tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post7877637595239713746..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: What do Ludwig van Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow have in common?Peter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64521853323492414472020-10-24T08:06:20.050-07:002020-10-24T08:06:20.050-07:00The fool has said in his heart that there is no Go...The fool has said in his heart that there is no God.<br /><br />Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.<br /><br />What shall it profit a man if they gain the whole world and lose their own soul?<br /><br /> God gives life and he has a purpose for every life that is conceived whether we think it is a value or not!<br /><br />That is truth.What is Truth?https://www.blogger.com/profile/02721511719133446331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-84584185687475003192013-11-03T10:51:36.935-08:002013-11-03T10:51:36.935-08:00good grief! all of you arguing about the authentic...good grief! all of you arguing about the authenticity of Beethoven *must* be men! or, if not, then you have had your conscience seared by the feminist liberalism which claims that anything a woman chooses to do to her body is not only her choice, but has no lasting emotional or spiritual effect. by focusing *only* on the validity of the Beethoven facts the entire point of the parable is missed- the fact that any fetus aborted *could have been* a genius of some sort. how do we know that the potential finder for the cure of AIDS or breast cancer or a very rare type of muscular dystrophy hasn't been aborted? we don't. *THAT* is the point this article is trying to make, not that Beethoven was or was not born second or fifth, or that his father had syphilis or not, or anything else along those lines. throwing Stalin and Hitler into the mix is only a diversionary tactic, taking focus once again off the point of the article. that Galactor and others would rather focus on the possible/probable errors in the article says a lot about them- that they would much rather be argumentative than see what the writer is actually saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-62135899674735540322012-10-23T23:03:56.000-07:002012-10-23T23:03:56.000-07:00A professor in a college ethics class presented hi...A professor in a college ethics class presented his students with a problem. He said, ‘A man has syphilis and his wife has tuberculosis. <a href="http://www.getnewpatientsinc.com/" rel="nofollow">James</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16671195978168816842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-89320338325145432452012-10-02T01:41:41.023-07:002012-10-02T01:41:41.023-07:00"It's all just a parable to make a point&..."It's all just a parable to make a point"<br /><br />What point? Even if the lecture actually took place, the "parable" just demonstrates how an unpredictable future cannot be aligned with known circumstances (Beethoven was great, Hitler was bad) in forming abortion ethics. <br /><br />Christians, however, think it's a great argument and just keep uncritically publishing it.<br /><br />"Potential" is a non-argument. Worthless. <br /><br />As I wrote earlier, if potential was important, we should be making sure that all women are continually pregnant or otherwise we are missing out on potential lives.<br /><br />"Carelessly ending lives ..."<br /><br />It is only christians who keep harping on about infanticide, murder, lives, people and so on.<br /><br />Why is a clump of 100 cells, not even attached to mother to be considered "a life"?<br /><br />No person would want a child's life to be casually ended. But a clump of cells just isn't a child.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-38583495907362936272012-10-01T16:13:07.795-07:002012-10-01T16:13:07.795-07:00So, again, why just use examples like Beethoven an...So, again, why just use examples like Beethoven and Galileo, and not examples like Hitler and Stalin? If depriving us of the Waldstein sonata is an argument against abortion, then preventing the Holocaust is an example in its favour. Both argumnents are ridiculous, but only the pro-life faction actually ever makes this argument. The pro-choice contingent seems to have a better sense of what makes for a strong argument. I guess when all evidence and reason is against you,you have to use whatever arguments you can, no matter how fallacious.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-71660952858667167082012-10-01T10:45:07.145-07:002012-10-01T10:45:07.145-07:00The illustration given by the college professor wa...The illustration given by the college professor was probably hypothetical - he could have used any name (like Copernicus or Galileo). The point was to make the students think about the potential in the unborn child that they were so quick to terminate due to some unfortunate circumstances. And the story is most likely not true. It isn't very likely that a professor in a secular college would try to make that point and it isn't likely that students in Christian college would vote to abort. It's all just a parable to make a point - carelessly ending the lives unborn children has unintended consequences. 4praise.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11981578094210057103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-8124616084810177762012-09-29T11:57:34.156-07:002012-09-29T11:57:34.156-07:00emmzee:
