The Left Trumps Science with Politics
One of the mantras we hear from those on the left is that we should follow science. You may recall how many times Dr. Anthony Fauci proclaimed that during the Covid Pandemic – even as the scientists proffered differently – and often diametrically opposing – opinions.
We may also recall how the “science” associated with the use of masks was arbitrary and never consistent because the advice was based on politics – not science. We were told that we should wear masks indoors and outdoors – then only indoors. We were told that masks were only beneficial for the person with Covid in preventing spread – then that they protect the uninfected. We were told to mask up at the same time, we were told that the masks in common use were ineffective.
Those on the left like to counsel us to follow science even as they do not. For example …
Boys and girls
The terms male and female – man and woman – have very specific scientific biological and genetic meanings. It has to do with organs, DNA, and reproductive roles. That is science. It is not a matter of opinion.
One can dress like a person of the opposite sex – and even have plastic surgery performed on the organs – and take hormones to assume some physical attributes of the opposite sex. They can prefer to function in society as a person of the opposite sex. But that does not change the science.
The so-called transgender men participating in women’s sports are still biological men. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over biological women. We brush aside science for adherence to a misguided doctrine of political correctness.
Since I lean toward libertarian conservativism, I can respect those who wish to live in alternative lifestyles. Same sex relationships, crossdressing, and even transgender medical treatments are individual choices. I have supported gay civil rights – including gay marriage. But I stick with science. None of those chosen lifestyles alters the gender of the person. I also understand the difference between tolerance toward those living alternative lifestyles does not necessarily mean automatic approval of promoting or normalizing those lifestyles – especially among the youngest children.
It is based on that fundamental truth that I believe language should also follow science in most cases. I say most cases because I am willing to use “him” or “her” for folks who have the surgery and take the hormone treatments – even though the DNA is still the primary marker for gender.
Other than that one exception, I prefer to keep the pronouns tied to science. Society should not bend to those who simply demand to be addressed by pronouns defining the opposite sex. In science, there is no such thing as a non-binary person – claiming to be neither male nor female. Yet, we find more and more applications and forms providing for an arbitrary non-scientific designation. Students and teachers have been disciplined for not using the pronouns arbitrarily selected by others.
I tend to keep with the biological reality when addressing crossdressers and drag queens. They are fully biologically and genetically men or women – the males or the females of the species. The fact that they get satisfaction of some sort by dressing and taking on mannerisms of the opposite gender does not change the reality – the scientific facts.
Where there are traditional situations in which we separate the men from the women, people belong in the group with common DNA and genitalia. Penises belong in the “men’s room,” and vaginas in the “women’s room.” Same with the locker rooms or on those sports teams specifically designated for men or women.
The developing human being
Abortion advocates and activists kick science aside for a political view of human life. For obvious reasons, they declare the life in the womb to be inhuman. One of my regular critics expressed the pro-abortion view when he wrote: “Ending that which never lived is not killing anything. Flushing a zygote is not murder. It’s ending something that never was, might never be, might be, no one really knows.”
Of course, that is all intellectual nonsense – and contrary to science. The fertilized cell IS a “living thing.” In fact, it is the earliest stages of a developing human being. The developing human being IS NOT something that “never was.” It is something that IS. In some cases, that developing human being “might never be,” but in the vast majority of cases, it will become a real person.
From conception, that developing human being has all the human traits and characteristics that will become more obvious during the maturation process – hair and eye color, height, bone structure … oh yeah … and gender. That is the science of it.
Suggesting that the developing human being is not life – just a piece of flesh akin to a tumor or a wart – is contrary to the established facts of biology and genetics. The pro-abortion community rejects science in favor of a political definition of life and humanness. They then apply an arbitrary political (legislative) determination as to when that “non-life” becomes a person with rights and the protections of a civil society. And even then they cannot even agree on when that transition takes place during the gestation period – two months … six months … up to the moment of birth? That is because they ignore science. Since answers that question. Human life begins at conception.
Climate change
Climate change reveals a different issue of science versus politics. Most scientists agree that the earth is warming – even though the left accuses those on the right of denying that science. Where politics and science separate are in terms of the causes of global warming and what can be done about it.
