paint MB as crazy.

As I explained also before, the other explanations are that he's being intellectually dishonest or foolish. If you'll reread the content of my original post, I said that, while at first blush he might appear crazy, upon ruther reflection, he's probably intellectually dishonest.

I say that if President Bush isn?t willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his lies then you should not cover for him with ugly false accusations against other people.

Could you please point out where I "covered" for anyone, much less the President?

And when called out for those ugly false accusations you need to be honest about what you said.

And I have. I won't, however, admit to saying things I didn't say, regardless of the intensity of your mad, impotent insistence that I do so.

This is a handy cudgel indeed to beat your opponents with, especially given the following rather specific injunction:

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you od a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly."

-Matt 6:1-4

It's every bit as courageous as Spruiell knocking Armando for having Wal-Mart as a client, when he is ethically constrained from even responding.

The only response you're going to get on this repeated demand is this .

Classy. Do you demand this of your parishioners as well?

I'm not currently a minister.  I served in that capacity from 1990-2000.  And yes I spent a lot of time talking about showing love to one's neighbors.  So did Jesus.  And he had some harsh things to say to those who pretended to be godly but were not. I think it would be irresponsible for a minister to not talk about these things.  You mean you don't?  What do you talk about?  Abortion and gay marriage?

If I may, I will answer your question with a question - what would you say to a couple who learns that their five year old has terminal cancer of the brain and lungs, and will only live another two months?

That's dodging the question.

Philosophy does not have to be ?taken from? any particular source in order to be true.

No, and you are entitled to believe it and expound it, but if it is not derived from an authoritative moral source then what right do you have to suggest it should be imposed on anyone else?

the unjust taking of human life is a moral wrong

The key word there is 'unjust,' isn't it? Who's definition? Yours?

With respect, your history is wrong

Well, I'm certainly not a scholar of early Christian thought, but didn't Thomas of Aquino suggest that the soul did not enter the body until a fetus was about 40 days old?

And, it was not until 1869 that Pius IX declared that the soul entered the body at conception.

hahahahahaha Very funny.  My level of reading comprehension is  more than high enough to see you are trying to evade my obvious questions.  I asked for examples of actions and I all I get is more BS excuses, couched in pseudo-Christian rhetoric (in case you wonder what I mean by that, it is that you are twisting scriptures to mean something other than what you must know they actually say), for not giving what you evidently do not have.  And no, doing the right thing is not even necessarily related to having the right position on something.  Doing the right thing flows out of who we are not what positions we hold.  But, sadly, I doubt you will ever understand that.

Credit where it's due: You guys have me breaking my vow not to post comments on Lefty sites -- twice today.

It was, plain and simple, a gratuitous insult meant to dehumanize a political enemy.

Oh, so he pulled a Meteor Blades. Looked at in that light, you may have a point: No one should ever act or write like Meteor Blades.

Furthermore, four weeks is an arbitrary place to draw the line. Dobson draws it at conception. Why do you differ with him? What is wrong with the first trimester as a limit except in cases where the mother?s health is in danger? (As Planned Parenthood suggests here.) Do you feel that the baby is too developed at that point? What makes you qualified to say that it is too developed?

Do you actually read English, or do you have a former TESL student do it for you, then write your response and have him translate it into English? Because this suggests it's the latter.

Why is your opinion more valuable than others? Let me clue you in: it isn?t. Arguing about when life begins is a waste of time and effort because people will never agree.

I'm not sure you realize this, but a little over sixty years ago (and in about a third of the world, even today), some folks put forth the notion that certain post-utero humans were not, in fact, human persons. In the same moral universe in which you operate, there was and indeed is, no way to argue to the contrary. Indeed, about one hundred years before that, we in this country held to similar views. (And many of the advocates of that position were just as literate, if apparently just as historically off, about the Bible as you are.) Same problem. There is no way, within your moral universe, to set an objective standard to the contrary. See any problem with that?

I tried to clue you in yesterday as to why your abortion claims fall on mostly unsympathetic ears but you evidently chose to ignore that. Your words are not accompanied by obvious care for the living. I will go further and say that anyone who spews hate speech towards political enemies who have done him no physical harm and cheers the mention of the deaths of Democrats (as I hear you have done at Redstate.com) has no business calling himself a Christian.

