Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Haha, again, you are obfuscating and splitting hairs with an abstract, intellectual argument about the nuanced, dictionary definitions of words.
Arguing the difference between murder and killing is tangential to the matter at hand. Obviously, the word "murder" as opposed to the word "killing," in this discussion about the rightness or wrongness of aborting an unviable fetus, is germane to the issue and was used specifically in the context of one's personal concepts or feelings to do with subjective morality, not in the context of interpreting the law in the strict language of legalese, which is off topic.
"Murdering" a person is not on the same level as "Killing" a clump of tissue.
Not that it's really any of my business, other than fleshing out a train of thought on a public forum where you are a willing paticipant. I was only trying to understand where you are coming from -- if you believe that a "person," or however you may define a sentient being with a soul (in the generic sense), is created at the moment of conception and therefore would be "murdered," not merely "killed," if aborted at ANY stage of pregnancy. If you go back through our last exchanges, it seems to be a quite simple inquiry.
As I've stated many times, you are certainly free to believe whatever you want. I respect that, though I may disagree. I'm not trying to trap you or to be accusatory.
There's a world of difference between "twisting the truth" (which, by the way, you have repeated incessantly ... mmm ... In poker, that would probably be considered a "tell") and trying to get at the truth beyond the mere words.
Deepspace:
You are the one who attempted to twist the truth. You asked me if I considered a fetus "murdered" upon being aborted? I gave you my answer. Had you been honest, instead of trying to twist the truth, you would have asked do I consider a fetus killed upon being aborted? To which I would have answered yes.
I agree, it would have been much simpler, had you not tried to twist the truth, by introducing murder, a legal topic that neither you nor I are qualified to address. Let me give you another example of the difference between killing and murder. It can be said, I think fairly safely, that everyone who has been murdered has been killed. You can't say everyone who has been killed has been murdered.
I stand by my statement "truth and facts are often simple.....does it become complicated ". Washed up lefties like yourself are always trying to twist truth and facts to meet your agenda.
Well, first, you are badly misrepresenting what I clearly meant. WWII was an immoral war of aggression on the part of the Axis powers, so their soldiers committed murder. Allied soldiers were defending, so they did not.
Next, you are expanding the definition of "unviable" by making a nonsensical "slippery slope" argument outside the scope of the abortion issue.
You obviously believe that when the sperm enters the egg at conception, it becomes a person and should not be murdered.
So, there it is. Good for you. It is your personal right to believe whatever you want, whether or not it is at odds with the majority of people, especially women, and of the law.
Now, wouldn't it have been a much simpler conversation had you just admitted that at the beginning instead of dancing around the central point?
Ou812: "Truth and facts are often simple. Only when twisted to justify an agenda, such as when does life occur, does it become complicated."
Deepspace:
Yes, I consider abortion morally wrong. Just because a fetus cannot live on it's own doesn't give anyone the right to kill it. New born babies cannot live on their own, does that mean we have the right to kill them? There are those who are much older, who cannot live on their own. Do we have the right to kill them?
I find it amazing that you consider killing an enemy by a soldier murder, as long as it wasn't done in self defense. How do the defenseless defend themselves? Hitler, Stalin, Huesin etc. Etc killed millions of defenseless people. Is it not the responsibility of the strongest to defend the weakest, who aren't capable of defending themselves.
Abortion in my opinion is the ending of a defenseless life, and it is wrong.
Not murder in the strict legal sense. Do you consider it morally wrong, because you think the unviable fetus is a person and has a right to live?
For instance, I consider a soldier killing an enemy (if it's not in self defense) as murder, because I think the war itself is immoral. The so-called enemy is a person, and has a basic right to live.
Thom, finally was able to call in. Told the screener I wanted to expand on the subject you were currently discussing. He said 'thats not the topic we're covering today', then hung up.