Like Galactor, I find your request for a ...emmzee:<br /><br />Like Galactor, I find your request for a statement from a "recognized medical authority" that life does not begin as conception a non-sequitor. You are also trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof. Again, as Galactor points out, you are under no less obligation to support your claim that life does being with conception.<br /><br />However, since you asked for "medical authorities", I'm happy to comply:<br /><br /><br />American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist:<br /><br />http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/ACOG_Departments/Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/Abortion_Resource_Guide___Advocacy <br /><br />Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:<br /><br />http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-induced-abortion-and-mental-health-revi<br /><br />and, for Peter, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. <br /><br />http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/component/docman/doc_details/926-c-gyn-17-termination-of-pregnancy.html?Itemid=341<br /><br />Now, tell me, if any of these organization believed it was a medical fact that "life begins at conception", would they adopt the position that abortion is a permissable medical procedure?<br /><br />The fact that you are not convinced of this is irrelevant. You're quite free not to have an abortion is that is your wish. But no one else is obliged to wait for you to be "convinced" before making their own decision. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-15836891232606688762012-09-29T11:27:49.421-07:002012-09-29T11:27:49.421-07:00Duke of Earl writes: "Insert any particular ...Duke of Earl writes: "Insert any particular group, blacks, Jews, gays, women, the unborn, in that last paragraph and you'll see where female solipsism leads you."<br /><br /><br />"Female solipsism"? How does that term even make sense?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Killing another person to save the life of yourself or a third party might be necessary, but it should never be enshrined in law as justification for killing any random person you come across."<br /><br /><br />I agree. So who's talking about killing a person? I'm talking about abortion. If you believe that is the equivalent of killing a person, then your statement makes sense. But you do understand what is meant by "begging the question", don't you?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-65281930185242579672012-09-29T05:44:22.027-07:002012-09-29T05:44:22.027-07:00I wonder what on earth David Noland is trying to s...I wonder what on earth David Noland is trying to say.<br /><br />The hypothetical philosophy professor puts Ludwig as the fifth child. Yet history puts him as the *second* born.<br /><br />Is Glenn - a noted music historian - corroborating Swindoll who reports that Beethoven was *fifth* in line?<br /><br />Is there any reference in the book that states that Beethoven was fifth in line?<br /><br />And how is a music scholar in a position to corroborate the philosophy "lesson" of the professor insofar as it ever took place? <br /><br />Is there any reference in the book by Glenn that reports on the philosophy lesson?<br /><br />Does David Noland think it plausible that such an exchange took place in a philosophy college lecture? We've already discussed how no self-respecting professor would overlook that his argument could use Stalin, Mao, or Hitler instead of Beethoven. We've already discussed how useless the Beethoven myth is in helping us form ethics surrounding abortion.<br /><br />I don't think David Noland is thinking very logically.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-71828554740198952072012-09-29T02:55:41.977-07:002012-09-29T02:55:41.977-07:00emmzee: "Also, I disagree that a "fetus ...emmzee: "Also, I disagree that a "fetus is not a person""<br /><br />You really take the position that a six day old clump of (approximately 100) cells, not yet attached to the uterine wall (i.e., not yet attached to the mother), is a person?<br /><br />Would you ethically value those 100 cells above the life of a living, developed chimpanzee? Or cow?<br /><br />Why is the sperm and egg itself not considered "life"? <br /><br />Are you not conflating the various forms of life with one that is utterly developed?<br /><br />Do you really require ethical and medical authorities to arbitrate on this stage of pregnancy?Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-48177854370285848872012-09-28T16:59:38.302-07:002012-09-28T16:59:38.302-07:00Let's say that a person says "I don't...Let's say that a person says "I don't know what would be morally right in the situation where a pregnancy was causing a woman's life to be in danger." The inability to answer this question, which would apply to less than 1% of the cases, would have no bearing on what we should think in the other 99%+ cases. There will always be difficult cases and potential exceptions with regards to every moral rule, but these few don't change the situation for the vast majority.