For the left, man-made pollution is the primary cause of global warming. But … that is not what the science tells us. Human activity contributes only about three percent of all the greenhouse gases that flow into the atmosphere. The rest comes naturally from the land and the sea. (That fact surprises most folks.)
The second issue is what can we do about it? If you listen to the politicians, you might believe that we can solve the problem by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. What science tells us is that the total elimination of fossil fuels will have only a marginal impact on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
To make any impact – according to the scientists – we would have to return to living in pre-industrial conditions. We simply cannot cut back enough to make much of a difference – and that would be an unacceptable reduction in our lifestyle.
Also, according to climatologists, the earth is coming out of a normal warming cycle. It may be retarded by man-made emissions, but nature is not likely to be denied forever. Many reputable scientists believe that the Earth is on the cusp of a cooling cycle – and they have a lot of data to support their opinions.
A major reason for the man-made pollution is the earth’s population. To shelter, feed and clothe the eight billion people on earth means the creation of greenhouse gases. It is unavoidable.
Having said all that, I have no complaint about shifting to renewable so-called clean energy. But things like the Green New Deal are not based on science, but on politics – the game of picking winners and losers and spreading taxpayer money to political allies.
Life on other planets
The existence of life on other plants is yet to be discovered. But science tells us that the potential is extremely high based on what we know about the ingredients necessary to create life … the existence of those ingredients throughout the universe we can currently perceive … and the statistical probabilities. Yet, there is a persistent belief that interplanetary aliens have visited earth – and may still be among us.
There is nothing in the scientific record that supports those theories. In that case, both folklore and politics are trumping science. I personally believe in the probability of life of some form on other planets – even advanced intelligent life — but there is no science to prove that spacemen traveled to earth to build the pyramids or crashed at Roswell. (And why are there no tales of space women?)
Summary
Politics trumping science is not new. You only need to recall the ancient debates when science said the earth was round, and the political leaders said it was flat. Or when it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe even as the scientists of the times were proving otherwise.
Yes … there can be disagreements among scientists as they postulate futuristic theories. However, some stuff is pretty well accepted. The earth is round … it is not the center of the universe … men and women are men and women … that thing in the womb is a living, developing human being … the earth will do what it does according to the laws of geo and astrophysics, which are not responsive to legislation … and visitors from other planets are only in movies.
I prefer to stick with science. You will be correct more times than not.
So, there ‘tis.
Very good article Larry. Before I give my comments, having an engineering degree and having used balance scales many times, I have always observed that the weightier thing made the scale pan go lower. I am curious about the picture because if the picture is a visual of the title, and the title is “The Left Trumps Science with Politics”, then shouldn’t the pan holding the gavel be lower than the science pan? To an engineer, it seems like the picture and the title are opposites.
On transgender, I think we all know my views. And in this case, religious documents also confirm the science, “God made them male and female.” And God addresses this issue in Deuteronomy 22: 5-8. And as a matter of a fact, there is a growing movement within the LGBTQ movement to find a way to silence these transgendered persons because some think they have gone to far, see the website “gaysagainstgroomers” The original movement just wanted rights for gays. I even object to them calling themselves gays, they are homosexuals pure and simple, and again, that is what religious documents call them. They like the term gay because it sounds better and does not name their perversion. Like you, I am happy to give them rights as long as they do not attempt to expand and institutionalize their perversion.
Seems to be the same with abortion. Pro-choice sounds much better than pro-abortion. Here again, religious documents have something to say. But it differs from science a bit. Exodus 21: 22-25 basically looks at a life still in the womb as like an appendage of the woman. Kill the baby and a fine is paid to the husband by the one who caused the abortion. If the woman dies in the process of killing the baby, the person who caused the abortion must pay with their life. So the life in the womb and the life of the mother are viewed differently, with the mother’s life having much more value.
Now the question becomes “In a Judeo-Christian society, what is the Judeo side, pro-life or pro-abortion? Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies. Thus, I am willing to consider a limited period of 15 weeks. This will be a wedge issue that the Dem party is counting on to win in 2024. GOP would be wise to consider a more socially reasonable position.