What to do about the "press", or news media in general? The corporate model is broken. Government based reporting would be self -serving. Private web-based sources are proliferating. In essence, a co-operative model may be the best choice.
News papers were originally supported by subscriptions and advertising. Advertising leads to compromises. A model in which the readers are also owners of the enterprise might assure reliable reporting. A suficient number of members is necessary to make the effort sustainable.
Local or regional areas may be the way to start.
Deepspace :
As I said before, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know when killing someone becomes murder. In war, soldiers kill the enemy, but the killing is not considered murder.
Abortion kills a life. Whether or not that killing is considered murder is for legal minds to determine. No matter if it is murder or not, the aborted life is ended.
Federal law says abortion is not murder before "fetal viability."
I understand your point about growth, but do you believe, in your heart, that it is murder of a person before fetal viability?
Murdered is a legal definition, I'm not a lawyer, an not qualified to speak to your question. However, every aborted fetus would have become a person had not their LIFE been terminated.
When does a fetus become a person whom you would consider murdered upon being aborted? Simple question.
Deepspace:
Truth and facts are often simple. Only when twisted to justify an agenda, such as when does life occur, does it become complicated. Any guilt that the reader incurrs, by reading what I wrote belongs to the reader, not me.
The problem in the US is that the corporations implanted in our mind through relentless brainwashing propaganda (ads and paid 'news' and 'experts') that an universal health care system is 'un-American' and 'socialism'.
Well, all this talk of freedom of choice is all about how the bottomless, greedy corporations can rip our all precious country off to their most convenient way and not choice for us.
The corps adapted their mindset to us by seeing us people as the biggest liability. How dare we're getting sick and cost the government so much in healthcare?
The idea behind most insurances is that many share a financial burden for saving SOME who pay into it for the case of an emergency. Inmost cases the insurances can make more money then which is needed for those who require aid from it.
But health insurance is unique as we ALL don't get younger and require health coverage at SOME point. That's why corporations hate health insurance until they can skim off our all tax money for dictating us prices from meds to equipment and making THEM the parasites of the US health care system and those who don't contribute to it by paying their share for the common good.
In Germany a health insurance is mandatory as a car insurance is in the US. But we have the pyramid up-side-down in the US as the filthy rich here don't want to pay their part to make America inspirational again by good example. We fought communism and socialism for decades and didn't realized how we embraced the asocial, inhumane side of unrestricted, total war from the corporations against our country in the name of bottomless, self-fueling addiction of greed above everything. Against its own population and even its precious environment and int he process on the rest of the world which suffers from the same issues.
We need to fix those issues together and not just put restrictions back in place but also revoking corporate personhood which was introduced 1890 and which contributed as one of the keystones to the huge mess greed moved the whole planet into the mess we are in today by turning the world into a corporacy instead of a democracy were it is all about 'We, the corporations' instead of 'We, the people' as our founding fathers wanted the people being free instead of some tycoons and/or corporations which run everything these days including our government through both, from corruption riddled, parties which represent the interests for the billionaires and corps and not us.
Universal healthcare must be a mandatory base for all. If you like better coverage as universal healthcare can't fix everything, you can choose a private insurance company. But health insurance is a MUST for EVERYbody as this lack of universal health insurance is the biggest disgrace of this country in every aspect as the lack of this basic human right for being treated as a human being and not left alone/behind is asocial, inhumane and simple despicable in every moral aspect our corporations lack 100% as unrestricted business does not have any moral, no compassion, no mercy. the only thing for them is the bottom line.
If we engage them they move like a drug cartel elsewhere as they have in opposite to a small business or middle class business no connection to the local people they do business with. The only way to get this inhumane practice under control is to take control away from them like it was before 1890 and the big capital started to turn the whole world into a chain of wars and getting filthy rich in the process and pushing the people aside and put the profit in the center.
I also posted this on facebook as well but thought I copy it here for a bit more exposure.
https://www.facebook.com/Coverage4All/posts/696125490548519?notif_t=like...
