Hey, Sioux Falls Democrats… and women… and Libertarians… and everyone else who loves women and liberty—what are you doing Sunday afternoon?
You’re going to the “Freedom to Choose” Rally for Reproductive Rights, that’s what.
The FB page for this events lists the following Democratic candidates who plan to participate:
- Rep. Jamie Smith, candidate for Governor
- Rep. Linda Duba, candidate for District 15 House
- Rep. Jennifer Keintz, candidate for Lt. Gov.
- Brian Bengs, candidate for U.S. Senate
- Kristin Hayward, candidate for District 12 House
Now some of you may say, Yeah, but I don’t want to go to a political rally—I’m fighting for women, not Democrats. But stow any feigned nonpartisanship for quieter times: the Alito Court and other Republicans have turned this profoundly personal issue into a political issue. Democrats (and Libertarian candidates for U.S. House Collin Duprel and for governor Tracey Quint!) are pretty much the only politicians who will fight to protect women and women’s rights and who will be honest with you about their position on abortion. If you don’t get political, you won’t get basic women’s equality back in South Dakota.
The Freedom to Choose rally starts downtown at 2 p.m. Sunday; organizers are still nailing down the exact location.
Totally off subject, except relating to Democrats: how did things go at this year’s state fair in regards to vandalism and bully of the Democrats booth by the Magyars?
Abortion deprives the child of the “Freedom to Choose” anything, ever.
Mr. jkl, you saying some cardboard lemonade stand got TPed by some mean kids on skateboards?
A foetus is no more a child than it is a grandparent.
My good friend Lar is righter-than-right on that one. grudznick does like it when Lar plays that card.
shove it, grud.
Women, if you want full rights, move to a blue state.
That a pseudonymous troll would support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy but deny her right to ingest cannabis is a leap only a dope could make.
You know what, grud? When I made that appointment with you in 2003 to pitch my vision for the Ross Compressor Building then tracked drywall mud all over your office I was embarrassed but now I realize I should have kicked you right square in the nards instead.
On occasion, some of my good friends come to the realization that grudznick is a more complicated fellow than many of them remember. Today is simply one of those days.
Kurt — forcing 10 year olds raped to give birth is dangerous for the child carrying and not acceptable. A woman losing or miscarrying deceased child under current law cannot get a D & C. It’s not black and white.
Larry means grudznicks office at 1815 9th Street in Rapid, huh Larry? How ‘bout it El Gallo?
Cells reproduce before a fetus become alive and cells reproduce after a human being is a corpse. Cell reproduction is not an indication of life. Being born and beginning to breathe independently is the indicator of life.
Correct P. Aitch
“Jackilope” writes:
Coercing a ten-year-old girl into an abortion is psychologically dangerous for one child and fatal for the other.
I see the prophecy long advocated by grudznick and his close personal friend, Lar, is starting to come true with Walworth county.
Commentators with their definitions of life are tilting at windmills as an attempt to justify their respective positions and might as well be arguing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
Larry Kurtz writes, apparently referring to “grudznick”:
On a related note, the God of the Bible obviously wants government to avenge crimes of theft, violence and defamation. Broad attempts to use government coercion to micromanage people’s lives and force non-Christians to act like Christians, on the other hand, don’t work, and they have high social and economic costs.
Many on the political left suggest that pro-life Christians derive a twisted pleasure from asserting control over other people, and such a perception would seem to be reinforced by those who waste political capital on the micromanagement or outright criminalization of voluntary drug use by adults.
DaveEffNutz wouldn’t know which end of a pin to sit on. It’s just blah blah blah …
Lansing
This like most every topic Cory posts is way beyond your skill set to address, as much as you try.
Stay in your kitchen where you belong.
One point that I have never seen an attempt to refute (by Evans or any other anti-choice advocate) is that assuming only for the sake of discussion that a fertilized egg-fetus is in fact a “person,” there is no apparent rational explanation why a woman should be denied the right to defend against that “person’s” use of the woman’s body against her will. No other man, woman, boy or girl is denied the right to defend against the involuntary use of their body, even if parts of their body are needed by someone else to survive. For example, someone needing a kidney or liver transplant cannot force another person to give up his or her kidney or part of the liver, and someone starving has no right to forcibly take and eat any part of another living breathing person’s body for survival. So even if a fertilized egg-fetus needs the woman’s body parts to survive why should it matter whether it is a “person” since the law does not give other persons such power over another in order to survive?
Kurt, ascribing rights to non-sentient cells leads us to rights for animals and plants and the immediate starvation of our species.
The pregnant woman’s rights override the rights of any organism hitching a ride inside her body. See bearcreekbat’s point about forcing women to serve another being.
JKL, I’ve heard the usual bullying committed by sniggering youths continues, demonstrating the bad influence of Trump and the willingness of Trumpist parents to let their kids become moral monsters for the cause of fascism. Let us hope the Trumpist bullies do not bring their bullying to these public demonstrations… or that if they do, the press gets those thug tactics on camera.
“bearcreekbat” writes:
Abortion deprives the child of the liberty to make any choice, ever. I’m not “anti-choice,” and you’ve seen me repeatedly refute your “point” at least since 2017.
That claim is absurd. Except under certain circumstances, neither fathers nor mothers have the right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.
Cory writes:
I’m ascribing rights to the child, not to the child’s cells, and even if I were ascribing rights to the child’s cells, I’d see no logical connection to animals, plants, or the starvation of our species.
Again, I’m not seeing any logical basis for that claim.
Kurt, to the best of my knowledge fathers and mother have the absolute legal right to “right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.” While there are laws requiring a parent not to abandon or neglect a child, any parent can voluntarily petition a court or sign a consent to give up his or her parental rights from the moment of birth, or any time thereafter, and be free of any future obligation to the child. Indeed, many states have enacted safe haven laws that allow a parent to abandon a newborn at some designated location with no court involvement and no questions asked.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/safehaven.pdf
Plus, there is no law that I am aware of that would ever require a parent to involuntarily give his or her own blood, an internal organ, nor any other body part to a living breathing child, even if needed to save that child’s life.
Your attempted refutation to my point appears to be contrary to fact and without any legal basis. But if you actually have legal authority that supports your claim please share it and prove me wrong.
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
It isn’t an “absolute legal right” if it’s only legal under specific circumstances.