On climate change, I believe it is real based on NASA photos from the 1960’s and now. The polar ice caps have receded quite a bit. But I still take issue with the fact that humans are causing all of it. But we are definitely causing some of it. Science says the earth goes through warming and cooling periods due to its rotation and tilt, and the wobbly up and down nature of the orbit itself. I am all for sensible climate change measures, but we are going beyond sensible in my view. When the true facts about EV cars can be suppressed, it’s time to state that politics is ruling climate change. Climatologists measured the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions during the Covid country wide economic shut down. They were shocked that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere only decreased by six percent when nobody was driving. In NC, within 100 miles of me are six coal fire power plants that put out more greenhouse gases than the total of NC drivers put out. But coal will not be replaced until 2035 at the earliest. Why does my car have to be replaced now so urgently but the big polluters get until at least 2035? The truth is that in NC we will have more rolling blackouts as we recharge more EV cars because our grid cannot handle the load. The truth is that Duke Power’s energy plan is flat line on green energy from other sources, there is no intention to increase green energy in NC for at least 2035. Truth is that the more EVs we charge, the more coal that will be burned to create the charging energy needed at the home. But our infrastructure will not support such massive charging so all will pay more for infrastructure enhancements, and this includes the poor that do not buy EVs. Truth is green energy is putting the poor and fix income people at a huge economic disadvantage that nobody wants to talk about. I have tried talking all of these issue plus lack of being able to recycle batteries, dangerous chemicals used in EV car batteries, bodies, and semiconductors, but I keep getting censored!!! So politics is ruling the game!
On life on other planets, scripture does talk about this, they are called the Nephilim, see Old Testament, Genesis, chapter 6. Nephilim were created by God. They were spiritual beings. The sons of God were the godly line from Adam to Seth down to Noah, and the Nephilim were fallen children who sought after false gods. They were kicked out of heaven into the universe and given the option to become flesh and die as flesh, or to stay spiritual tempters and be thrown into the lake of fire in the end. Those that decided on flesh were called the “falling giants”, as they were much larger, more powerful, and much more intelligent than the humans with which they mixed and mated. They wandered around the universe, but they were allowed to be on planet earth. Jesus also talked about them, see the Parable of the Strongman where a person of faith kicks out a demon, the demon wanders and finds other demons, and returns to defeat the strongman who has relaxed his faith morals, and take over his house. There is strong evidence of these Nephilim, example, Og King of Bashan, as well as Goliath, are thought to be Nephilim. Og king of Bashan was the last of the Rephaites. Og’s bed has been preserved in Syria, it is thirteen feet long (which is about nine cubits). Goliath is documented in Hebrew scripture as being around 9-10 feet tall. The Israelites under Joshua (successor to Moses) documented the Canaanites as being so tall that “we looked like grasshoppers next to them.” See Numbers 13: 33. So from a faith perspective, the notion that life exists elsewhere besides earth has already been met and was met thousands of years ago. And the science, as usual, when it gets better, will one day prove the scriptures to be right.
I have to run out and purchase a Lottery Ticket, or the Sky is Falling?
Tom, you hit everything on the money and are correct, by me anyway.
Thank you Larry for the great article.
And yes, the Scale is wrong, I caught that as well.
Thanks Darren. Well actually the scale is like a football referee. They are only ever correct half of the time. I see the scale as tied to the article, so to me it appears wrong. However, if the scale represents Larry’s view and article thrust that science should trump politics for left and right, then it is correct. Only Larry knows for sure! I think he does this to tease us! LOL :>)
Darren, I mean the article title.
Tom and Darren … With regard to the scale, I saw it as “science” having the greater weight. If it were reversed, I would have had to have the left putting their thumb on the scale…lol.
