Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood

[_Droopy]

Its always interesting when a sanctimonious, unreconstructed communist (and especially the most insufferably sanctimonious European kind) shows up and begins preaching his personal gospel of poverty and slavery, while condemning those (conservatives/libertarians ) who stridently oppose both, and who sees in the gospels, not liberty and freedom, but collective serfdom to each other and to the police state that enforces their bondage and want.

Ludwigm did come to this earth, but doubtless also watched, in the preexistent world, the one third follow Lucifer into oblivion with a sense of longing and loss of a cherished hope. Some seem to have brought that longing and hope into their mortal experience, with the idea of imposing it, if possible, on others as well as themselves.

What comrade ludwigm does not understand, but well might were he to be interested in actually reading the D&C and the words of the Brethren regarding the UO, is that one's stewardship is precisely what one deeds to the Church upon coming into the community. That stewardship becomes, effectively, the personal private stewardship of each individual and family, to improve, control, and expand, has his talents and abilities allow.

The UO is not a communal, socialistic, or collectivist social order. The Brethren - in official published sources - have repeatedly been crystal clear upon these points. There is no excuse, at least among LDS themselves, for not understanding and comprehending the fundamental principles involved.

Nor is the UO primarily about economics. The economic system of the UO is one aspect of the total social/cultural milieu within a fully functioning Zion society, and its core purpose is not equality of temporal condition, equality of income, redistribution of wealth as a means of abolishing poverty, standardized uniformity of economic circumstances, punishing the rich, or any similar project central to Satan's counterfeit plan of salvation.

The UO is a spiritual law, not an economic experiment, and its purpose is to prepare a people for the Second Coming of Christ, not to play two classes of human beings off against each other in a grand political/economic moral drama.

I won't even bother dismantling ludwigm's intellectually lazy liberation theology interpretation of the scriptures here, as they've been refuted too many times to warrant absorbing the leftist temper tantrums that always ensue when they find their starry eyed totalitarian fantasies shown the scriptural door.

[_Droopy]

I have no problem with it either.

Thank you for being clear about your support, and the support of the Left in general, for unrestricted legal infanticide.

Part of the reason is that I understand that personhood

Such a nebulous and shadowy concept begs some important conceptual questions regarding its use as a ground for supporting convenience abortion.

is not a matter of either the presence or absence of a so called "spirit" on the one hand,

Which it very much would be if such a spirit were present, potentially or actually.

or purely a matter of gene content or some other biological reduction that would apply to a 3 week old fetus.

It is a human being, irregardless, according to the laws of biology.

The road to personhood is a continuum but key considerations include things like being self-aware, having hopes, desires, thoughts, fears etc.

I'm not at all clear to me who decided that "personhood" was the central concept to be established regarding the moral appropriateness of convenience abortion, and upon what grounds. Nor is it at all clear why "personhood" is of key relevance to the moral and social practice and societal effects of unrestricted abortion on demand, and why other factors, of equal or greater weight, should not be considered.

We are mostly socially constructed beings and emerge only by taking our place in a network of "others" (at first mainly the mother).

Nice. Postmodern philosophy meets embryology and gives birth to a fusion of Nietzsche, Foucault, and Logan's Run. Comforting.

Again, the road to personhood is a continuum and we should certainly err on the younger side for a margin of safety but the absolutist position of anti-abortionists is untenable and ultimatley harmful.

What "absolutist" position of what "anti-abortionists?"

If we are going to go by intuition, then I think the best intuitions come from real women faced with the unwanted pregnancy rather than self-righteous old white men poisoned by ancient magic based conceptual schemes about the nature of human life.

This is simply a secular humanist religious prejudice that bypasses critical thought for a series of slogans and anathemas. Hardly impressive.

In short, in the contest between an unwanted three or four week old fetus and a full grown adult in a hopelessly tough situation, it is no contest.

Under what conditions, and given what circumstances?

You may think this is monstrous, but that is only because you have a cartoonical and/or superstitious concept of personhood and because you haven't real life experience to know what you are talking about.

Or it could be because it is monstrous, and those who support it are actually moral monsters, the very moral monsters who brought us the 20th century and its other moral relativist horrors.

My wife had an abortion before we met and given the intractable circumstances I say thank God.

And what circumstances were those, as if her life was in danger, or if she was raped or a victim of incest, then you are playing an intellectual game here, and we are not talking about "abortion" in the same context.

[_Tarski]

Thank you for being clear about your support, and the support of the Left in general, for unrestricted legal infanticide.