How would you say parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies? Telepathy?
We were talking about rights, not civil laws. Would you say a parent has the unconditional right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life?
Kurt, you are correct that there are typically pre-requisites (i.e. “specific circumstances”) to be met before exercising any right. Once the requirements are met, however, the State cannot legally interfere with the exercise of that right, hence it has become “absolute” in a legal sense. As noted, safe haven laws require the parent to leave the child only at specific locations, but once the parent does so the parent has the “absolute right” to be free of any responsibility for that child.
Kurt asks:
I wouldn’t say “parents could theoretically comply with safe-haven laws without using their bodies.” All human beings must “use their bodies” in some way to complete all physical actions, including the action of leaving the child. Of course when the parent uses his or her body in that manner it is a voluntary action. As I understand “telepathy,” it does not concern the physical movement of things, rather it addresses the passing of thoughts. You may be thinking of so-called “psychokinesis or telekinesis,” which is generally considered only an illusion.
Kurt asks:
Throughout our conversation I have been referencing legal rights, which include rights granted or denied by civil laws. After all it is only the power of the State exercised through civil and criminal laws that denies by force the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. If you are thinking of some sort of “rights” outside of the law, then that is the matter for a completely different discussion.
If your question were referencing the civil law, however, then I would answer no, to the best of my knowledge a parent cannot exercise parental control to deny a child a needed life-saving blood transfusion, so long as the blood comes from someone that consents to give the blood. But a parent can refuse to consent to using his or her own blood for the transfusion. The State gives the child no right to use either parent’s blood (nor to the use of any other body part) without the parent’s consent.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
That isn’t what I’d said, and it isn’t true.
I’d asked:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Complying with civil laws under the threat of government punishment is a “voluntary action”? Would you say it was a “voluntary action” when Planned Parenthood stopped aborting children in South Dakota?
No, parents using telepathy could theoretically ask someone else to transport the child.
I’d asked:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Actually it’s a matter for this discussion.
Would you say such a parent has the moral right to let the child die for no reason?
Kurt, rather than simply declare “that isn’t what I said” it would be helpful for continuing this discussion, if that is what you want to do, for you to clarify what it was you intended to say. Likewise, when you declare “it isn’t true” it would be helpful if you would explain why you believe “it isn’t true.”
Kurt asks
No, because PP did not want that result, so it’s stopping was compelled by the threat of force and interfered with their goal of helping women in need. In contrast, parents complying with safe haven laws, however, seek the end result and want to comply because compliance with the requirements serves their goal of getting the child completely away from them and any responsibility for the child.
Kurt then says:
Actually there would be no need for telepathy in that situation because as noted above as the parent is permitted by law to directly ask for the help as the safe haven laws apparently permit “an agent of the parent” to drop off the child
Kurt asks
In my view for an act to be deemed moral or immoral that act must be an intentional choice made by the actor. Someone that claims to do something for “no reason” is either refusing to disclose the reason for the choice to act, or is acting without thinking and choosing. So If that hypothetical parent in fact had “no reason” for letting the child die the parent’s act would be neither moral nor immoral since it would be an act without thinking or choosing.
For future discussion, perhaps it would be helpful for you to clarify when you are referencing some sort of “rights” outside of the law, as that approach raises different questions than a discussion of why the law should treat one class of persons (pregnant women that do not consent to another person using their body) differently than every other person that has a legal right to take whatever action is necessary to stop another person from using their body without their consent. That is a question I have not yet seen answered with a rational factual reason.
“Bearcreekbat”
They could abdicate their responsibility for the child without complying with safe-haven laws, and contrary to your claims, it isn’t a “voluntary action” to comply with those laws under the threat of government punishment.
You argue that fathers and mothers have the “absolute legal right” to withhold their bodies from the care of their children. How would you say parents could theoretically “ask for help” without using their bodies?
Would you say such a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?
Kurt says:
I am not sure how you come up with that involuntary idea where the parent does not object to compliance, unless you take the position that compliance with any law carrying a sanction for noncompliance can never be voluntary. For what it is worth, I generally comply with most laws voluntarily – not because I feel compelled to by threat of punishment by the government for non-compliance. Is the only reason you don’t go out and start raping and murdering strangers because you know the government will punish you if they catch you, i.e., “it isn’t a “voluntary action” [for you] to comply with those [rape and murder] laws under the threat of government punishment?”
Kurt asks
I already answered this in my comment at 2022-09-24 01:21 above.
Kurt asks,
Your question contains the implied premise that a parent has a moral right not to care about the child. If that wasn’t your intent then your question is only rhetorical as you have already answered it with the premise that “the parent doesn’t care about the child.” In the former case where you posit as an implied premise that a parent has a moral right not to care about the child, my judgment would have to be based on the specific situation (like your response in your drawbridge hypotheticals).
Fetuses are not children with moral claims. They are part of the pregnant woman’s body, over which we have no legal claim.
I agree with you Cory that “fetuses are not children with moral claims.”
There seems to be a recurring claim or belief, however, by anti-choice individuals, including Kurt Evans (who ironically has asserted he is not anti-choice in one of his comments), that a fetus is a person or child. The problem is that once anti-choice folks assert this position they too often simply stop thinking beyond this questionable conclusion. If a fetus is a child or person, then the anti-choicers believe that no further analysis is approriate. Accepting for the sake of argument or discussion only, the proposition that a fetus (or zygote, blastocyst or embryo) is in fact a “person” or “child,” however, allows one to present to the anti-choice advocate the precise legal and moral issue of how the State can rationally declare that this fetus-person will have the right to use a woman’s body against her will, when no other “person” has a similar right to use a woman’s body nor anyone else’s body against their will.
The fetus-child’s need to use the body for survival doesn’t answer this question because the need to use another living person’s body against that person’s will for survival is not given to any other person. Indeed, the State doesn’t even give a living person the legal right to use body parts from a cadaver without pre-death consent. The fetus-child’s theoretical innocence doesn’t answer the question because no other theoretically or actually innocent person may use another person’s body against his or her will. The fetus’s defenselessness has the same problem, as the State doesn’t protect the involuntary use of another person’s body for a living, breathing defenseless man, woman or child. Same with the fetus’s “little” size or sex (all these terms have been used by Kurt Evans as he repeatedly dodges this complex and difficult issue). And I know of no “moral” code that would “categorically” (another Kurt Evans’ term) grant one person the State backed power to appropriate by force another person’s body parts against his or her will.