Tom, glad you noticed Larry’s little defamation ploy. After constant correction, Larry continues to term folks as “pro-abortion.” I have told him I do not like that name, I know of no one that likes that name or goes by that name. There are no advocacy groups under that name. We are pro-choice and like to go by the name we chose. We don’t like the Larry’s of the world who brand us with names meant to demean, to defame. Larry does not do this purposely because that’s what and who he is. He is a small, vindictive man, who thinks he can call people whatever he likes because he is right and they are wrong. It’s his Scarlet Letter. He extends that arrogance to the pronoun game to demean anyone that wants to be called something different than Larry or convention has judged to be appropriate. This time he hides his arrogance behind the “science” of gender. No Larry, names are not science. It’s just polite to call people names that they like to go by and impolite to call them by names that they tell you are offensive.
It is, and always has been, that simple.
Frank Stetson … Why are you pro-abortion folks afraid to be identified based on what you believe? Pro-choice is just a euphemism for pro-abortion. Just as pro-life is a euphemism for anti-abortion. But unlike you, I am very comfortable if you want to describe me as anti-abortion. I guess you must feel uncomfortable with the word. Don’t you like being associated with supporting abortion. If you did think it was a good thing, you would be as happy to be called pro-abortion as I am to be called anti-abortion. You even see it as the equivalent of a “scarlet letter.” Is being pro-abortion that offensive to you? Why does the term make you feel so … uncomfortable? You do not seem to be proud of your position on abortion. You claim it a woman’s unique right to have an abortion for any reason … at any time. You say it is a female health issue. And then if you are said to favor abortions — be pro-abortion — you cower in the proverbial corner like an abused puppy. I don’t get it.
Ok, let’s use your paradigm. Which do your prefer to be called: pro-rape or pro-incest? Pro-lifers support both, honoring them with a unlove-child’s birth all the time in many places. Pro-life is just an euphemism for pro-slavery as force, by law, women to do your bidding having unwanted babies by your force of law. Or maybe pro-dead-baby for places that force women to deliver the dead. Or maybe pro-spanky because you like a good beating by a fool in a mask….. Or maybe just Horowitz because that just really seems to bug you for God knows what reason. No. I say no.
Fact is Larry: I choose to call people by the names they like and I try my best to not call them by names they don’t like. And if they tell me to change, I try to change. Do I really need a reason for liking my name? Much less to rationalize it to you?
You have freedom of speech, you can do what you like, but you can never make me accept a name I don’t like in the same legal way you force women to have unwanted babies.
I am not pro-abortion, I have never advocated abortions as great. I do not like to be called pro-abortion. I have told you many times I do not like that name. And you continue.
Rationalize all you want. I get what you really mean.
Frank Stetson …. Have you completely lost your mind? of course, I am not pro-rape or pro-incest. It is not even a valid comparison to your being pro-abortion. In fact, I believe in exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, and other considerations. So … again you invent my position on a complex issue, and then twist it into a stupid insult. And I see you have taken up Mikef’s anti-Semitic habit of tying your insults of me to an obvious Jewish name as a pejorative. You seem to want to get under my skin, as they say. But our comments are just too vulgar … stupid … and unreal to bother me in the least. You claim to have intellectual integrity and then you go on to prove to the world that you do not.
Larry, Another rambling tome that is long on (conservative) opinion, but short on facts. I won’t wade into the transsexual discussion other than to say, not all people are born strictly male or strictly female, that is a Horist lie in an attempt to make a point. As for abortion, you have given us your opinion as to when life begins, however there are many (most?) who would disagree with you. In the Jewish religion for instance, life begins when a child takes their first breath of air. I find it incredible that groups of politicians believe that they can make better decisions regarding abortion than a woman and her doctor (and I might add, so do the majority of Americans). Finally, you seem to indicate that we are wasting our time attempting to solve the global warming issue, however your statements contradict what the vast majority of scientists who study the issue have said. Where do you get your ‘facts’ (sorry I forgot, you are an expert in all topics of discussion…). Thanks for the rambling tome-few facts, no science, but a lot of Larry opinion which is what we readers have come to expect from you…
Mikef … Yes there are a VERY, VERY few people who are born with duplicate genitals, That is not the case with the vast majority of those who consider themselves trans. Your ancient Jewish definition of life is laughable. We already protect human life in the womb legislatively. Doctors can have opinions about abortion, but they cannot have opinions about what scientifically and genetically constitution male and female. And as far as global warning, there are two opinions in the scientific community — which you would know if you would get your opinions from more than MSNBC and the New York Times. Judging from the previous comments, you insults and opinion is hardly want “readers have come to expect.” I get my facts from the science — and I do not mean from political science. You are an opinion of one, and not a very well informed one, at that.