Were you happy to see the images of radical muslims cheering when they saw the Twin Towers fall? Of course you weren?t. You recognized that they were wrong. But the only difference between you and them is that they hate all Americans. You just hate Democrats. Yes there are some Democrats who spew hate speech at Republicans. They are also wrong. Dehumanization of political enemies is worse than abortion because it lets hate enter our hearts and eat up our souls. Anyone who says he loves God and yet hates his fellow man is a liar.

This, of course, is what drew me out. Let's get a few things straight:

The temerity of taking potshots at a former minister who has in fact been there and done that up and down the line is breathtaking. Assuming you have clue one about the fellow you're shooting at -- and you clearly don't, though you imagine you do -- were this site as civil as it pretends it is, your account would have been yanked. Fortunately, you can plead incredible, earth-shattering ignorance (with evidence!), and remain safe.

Second, as you're apparently an avid devotee of the whispering game, let me help you out here. I said those nasty things. However, and I revel in bringing this to the attention of a mildly illiterate apparently sola scriptura type, it helps to go to the source material and see what's being said there, rather than castigating Leon for something (I said) that you heard about from an obsessive on another thread who is even more incapable of reading than you. One presumes you're pretty hacked at that Jesus guy for bringing his Army to bear on the Temple and slaughtering the merchants, too.

Third, and finally, that you contend that saying nasty things about political opponents is worse than slaughtering the unborn says pretty well everything that needs to be said about you. One hopes that, hypocritically, you don't believe this about, say, Soviets and the Kulaks. Your argument appears to be that saying bad things about people hurts your soul worse than enabling the slaughter of other people, by the people whom you would otherwise castigate. I think that General Jesus would disagree, though you'd probably have to draw him out of a war-planning seminar to check.

If you really want others to do something to stop abortion then stop arguing over arbitrary timelines and do something like setting up a network of families willing to help take care of the pregnant mother and then adopt her child. Find some way to show your care for the lives of others other than mere rhetoric.

Again, the scope of your presumption is breathtaking, but I presume from this, at least, that you are an avid donor to Catholic Charities. I count one point in your favor.

I have a policy against responding to people who have either not read my post or are incapable of understanding it. FYI.

It's curious that you think poor people don't value education. I haven't found that to be the case. What I have seen is that the resources for a good education are often not the same in the poor communities as they would be in a more affluent community. The child in a poor household is more likely not to have access to a computer or for their family to have the excess money to pay for the access for that computer. There is a big difference between not having the access to resources and not understanding the value of something. Additionally one of the other problems I see is that poor youths lack the safety net that more affluent parents can offer a child when life hits the inveritable rough patches. (We discussed the difference between when a child like Noelle Bush makes a mistake in our justice system she meets a significantly different fate than say the child of the local Walmart employee in another thread.)

I blame the worldliness on a society that looks at value as largely in terms of money. I'm not saying money is bad, I'm just saying that it's importance in our society is overvalued.  I don't see this as solely a church problem, I see it as a societal problem that stretches far beyond the bounds of churches. Here is where I post my disclaimer that I do not regularly attend any particular church at any regular interval so I won't claim any expertise in them.

I'll elaborate further in the entirely different thread though so we can stay on topic.

I think you kind of missed why I posted my experiences. I posted them to make the point that just as each and every life is different it stands to reason that each and every pregnancy is going to be different. They occur for a myriad of reasons under a myriad of circumstances and often come with many, many complications.

Would I have an abortion? I strongly doubt it.

Would I condemn a child who was raped for terminating a pregnancy? No. Would I condemn a woman who had to weigh the value of the growing life inside her against the value of leaving other children without her guidance? No. Would I condemn the woman who knows that the child she bears has serious defects that will affect their quality of life? No.

Truthfully, I do not believe it is my place to condemn or condone. I am not capable of judging, only He is.

I have heard the argument people say that it is wrong because an innocent dies. Truthfully, as a Christian, I do not believe that innocence really dies. What occurs is only death in a physical sense which is a natural part of life. I believe in the eternal life that God can grant us. I have faith that all that is good will remain because it is His will. That's just me though. I can't prove it anymore than I can prove God to someone who doesn't believe. That's the hard thing about faith.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I should clarify - I did not intend to say that the poor do not value education. I intended rather to say that certain poor communities have developed norms that are antagonistic to education. I have seen this firsthand on a number of occasions.