Thus, as best I can tell, and I remain open to any logical or rational argument otherwise, that even if a zygote, blastocyt, embryo, or fetus could rationally be considered a person or child with a moral claim (which again I agree with you and others that it is not), what can morally or legally justify using the power of the State to force a woman to submit against her will to the appropriation of her internal body parts by another?
I for one would have an easier time accepting the RIght’s “pro-life” stance if it were couched in a larger, honest pro-life policy framework.
If there were set legislation to expand the healthcare for expecting mothers, to eliminate to costs of prenatal, delivery and postnatal expenses, day care provisions, workplace discrimination elimination, paternal responsibility/accountability (instead of 100% of all this landing on the mother), child healthcare, child poverty elimination, education: a true value proposition to look at the value of the mother and child, then I would seriously be willing to set aside many of the legitimate legal concerns that surround abortion and give some serious lean to the pro life side of this argument. But that is not happening. That is not even being whispered in the corners of this mean-spirited GOP/MAGA/Right. Ironically, only the Liberal/Left has any thoughtful discussion of these issues.
Today’s GOP/MAGA/Right are “pro-life” up to the point it takes a coin from their pocket — then it ends. Profit, wealth, and greed are the final end game.
The anti-choice sadists only want to ensure their cheap, non immigrant, uneducated labor force for the future. Keep the pens full and ready to work.
The concept of- it is nobody’s damn business- keeps being eluded. If a woman is overjoyed with the knowledge she is pregnant, then yes, she is going to have a baby. If someone kills her, they murder two. It is all about intent. And it only matters what she decides and intends. She doesn’t say at 7 weeks pregnant, “I have a baby”. She says, “I am going to have a baby”.
If she has other intentions, which is nobody’s business, remember, she doesn’t have to consider what anti-choice louses demand she ought to refer to her condition as. If she has to consider an alternative to being pregnant, it is a struggle and is not fun. Do not make it worse because you don’t have any right over her body. Get that through that skull and please mind your own business.
Some of us make the choice to go Toltec and believe the definition of life is light interpreting light. All life has a unique way of interpreting light. We don’t exist until we have our own interaction with light. The Toltec warriors knew there are only three things: light, mirrors reflecting the light (us), and the only way to see this truth is to add smoke.
“Bearcreekbat” asks me:
No. I’d probably refrain from those behaviors voluntarily if I weren’t under the threat of government punishment, but I don’t have the opportunity to refrain voluntarily because of that coercive threat.
Correct. The threat of government punishment makes it a coerced action, regardless of how one might voluntarily behave in the absence of the threat.
I’d asked:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Your September 24 comment suggests that parents complying with safe-haven laws have the legal obligation to “use their bodies” to personally transport the child to the designated location. Your September 25 comment suggests that such parents merely have the legal obligation to arrange for “an agent of the parent” to transport the child.
Those two positions are contradictory, and now you’re referring my question about the parents “ask[ing] for help” to your previous September 24 comment. You seem to be arbitrarily switching back and forth between the two positions in an ongoing attempt to rationalize your false insinuations that I misused the word telepathy.
I’d asked:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Both of those claims are absurd. How could I have answered a question about what you’d say?
Your September 22 comment says there’s no law you’re aware of that would ever require a parent to give his or her own blood, even if needed to save the child’s life. As I’ve been trying to ask you for nearly a week, would you say a parent has the unconditional moral right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life and let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child? Would you say the parent doesn’t have that moral right? Would you simply continue to dodge?
You’re obviously not obligated to respond, but if you were to respond rationally, your answer to one of those three questions would be yes, and your answers to the other two questions would be no. I’d welcome additional explanatory information as long as the questions were answered.
Cory writes:
The pregnant woman has two skulls, and the greedy abortionists at Planned Parenthood need no reason beyond their oversized paychecks to crush the smaller one.
Kurt, okay, let me rephrase my Sept 24 comment. Rather than “safe haven laws require the parent to leave the child only at specific locations,” it is more accurate to say “safe haven laws require that the child be left only at specific locations.” Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy of my initial statement.
As to your rape and kill response about to whether you would “rape and kill” without laws prohibiting such behavior, namely, “I don’t have the opportunity to refrain voluntarily because of that coercive threat,” then would you agree that because of South Dakota’s new anti-abortion laws that all women are now denied the opportunity to freely refrain from terminating a pregnancy, nor freely protect the fertilyzed egg, zygote, blastocyt or fetus inside their bodies, but must do so only because the law coerces such behavior (although many, like you, would do so regardless of these new criminal sanction).
Next, just like your prior answers to my questions pertaining to when you when find it morally approriate to crush a little girl’s skull, my answer to your blood transfusion questions “would have to be based on the specific situation,” just as I stated in my Sept 27 comment. In addition to knowing the specific situation of the parents and the child I would need you to identify under what particular “moral code” you seek an answer since you apparently evaluate specific situations under your own peculiar and substantially different “moral code” than many, if not most, other people, including myself.
Finally, your summary labeling of my response to your question about an implied moral code as “absurd” seems like more name calling rather than a meaningful response. Your response about the inconsistency of my initial comment about the rules of the safe haven laws about dropping off a child made sense, but if you had simply labeled it “absurd” it would have shut down any further meaningful discussion. As pointed out in another thread when you abruptly start calling me names and making summary claims with neither evidence nor reason supporting such claims, further attempts at discussion about particular issues with you seems to have devolved into a useless waste of my time.
Borderline Personality Disorder is made up of five groups of symptoms: unstable behavior, unstable emotions, unstable relationships, unstable sense of identity, awareness problems.
Often a person with a subconscious need to have their feelings hurt will invest their time into conversations where they goad others into eventually hurting their feelings. The sadness they then feel is a reminder of the parental love they were denied as a child.
P., for what it is worth name-calling doesn’t hurt my feelings. Rather, I see it as a red flag indicating that the name-caller has little if any interest in a meaningful conversation, hence further discussion with the name-caller would be a waste of my time.
@BCB – I’m not talking about you, nice lady. Your sparring partner has a method of irritating people until he eventually gets insulted. Dead Daddy issues is my guess as to his motivation.