Sorry Mike f, I forgot you like proof.
Here is the statement, do the math: Fossil CO2 emissions – coal, oil, gas and cement – peaked at 36.64 GtCO2 in 2019, followed by an extraordinary drop of 1.98 GtCO2 (5.6%) in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Here is the source: *https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/covid-19-caused-only-temporary-reduction-carbon-emissions-un-report*
And here is a later report that confirms the aforementioned report: *https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2* where it states “The 6% increase in CO2 emissions in 2021 was in line with the jump in global economic output of 5.9%. This marks the strongest coupling of CO2 emissions with Gross domestic product (GDP) growth since 2010, when global emissions rebounded by 6.1% while economic output grew by 5.1% as the world emerged from the Global Financial Crisis.”
Mike f, in the spirit of providing more proof and being informed, check out this article at *https://www.freshoffthepress.org/whats-really-to-blame-for-the-canadian-wildfires-smoking-out-new-york/?utm_placement=FOTPNews&utm_source=iref&utm_campaign=1526&clientId=merged-field-value* and see how politics and underfunding have been responsible for the recent wildfires causing much greenhouse gases over our Northeast USA. Environmentalists are trying to frame this as being caused by green house gases and climate change. The reality is that undergrowth and lack of forest management has been the cause of this disaster.
If you read my paragraph on Judaism, you will find that we agree.
With regard to the notion that not all people are born strictly male or female. I will politely disagree. There are men and women born on all parts of the spectrum. Some males are the “charge the machine gun nest males, some are great quarterbacks. This is what our society has deemed as male, not what God deems as male. There are great males that love to dance, are they less male? No. King David was one of them. Soft males like tea parties, nursing, and may have feminine characteristics, but they are still males as defined by God who created them and gave them a specific genitalia to match his creationist intent. Same with women. Think of Joan of Arc. Think Old Testament of a lady named Rebecca who was a spy for Joshua! Spies and field generals are related to the male gender, yet these people were female gender. My point is that just because someone has characteristics that are not main stream definition of male and female does not necessitate rushing in and trying to convince them they are transgender or partial transgender, as in not strictly male or female. This is what is confusing our young. The people rushing in are giving the children information that their brain development is not yet advanced enough to process. My point is to leave the children alone, let them be 18 before discussing such advanced topics with them. And since you do reference Judaism, lets make sure that we do not institutionalize such in our school systems because that God of Israel that you are referring to when you refer to Judaism says in Deuteronomy 22: 5-8 that men that dress as women are an abomination to him. In otherwords, it make him want to puke.
I do not read Larry’s article as implying we are wasting our time. What I read him as saying is that in cases where the science is indicating otherwise, we are being forced into an alternative view by the left without any discussion or weighing of the science. And he is correct on this. I have given you my personal testimony to this. I have actually cited the proof you desire in my post. Please read that paragraph. I am in favor of sensible environmental regulation and changes. But when it comes to climate change, the sensible scientists are being censored just like my articles on EV cars have been censored. So I have felt the pain of politics over science in this area. By the way, all the way back to 1985 or so, a survey of climate change was done by these climate change environmentalists. They concluded the earth was heating up. I did not dispute their claim. But the scientists pointed out that the environmentalists left out all of the climate data on Greenland which would have changed the conclusion. Fifty years later, they are happy to add Greenland data because the ice sheets are now melting. Even if the scientists are correct, we have to account for periodic warming cycles of the earth. And so sensible climate change procedures are fine with me. But it is not sesnible to expect me to change my car to an EV now when the power plant that is needed to charge my car remains coal fire until at least 2035. Especially when the evidence clearly points to the recent Covid economic shutdown only impacting greenhouse gases by 6% according to the climatologists. This is an example of politics.