I understood perfectly what you are saying. Who decides which life takes precedent if we call both beings life? :)

They were prevalent in poor communities in Eastern Arkansas and on the eastern Florida coast where I used to live; there is a general feeling that someone who goes to college does not "fit in" with the group - they are "uppity," etc.

It seems to me that the underlying difference seems to be based on one's opinion as to who is actually making the child. Personally, I believe that the mother is in process of manufacturing the child, primarily from raw materials that she is creating. It is a serious piece of labor that, if one believes that involuntary servitude is a bad thing, she should have a right to cease part way through the process.  (I've said that the term 'labor' should apply to the entire pregnancy and not that one last bit.)

If, on the other hand, you believe that God made the child, created its soul and is managing the physical production (as opposed to autonomic systems of the mother's body) then you might come up with a different view.

I suppose my though experiment for Leon  would be if a woman was capable of conciously choosing to end/expel the pregnancy not via the intervention of an outside act, but simply as by no longer choosing to continue the gestation process, at what point would he consider such an decision murder? Would it be murder to choose let the fertilized egg simply not implant? etc.

This isn't Redstate. Intimidating inconvenient posters with banning is in violation of the posting rules.

Hmmmmm. I spent my teen years in Titusville, Fl. My family was pretty poor and I never got accused of being uppity in AP classes. My biggest problem was back then there were no guidelines for kids in school while working. It wasn't uncommon for me to get off work at 2 AM and then have to be at school by 7. I was exhausted but that job was 1) a help to the household 2) an escape from home 3) an opportunity to buy myself some nice things like clothes and makeup which was pretty important to a teen female. I will admit that if you asked me which was more important my job or my education I would have answered job back then in a heartbeat.

1. This action was specifically approved by Armando.

2. I am an admin here.

3. I am also very cognizant that the standards here are different from the ones at Redstate. In three weeks of looking through some fairly vile comments, this is the first one I've felt compelled to question.

BK,

Check this website's posting rules.

Did you drink heavily before writing this?  It sure sounds like it.  Since you invoked Meteor Blades, let me just respond with a quote from him: I've been called far worse by others far better than you.

Heh. Neither did Karl Rove, but you had a calling out post lately when someone went overboard on him. ;)

I am about to call you out as well! :)

Fair enough. There's always a something-inbetween view. And I think we agree that once your belief is based on where God is involved in the process, the government should stay out of it. This is NOT the same thing as saying once it is a morality issue, the govt should stay out of it.

Ender,

There's nothing wrong with not crossing a bridge before you come to it. It is a very, very complex issue. I think you underestimate the bulk of the left. Most of us love and care about children and people in general deeply just as the right does.

You're hilarious. I guess we're done, here.

cwaltz,

There?s nothing wrong with not crossing a bridge before you come to it.

Agreed, but in this case I keep agreeing with both sides on different points.

I think you underestimate the bulk of the left. Most of us love and care about children and people in general deeply just as the right does.

That's why I said some on the left. I agree with your sentiment.

Read through the gospel of Matthew or use a good online tool and search for compassion and synonyms.  That characteristic is what I am talking about.  It doesn't flow out of some position, but out of seeing a need and doing the right thing.  Understanding the usage of that word is an important part of understanding the Matthew 23 text, particularly the concept of mercy.

As part of the community Leon should have denounced this or, it seems to me, he is otherwise guilty of silent approval.

No participant at DailyKos is in any position to throw stones on this count.  Not one.

As for "fake christians" "who have no good deeds to go with their positions," I think our friends of the Calvinist variety would be a bit surprised at your specific critique.  You know Leon's deeds as well as he knows yours -- which is to say, only incompletely and online.  I'd give this one a rest.

Oh certainly not. And I don't need any weapons to take on a grizzly bear. Coming out alive on the other hand... (BTW, let me know when the trash talk is done and I should take note of being taken on) ;)

Sadly, no, I did not; the fervor to correct rampant idiocy got the better of me. Even more sadly, it would appear that you have no excuse whatsoever.

were this site as civil as it pretends it is, your account would have been yanked.

Pot, meet kettle.

We've seen the context Thomas.

Our difference in opinion is that we don't see blastocysts as the unborn being slaughtered. But if you want to break out the hyperbole, then I'd have to wonder why you are for enslaving hundreds of thousands of women and forcing them into involuntary servitude.

The children need to see the corpses to desensitize them. Janet Jackson's boob on the other hand...