“Bearcreekbat” had written:
Abortion deprives the child of the liberty to make any choice, ever. I’m not “anti-choice,” and you’re a pathological liar.
I’m not dodging. You’re dodging, and you’re a pathological liar.
You’re welcome. That brings us back to one of the questions you’ve been dodging. How would you say parents complying with safe-haven laws could theoretically fulfill their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location without using their bodies?
No. Most South Dakotans would probably refrain voluntarily if they weren’t under the threat of government punishment, but the threat of government punishment makes it a coerced action, regardless of how anyone might voluntarily behave in the absence of the threat.
I’d written:
“Bearcreekbat” responds:
That’s yet another dodge. When I ask what “you” would say, I’m obviously seeking an answer under your moral code, if you have one, and when I ask about an “unconditional” right, it obviously can’t be conditional on the “specific situation” of the parents and the child.
You seem to be suggesting there are circumstances under which a parent has the moral obligation to provide the blood donation and other circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child. Is that your position?
The commenter formerly known as Porter Lansing writes:
Those remarks are extraordinarily obnoxious, even considering the source. Whatever other mistakes they may have made, neither my mom nor my “Dead Daddy” denied me parental love as a child.
That’s not what your brother says. But, who’d expect you to be in touch with your subconscious motivations? You’re too busy trying to get people to make you sad. – Try again only think about someone other than the person you’re blaming. Then get back to us. – Peace ☮️
Kurt, it appear to me that you are not asking these questions in good faith or you would not repeatedly call me a derogatory name in light of my recent comment on DFP about such name calling:
That comment holds just as true here as it did on the other thread. My best to you and yours.
1. Abortion is health care and a pregnant woman is the patient.
2. Ectopic pregnancies kill women.
3. Rich women have full reproductive rights while women at the lower income margins suffer chilling effects on those rights. Women in Texas, Wyoming and South Dakota who can afford it simply jump on a plane and fly to Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Denver or elsewhere for their procedures. Imagine a woman on the Standing Rock or Pine Ridge doing that.
4. South Dakota’s repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care are not only mean-spirited, they’re discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
5. “Pro-life” is simply code for white people breeding. The extreme white wing of the Republican Party is driving the abolition of women’s rights because they’re wedded to the Great Replacement Hypothesis. African-Americans terminate pregnancies at about the same per capita rate as white people do but don’t take their jobs. Latinas, however, have fewer abortions per capita but the extreme white wing laments it’s hemorrhaging jobs to Latinos.
6. No foetus in the United States has any civil rights until the third trimester. Republicans preach civil rights for human blastocysts but deny the protections of the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments to people who enjoy cannabis.
7. Republican politicians drive their anti-woman crusade to raise campaign dollars so ending reproductive rights in red states is Balkanizing women’s health care.
8. An acorn is not an oak tree so a foetus is no more an unborn child than it is an unborn grandparent.
10. There is no foetal heartbeat until late in a pregnancy. What an ultrasound “hears” at six weeks are cells beginning to built a cardiac system.
11. States that ban women from going out of state for their procedures or medications are violating the Commerce Clause enumerated in the United States Constitution.
I agree with most of larry’s bullet points, but the statement that “No foetus in the United States has any civil rights until the third trimester,” seems to imply a foetus has “civil rights” during the third trimester. To the best of my knowledge this is incorrect. Before Dobbs the State’s authority to regulate abortion during the third trimester was not based on the purported civil rights of a foetus, rather, it was based on the State’s interest in the health and safety of a pregnant woman and the foetus.
And I don’t think Dobbs overruled Roe et al based on the “civil rights” of a foetus. After Dobbs perhaps one or more State has enacted statutes giving a foetus “civil rights,” but if so I haven’t seen that new law publicly reported. Perhaps larry can identify a source for the idea that a foetus might have “civil righhts” during the third trimester?
Indeed, the whole point of Dobbs seems to have been to take away existing “civil rights” from women, not grant “civil rights” to a foetus. If, however, after Dobbs a foetus now has been given some sort of “civil rights” I cannot see how or why such “civil rights” would be restricted to only the third trimester, rather than granted during the entire pregnancy. For example, South Dakota’s First Degree murder statutes now prohibits the killing of an “unborn child” without authority of law, and SDCL 22-1-2 (50A) explicitly defines “unborn child” as “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.” If SD’s First Degree murder statute is based on the statutory victim’s “civil rights” then it covers all three trimesters, not just the third trimester.
Thanks, bat. Will update my blog to reflect your clarification.
I just happened on a September 26, 2022 DFP comment and link by P.Aitch in a thread about eminent domain, which has real relevance to the claims of some members of the anti-choice crowd and may have been overlooked in the discussion about abortion. It is worth quoting at length:
.
https://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/2005/09/abortion-rights-v-eminent-domain.html
Thanks P.Aitch for linking this analysis as it helps us recognize a key flaw in the fetus=baby thinking. This analysis obviates my other point that assumes for the sake of argument or discussion that a woman should have the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy even if a fetus is a”person.” It challenges the unsupported premise underlying the fetus=person thinking.
But it goes even further by pointing out exactly what I have been saying, if the zygote, blastocyst or fetus was actually a person:
Thanks again P.Aitch for this link to clear and compelling analysis.
Good one. Need all the tangible, legal ways of explaining for understanding we can get ahold of and this helps. I did read this and it never got repeated to myself to make it useable. Whoops. Thank you to both P. Aitch and bearcreekbat.
You’re very welcome, BCB and All Mammal. I was hoping you’d extrapolate the assertions of that article. Well done, Bear. #DeepBowFromTheWaist
I’d replied to the commenter formerly known as Porter Lansing:
The commenter formerly known as Porter Lansing writes:
It’s what I said, and my younger brother agrees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYdD6fAZbQs
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You were dodging my questions before I began pointing out that you’re a pathological liar, and your main reason for continuing to dodge them probably isn’t the fact that I’m saying you’re a pathological liar. Your main reason is probably the fact that I’m proving it.
6. No foetus in the United States has any civil rights. Republicans preach civil rights for human blastocysts but deny the protections of the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments to people who enjoy cannabis.
A cynical observer might suspect Mr. Evans might have once impregnated some unfortunate woman who gained the sense to flush it.
Hey Kurt, I’m awake for awhile because our road keeps washing out and some neighbors are still coming home from work so carry on.