OK, lets look at this carefully shall we? I said that I had no problem abortions being legalized and paid for (in the same way that other medical procedures are sometimes paid for when there is need and an inability to pay).

Now, you say that I am in favor of unrestricted legal infanticide.

This is a lie isn't it now? I do support restrictions. Namely, roughly the ones that are in place almost everywhere as we speak. I never said otherwise.

By referring to abortion as infanticide you are both begging the question and appealing to emotionally charged language for the purpose of short circuiting reason and vilification of your interlocutor. Is a three week old fetus an infant? How about a recently fertilized human ovum?
Why doesn't even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider abortion to be murder? If a fetus is a full-fledged human being then abortion at any stage is murder and is not justified even in the case of rape or worse circumstances. Either there are distinctions to be made or there are not. If there are such, then the way is opened to my points about the opinion of the pregnant mother and the other philosophical issues about person-hood (an issue which is very poorly addressed by religion).

But mainly, you lied (I never indicated that I was in favor or zero restrictions but you said so anyway--why is that?).

Conclusion: Droopy is the kind of person that grossly and maliciously misrepresents another persons position. He pinned "unrestricted" on me out of nowhere. He is trying to dishonestly do me harm.

Corollary: Since this alone demonstrates that Droopy doesn't address things honestly, we can disregard the rest of his reply. We should expect more dishonesty from him.

by the way, for a first trimester abortion, it is enough that the pregnant women in question does not want a child and cannot carry the fetus to term without causing major damage to her own life goals (there are more realities in this regard than you are willing to acknowledge) . Why? Because I don't think fetal personhood is yet plausible.

Example: Suppose the father of the fetus has revealed himself to be a litigious, vindictive and malicious madman intent on haunting both mother and child for a lifetime? Perhaps he is connected and powerful but known by the mother to be abusive and evil--perhaps even a child molester. Many possibilities exist that would make abortion of a mere fetus the right choice.

[_ludwigm]

Its always interesting when a sanctimonious, unreconstructed communist (and especially the most insufferably sanctimonious European kind) shows up and begins preaching his personal gospel of poverty and slavery, while condemning those (conservatives/libertarians ) who stridently oppose both, and who sees in the gospels, not liberty and freedom, but collective serfdom to each other and to the police state that enforces their bondage and want.

Ludwigm did come to this earth, but doubtless also watched, in the preexistent world, the one third follow Lucifer into oblivion with a sense of longing and loss of a cherished hope. Some seem to have brought that longing and hope into their mortal experience, with the idea of imposing it, if possible, on others as well as themselves.

What comrade ludwigm does not understand, but well might were he to be interested in actually reading the D&C and the words of the Brethren regarding the UO, is that one's stewardship is precisely what one deeds to the Church upon coming into the community. That stewardship becomes, effectively, the personal private stewardship of each individual and family, to improve, control, and expand, has his talents and abilities allow.

The UO is not a communal, socialistic, or collectivist social order. The Brethren - in official published sources - have repeatedly been crystal clear upon these points. There is no excuse, at least among LDS themselves, for not understanding and comprehending the fundamental principles involved.

Nor is the UO primarily about economics. The economic system of the UO is one aspect of the total social/cultural milieu within a fully functioning Zion society, and its core purpose is not equality of temporal condition, equality of income, redistribution of wealth as a means of abolishing poverty, standardized uniformity of economic circumstances, punishing the rich, or any similar project central to Satan's counterfeit plan of salvation.

The UO is a spiritual law, not an economic experiment, and its purpose is to prepare a people for the Second Coming of Christ, not to play two classes of human beings off against each other in a grand political/economic moral drama.

I won't even bother dismantling ludwigm's intellectually lazy liberation theology interpretation of the scriptures here, as they've been refuted too many times to warrant absorbing the leftist temper tantrums that always ensue when they find their starry eyed totalitarian fantasies shown the scriptural door.

I have to dump a load - especially the most insufferably sanctimonious European kind.

_________________
Marvelous material.
I will evaluate every word - to pick and choose the grains of wheat in a bushel of chaff.

.

.

[_Buffalo]

The UO was not socialist. It was simply the voluntary redistribution of wealth from the saints to Joseph Smith. That's as capitalist as it gets.

[_Droopy]

I have to dump a load - especially the most insufferably sanctimonious European kind.

That's OK, ludwigm, just don't dump it on another hundred million human beings.

[_ludwigm]

I have to dump a load - especially the most insufferably sanctimonious European kind.

