151. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254608 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 2:10 am

Reference the case of the girl in Ireland with the anencephalic baby - what possible reason could there have been for not helping the girl in that circumstance? It wasn't a baby, it was more like a humorously shaped piece of steak

An extremely unfavourable choice of last words there, Sarg, but in general you could put that under exception number 3 for me; if the fetus isn't going to become a fully fledged person, it can't be considered for those rights.

152. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254602 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 2:04 am

decius, is this is some idiotic comment about the fact I favour the death penalty for jihadis, do I really need to rewrite my comments to include the phrase "innocent" where necessary?

The unfortunate fact is that mercy to the jihadis means sacrificing further innocents to them; that seems to me to be equivalent to those situations where the mother's life is in danger.

Mitchell, I did say, repeatedly, that I was incensed by the barriers to contraception that get erected by the religious.

153. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254598 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 2:00 am

Are you sure there are no circumstances where you would think it ethical to have an abortion?

Well, one reason I can think of is if it endangers the mother's life. This also addresses Serdan's point, btw. The product of rape would probably qualify.

Again, I can kinda sorta see the logic of abortions in the first trimester,. What I can't see is this "partial birth" business, or Steve's view that it's okay to kill 'em up to the twenty-eight week.

154. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254588 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 1:42 am

decius, care to explain that comment?

155. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254572 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 12:45 am

However, to remain in practice and to attempt to impose your religious views on others in this way is not acceptable in a democracy. [unless it's opening Shariah courts that have legal authority]

Just thought I'd fix that for ya, Steve.

Please consider that about two-thirds of people who live in poverty are women and children. In impoverished countries, many children may have the "right to be born," but they don't have the right to grow up with access to food, clean water, security, immunizations, education and often humane treatment. They are also very vulnerable to human slave traffickers. Yet if the women had the education and access to family planning those same miserable conditions could be reduced.

hawt4dawk, oh I agree. It is one of the insufferable things about the religious right: you cannot in good conscience be against both abortion and contraception (Mother Teresa notwithstanding).

As regards human trafficking, I'm not sure we are going to stop that short of finding the subhuman scum involved and hanging them from the rafters.

In fact, I find the strength of male support shown here for women to be highly reassuring, especially since this degrading and frightening concept of placing a woman's rights beneath fetal rights is actually being promoted in some quarters.

The reason I'm anti-abortion, hawt, is that I cannot see any moral standard by which it is ethical to sacrifice one human life to another. I can understand every point you make, yet I can still not agree, because that's the line that can't be crossed.

As I said, I can sortof see the justification in the first trimester, though I am very leary of it even then. I cannot understand the "up to twenty-eight weeks" stance taken by some.

I couldn't agree more. I think that unquestionably the most powerful weapon against poverty, and the problems that accompany it is the emancipation of women, and the granting of the rights, and knowledge to take control of their own reproductive systems.

Mitchell, that is where I would place contraception.

There is a really dark argument about this business though, one that not even I like, but I think has to be considered. I remember there was something of an outcry when Danna Vale, an Australian MP said that she thought abortion was partly responsible for the demographic catastrophe. Her comments are here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1510565/Australia-'will-be-Muslim-in-50-years'.html

There's a commentary here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579787/posts

I really really want this argument to be wrong, but it's something that's been cropping up all over the place.

156. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254566 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 26, 2008 at 12:16 am

or maybe it is a genuine case that one can be a Muslim and a member of a group. It could even be that he is a secular or ideed atheist member of Britain but is labelled by his name. It happens, you know

I am aware of that. But the majority of those called "muslim", are, in fact, believers of one sort of another. Now explain to me how we can tell between those different types?

Steve has said that he wants an end to immigration from those who don't subscribe to human rights, but says that my views that we should have no Muslim immigration, period, are a 'violation of human rights'. I ask the question: how can you tell the diff? And how can you know what that person's views will be ten years down the line? Or their childrens?

Something you said a wee while back. I might have misread your meaning behind this line...

Ah, you misunderstand! :-) It's illegitimate to use how idiotic a news agency is to dismiss a story. It's perfectly legitimate to use an idiotic story to dismiss a news agency.

-------------------

But I believe the rational thing to do now that we are aware of the in-group out-group dynamic is to regard (and encourage all others to regard) all humans as part of our in-group.