Kurt?
Larry Kurtz writes:
That would be a miracle of biblical proportions, Larry. I’ve never even been drunk.
Regarding the voluntary use of cannabis by adults, you’re preaching to the libertarian choir.
Hi Kurt. Talk more about your Penectomy? The removal of your entire column and stones?
Uh, Kurt?
Repeating ad infinitum a slur or any other claim for that matter without supporting evidence or that is contrary to available evidence doesn’t make it true. I trust those that have read, continue to read, my comments on this particular topic can judge the accuracy of the comments for themselves.
Kurt, you need to stop looking at rape, incest, pregnancy and abortion from the third person point of view.
Are these actions okay with you? Is it acceptable for daddy to have sex with you? Is it alright for the next-door neighbor or the local priest to rape you? This does happen to boys as well as girls you know. The only difference is that pregnancy results with GIRLS not boys. Should this be legal? I know some men that would rather see the perp punished instead of the victim.
Before men entered the room to birth women’s children for capitalistic gains, female midwives did it just fine and still do in many countries. I’d rather have someone who actually birthed a baby delivering mine because they know what it takes and how it feels. No man will ever know that kind of pain unless they have experienced it.
The same goes with incest and rape Kurt. To me, it’s sick to accept and normalize these behaviors and then punish the little girls by forcing them to carry the baby to term. I suppose you think she should have to give her life to raising the child while the perp runs free to sew more seeds like the good book says.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
In your comments above, you seem to be suggesting there are circumstances under which a parent has the moral obligation to provide the blood donation needed to save the child’s life and other circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child.
Is that your position?
Also, how would you say parents complying with safe-haven laws could theoretically fulfill their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location without using their bodies?
Larry Kurtz writes:
In two comments above, less than 45 minutes apart, Larry suggests I’ve impregnated someone and suggests I’m incapable of impregnating anyone.
“M” writes to me:
*sow
If you really suppose that’s what I think, then you suppose incorrectly.
Kurt,
https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/09/14/democratic-legislative-candidates-give-straighter-answers-to-kelo-tv-abortion-survey-than-republicans/#comment-449046
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
For some reason “Bearcreekbat” responds in a comment on a different post:
You’re misquoting my current question, and as I’d explicitly spelled out for you two weeks ago, your September 24 comment suggests that parents complying with safe-haven laws have the legal obligation to “use their bodies” to personally transport the child to the designated location. Your September 25 comment suggests that such parents merely have the legal obligation to arrange for “an agent of the parent” to transport the child.
Those two positions are contradictory, and now you’re yet again referring one of my questions to your previous September 24 comment. You still seem to be arbitrarily switching back and forth between the two positions.
“Bearcreekbat” repeats that September 24 comment:
I’m explicitly not limiting my question to “the action of leaving the child.” I’m asking broadly about any way parents could possibly “fulfill their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location.” That’s the exact portion of my question that you omit when you misquote me and falsely accuse me of repeating a question you’ve already answered.
So I’ll ask again. How would you say parents complying with safe-haven laws could theoretically fulfill their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location without using their bodies?
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Thanks for clarifying. Under what circumstances would you say a parent has the moral obligation to provide the blood donation needed to save the child’s life?
Kurt, other than an insignificant difference in wording (i.e. a so-called distinction without a difference), I didn’t, and still don’t, see any meaningful distinction, between your two “use their bodies” questions. Here you phrase your question:
Since both questions seem to me to be the same question phrased in different forms my answer to both questions is essentially the same. Thus my answer to the above form of the question is: I wouldn’t say “parents complying with safe-haven laws could theoretically fulfill their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location without using their bodies. All human beings must use their bodies in some way to complete all physical actions, including the action of “theoretically fulfill[ing] their legal obligation to ensure that the child is left at a specific location.”
Next you ask:
I don’t think there is a single answer, nor can I define all such circumstances. Indeed, I am not sure I can even imagine all such circumstances, but perhaps I could give you an example of such a circumstance that I can imagine if that is what you are looking for, or I could try to address a particular circumstance that you may imagine.
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at with either question. Can you also clarify each point you are hoping to make from my answers? How does either question and answer relate to the argument that I originally made and that you responded to?
I initially argued that:
In response you initally wrote a comment on 2022-09-21 19:46 stating:
and followed this statement by writing:
I think I can agree that an abortion denies the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus the liberty to make a choice ever, but I don’t see how that is an answer to my question. For example, a living breathing offspring, other relative or a stranger that dies because an individual refuses to permit a transplant or blood transfusion, is denied the same liberty of choice forever that the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is denied, yet that individual is permitted to make that choice refusing the use of his or her body part by his or her offspring, other relative or a stranger. What justifies denying the living breathing offspring, other relative or a stranger the liberty to live and make choices, but does not justify the same result for the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus?
You wrote that “neither fathers nor mothers have the right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.” Then you wrote your questions about whether parents could comply with safe haven laws “without using their bodies,” I see a substantial difference between an individual “using one’s body” to accomplish a task such as complying with a law, and someone else “using another person’s body” for any reason.
For example, in your drawbridge operator hypothetical, the operator might “use his body” to press the lever that causes the bridge to close. I would argue it is a much different situation for a stranger to incapacitate the operator and then “use the operator’s body” to press the lever that closes the bridge.
As to whether “fathers nor mothers have the right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children,” we could possibly have a different understanding of the law governing that behavior. My answer that “All human beings must use their bodies in some way to complete all physical actions” is not based on any requirement of secular law, But in any event, as indicated above, in my view using one’s body to accomplish a physical task is much different than having one’s body used by another to accomplish that physical task.
@BCB /@Kurt – Have either of you gone through lifeguard training at your local swimming pool? If not, the overall lesson taught is, “Don’t let the drowning person cause you to drown, also.” The lifeguard in training is taught several methods to save the drowning person without using their body to touch or become close enough to be touched by the drowning victim. Even if the drowning victim dies, the most important thing is not to do something that causes both to drown. The lifeguard isn’t obligated to use their own body even if that denial causes the victim to die.,
P., makes a supportive point: No one, not even someone drowning has the right to force another person, including a lifeguard, to endanger his or her own life and safety to help that drowning person survive. Why should a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus have such a right that no other person has?