That's OK, ludwigm, just don't dump it on another hundred million human beings.

I do my best - it must be enough on 14 million (according to official records).

[_Droopy]

Now, you say that I am in favor of unrestricted legal infanticide.

This is a lie isn't it now?

Its only a lie if I know it is. If its my opinion, and its mistaken, then its not a lie, is it?

I do support restrictions. Namely, roughly the ones that are in place almost everywhere as we speak. I never said otherwise.

I see. Now, let's look below.

By referring to abortion as infanticide you are both begging the question and appealing to emotionally charged language for the purpose of short circuiting reason and vilification of your interlocutor. Is a three week old fetus an infant? How about a recently fertilized human ovum?

We can clarify this very quickly if you will simply answer the following question: under what conditions, and for what reasons, is abortion legitimate, and under what conditions is it not?

Why doesn't even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider abortion to be murder?

The Church has never clarified if and when the unjustified killing of an unborn child is murder, and crosses the line from an immoral act of taking life to an actual murderous one. However, at some point, that line is logically crossed, as with partial birth abortion and the cases of the killing of infants immediately after birth.

If a fetus is a full-fledged human being then abortion at any stage is murder and is not justified even in the case of rape or worse circumstances.

That doesn't logically follow, including according to your own theoretical moral boundary of "personhood." There is no obvious reason why a fetus or embryo must be considered a "full fledged" person before we begin serious moral questioning of the extension of abortion beyond clear and critical medical and psychological circumstances that warrant such a procedure

Either there are distinctions to be made or there are not. If there are such, then the way is opened to my points about the opinion of the pregnant mother and the other philosophical issues about person-hood (an issue which is very poorly addressed by religion).

There are distinctions, but they may not be as absolute as you are arguing, presenting us with a clear "This is a person and this is not" choice which resolves itself into a abort or do not abort dichotomy.

The difference between the embryo, a fetus, an infant, and and elderly person, are ones of degree, phase, development, and continuity, not one of kind. The philosophical problem of abortion lies there, not so much with rather vague concepts such as "personhood." Human development is analog; it is a long, complex, and vastly incremental process of development. Humanness exists at every point in that process. Whether "personhood" does or does not exist at x point in that process is far more problematic than you seem to grasp.

But mainly, you lied (I never indicated that I was in favor or zero restrictions but you said so anyway--why is that?).

I inferred and I anticipated that you are (based upon the bulk of your other political and social views). That's not a lie, but an opinion, and if its mistaken, I will bow out of it.

Conclusion: Droopy is the kind of person that grossly and maliciously misrepresents another persons position.

No, that's Kevin Graham, Scratch, Buffalo et al. Until shown otherwise, its what I believe you actually accept.

He pinned "unrestricted" on me out of nowhere. He is trying to dishonestly do me harm.

Stop acting like another one of the human slot machines around here and actually have a civil, critical debate for once.

by the way, for a first trimester abortion, it is enough that the pregnant women in question does not want a child and cannot carry the fetus to term without causing major damage to her own life goals

And thank you, Tarski, after all the foam and froth about my malicious, gross, dishonest misrepresentation of your position, for substantiating precisely and exactly what you accused me of maliciously, grossly, and dishonestly misrepresenting: you believe in unrestricted abortion, for any reason, upon any pretext, as a form of birth control.

You essentially support the traditional NOW, NARL, radical feminist/anti-natalist position of the cultural Left, at least for the first trimester. Now, let's move on to the second and third.

(there are more realities in this regard than you are willing to acknowledge) . Why? Because I don't think fetal personhood is yet plausible.

We'll see if you're actually up to a real philosophical engagement with this concept.

Example: Suppose the father of the fetus has revealed himself to be a litigious, vindictive and malicious madman intent on haunting both mother and child for a lifetime? Perhaps he is connected and powerful but known by the mother to be abusive and evil--perhaps even a child molester. Many possibilities exist that would make abortion of a mere fetus the right choice.

Then the mother can have the child and provide it to another loving family through adoption. Abortion is an ideologically motivated gloss here, Tarski, not a moral ultimatum.

[_Buffalo]

Ah yes, the old canard that anyone opposed to homosexuality must themselves be homosexual. A common left wing smear tactic.

I think we all must assume that by now, neither Tarski or Kish has anything gainsay the information that stopp.org provides.

Of course not. It just seems likely among those who "protest too much."