The name for this is "universal cosmopolitanism". I simply don't see how it's possible: such an in-group would include everyone from Richard Dawkins to General Butt Naked.

The rationale for this is easy to understand: big, important civilization in-groups are better than weedy little tribal in-groups. From this it's inferred that having loyalty to any specific in-group is inferior to having loyalty to the community of all humanity regarldess of whether or not that community exists.

But what the hell kind of a principle is that? It's like saying that you're a better novelist than Victor Hugo because you intend to make your novel better than Les Miserables.

From where I'm standing, a loalty to Western civilization, with its norms having now spread as far as India and China, seems a good enough in-group.

There's another problem. There are plenty of gangs and groups in this world who don't want in into the community of all mankind. The Pashtun in Afghnaistan, just for example, and all orthodox Islamic believers, just for another. That's where it all breaks down.

157. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #254370 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm

EB, that is a very good point. The argument from the other side, in its sophisticated version, is atheist doesn't cause these horrors, it's just that produces a vacuum into which they pore.

It's worth asking why, then, was it the mystical and faith-bound nations that fell to communism and fascism?

158. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254365 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Mark Smith, first of all I very much doubt that my lone efforts at the keyboard will unleash total war.

It's getting late again at this end. There's quite a bit I'd like to respond to in your post Mark Smith, so I'll take the time for it tomorrow.

Goldy, ditto. I'd just like to say that, unlike plenty of comments when I cite a story in, say, the Telegraph, I'm not going to dismiss the BBC just by calling it left wing.

I do, however, find that last insinuation of racism offensive in the extreme.

159. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254333 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm

the tradition a person is born into and has drummed into them from birth.

[...[

hardly have even any conception of the possibility of being anything else.

Can I quote you on that? I understand where you're coming from: generalized distrust of this kind is alien to the Western way of thinking.

Yet look at the facts: in poll after poll you get a huge support for Jihadism, Shariah etc. That, combined with the deception that is Islamically mandated, makes it very difficult to know who's who.

That's a rational basis of distrust. It's not nice or pleasant, but it is accurate.

160. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254316 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Bonzai, there's a very interesting point in your most recent post:

How do you define your "group"?

I really don't have a fast answer to that. The best we could get at the moment would be a visceral loyalty to the ideals of the West; that's the Roman model, anyone can become a citizen, if they accept those basic values and rules.

That's what's wrong with your 'jihadist mole' comment. I have been saying for some time now that we need a capaign of cultural imperialism to help break the hold that Islam has on their minds.

Yet while we can quibble about the bits and bobs of the ideal, you definetly need some sense that is capable of binding people together, or else you'll get mopped up by those who are capable of using those tools or, to put it another way, providing a sense of identity.

Yes, I see the paradox as well as you do. It's just that I see no way out of it.

He can be banned from showing up if he has a history of engaging in jihadist talk. If he manages to get in and is caught making hateful speech he can be deported. I have no problem with targeting radical clerics.

Watch out: you're about to get an earful. We agree here.

don't disagree with that. It has always been my point that the secular purveyors of a segregationist form of "multiculturalism" bear a much bigger responsibility for enabling the Islamists than the ordinary Muslims, who may be just a bit confused and homesick.

We agree again; this is what I was alluding to with my point about a visceral loyalty, and the sense of identity that's been destroyed.

161. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254305 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Oh, whoopee. I now have the complete set of ridiculous comments: apparently it's possibile to be racist without discriminating based on race.

The basic fact is that racism is evil because race has no bearing on human character. Religion, on the other hand, does. It really does.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that this site is dedicated to the destruction of religion. You're not less Islamophobic just because you subsume it in theophobia.

Rachel, Bonzai, I think that the fundamental source of our disagreement is an unstated assumption that human beings are automatically rational actors. I don't think that's so. I think to become a rational actor you need what Lee Harris calls a "civilizing process".

162. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254275 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Oh, I notice Steve is at it again:

have seen a recent and very clear failure of evidence and argument to get through to Fanusi on the recent thread

According to you. Some of that argument was calling me a "nasty piece of work"; I'd rather be that than an insufferable prig.

even though his points were clearly dealt with by me and others, but he simply ignored counter-arguments and evidence

The walls just drip irony. This from the same blowhard who has managed to skip a number of points twelve times running, who decides that Shariah can mean anything, and who also thinks my ideas are more dangerous than those of any Muslim.