On September 21, I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
On September 22, “Bearcreekbat” wrote:
Now “Bearcreekbat” writes:
So except under certain circumstances, neither fathers nor mothers have the legal right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Well, that would probably be better than not explaining at all.
Your claim that fathers and mothers have the absolute legal right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children isn’t true, and neither is your claim that there are circumstances under which a parent has the unconditional moral right to withhold a blood donation needed to save the child’s life and let the child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child.
What’s an example of a circumstance under which you’d say a parent has the moral obligation to provide the blood donation needed to save the child’s life?
Kurt, First, you write:
I disagree because as indicated below I consider “using” one’s body to be different than “withholding” one’s body from being used by another person.
Next you write:
While you are welcome to deny the truth of this statement, I don’t find a mere denial without an supporting evidence to be particular convincing. I distinguish the verb “use” in “using” one’s body from the verb “withhold” as in “withholding” one’s body. See e.g.:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use
compared to
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/withhold
In my view these definitions are clear and to the best of my knowledge, no statute prevents a parent (unless convicted of a crime – see U.S.Const. Amendment 13) from withholding their body from being used by a child or any other person. Perhaps you are aware of a statute that supports your denial and can share what you have found?
Next, you write:
In my view morals are based on an individual’s subjective moral code (which can include the subjective choice of a particular objective moral code to follow). Unless both parties agree on a choice of a particular moral code from which an action may be judged as moral or immoral, it seems impossible to rationally declare another person’s evaluation of an act as moral or immoral to be a lie or false. An act may well be immoral under one’s personal moral code, but in my view that doesn’t mean the other person has lied about his or her own personal view about the morality of the same act.
Here, to the best of my knowledge you and I have not identified a moral code that we both agree upon from which an action or decision can be judged as moral or immoral. Hence, the idea that my viewpoint about the morality of a particular action can be false or untrue seems just as inappropriate as declaring my viewpoint about whether an individual is beautiful to be untrue. Absent some objective agreement of the characteristics of beauty, beauty is a subjective judgment from the eye of the beholder and cannot be judged as true or untrue. Likewise, absent some objective agreement of the characteristics of morality, whether an action is moral is a subjective judgment from the eye of the beholder and likewise cannot be judged as true or untrue. You may disagree with my personal moral assessment, but that does not make my assessment a lie or any more true or false than your own particular judgment.
Last you ask,
If a person did not believe in God, or disputed the idea that God forbids blood transfusions, (e.g. “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Bible (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29) prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion.” ) and if that person’s personal moral code (or objective code that person chooses to follow, placed value upon another person’s life then that person could believe he or she has a personal moral obligation to provide the blood donation needed to save someone else’s life, including that person’s own child.
In another context, the Bible offers a good example. If Abraham of the Bible had a personal moral code that valued his children more than fearing for his own soul if he disobeyed God’s commands, then Abraham would have had moral obligation to summarily refuse God’s command to burn his child alive. See Genesis 22.
Finally, in light of the story of Abraham, would you agree that an abortion would be moral if the woman believed that God commanded her to terminate her pregnancy to prove her faith in God?
Scientists have been placing magat brain cells in lab rats and the rats are developing alternate realities of life in America. Something like this may explain certain commenter’s outlook on life.
Hi Kurt, I took a nap so I’m here for your therapy so let your freak flag fly.
Kurt believes any human zygote has more of a right to life than its host does regardless of how it got into somebody’s uterus because Libertarians embrace anarchy as a serious social constructs, right?
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Yes, and except under certain circumstances, fathers and mothers have the legal obligation to use their bodies for the care of their children. Your claim that they have the absolute legal right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children isn’t true.
Your September 22 comment cites possible criminal liability and prosecution for “child endangerment, abandonment, or neglect.”
I’m not asking about the parent’s moral code. As I’ve already said explicitly in my October 4 comment above, when I ask what “you” would say, I’m obviously seeking an answer under your moral code.
Would you say God forbids blood transfusions? Does your moral code place value upon another person’s life? If a father believes he has the unconditional moral right to let his child die simply because he doesn’t care about the child, is there any circumstance under which your own moral code would say the father doesn’t have that right?
(1) Abraham’s moral code greatly valued his children.
(2) Abraham’s moral code didn’t value selfishly fearing for his own soul.
(3) That doesn’t mean Abraham had any moral obligation to refuse God’s command.
(4) God’s command wasn’t to burn Isaac alive.
No, I wouldn’t agree.
Kurt says,
Kurt, would you agree then that “under certain circumstances” fathers and mothers do have the absolute legal right to withhold their bodies from the care of their children?
In any event, I still see “withhold” as having a completely different meaning than “use.” As I read the definitions, to “use” means to act or use, and to “withhold” means the opposite, namely, to not act or not use.
Next, Kurt writes:
First, as indicated above affirmatively “us[ing] his or her body to take care of his or her own child” that seems quite different to me than passively allowing his or her body “to be used by the child.”
Next, it is true that a parent does have legal obligations to use his or her body to take care of his or her own child unless that parent has first voluntarily surrendered his or her parental rights (or the State has terminated parental rights). As I understand the law, however, all parents have the “absolute right” to voluntarily terminate their parental rights and when they do no law requires them to use their bodies to care for a child. Likewise, any parent that has had his or her parental rights terminated by the State has “absolutely” no further legal obligation whatsoever to use his or her body to take care of that child.
So, I still have not seen a SD statute that requires a parent to submit his or her body to the use of a child, nor anyone else; and, even the laws that mandate a parent use his or her body to care for a child only apply in the legal circumstances where the parental rights have neither been voluntarily surrendered nor taken away.
Next, Kurt comments and asks several questions:
I don’t believe God is a real entity. I believe in the various Gods in literature and stories, including the Gods identified in the Bible, only as mythological characters. Thus, God neither forbids nor commands anything in the actual existent world.
Yes, my moral code places value on another person’s life.
My moral code identifies how a person “should or should not” act, not what rights a person might have, thus no father would have an “unconditional moral right” to do or not do anything. Thus, in my view there are no circumstances in which the father would have a “moral right” to let his child die. In most circumstances my personal moral code would lead me to conclude that a father “should not” let his child die.
Next, Kurt writes:
I agree with point (1).