And of course, there is plenty of research that says homophobes tend to be attracted to members of the same sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Source

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies

[_Tarski]

Its only a lie if I know it is.

And you knew it!

How absurd that you think this way. By the same token I could go around claiming that you support forced clitorectomies since you didn't say otherwise.

If its my opinion, and its mistaken, then its not a lie, is it?

bzzzt. I already addressed the absurdity of this. By the way, below, you do it again!!!

The Church has never clarified if and when the unjustified killing of an unborn child is murder,

How brave of them.

That doesn't logically follow, including according to your own theoretical moral boundary of "personhood."

You apparently don't understand my model of personhood since you argue with me below by stating that it is a matter of degrees ---which is exactly what I said!

There is no obvious reason why a fetus or embryo must be considered a "full fledged" person before we begin serious moral questioning of the extension of abortion beyond clear and critical medical and psychological circumstances that warrant such a procedure

Arguing for my side again?

There are distinctions, but they may not be as absolute as you are arguing, presenting us with a clear "This is a person and this is not" choice which resolves itself into a abort or do not abort dichotomy.

and again! I am the one that opposes the absolutes. Please try to convince your fellow conservatives who seem to think that a fertilized embryo is a person.

The difference between the embryo, a fetus, an infant, and and elderly person, are ones of degree, phase, development, and continuity, not one of kind.

not one of kind? So a pine seed just is a tree-period?

The philosophical problem of abortion lies there, not so much with rather vague concepts such as "personhood." Human development is analog; it is a long, complex, and vastly incremental process of development. Humanness exists at every point in that process.

he says without bothering to give define humanness. Gee, I wonder what is the humanness content of a human sperm cell (or any other cell).

Whether "personhood" does or does not exist at x point in that process is far more problematic than you seem to grasp.

There is no fact of the matter in borderline cases. But, a one year old is definitely a person as is a newborn (we would stipulate as much in any case), while a newly fertilized ovum is not. Do you really think you can address personhood without reference to the issues I mentioned?

I inferred

Wrong! There was nothing from which to infer it.

Stop acting like another one of the human slot machines around here and actually have a civil, critical debate for once.

Shall I do so by "inferring" anything I want and putting words in your mouth?

you believe in unrestricted abortion, for any reason, upon any pretext, as a form of birth control.

That's twice!! WTF??
Now there is no conceivable excuse this time. Since I said "first trimester" I have in that very sentence implicated at least one possible restriction! Then I went on to give other indications that would question the morality abortion done to avoid minor inconveniences or as part of a premediated habit of delayed contraception. (I know of no one who would do this however. It is a fantasy of the right.)

You essentially support the traditional NOW, NARL, radical feminist/anti-natalist position of the cultural Left, at least for the first trimester.

Oops, there is that restriction again. Maybe there are more. Of course, you wouldn't care to know.
by the way, anyone who uses the word "anti-natalist" deserves nothing but laughter.

Then the mother can have the child and provide it to another loving family through adoption. Abortion is an ideologically motivated gloss here, Tarski, not a moral ultimatum.

Except that the malicious psychopath father (of the mere non-person unconscious tiny fetus) is intent on pursuing legal action, calculated lying, and unrelenty emotional manipulation of relatives and friends and other steps to ruin the mothers reputation and force himself into her life----forever (because he is a psychopath who thinks he owns her). The mother is not herself consitutionally able to out maneuver the creep and one can anticipate ends up a defeated suicide risk. The adoption was never really an option except on paper. You apprently have no idea how simple this is for some personalities and the kind of hell and hopelessness that follows.

Fortunately, as it stands, you and your inexperienced judgemental old white celebate ass friends do not get to make such judgements from a safe distance as you would like.

By the way, even within your Mormon fantasy it doesn't really make sense: If I were a little spirit child (*sniff*) waiting for a body and I saw this life ruining scenario happening to someone, I would hope mightily to be sent back to the preexistence to wait a few more seconds to be born to a mother whose life was not going to be destroyed by insane circumstances.
I would be barely inconvenienced and it is not as if I am constrained by fate or divine force. My position makes sense even within the Mormon paradigm. Me not being born into that situation isn't even remotely sad for me. In Mormonism, an abortion does not snuff out a consciousness or otherwise eject a being into oblivion. Far from it. I bet you didn't notice this did you?

Since my point isn't rationally opposable or even remotely sad if we assume the whole spirit child thing, I can only assume that your opposition to my example is based on political habit only. In fact, you appear to be completely summed up by your feverish right-left obsession--the still point of your spinning universe.