Now, here's a little factoid I mentioned in my post: a gay mayor of a European capital of one of Europe's main countries is almost murdered because local Muslims decide that coexistence with gays is a bit much. This apparently doesn't bother Steve. My pointing out on the other hand, is just terrible.

163. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254270 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Here it is. Post 1353:

Bonzai, I observe once more that on this site, if you want to see religion in general disappear, it's all smiles. If you want one religion in particular to disappear, well, then people look at you funny (no, not you specifically; it just seemed like a good moment to bring it up).

Right at the outset, could I please, please ask you to read the following:

http://carnageandculture.blogspot.com/2008/05/mark-steyn-mod-squad.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004034.php

Please read them, especially the second. They cover alot of your questions.

What does it suppose to mean? I don't expect someone from a Muslim background to make a big point in renouncing his Muslimhood and thereby cutting off all family ties. "Being Muslim" is not just about Islam, it is also a cultural thing.Most people are not ideologically obsessed like that. They may not be very religious overall but still want to keep the Ramadan, etc.

May I quote you on this? This is exactly the problem I've been discussing about Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim. You don't know when that won't revert to full blown Shariah Islam. And even if it doesn with one lot of individuals, what about their children? How do we know that they won't want their Islam a little stronger? Which is exactly what's happened with all the Muslim populations we have been foolish enough to allow into our own countries.

By declaring indiscriminate war on all Muslims you risk driving them to the radicals because they see themselves threaten as a group.

I am not declaring war. They declared this war, fourteen centuries ago. And it is Islam, not I, that groups all Muslims as part of the Muslim nation, the Ummah. Yes, I know that not all think that way - but how can you tell the difference? How can an Infidel tell the difference between a genuinely kaffirized Muslim and a true Muslim practicing taqqiya?

Since deception and lies are such a deep part of Islam, and since further 'moderate Muslims' can revert, manichurian-candidate style, to fully-fledged alleigance to Islam, how is an infidel to tell, without prolonged study? And can we really endure the risks that Muslim influx into the West brings with it?

The reason I'm so gloomy, despite the fact that what you write is eminently reasonable (I'm not being sarcastic - it is), is that these cases have been made before. Even such a high mind as Snouck Hurgronje pointed out exactly what you are, about a hundred years ago. Yet here we are again, facing the Jihad.

It's this infernal dualism within Islam, and the hold it has on its believers, and the way vague muslims and muslim populations can revert to fully blown madness that has made Islam such an enduring menace.

164. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254261 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Bonzai! Good to see you. There was a post for you a while back...

As I also have answered you before, the "moderates" DON'T need to engage in Quran citing contest with the radicals. In the same way many nominal Catholics use contraception, eat meat on Fridays and go Sunday shopping. Sure, they go to Church for marriage, baptize their children and go to Christmas mass but otherwise their lives don't revolve around religion and theological fine points. Same goes with most Jews.

Then how do you counter the situation when Mr. University of Medina shows up and recalls his congregation to the True Path? That's the pattern we're seeing all over Europe. Again, I think that "integration" is a lost cause.

Even if it were possible, in principle, to integrate Muslims, into what do we integrate them? That's the problem: multiculti nullities will integrate noone. It's a total vaccum, and the only effect has been to erase or destroy the sense of national identity in the West.

A while back I was discussing the necessity, from a simple survival point of view, of maintaining that basic, visceral group-loyalty. Predictably, the usual suspects called this "fascism" (apparently everything about me, begonias included, is fascistic).


Reading the rest of your points, I think I did address them in that earlier post. I'll dig it out and repost it here.

165. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254223 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Steve, I sincerely hope you never find out differently.

166. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254220 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:09 pm

"like being a turkey voting for Christmas." - I like it. Good phrase.

I just hope you're right; still, I doubt it. The level of fanaticism and the willingness to get stuff done is so much higher for Islam.

That's the key difference. Put on a play with a gay Jesus and you get protest and some furious commentary on Fox. All of which is ignored. Try a play with a gay Mohammaed, and chances are you'll not even be allowed to play it by your own government (if you're living outside of America; virtually everywhere else seems to have these insane hate-speech laws). That's because fanaticism works. Rioting, burning and killing are extremely effective in scaring your opponents into submission.