I have not been able to find a Biblical basis for point (2), and to me, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac implies a great fear of disobeying God’s command; will you please identify the language in the Bible that you rely on to support this point?
As to point (3), can you please clarify what you are referring when you write “That?” What is the “that” you are referencing back to? Assuming you mean point (1) and (2) by “that”, then are you saying Abraham had no moral obligation to refuse God’s command to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering?
As to point (4), I read in Genesis 22:2 NIV that God told Abraham to “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
I read the term “sacrifice” in that verse as meaning Abraham should kill Isaac, and the term “burnt offering” to mean Abraham must set Isaac on fire and burn him until he dies. Do you read this verse differently? If so, can you please explain what you believe the verse says and how you came to this conclusion?
Next you answered one of my questions as follows:
Do you believe Abraham’s decision to sacrifice his son was moral because Abraham believed that was God’s command?
What, if anything, do you see as the difference between the morality of Abraham’s decision to sacrifice Isaac and the woman’s decision to abort her zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus?
(Finally, a note to Cory. If you think the discussion Kurt and I are engaged in has strayed too far from the topic and point of your blog story, you can to give Kurt my email address if he wants it so he and can continue the discussion privately. It does seem, however, that other readers are epressing additional viewpoints on the matters Kurt and I are debating so maybe we are still relevant? Thanks.)
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
That would be less blatantly misleading than your original claim, but no, I still wouldn’t call a conditional legal right an “absolute” legal right.
In an October 11 comment on a different post, “Bearcreekbat” had written:
Now “Bearcreekbat” writes:
So your position is that in some circumstances a parent has a “moral right” to let the child die, but in your view there are no circumstances in which a parent has a “moral right” to let the child die?
And you say you’re not a pathological liar?
From verses 17-19 of Hebrews 11:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
Yes, I do. Burnt offerings were generally killed and burned, not burned alive.
From verse 10:
Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
It’s a very short story. Did you make it to verse 10?
No, I don’t.
The biggest difference is probably that in your abortion hypothetical God isn’t real.
Mr. Evans writes:
BuwahahahaHAHAHA. That’s right, Mr. Evans. God drowned in a bowl of cereal.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“grudznick” writes:
So the laws of logic no longer apply because the God who created and sustained those laws is dead?
Not just dead, Kurt. Drowned in a bowl of cereal.
(note that my capital letter “G” in the word god in your fancy blogging quote was because it was the first word of a sentence. Your god drowned in a bowl of cereal.)
Kurt asks:
I think making one addition to the language you used in your restatement of my view might clarify what I intended to say:
There are two problems with your comparison. Your first question asked about letting a child die because the parent didn’t care about the child. But your second question omitted this latter premise, and in my personal moral code a parent should care about his child.
In addition, I don’t believe I was referencing my own moral code in answering your first question, especially given the context in which it was asked. In context, the reference was to an “absolute moral code” which would be quite different than my personal moral code. Your initial question asked about an “absolute” moral right and although my response did not repeat the term “absolute” it seemed to me the context was clear, since I preceded the statement with “no father would have an “unconditional moral right” to do or not do anything.” It seems obvious that moral codes are subjective, including the subjective choice of adopt what one sees as a particular “objective” code (e.g. there are more than one theoretically objective codes to choose from), and not every parent chooses my personal moral code. People often have a differences in their personal moral codes , some slight and some significant (you and I for example).
Next, your reference to the verses in Hebrew 11 seems to have overlooked a key part of the story of Abraham. The Bible states that Abraham agreed to comply with God’s command out of fear, as confirmed by the angel that spoke to Abraham:
And several verses of the NIV Bible certainly justify that fear. For example, Leviticus 26:14-45 explicitly describes how God threatens to punish those that disobey his commands. Here are some of his threats:
The NIV Bible says that God even refers to Abraham in this chapter that lays out some of, but not all, of the punishments to be inflict upon the disobediant:
. . . 42 I will remember my covenant with . . . with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the LORD their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD.’”
I sure could be wrong, but it seems that Abraham, as the angel declared, was motivated by fear of God to agree to the his child, Isaac, just as God ordered. And by agreeing to do so Abraham apparently dodged a bullet.
As for burning Isaac alive, you may be right that Abraham was going to kill Isaac first and then burn him at the sacrificial alter. Verse 10 certainly supports this notion.
Finally, in response to my question whether it would me moral for a woman to have an abortion if she believed God commended her to you state
My question about the pregnant woman did not say God wasn’t real, rather it indicated that the woman genuinely believed that God commanded her. My hypothetical was based on the premise that the “God” the woman believed spoke to her is just as “real” as the “God” that Isaac believed spoke to him in the Biblical story. Does that change your answer in any way?
In case you missed it, long time lawyer par excellence, Jay Schultz, and currrent candidate forthe SD House from District 34, posted a related article on the South Dakota Standard, which begins:
https://www.sdstandardnow.com/home/ignorance-of-the-ban-on-most-abortions-in-south-dakota-can-get-you-killed
In an October 4 comment, I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
In an October 10 comment, I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
In an October 16 comment, I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
Now “Bearcreekbat” writes:
You’re a pathological liar.
You’re a pathological liar.
You’re a pathological liar.
To fear God in this context is to have a reverential awe of God, not to be selfishly scared for one’s own soul.
You could be, and you are.
It’s a very short story. Had you made it to verse 10 before?
No, because you say you don’t believe the God of the Bible is real either.
Are there any circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let a child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?
Well Kurt, my responses address your 2022-10-22 21:49 statements and questions as follows:
Your three accusations seem far astray from Cory’s topic, but you are obviously welcome to your opinion. Cory’s topic, however, is not about your opinion of me or of my honesty, it is about abortion. I doubt anyone cares about your opinion of me or vice versa, as DFP readers are fully capable of reading what each of us has written and forming their own opinions on our individual credibility.
As to your comment about Abraham’s fear of God, I saw nothing supporting your claim in the Genesis story. Thus, I will still rely on the actual words written in verse 12 the Bible NIV, namely, “Now I know that you fear God because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Yes, I made it to verse 10 before, but I had not re-read that verse before I wrote that Abraham was going to burn his son alive, and I didn’t initially recall that Abraham intended to kill Isaac with his knife and then burn his body.