10K. There is a big difference between a company that provides healthcare benefits that doesn't want to include paying for abortions to saying there should be no abortions. Are you suggesting that the government should determine what benefits a company has to provide to do business.
If I were to witness the horror of a late term abortion, I have no doubt I'd be moved. At the other end of the spectrum, a woman swallowing a morning after pill would not move me in the same way. Tricky subject. No clear answer for me.
Kilosqrd: What don't you understand???? Of course we have religious freedom....what we are not supposed to have is government/taxpayer funded support respecting the establishment of only one religion. By his actions Gorsuch would the open the gate for thousands of religions/cults demanding special treatment....will he honor their requests too ???? LOL
KEND: Didn't you read Thom's blog? Gorsuch singled out and ruled in favor of a particular religion. He gave those who claim to belong to that set of beliefs the right to discriminate against those who do not. Geeez..c'mon Kend.
...And, you should look in the mirror, take your own advice, and quit trying to guilt women who choose abortion.
Deepspace:
You were correct in your post of a few days ago....Democrats over think everything. Relax, enjoy life, and quit trying to impose your will on everyone.
Yes, books have been written, and tales have been spun.
Cancer is growth also. Again, is a clump of tissue a real person? A half-formed, unviable fetus that can't exist outside the womb is like a cancer to a woman who doesn't want it growing to viability in her body. That is a choice between her conscience, her doctor, and her god. It doesn't involve what you happen to believe.
Physically, we begin dying the moment we are born. Metaphysically, each moment of consciousness is both death and rebirth, a constant and timeless moment of everlasting growth and renewal. Guilt is emotional conflict forever contained within the past, a reactive memory attached to an artificial thought construct, an illusion of reality that is psychologically dead.
You are free to believe -- or not to believe -- whatever you want; you are not free to impose your delusions on others at such a personal level.
Do you feel any guilt subscribing to rightwing ideology that murders real, viable people by creating a greedy system that denies adequate healthcare to the poor? Do you feel any guilt belonging to a religion and to a country that condones murdering real, viable, and innocent people with indiscriminate bombing campaigns and mindless warfare? Or, is your so-called morality only a relative thing that conveniently fits into a narrow, conditioned belief system?
Deepspace:
Books, have been written on when life begins. My guess is it's an attempt to alleviate guilt of some sort. The simple fact is if the "unviable tissue" as you call it, is not terminated, it will grow. Growth that will continue until death.
"He not busy being born, is busy dying "
Bob Dylan--It's Allright Ma (I'm only Bleeding).
..., and ... the time always is now ....
(Response to deepspace- #13:)
That paints such a clear picture of a place I have been, deepspace.
I have had to let the world go, and live in a posture of acceptance of the blessing of the breath of life, as it flows through me, one breath at a time. I'm ok with that. I don't want to live without it, that is for sure.
I know a lot of good-hearted, sincere people work in the industry. Honestly, it wears them out. People who commit their lives to serve health deserve a healthy industry that actually facilitates real health care - in all spheres.
I wholeheartedly endorse support for healthy lives in a healthy world, I'm not convinced that the 'health care' industry in this culture serves individual, or community health so much as it serves its own grim survival ... part of that involves ongoing consumer demand. So, community clinics, preventative care and quality nutrition may be viewed as counter-productive, and unaffordable.
For me, first and foremost, the demand is to embrace and follow through with the breath of life ... and when it slips away, I dearly hope I slip with it. That said, this is how I would prefer to read this Maxfield Parrish moment you have painted here:
..., surrender to that moment, and chances are, you will relax and let go enough to open up and keep on flowing ... one breath ... ka
RFord;
Yeah, I heard that interview with Bernie also. Thank God for truth tellers, and goddamn the liars!