Nigh on two hundred million followers of the Prophet support the 9/11 attacks, and another three hundred million supported them 'vaguely'. This is a very, very bad figure.

I'll leave it off here. Just, please, research this stuff for yourself. A great deal rides on this.

167. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254192 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Rachel, now that I think of it, you, personally, might be better off than Steve. I can't quite remember the specifics, but I think that the hadith are easier on lesbians than male gays. Which, btw, tells you a great deal about the character of those who cooked this stuff up.

The Qur'an has this completely schizophrenic relationship with homosexuality. While it does indeed repeat the whole Sodom-and-Gomorrah business, there's also a line that pardise contains many young boys, "chaste as scattered pearls". Make of that what you will, but that has lead to a great deal of Islamic pederastery.

A slightly more humerous approach to the whole business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5wc9YZzDk

An even more humerous story comes from Malaysia. A while back there was a huge palaver about whether or not to allow discos in the rural areas. After a certain amount of humming and hawing by the religious establishment, the compromise was reached that discos were okay but to prevent the spread of immorality, people could only dance with members of their own sex.

I still don't know whether it's dawned on them what they actually legilated.

I just like to point out the good guys every now and then.

It's a fair point, Rachel. It's nice to have someone reasonable to offset my firebreathing Islamophobia. :-) Still, I maintain that when things have gotten to the point that Muslims almost ("almost" = "quarter inch from the carotid") murdered the mayor of Paris for being gay, then We Have Problems.

The trouble, as I've said, with the moderate Muslims is that they're ineffective against those who have chapter and verse of Holy Writ to back them up. Irshad Manji is a self-declared Islamic reformer and also a lesbian, which might be seen as a good sign by Westerners, but it means her message has been ineffective against those who take the faith neat.

I believe there was a good article about that up here a while back. *rumages around* Ah, yes, it was "Those Fanatical Atheists":

The first problem for the moderate believer comes from those who like their faith hot. You've agreed God exists and that He mucks about in the world. You've agreed this book contains His holy commandments. So how do you respond when the mad religious zealot says, "hey, here on page 23, it says we should slice open unbelievers and use their guts for garters. And over here on page 75, it says we should bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses. If God exists and these are his holy commandments, then shouldn't we get serious about the gutting and stuffing?"

That's the question Steve never seems to address. How sure is he that, if push really does come to shove, those Muslim friends will stick up for him? When they'd face ostracism and worse for doing so?

168. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254158 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 12:12 pm

No surprise there, either. As I said, until cerain prominent knights are Dramatically Diminished will certain members realize "Hey! Just maybe, he had a point..." The fact you concentrate entirely on me, ignoring those murdered, says a great deal.

Incidentally, if you go over to http://memo.brucebawer.com/ and do a little reading, you find that it has, in fact, spread to our shores.

EDIT: Rachel, contra to continual distortions, I have never said that all Muslims hold these views. That doesn't change the fact that large Muslim populations are Bad News for gays, jews, religious minorities etc.

169. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254144 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 12:05 pm

I rest my case. Gays being murdered by Muslims? Don't bother me - the real issue is Fanusi!

Dicanu, don't flatter yourself. Weedy specimens like you will never have what it takes to persecute me.

The point I am homing in on is that there seem to be people far more worried about my pointing out these probelems than about these problems themselves.

170. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254139 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 11:59 am

Oh, just for the record, for the benefit of everyone complaining about how horrid I was for pointing out what awaits Elton John in the future:

September 25, 2008 (11:30 A.M., CET): Jyllands-Posten reports that yesterday, shortly after the opening ceremonies of a gay festival in Sarajevo -- the first such event ever held in Bosnia -- Muslim men fell upon participants and beat them up, shouting "Kill the gays" and "Allahu akbar." Some were dragged out of their cars. Among those assaulted were journalists; worst hurt was a visitor from Denmark. There is no mention of the number of victims or assailants, though the report indicates that it took a "massive" number of police to stop the violence.
The story has been picked up by VG in Norway, but I've looked for it in vain in several major American and British newspapers.

