Jonathan Meador hates babies
Jonathan Meador in this week's LEO:
You have to give it to the Kentucky Senate. When it comes to putting women in their rightful, Victorian-era places, nobody does it better (or worse). Earlier this week, the state Senate made their hatred of all things vaginal complete when they passed S.B. 38, which would require any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a mandatory ultrasound. FYI: The bill was introduced by right-wing shill and possible human being, Sen. Elizabeth Tori, R-10, who home phone number is...
By the same "logic", Meador "hates" babies. He wants them in their rightful, Roe v. Wade place-- the trashcan.
It'd also be interesting to know whether he likes similar regulations on gun control-- or more broadly, regulations on economic exchange and campaign finance, applauds the government's education monopoly and income redistribution, etc.
UPDATE: For an equally interesting post from Jake Payne at PageOne, click here.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 1:44 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
You cannot be serious.
precisely as serious as what appeared in LEO...
I'm with Jonathan on this one. Abortion rights protect families. When access to abortion is reduced, the rates of child abuse, imprisonment, and poverty increase. A collection of undifferentiated cells is not a baby. Supporting a woman's right to abortion care demonstrates love and respect for all people, especially babies.
Good for you (and all of us), Eric, for challenging the garbage that this Meador guy is posting on his site.
As far as Angela's opinions are concerned, I Disagree 100%. You are abviously quite confused about biological science and what it means to be human.
The prolife position is philosophically and scientifically sound.
Law of Biogenesis states that frog embryo and sperm produce frog offspring, dogs produce dogs, and guess what? -- humans produce humans. Embryos do not magically become human at some bewitched point of their existence; they are Human from the start!
They may not look like a baby - at least not until 4 or 5 weeks, but that doesn't make them any less human. We don't call something human based on its level of development/functioning or location.
Therefore, abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life - that's called murder in some books.
Not only that, it is a grave disservice to women feed them the LIE that it won't matter - It Does. Many are left with deep emotional pain and regret.
Based on the above, there is no way you can win the argument that it is in any way protects families, or say that it demonstrates love and respect for all people? Sorry, but that it ridiculous. I don't even think most pro-abortion advocates are willing to go that far.
Related to the above post:
Law of Biogenesis should read "frog egg (ovum) and frog sperm produce frog offspring (embryo)"
...Well, I made a mistake! -- guess that means I am "human" for sure!!!
Angela, the point of my post was not to argue about the issue of abortion-- but to question the way in which we talk about those with whom we disagree.
My comments sought to parallel the tone and approach of Mr. Meador's original comments for effect.
I don't know whether he was trying to be hyperbolic (for effect) or was, to quote Jonathan, "serious". But it's interesting to hear what his language sounded like on the other foot.
The Jake Payne quote and my replies-- in the related post-- is an even clearer example.
I could waste countless hours and words trying to educate you guys about why you're on the wrong side of this issue, so I'll keep this short as I can.
By forcing women to pay for a service that isn't integral to getting an abortion, the state is essentially increasing the financial and emotional burden on women whom are already financially and emotionally burdened as it is.
Regarding Jenna's "scientific analysis" of the finer points of biogenesis, your argument is a semantic one: You move the goal post (i.e. the definition of what constitutes life) to suit your skewed understanding of the science, which doesn't make any judgements re: "when the moment of life begins." That's for philosophers and metaphysics.
But I guess it shouldn't be that surprising you'd pick and choose the facts to suit your needs, since conservative Christians routinely pick and choose whatever biblical passages necessary to promote your agenda.
It's also funny/sad that you guys display such verve defending the "life" of an unborn baby, but you refuse to accept the fact that S.B. 38 will place extra and undue burden on women whom are very much alive and in dire straits. If you really want to fight abortion, fight poverty and lack of access to health care instead of rehashing 1st century morality.
You guys claim to be libertarians and fans of limited government, yet you had no problem when senators bumrushed Terri Schiavo's hospital room, or whenever laws are enacted that limit the freedom of a citizen's choice re: their own personal medical needs, be it health care reform or abortion.
The definition of life, as it is practiced in debates such as these, is largely subjective; it is whatever you believe it to be. By forcing your definition of life upon others — while at the same time claiming to have respect or the very women your views ultimately punish — you've created an echo-chamber for your own misconceptions and blatant hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, you'll regard my views with some amount of disdain that prevent you from seeing the truth of my position. I would respect your position, but unfortunately my concern for people whom are already empirically alive prevents me form doing so.
I know that in the 21st century you Christians must spend plenty of time playing the role of apologist. But don't let your defensiveness get in the way of recognizing the larger problems of poverty and economic injustice that fuel the very medical practice we both abhor.
In sum: Put down the King James for a minute, open your mind and spend some time in the real world. Heaven can always wait.
Again, my post was not about the debate-- as much as the tone of the debate. If you characterize pro-life as woman-hating, then you're asking for pro-choice to be characterized as baby-hating. Don't you see that?
I think that's a regrettable rhetorical flourish, but I didn't mind going along to make the point-- whether you were "serious" or hyperbolic.
It's also not about your assumption that I support SB38 (or Terri Schiavo!). I never said that. Again, I pointed to your rhetoric-- and then asked if you're a fan of regulation in other contexts. If your views are consistent on such things, that would be uncommon-- but good for you!
As for "recognizing the larger problems of poverty and economic injustice", much of my writings and teachings have spoken to that. Unfortunately, the government does much to contribute to both.
P.S. The KJV is relatively archaic and an inferior translation to at least a half-dozen others.
#1 Giving a woman the opportunity to make an informed and educated decision in such an important and personal matter can only help her make the very best "choice".
And, if abortion is no big deal, why would a woman be "emotionally burdened" in seeking one?
Your "logic" contradicts.
#2 Ask someone like you when "life" (they always leave out the "human" part) begins and they'll say "uhh - I dunno?"
I wouldn't call that extremely scientific or intelligent. Life doesn't "begin" in the sense to which you are referring - it merely continues in a new form - a human one. Sperm and egg are both "alive" and join to form a new human life. That is basic science.
#3 Actually, reliable polling shows that more people believe abortion is not the "great" thing for society and women that it was touted to be- so I guess I can understand your fear/panic at the passage of this senate bill, although it merely gives women INFORMATION. Informed consent is a legal requirement in healthcare provision, is it not?
so Who's trying to keep women in the dreggs of society?
#4) Who said anything about the King James Bible?
#5) I am not a self-identified Libertarian, although I enjoy Eric's blog most of the time.
#6) What's your home phone number?
One more thing --
This ---"The definition of life, as it is practiced in debates such as these, is largely subjective; it is whatever you believe it to be."---is Unbelievable.
You should just go ahead and get together with Peter Singer and all the other George Bernard Shaw-ites out there and develop a plan to "Hiterlize" the modern Western world... At least that way we'd know what we're up against.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home