After all winning depends on framing Democrats as the enemy. Kill the enemies of freedom. Do you stand with al-Queda and the terrorists, or do you stand with America.

The hatred on display for Democrats on your highly censored redstate, is like bloodsport. And they are definitely framed as anti-American, and the enemy. There is no way around the pleasure you get out of calling people like John Murtha unAmerican.

Or as your media doll would say, ripe for  the fragging.

  If that isn't hate I don't know what is.

Maybe when I have something to take you on, I will. :)

Dense, meet keyboard.

Ad Hominem

That?s ok: Lots of great men have thought that other men weren?t people.

They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human.

A bit egotistical to imply yourself to be such a great man. That's OK, ego is fine; but it would be a bit classier to let someone ELSE give you the title. Otherwise you come off as a bit narcissistic.

Or did I misread you? Were you instead aiming for a second logical fallacy ?

As my wife and daughter will attest, I hate women.

As much as I like to take someone at their word, I'll have to point out that my comment was simply an illumination of the type of hyperbole in which you were engaging. A fact I pointed out in no uncertain way. I'll let the fallacy slide here, because I can't quite tell if this would more accurately go under Appeal to Authority or Hasty Generalization.

The other unfortunate characteristic is an inability to let an idiot put out half a thought, and let it lie. Hence, my responses to comments in this thread.

I was quite tempted to note that "You seem more than capable, however, of being that idiot" but that would be a repetition of your own (and repeated) ad hominem. Instead I'll add that one of your unrecognized flaws is apparently a blindness to the logical fallacies you seem to rely on in your arguements. If you engage in more discussions with people who disagree with you, you might be forced to learn other strategies. On the plus side, it seems to be working out well for you already. While you called me dense and an idiot, you didn't once declare me less than human or wish me dead. Baby steps.

Dense, meet keyboard.

Ad Hominem

Pop quiz - what is the logical fallacy that involves assuming that every insult is an ad hominem fallacy?

A bit egotistical to imply yourself to be such a great man. That?s OK, ego is fine; but it would be a bit classier to let someone ELSE give you the title. Otherwise you come off as a bit narcissistic.

Or did I misread you? Were you instead aiming for a second logical fallacy?

Are you trying to set a record for the most misuses of logical fallacies in the same post?

I was quite tempted to note that ?You seem more than capable, however, of being that idiot? but that would be a repetition of your own (and repeated) ad hominem. Instead I?ll add that one of your unrecognized flaws is apparently a blindness to the logical fallacies you seem to rely on in your arguements.

Given your demonstrated failure to grasp the basic structure or form of a single one of the logical fallacies you've mentioned in this post, I'd refrain from this type of argumentation.

By the way, last grunt is yours. I really am working on that second failing.

A well thought out and reasoned refutation of my position, to be sure. I shall contemplate my penance, posthaste.

The point of my bringing it up was to demonstrate that the concept of when life begins and how has shifted over the centuries. The line has moved. It has not been carved in stone.

Ad hominem is not another word for "insult," it is a logical fallacy in which one seeks to disprove an argument by arguing against the person making it rather than the argument itself. They often take the form of insults, but the terms are not synonymous.

Thus, if you say, "Abortion has a disproportionately large effect on the black population," and your opponent says, "You're stupid!" he has not committed an ad hominem fallacy, as he hasn't even really argued against your position at all - he's just insulted you. If, however, he says, "It is typical that my racist opponent would make such an assertion," then he is trying to discredit your assertion by tying it to something which supposedly disqualifies you from making it - thus, he has committed an ad hominem fallacy (and also an insult).

I also noted that we disagreed on whether a single celled blastocyst was a human or not. Thomas certainly appeared to be attempting an analogy that compared me to a slavery apologist; an analogy which depended upon the assumption that a blastocyst is analogous to an enslaved person.

Actually, the analogy was not nearly that limited, as it also applies to the communists and the Nazis. Also, Begging the question is a good deal more narrow than it is typically given credit for, and it does not mean "making an unfounded assumption" (which is probably what you wanted to charge Thomas with, given the rest of this content). Begging the question only applies when an argument is circular - that is, it assumes the proposition in one of the premises. This is different from a proposition based upon an unfounded or unproven assumption - in that case you would say that the proposition does not flow from the premises (or simply, that one of the premises is false), an argument which begs the question is a logically valid argument, but it fails because it has been constructed in a circular manner.