Finally, I have already tried to answer your last question and I see no need to repeat it.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
So it’s on topic when you’re peddling the same tired lies about abortion over and over for years on end, but it’s off topic when I’m pointing out that you’re lying? It seems like that would be a very convenient rule for you, and speaking of the topic, you’re the one quoting lengthy irrelevant excerpts from Leviticus 26. Double standard much?
To fear God in this context is to have a reverential awe of God, not to be selfishly scared for one’s own soul.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You haven’t tried to answer. Over the course of several weeks you’ve tried desperately to dodge and obfuscate, eventually claiming your “position” is that such circumstances exist, but your “view” is that they don’t. That’s why I’m now asking the question without any direct reference to you, your moral code, your position, or your view. If you do try to provide an answer, the first word of that answer will probably be either yes or no.
Are there any circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let a child die simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?
Mr. Evans, your god drowned in a bowl of cereal.
Well Kurt, although I am very tempted to explore the validity of your negative opinions of me I will instead try to stay on Cory’s topic of abortion. One of your opinions about me, however, does seem directly on topic. You wrote:
I do think accurate facts pertaining to the law of abortion in South Dakota are relevant to Cory’s abortion rights topics. And to the best of my knowledge nothing that I have said about abortion is a misrepresentation of fact or law, and I have generally tried to provide a link or cite to my source for whatever facts or law I have posted in a comment.
If there are one or more specific facts or laws about abortion or SD laws pertaining to abortion that I stated that you assert to be tired lies (other than when you state that I lied in my conclusions about what your personal views might be), then would you please identify those facts or laws and point out your understanding of the correct facts or laws along with a link or cite to your sources? If I have misstated any fact or law I would like to see it corrected.
Next, you again wrote:
Assuming that the angel in Genesis was using “fear” as you contend raises an interesting point about whether and when a woman can, according to your moral code, terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The definition of “fear” you assign to the angel’s comments about Abraham’s willingness to kill his child Isaac could also pertain to abortion under South Dakota law because SD statute (SDCL 22-1-2(50A)) defines everything from a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, to a fetus as an unborn child.
In this context, some of your other responses to additional questions about the morality of Abraham’s willingness to kill Isaac seem relevant:
Looks like I goofed up the blockquotes – oh well, I hope readers can understand my comment anyway.
Abortion is a medical decision. No one, including the government, should force their personal beliefs on someone., especially in that instance.
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
No, following God’s command would be morally right regardless of my belief.
No, it wouldn’t.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
Are there any circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let a child die outside the womb simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?
No, but I’m not interested in discussing it.
Kurt, I previously asked you whether
You replied, no because you stated that in my abortion hypothetical “God isn’t real.”
Thus, I then clarified that
You responded:
Thus I wrote:
You responded
If your personal lack of belief does not affect the morality of following God’s command to have an abortion then why wouldn’t it be just as morally right to follow God’s command regardless of either my personal lack of belief in God or the woman’s incorrect personal belief?
Next, Kurt asks,
This question seems off topic to me as it has nothing to do with abortion nor another person using a woman’s body against her will, and as I previously indicated, instead of exploring off topic matters “I will . . . try to stay on Cory’s topic of abortion.”
Next, you recently declared that I have been
Your comment, however, did not provide any examples of any such lies to support that particular accusation. Again, I have no desire to spread lies about abortion facts or laws and if I have done so, I want to correct any such false statements once and for all if I have indeed made such statements.
In reviewing our discussion in this thread and an earlier thread, however, I found only these accusations of my alleged pathological lying, but none allege that I made a single untrue statement of fact about either abortion or SD laws:
If there is a gawd, if he/she/it is really real and wants all these fetuses to be born, will he/she/it agree to support all them babies financially for their entire lives and if not, why not? Is gawd a regular dead beat or a dead beat on a colossal scale?
“Bearcreekbat” asks me:
Because if the woman’s belief is incorrect in your hypothetical, it isn’t God’s command.
I’d replied to “Bearcreekbat”:
“Bearcreekbat” writes:
You’re a pathological liar, and that’s yet another dodge.
You’re a pathological liar, and now you’re lying about your previous lie.
You’re a pathological liar, and your lies deal with objective assertions.
That sounds like something a pathological liar would say.
Are there any circumstances under which a parent has the moral right to let a child die outside the womb simply because the parent doesn’t care about the child?
I accidently posted this comment on the wrong thread, so I am re-submitting it here.
Kurt, on your repeated question:
I have reconsidered and now think it deserves an answer because you responded to my questions about Abraham and his decision to kill his child Isaac, which on the surface also appeared to have little connection, if any, with abortion. My thoughts at the time were that a belief that if Isaac acted morally in his willingness to kill a living child then we might be able to agree that it would be moral for a woman to make her decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy based on what she believed, like Abraham, that God told her to do. Apparently, we cannot agree on that point.
Anyway, maybe you have a similar reason for repeating your question over and over again. Although I feel I have answered the question previously, I will add this response:
If there could be a situation where there is no other reason other not simply caring about that child, then my answer is “no.” The same would hold true if the potential victim was unrelated to the parent. In my view, if a person has the ability to save another person’s life but declines to do so for the sole reason that he simply doesn’t care about that person, that would be an immoral decision. The only problem with that theoretical conclusion, however, is that in real life there always will be some additional factors or reasons affecting a person’s choice whether to act to save another’s life, whether a child or a stranger.
And when there is a reason why the parent doesn’t care, or an additional motivating reason, then my answer would depend on knowing more about the additional circumstances.
For example, if a parent didn’t care about his child because the parent was insane, or developmentally disabled to the point that he was unaware that the child was his, then it would not be an immoral act if that parent allowed the child to die because he didn’t care about the child – insanity or mental disability typically relieves an individual of moral responsibility for actions flowing from such incapacity. In my view the factors affecting a person’s moral rights are too complex to fit snugly in the box of simply not caring.
Likewise, if a woman does not want a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus using her body and there is no other means of stopping that objected to use than removing it by an abortion, it would be her moral right to end that pregnancy, even if means permitting the zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus life to die, for any reason, including not caring about the zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus.
Another posting error by me. I comment I accidently posted on another hread is not the above comment but a partial response to Kurt’s last comment here. Rather than repost it I’ll just link it:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/09/14/democratic-legislative-candidates-give-straighter-answers-to-kelo-tv-abortion-survey-than-republicans/#comment-451409