<br /><br />I would agree with you that "a woman has every bit as much a right to personal autonomy and control of her body as a man does", of course that autonomy is limited in the same way that a man's autonomy is limited, ie, that they cannot use their autonomy to take another person's life. Just to address another potential objection, in the tragic circumstances of rape, that would again fall into the category of "hard questions" but those unfortunate circumstances -again relatively few in comparison to the vast majority of abortions- would affect the vast majority of abortions that are not due to rape or to save the woman's life. If you are willing to grant abortion only for those hard cases, and outlaw abortion in 98%+ of other circumstances, then I could understand you bringing up those objections. But since that is obviously not your position, those objections are merely distractions from your real position.<br /><br />Also, I disagree that a "fetus is not a person". To suggest this would require either that you provide some sort of recognized medical authority that would state that life does not begin at conception (I'm aware of none), or provide some sort of non-arbitrary distinction between a person and a human being (I've thus far heard no suggestion for such a distinction that I find convincing).emmzeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16890906596361712543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81395886508347171512012-09-28T15:24:18.190-07:002012-09-28T15:24:18.190-07:00Insert any particular group, blacks, Jews, gays, w...Insert any particular group, blacks, Jews, gays, women, the unborn, in that last paragraph and you'll see where female solipsism leads you.<br /><br />Killing another person to save the life of yourself or a third party might be necessary, but it should never be enshrined in law as justification for killing any random person you come across.Duke of Earlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14891442161634560912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-50402993117159370192012-09-28T14:44:42.291-07:002012-09-28T14:44:42.291-07:00Stanley, Glenn (ed) (2000). The Cambridge Companio...Stanley, Glenn (ed) (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58074-9.<br /><br />Glenn Stanley is a noted music historian and expert on the life of Ludwig von Beethoven. His research corroborates Chuck Swindoll's story.David Nolandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11665105413235314819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-19422442616284703382012-09-28T14:43:43.815-07:002012-09-28T14:43:43.815-07:00Stanley, Glenn (ed) (2000). The Cambridge Companio...Stanley, Glenn (ed) (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58074-9.<br /><br />Glenn Stanley is a noted music historian and expert on the life of Ludwig von Beethoven. His research corroborates Chuck Swindoll's story.David Nolandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11665105413235314819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40325443537170881092012-09-27T09:32:16.577-07:002012-09-27T09:32:16.577-07:00My position is that people who misinform and have ...My position is that people who misinform and have it pointed out to them should retract what they write and apologise for having mislead people.<br /><br />I justify that on the spirit of the academic pursuit and the common decency of people to accept they were wrong and make amends.<br /><br />When would I approve of infanticide? When the infant is in utter pain and when there is no hope whatsoever that the sickness could be medically resolved and the pain releaved such that life would have any meaning although I would need to understand what moral ethicists and philosophers would have to say about the matter.<br /><br />I've already pointed out to you in the post before your reply that you keep misusing words like "infanctide". Is a two week old clump of cells an infanct?Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-7476331935392404032012-09-26T16:28:38.935-07:002012-09-26T16:28:38.935-07:00So you're just going to continue to avoid the ...So you're just going to continue to avoid the question, then, are you? A very nice piece of prevarication there. If you look carefully at the statement that seems to say that abortion is "never" necessary to save the life of the mother, it uses the peculiar term "direct abortion". So what would an "indirect abortion" be? Something like the deliberate induction of labour before the fetus has reached a state of viability, which is what will usually be done if a pregnancy must be terminated in the interest of maternal health. This is clearly an abortion, and no fancy word games about "direct" vs "indirect" can change that fact.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't blame you for avoiding answering the question. After all, what alternative do you have? To answer the question honestly, and further reveal how indefensible, on both logical and moral grounds, your position is? That's the last thing you want to do.<br /><br />I, OTOH, have no problem answering your question. Except that I am not sure which of two interpretations is the correct one for your question.<br /><br />Are you asking under what circumstances I believe an abortion should be allowed? Under one circumstance, and one circumstance only: That a woman wants an abortion.<br /><br />If, OTOH, you are asking how I justify this position, that is simple: A fetus is not a person, and a woman has every bit as much a right to personal autonomy and control of her body as a man does. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-53119812613687993072012-09-26T13:13:33.088-07:002012-09-26T13:13:33.088-07:00My position is that human life is worthy of the ut...My position is that human life is worthy of the utmost respect from the time of conception. <br /><br />What is your own position and how do you justify it? <br /><br />On what grounds for example would you approve of infanticide? abortion at 40 weeks? 