I'm probably picking nits, as both of those usages fly around the internet with distressing regularity these days, but I think it's important that people are clear about what they are objecting to and why.

Leon,

In this particular case, the reason I felt that his insult rose to being ad hominem was that he quoted my previous comment. I inferred, and felt the point he was attempting to make  to all readers, of which I was one, that my comment had no merit and should be ignored because I was dense. i.e. Don't listen to him, he's dense. If he was just tossing of an insult and was showcasing its symmetry with my comment, then you are correct, and he was just being uncivil. Again, humorous after lecturing someone on civility.

I think we are probably arguing intepretation of Thomas' words here, because I understood his analogy to be circular. People who think blastocysts aren't people are as bad as people who didn't think slaves/Jews etc were people, because blastocysts are people; the very point of contention raised. Again, if he was simply trying to convince others who all agree on the major point as opposed to convincing me my original statement was in error, then you are correct about the lack of that particular fallacy.

I think it comes down to a difference in interpretation of Thomas' meaning. Something you have more experience with, and something that, after this particular exchange, I have very little interest in repeatedly attempting.

Later! :)

I can see by your mocking tone that perhaps I did not clarify my point.

Actually, you made no point.

I believe claiming MB hypocritical b/c he does not mourn the deaths of abortions yet he thinks Bush murdered the soldiers is a false analogy.

I didn't claim he was hypocritical. I claimed he was inconsistent.

In order for this analogy (comparing abortions to the soldier?s deaths) to work necessitates that we agree on the point of abortions = murder (and soldier?s deaths = murder).

Thus the whole point of the post you are responding to, which you have still not raised a point against.

This type of a priori argument is fine when you are preaching to the choir at RS

Which is, oddly enough, where I made the remarks about MB. Links are your friend.

but the audience?s diversity here will not buy your presuppositions as seen by the debate in this thread.

That's why I spent about 1300 words explaining the proposition here. Which I note you still haven't refuted one of.

(which, again, by this thread, remains dubious in its success).

This is, actually, your first argument against my post, and it is not actually an argument, but rather an assertion. A weak one, at that.

Instead of arguing MB?s points, you created a false analogy to call him a hypocrite.

In point of fact, I posted first at RedState, where my audience would have already heard all this, and then when it got dragged into the forum here, I spent a great deal of effort proving the first proposition. There has not yet been a refutation of the basic point of the thesis - least of which by you.

After reading your most recent post, I see you acknowledge many of these points.  Thank you for stating the quaifiers.

I should clarify that by "Committee Seat" that means his Ethics Committee seat, which is logical considering that what the investigation dealt with was ethics involving his assets, as Jefferson's deals with outright bribes (thereby his loss of Ways and Means, which deals with some of the $ stuff of the House)

could be, but they still have to say what they want to do.  I know watching the republicans implode occaeionally helps, but they can't rely on just that.

Now understand me, most of us know the positions of individual members, cause we read.  Most of America doesn't.  If it isn't on TY, they don't know about it.

The Horserace season......! Since the winning formula seems to be whoever buys the most  media wins. I would say this year will be the year of ultimate partisanship nastiness. Whoever breaks the horses legs has the advantage in the race. And my hope is that the cheaters are exposed. My hope is that the party of black and white= red loses.

  It will be interesting to see how much attention John Q Public has been paying to the political scene, or if in fact the race will be won by the likes of Ann Coulter ruthless partisan attacks on godless liberals. Will people get sick of this? Will they buy into brilliant political schemes that debate the Iraq War in terms of, you are either with al-Queda or with America. Or will it be the Family Values crowd, with the party of death and moral decay, or "family values"?

  Will we hear the rhetoric of flag waving patriots who have never served in a war, calling anyone that offers questions about the direction of the "endless progress" in Iraq, being wholly un-American?

  The efforts to Dixie Chick all dissent, Coulterize anyone losing a loved one in the war, that says there might be a better way.

  Will the efforts to stir and rouse a sense of strong Nationalism backfire when the Presidents liberal policies towards immigration, and forgiving the "insurgents (or are they terrorists) in an effort to create a strong enough military in Iraq to defend itself from the enemy?