I heard Bernie talking about the conversation he had with Gorsuch in his office, He can't be trusted with individuals' rights. He can only be trusted with the rights of businesses, corporations, and banks. He's answering questions the way he is because he doesn't want to show the American people the real Neil Gorsuch. Inside his head is a far right wingnut. If he gave honest answers the people would rise up against him like they did about the so-called health bill. They can't get him to give straight answers. He has a judicial record that shows what a low down human being he is. Al Frankin called him out on one of his bad rulings. This Justice will be anything but Just.
Kend:
Come on, taxpayers should fund Planned Parenthood, as 97% of their healthcare includes vital medical services that are desperately needed by women and that are not abortions. It is already stipulated by federal law that zero taxes pay for Planned Parenthood's abortion services, which are funded from other sources and cost taxpayers nothing.
Also, if you have a problem (You should!) with predacious private insurance companies arbitrarily raising their rates for whatever happens to be their latest excuse du jour, take it up with their board or the CEO in the penthouse on the sixty-fourth floor of their glass tower. Good luck...
Chasing your correlation-without-causation logic deeper into the rabbit hole, buying a candy bar from a store whose owner may have, for instance, donated money to Planned Parenthood, one could say, "so again to a small degree you are funding them [abortions] as well." It's just so damn hard living in a country that's not a theocracy!
"War with women" is phraseology that you inserted into this thread, so, on that point anyway, you are arguing with yourself. People are free to believe in whatever crazy-ass religion they want; however, when fanatics try to pass legislation that imposes their weird belief system on others who don't share the delusion, then it does become a war -- a religious war ...one that they started! Just so you know, there is no counter-legislative proposal that would force a woman to get an abortion.
Ou812:
Actually, I was raised an ardent Catholic and later attended a Maryknoll seminary for two years before joining the Army -- a study in opposites -- then, a couple more years at a layman's college. But, neither here nor there, is the unfortunate conditioning of the past.
This highly contentious argument can be boiled down to one existential question upon which to ponder: When does an individual's life force -- that essence of spirit some call a "soul," which animates one as a unique, living being as opposed to a clump of mindless, unviable tissue -- actually enter the body? Most Christian religions teach that it is at the moment of conception, an extremist concept found nowhere in the traditional versions of the Bible, which purports to be the final arbiter of Truth.
What the Bible does say is that "life" (not as hard to define as "soul") begins with the first breath and ends with the last breath. (Psalms 33:6; Ezekiel 37 9-10, 13-14; Job 34: 14-15; etc., etc.)
In fact, the Good ol' Book explains when, why, and how abortions (Oh, the horror!) should be performed in Numbers 5:11-31, and what punishments should be exacted for not following said procedure -- a mere matter of Old Testament justice (e.g., an eye for an eye), adultery, and property law, certainly not a matter of the "eternal" soul, since a zygote or a fetus that has not received the "breath of life" is therefore not "alive."
Anti-choice Bible thumpers and other crazies may cobble together as many countervailing, out-of-context passages and hooey as they want, but they will not disprove the salient theme in their own so-called sacred book that life begins with the first breath.
Of course, that's just a matter of personal belief. At least the Supreme Court forbade abortion after the viability of the fetus, which seems eminently fair-minded and rational.
If I were a free-agent soul floating around in the ethereal ether waiting for the next rebirth, and my target fetus was miscarried or aborted, well then, damn, I guess the procurement secretary for the Grand Puh Pah Overlord of the Universe, whatever, will just have to find a different lil' thumb-sucker -- please, please, please not of Republican parents!
...And, preferably, on a planet where the dominate species is smart enough to avoid warfare, use green energy, keep money out of politics, and enjoys actual representative democracy that is guided by natural compassion and empathy rather than artificial belief systems, selfcenteredness, and greed.
Praise the Overlord! Make Planet Zorbia Great Again! Wait a minute ...it's already great!
Hephaestus:
"Men need to take more responsibility for the outcome of their lust"
Hah! Exactly! If men got pregnant, abortion wouldn't be an issue.