Now, surely, Steve and all the rest will be up in arms about this, yes? And to think that such sentiments are spreading throughout Europe's Muslim population. Perhaps I might see a little clear thinking and maybe even an apology?

I'm not holding my breath.

171. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #254134 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 11:55 am

I have this mental image of a bunch of Imam's going "We got 'em now!"

172. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254106 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 11:08 am

Professor, to me this looks suspiciously like that smear job the economist pulled on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Though maybe I'm just more cynical.

173. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254102 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 11:03 am

Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai... Are these clowns even capble of being honest?

174. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254053 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 8:25 am

Titania, the reason I live in what you call a "black-and-white world" is that very often that's the way things are. Could I just suggest the following short story to you?

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

I'm already against the next war.

For the record, so am I. However, that's beside the point. There will be a next war, and one after that, and one after that, as long as there is anyone out there willing to use war to get what they want.

So while I'm "against" the next war, once someone else starts it (as I maintain Iran already has), I think that it might be a good idea to acknowledge that.

175. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254051 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 8:20 am

Where I disagree with Fanusi is in that there is any rational possibility of doubt here for a materialist.

Rather unfortunately, materialism and science are all about doubt. As is pointed out in the links I've added, and in the embryological data I've cited, the fetus development pictures (which some say are completely beside the point).

So, to sum up, Fanusi, in your opinion, people who by your criteria deserve to die, are allowed to be killed, but if there is the slightest chance that a developing person who has not had any experiences yet might feel pain (regardless of whether they are self aware or not) they absolutely must not be terminated.
Is that a fair synopsis of your view?

Pretty fair, Pony. Those who I think deserve to die are the scum of the earth. A developing fetus is much too close to a human (a baby also has had no experiences, in that sense).

N.B.: Thanks for switching your implied rhetorical characterization of me from hand-wringer to right-wing maniac. I'm far more comfortable with the second. :-)

So what would your position be, for example, in the case of a woman who was in a relationship, used contraception which failed, finds out that her boyfriend is leaving the country, and then a couple of days after that finds out she is pregnant and doesn't have the finances to support a baby. What would give you the right to dictate to her that she must have that baby despite there not being a single part of her that wants it?

ForestMist, it's not my rights. To be perfectly honest, I am very little impacted one way or the other by abortion. It's the rights of an innocent life. As much as that situation would suck, it doesn't give one the right to sacrifice another life. You can't sacrifice one human life to another. I'll also point out that in that situation, adoption is a possibility.

Where this breaks down, and I freely admitted it at the start, is when the mother's life is in danger. Then it's her choice, and I wouldn't dream of offering any advice.

TalkyMeat, your post requires more thought and a much better response than I feel up to right now. I'll get back to you, if that's okay.

176. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253991 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 5:25 am

Shoot, nal, I need to get back to the lab. Respond to that later.

177. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253988 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 5:23 am

Pony, I hashed this out with Steve. If you go back over these comments, you'll see my reference to neuronal computational capacity, and a couple of links. In essence, I think that the embryological evidence is such that there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt that this isn't a human life, a human person. And I say, if there's doubt, it's out.

--

We seem to have covered this ground quite well; one thing I am interested in discussing is what the effect of abortion is on societal demographics. That's the basic problem I mentioned earlier: regardless of what we feel here about the issue, in the long run, conservative, patriarchal, non-abortion societies will succeed over the other kind. You can see it here in Europe with - er, better avoid that topic - and also in America where red-states outbreed blue states.

178. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253979 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 5:13 am

Fanusi: Why do you object to the taking of any human life?

Pony, that makes me sound alot more pacifist than I am. I have little problem with taking human life: rapists, murderers, jihadis, whoever keeps playing rap outside my window at 3 a.m...

I do, however, have a serious problem with the deliberate killing of innocent life. That is because I believe in Justice. The sanctity of the individual human life seems fairly axiomatic. If you don't start there, where do you start?

As this appears to be the basis of your position (a human life must not be taken, no matter how developed/underdeveloped it may be),

Could you just say what you mean exactly by developed/underdeveloped? I don't want to play silly buggers here, I just would like to know.

179. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253975 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 5:08 am

TM, the other thing is that, while there are people like me at one end of the spectrum, and people like Steve at the other end, in the middle there's a huge swathe. Alot of people will agree that abortion is legit in case of rape, incest or to save the woman's life. Far less agree that it's okay as a way of getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

That's the problem with Laurie's comment about it's a woman's choice. In America, just for starters, 60% of women don't agree.

180. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253970 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 4:58 am

Sarg, that's part of it. I can see, roughly, the logic of first trimester abortion. After that, however, I can't, not by any standard.

TalkyMerat, I'll bite: what the hell is that profile picture?

181. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253967 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 4:54 am

Polydactyl,

we could look to other natural beings.

We could, but who in their right mind thinks we should look to animals for moral guidance on anything? Males will kill the children of their rivals, dolphins will routinely slaughter the young, playing with them, tossing them up out of the water. The Law of Nature is insanely harsh, cruel and unforgiving. Our entire development, what Huxley called "the Ethical Process" is there to tame, muzzle and chain that beast that is our natural self. We really shouldn't look to nature for examples.

182. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253963 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 4:48 am

My point is that I would not have a problem with fetuses before that being aborted even if it could survive outside the mother

So what, exactly, is your solution if one of these fetuses doesn't play along and die?

This seems insane. That is a human life, fully capable of life outside the womb. And you are now harping on a distinction without a difference: the soonest a fetus can survive, admitedly with help, is about six months. So, is it okay to kill them at six months, but not seven? By what standard are you measuring this? You said 28 weeks, but why 28?

It's things like this that sent me into the pro-life corner. Also, it seems to be fairly straightforward that if a pregnancy wasn't unwanted within the first three months, too goddamn bad after that.

Incidentally, there is this little study which seems to blow alot of these comments out of the water:

http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/lapsetkertovat/lapset/In_English/Huotilainen.pdf

Here are some quotes:

The first sensory system to develop in the foetus is the somatosensory system. Already
starting from week 8 of the gestational period the foetus is capable of sensing the
pressure caused by one hair touching the cheek.

These acts of communication are also supported by scientific evidence. New research on
foetal learning, mostly focusing on audition and olfaction/taste, has shown that the foetus
is capable of learning and that some reflexive behaviour of the foetus allows simple
communicative cts.

Hmmm... eight weeks for somatosensory formation. Read: the ability to feel pain. That's what you just mentioned as a characteristic, yes?


------------
I'd also like to take one moment to say that this business of "you can't ask people to look at a fetus, that's mean" is nonsense. If you can't face up to what precisely it is you're advocating, then you shouldn't advocate it.

We don't need to get into a fight about exactly where the boundaries of this set of universally agreed right-to-life-holders lie,

I'd disagree here, TalkyMeat, because my central point is that if there's even a doubt, then it's out. But your central point about biological specifics is a good one. I'll refer you to the link here, just for starters.

--------

epeeist-

That'd be me dead then. :P

That's something I could warm too..., D

---------

Obviously not. So what?

So, your line about "selective breeding", PERSON, is a load of hooey, since you specifically opposed it to my point about the Darwinian implications here.

My point was that, in the real world beyond this board, this game's rigged. Heads I win, tails you loose - because the raw demographic pressure will push this one way in the end.

No it's not. c.f. India, 2nd largest country, with an unsustainably high birth rate.

....

You don't think that India is conservative and patriarchal? You could have a word with a few of my Indian friends.


----------


Lazarus, thanks for the info about the cervical cancer stuff. It's one of the most infuriating things to us atheist pro-lifers: you cannot, in good conscience, be against abortion and also against contraception.

Also, as regards the conversation about killing animals, I not only could do it, I have done it: caught, killed, cooked and eaten. I grew up in Africa.

183. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253897 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:39 am

It is odd, thinking about these stories where poor weeping people are always saying "oh, woe, I will have to maybe quit my job, boo hoo" because I know several friends who have quit their jobs over issues nowhere near as contentious as abortion.

Sarg, I walked out of a job when I was flat broke because they complained about my wearing a Star of David on Holocaust Remembrance day. I know a little about having to take that stand.

What I object to is the socialized system that chokes all others off the market.

184. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253884 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 2:08 am

Okay, this'll be considered a derailing of the subject, but it's just too good a story not to share:

according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases. - Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid

CAIRO (AFP) â€" An Egyptian Muslim scholar has called for an end to risible religious edicts after a Saudi cleric said Mickey Mouse was an agent of Satan who should die, local media reported on Wednesday.
Sheikh Mohamed al-Munajid, a cleric who often appears on Saudi television and who is also a former Saudi diplomat in the United States, said last week that mice were "agents of Satan" and should be killed.

"Sharia (Islamic law) calls for the extermination of all mice. That includes the rodents as well as 'the famous cartoon mouse'," he said.

He blamed Mickey Mouse for causing people to become soft on mice.

However, Suad Saleh, a woman preacher who hosts a popular television programme on fatwas, or religious edicts, told the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette that Munajid's ruling "tarnishes Islam's image."

"An edict should be based on knowledge, logic and reason," she said. "Yes, mice should be killed when seen according to Islam's teachings. But it is illogical to deal with a cartoon character as a live mouse and kill it."...

No kidding, really?

I'll try and send that one into Josh.



--------------------------

Steve, okay then, if the fetus is not a person at 7-8 months by your lights, then why do you oppose this ghastly abortion practice then? *is confused*

Sarg, the problem I have with the socialized healthcare system is that it sooner or later leads to stories like this:

The veteran Government adviser [Baroness Warnock -- Ed.] said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives â€" your family's lives â€" and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service

Nationalizing anything is a very, very bad idea. It makes is more expensive, and worse quality, but regarding the specific detail we were discussing:

I am not clear as to why this would not also occur in a socialised system, though.

It's relatively simple: a competent doctor could turn his back on an employer who demanded he violate his conscience and find work elsewhere. Yet in a socialized system, you're stuck with a government monopoly that wields huge power in the job market.

Quetz I understand what you're saying, but, again, it's not your call. It's not my call. It's the doctor's and noone else's.

185. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253860 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:34 am

Sargeist, yes, indeed, like the NHS.

186. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253859 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:33 am

PERSON, sorry, but that's not so. There is no department in the VRWC CentCom where certain groups are selected for breeding like the proverbial.

It is simply a raw fact: conservative, patriarchal societies outbreed other kinds. Now, what are you going to do about that?

187. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253857 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:29 am

(a more sensible argument)

Quetz, I'll give you that it's part of the awful contradictions inherent in having a socialized healthcare system. In a privatized version, these contradictions couldn't arise. Yet we have the extremely lousy situation where doctor's can be forced into a situation where they have to violate their consciences.

I think I addressed most of these questions here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2992,Religion-out-of-medicine-a-new-message-for-Ontario-doctors,National-Post,page2#comments

188. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253852 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:19 am

Steve, if I misunderstood you there, then you have my profound apologies. In all seriousness. I'm glad to hear that you don't support that lunatic position.

Yet it is hard not to, going over your comments, draw that conclusion:

[Me]:Do you agree that, regardless of your stance on one month, two month embryos, once it has gotten so late that the infant is capable of surviving outside of the womb, then abortion's out?

No, I don't.

Er... Okay...

Though you do go on to say the following (just noticed this):

A fetus can, I think, be a person deserving of rights even if it can't survive alone, and also a fetus that can survive alone may not be a person

Which is all to the good, but there's something odd here: we've just been arguing about whether or not the foetus is a person, and your stance has been predicated on the idea that that's what matters. Now you're saying that that doesn't matter. Okay, so what was all that previous argument in favor of?

189. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253847 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:12 am

Person, if you're going to a Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist, or Klan member, you are not going to get decent help no matter what. You really want to go down the road of trying to force people to help in such matters?

Someone willing to work under compulsion would be dangerous in the stockyards, let alone a doctor's office!

190. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253846 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:10 am

Jesus86, neat, very neat. What a knucklehead.

191. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253844 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:08 am

False analogy. Hiring hit-men is illegal, abortion isn'

Oh, come on Quetz. In the first instance, this is about a proposed law. In the second instance, are we going to make the law the beginning and end of all morality?

192. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253843 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 1:07 am

Oh, waaah! Steve. There were many times in the past when I offered you an opportunity to move on. You always rejected it. Now it's too late.

I am pointing out the howling inconsistency in your moral positions. Admittedly, I was also taking revenge: you've been whining about my evil fascist intentions for months, yet now you're saying it's okay to kill seven and eight month fetuses that are capable of life beyond the womb.