28 weeks? 18 weeks? 12 weeks?Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-74833330992236165802012-09-26T13:11:16.953-07:002012-09-26T13:11:16.953-07:00It's a non-question as 98% of abortions in the...It's a non-question as 98% of abortions in the UK are carried out for spurious mental health reasons and abortion to save life is not actually medically necessary - http://bit.ly/PsKxEI<br /><br />On what grounds do you believe that abortion is justified?Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40871765132484086842012-09-26T12:47:54.103-07:002012-09-26T12:47:54.103-07:00"However many people, Galactor obviously incl..."However many people, Galactor obviously included, do not believe that life before birth is worthy of respect. The mind of Galactor is clearly not going to change on this and this blog was not written for him."<br /><br />Yeah right, Galactor just likes to butcher children in front of their parents. <br /><br />"However there are many other people as yet undecided on the issue of abortion who will be helped by these three short stories to recognise the truth that the baby in the womb is actually a real person with potential. "<br /><br />If there are people who are as yet undecided as to what arguments are persuasive when it comes to abortion ethics, they're not going to be very impressed with the nonsense that Saunders writes.<br /><br />And it's not clear in the three stories at what stage the pregnancies were. Not that that stops Saunders using the emotive words "baby" and "real person". Why could they not have been blastocysts or clumps of cells?<br /><br />Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-65312673344758809082012-09-26T12:42:02.732-07:002012-09-26T12:42:02.732-07:00"The point is that these three people were co..."The point is that these three people were conceived in difficult family circumstances in which many today might choose an abort"<br /><br />Why can't Saunders ever admit he is wrong and accept that the Beethoven myth just doesn't help us form ethics that surround abortion?<br /><br />Does he ever retract his posts when it is pointed out how fallacious they are?<br /><br />If the point is just that "abortion is wrong" why not just say so instead of relying on silly, refuted set-ups, long debunked.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-86627345474584732142012-09-26T12:38:25.978-07:002012-09-26T12:38:25.978-07:00"As for the authenticity of the Beethoven sto..."As for the authenticity of the Beethoven story ... "<br /><br />Just a cursory reading exposes how fabricated it was. Any professor of ethics/philosophy wouldn't make such a category error of not replacing Beethoven with say Stalin. Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-9647789857933197952012-09-26T11:03:38.391-07:002012-09-26T11:03:38.391-07:00OK, I've read it. Now will you answer my ques...OK, I've read it. Now will you answer my question?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-34471606537326507722012-09-26T10:37:13.931-07:002012-09-26T10:37:13.931-07:00Have a look at my previous blog on abortion to sav...Have a look at my previous blog on abortion to save the life of the mother - http://bit.ly/I7YG8PPeter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-60594075970688169542012-09-26T10:07:21.598-07:002012-09-26T10:07:21.598-07:00So to be clear, Dr. Saunders: Are you saying that...So to be clear, Dr. Saunders: Are you saying that if a pregnant woman is faced with a life threatening medical condition that could be treated with an abortion, you will recommend that she continue with the pregnancy and pray to God that the pregnancy will proceed nomally, and she'll give birth to a back up quarterback? Would that be your medical advice to her?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-38611666589056744142012-09-26T09:21:14.540-07:002012-09-26T09:21:14.540-07:00James I agree with you that abortion is wrong beca...James I agree with you that abortion is wrong because it takes a life and this is the point that I make in the final two paragraphs and in many other places on this blog. <br /><br />You are also right of course that no life is worth more than any other. I am not arguing that it is.<br /><br />However many people, Galactor obviously included, do not believe that life before birth is worthy of respect. The mind of Galactor is clearly not going to change on this and this blog was not written for him. <br /><br />However there are many other people as yet undecided on the issue of abortion who will be helped by these three short stories to recognise the truth that the baby in the womb is actually a real person with potential. <br /><br />As for the authenticity of the Beethoven story I don't have a primary source. It has been around for a long time (I first heard it over 30 years ago) and I got this version from Charles Swindoll.<br /><br />Whether it is entirely accurate or not I cannot say but if you have evidence to the contrary then bring it. But if these were not the exact historical circumstances of Beethoven it does not alter the point.<br /><br />The point is that these three people were conceived in difficult family circumstances in which many today might choose an abortion. <br /><br />This blog is posted here in the hope that it will make people think about whether abortion is really the answer to hard circumstances. <br />Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.com