  Or will it boil down to the endless tax cuts, that have to be made up on a local level, as cities gut their fire departments, police departments, and arts programs in schools due to lack of funds. Perhaps the constant slow drip of higher prices, at the grocery store, the gas station, the amount of you doctor bill your insurance doesn't cover, or just bank foreclosures on homes and the higher fees for fishing liscenses and park passes.

  But really the issues is do you support al-Queda or America. Are you a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, or are you with the President.

  Frankly the invective I see from the right, as the let the word libberrrraaaaaallll drip from their lips, as if they were from the old confederate south and someone was trying to take their nigger away. That beautiful catch all phrase, you know those liberals......those weak minded democrats who believe that the common good means something, the liberal socialists, the anti American liberals. You may as well just say it Leon...... liberals are the enemy. And liberal has become the catch phrase for the right..... and they  might as well just call us niggers. Cause we support the working man and a fair days pay. And we support public education. And we don't think that tax breaks should go to companies that export historical industries oversseas for cheap labor is a good thing.

  My hope is that regular folks are paying more attention than you think. And they will get sick of the slanderour and bile that comes out of the mouths of those that speak to the ideology of the Republican party, like your media doll Ann Coulter.

Liberal does mean open minded. And I always thought questions were good. Let's see how the American people answer the questions in 06.

Long live the constitution. May we please have it back.

missliberties,

impressive little rant there...

But guessing as to the relative size of my spleen is the norm for those who are not interested in a civil society and seek to close discourse with mockery.

There is nothing so hilarious as a person bereft of any sense of irony.

"predictive insights" like hers will hardly move this particular discussion forward.

Depends on how the DSCC funds that particular general election.

I expect that he'll play coy and promise to caucus with the Dems in return for the DSCC not funding the race.

Nah. He'll leave before the primary (or be prepping for it before then). He'll leave because he isn't polling well with his own party. Big difference

I agree, otherwise it would have been filled with constructive analysis in line with the thread.

However without repeating the main bulk of the post, while we could discuss the rationality and possibilities of election defeat or success, she was at least making serious points of how elections are decided on the ground not in the rarified and knowledgeable thoughts of liberal and conservative blogger elites.

Her points are valid. I don't think she felt like following Leon's academic style and Leon didn't feel like addressing the points because he didn't like her style. I don't make a distinction he wasted two posts dismissing her views as well.

The planners have been pretty preoccupied so they are trotting out the ol' gay marriage horse here in Va.

It will be interesting to see which is more important Health care or preventing Joe and Jim from getting hitched.

Heh, well I understand why he is in trouble, but I am talking about the possibility of him casting his lot with the GOP and maybe getting committee assignments from them as well.

If we have a "D grade infrastructure" then most of Europe has failed long time ago.

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

I think if we went back to a 3 branch government rather than a 2 party government he'd do fine.

When the Republicans are no longer voting on what "the majority of the majority" wants, people who want to bridge the divide will have a place, but it has to start from the side with the majority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137552

Here's the article where we get the "D".

I doubt the people in New Orleans think our D was or is funny. Hopefully not too many other places see the effects of getting a D this hurricane season.

As for Lieberman, he overwhelmingly HAS cast his lot with the GOP. I'm surprised he hasn't taken the Bush Admin up on their offer to join the admin. I'm not too worried about him either way. I don't think we will make enough gains to get the Senate back this go round even if I do see us making gains.

I am surprised you took my comment as hostile to Europe. I was just remarking about the state of their infrastructure that I observed on various visits.

I remain open to the prospect that some races may become competitive. I've not seen polling yet to indicate that it is. Where are you getting your "10 point" Allen lead? Admittedly, I have a tendency to be highly skeptical of certain polling organizations (like SUSA and Quinnipiac), and so I may have just missed this. I'm also unabashedly partial to Rasmussen, which is the only organization which got the correct spread for the race I worked on in 2004 within their margin of error - not only that, they called it exactly.

Does anyone think it?s possible that if Lieberman is elected as an Independent . . . he will caucus with Republicans?

I doubt it.  In decreasing order of liklihood I think the possibilities are 1) Lieberman wins the primary and the general as a Democrat, 2) Lieberman loses the primary and Lamont wins the general, 3) Lieberman loses the primary and wins as an idependent with the (at least implicit) support of the Party and he serves as a Democratic, 4) Lieberman loses the primary and wins the general with the Democratic Party supporting Lamont -- he serves as an independent and stands mute on leadership questions.