To call those positions inconsistent doesn't even begin to cover it. Now, you call me all sorts of names and now want to whine when I fire back? Sorry, not impressed.

I can understand the rationales for first-trimester abortion. I cannot understand some of what's being suggested here.


----------------

Brian,

It might. I guess you favor the 'if you can't beat them, join them school of thought' then?

I thought I was dealing with people who understood Darwin. The future belongs to those who show for it. Can I please ask you to read the following:

The Return of Patriarchy
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

That's the flaw in the liberal, socialist position. It requires conservative, patriarchal birth rates to sustain it.

193. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253821 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 12:13 am

Aaaaannnd... we're back to fully fledged disagreement:

No, I don't. I differ from many people in this area in that I consider matters of the mental capacity of the fetus/baby to be what matters, not independence from the mother

Let me place this in context: we are talking about seven or eight month foetuses, completely capable of life outside the mother, essentially indistinguishable from normal babies. Yet, it's okay to kill them, in Steve's world, but not okay to kill Jihadists.

I would add that I don't consider rights to be absolute

Unless it's the rights of Jihadists to advance their cause, or for Muslims to drive our societies to ruin through en-masse immigration.

194. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253815 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 25, 2008 at 12:01 am

Brian, you're misunderstanding something. I was specifically talking about those "late term abortions" where the infant is, in fact, still alive and capable of life outside the womb.

I'd like to hear your comments about that scenario.

195. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253812 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Since, for once, we seem to be in rational disagreement Steve, I'll try and make it simple:

So you are claiming that you can assign the mental attributes of "person" to a 30-day old embryo/fetus? Yes or no?

Neither of the above. What I am saying is that there is reasonable doubt about the idea that this is not a person. If that's the case - if there's any doubt at all - then abortion's out.

However, Steve, I should like to ask you my previous point: Do you agree that, regardless of your stance on one month, two month embryos, once it has gotten so late that the infant is capable of surviving outside of the womb, then abortion's out?

196. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253806 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Shfting your ground Steve? Tell me what you mean by person and I'll give you a better answer that the one I'm giving here: Enough of a person for one to be seriously worried about the moral implications.

Brian English,

By what convoluted manner of reasoning did you arrive at this conclusion?

The minor reason that those fulfill the criteria you just set, Brian.

Listen, I can understand the arguments about the first month/first trimester. I really can; it's just I think they don't hold water. However, once we are dealing with something that is fully capable of life outside the womb, it must be self-evident that killing it is infanticide.

EDIT: Anyway, I need to get to work now. Play with you later.

197. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253796 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Steve, sorry, but what you call 'reframing, I call 'poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe'. So whatever, I can quite easily refer to it as a person.

Steve, so draw me a fricken' line then. If we're talking about 'conscious and aware', fully infants are unable to integrate any data and aren't "aware" in the sense you seem to be arguing for.

So, where are you drawing this line?

Brian English, is that all it takes to qualify as a human being for you?

Anyway, in which case I assume you're then for the laws that make it mandatory to save the lives of those aborted foetuses that are, in fact, still alive?

198. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253788 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Brian

Fanusi, you are equivocating. A fetus is not the same as you, me, or a full term baby. Calling it a human life glosses over this chasm

Prove it. Prove that this isn't a human life in the way a baby is a human life. As I said, the burden of proof is on the pro-abortion crowd; if you need to prove beyond 'reasonable doubt' to convict murderers, you definitely need to do it to kill innocents.

199. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253781 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Incidentally, there is a further issue you might be interested in. Thanks to the fetishization of abortion (and yes, that is what alot of the more loony marches are), the American left has European-style demographics, while the right has, well, think of Palin with her five kids.

That means, m'dears, that a generation down the line, America will look alot more Palin-red, than Obama-blue.

200. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253778 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Brian English, let me lay it out for you, pure and simple: you don't sacrifice an innocent human life to another. That violates one of the most basci moral precepts: you cannot use one life as a means to another's end.

Got that? You don't kill an unborn innocent because it's convenient.

THe only situation where this might be a genuine conflict is if the pregnancy was a threat to the mother's life.

Your arguments about miscarriages doesn't seem to fly: yes, you try to stop them, in the same way that you try to stop people falling off clifs.