I disagree with his a number of his conclusions and opinions, but I do like to rely on science.
On abortion, which Larry singled me out for, I will stick for now. We all know it’s more than just science, no matter how much I love to rely upon it, but Larry has pointed out the scientific truth that life begins with the fertilized egg, the zygote, that God then offs with a grand precision. IOW, God, according to Larry, is responsible for hundreds of times more abortions than man could ever produce. Ironic, ain’t it. Read on, McDuffs….
I am the critic who Larry grabbed by the soundbite of which, of course, he took out of context, as usual, to claim I am unscientific in the determination of life. He is correct. Scientists conclude life starts at conception and that was Larry’s takeaway from my passage, therefore I was wrong. That was not my point, that was not my intention, I agree that science tells us that life begins with conception, but my statement does not disagree with that, and if that’s Larry’s takeaway, then my wording was imprecise, imperfect, and needs editing. I was trying to convey that this “thing” is not alive as we think of being alive. It does not take a breadth, it has no gender, it is not viable without life support, it does not think, feel, have senses —- it is life but it is not alive as we know it, IMO, and should therefore be in a special status in a legal sense a similar way that a brain-dead living person is considered alive. They are real people who are not legally alive. We therefore allow to pull the plug on the machines sustaining life because we feel they are not alive anymore. But there is life. May be a number of coma patients like this too, I am not sure though.
In context, I said: “On abortion, bully for you to be pro-life; Democrats who choose to be pro-choice are not what you claim. We’re just folk, just like you. Ending that which never lived is not killing anything. Flushing a zygote is not murder. It’s ending something that never was, might never be, might be, no one really knows. We can debate the timing, and should, but six weeks is as unfair as allowing elective abortion past 20 weeks. We need a livable compromise here. And no forced delivery of rape and incest babies forcing the mother to be held hostage to a crime. I prefer the system where choice is part of it and find the current Southern System to be a return to the hell that was a woman’s life in the before the1950’s. It’s not even a male issue. What’s next, tell all the little girls that only sluts and whores have sex outside of marriage. Males are not personally put out by this, woman are the ones gestating for nine months, males often need to be sued even for support, and good luck collecting from a non-payer. You offer NO extra support mechanisms in forcing and enforcing the bans you desire. Some saviors of humanity you are. You claim you are removing the unknown hell of the unborn; I claim you are creating a living hell for the living and those not yet alive, and only suggest that choice be allowed as much as you are allowed to convince people of another choice. But force, by rule of law, with criminality attached even for assisters, sometimes just for giving a ride to seek LEGAL treatment out of state? I understand the intent to gain as much life as possible, but this is just not the way to do it. You have gone too far, you said it would never happen, you promised there would be available choices still, you said it’s the State’s right, and there will be many choices just a state away. Untrue. The entire South has reversed 5 decades of precedent, often without providing additional support, other choices a State away, whatever. From North Carolina through Texas, you may have to cross half the country just to have choice and it may be illegal to even do that. I understand your pro-life stance, just think you should use friendly persuasion and not the jack-booted force of law to advocate for your beliefs.” That’s the context, a little more than a zygote.
My point: I agree life has begun, and morality should tell any of us that abortion is ending the potential of a viable life. HOWEVER, in reality life is terminated past the zygote all the time and people do not even notice. It’s just the way it is. Anytime the body recognizes a genetic oops, it ends the zygote. It’s natural for a zygote, not necessarily living, a thing has never lived, being dispatched by nature at this point, and most often it is absorbed and no one knows the difference, So should abortion be as legal as pulling the plug on the brain dead, or nature just flushing the zygote.
Here’s the science, by the numbers:
Science tells us life begins at conception. Again, I agree, my terrible wording aside. Science also tells us most fertilized eggs, life according to science, will never see a day outside the host body. Science tells us that about 70% disintegrate before anyone even knows. Another 10% end in miscarriage, after the person knows they’re pregnant. IOW, when Larry says boldly: “It is something that IS. In some cases, that developing human being “might never be,” but in the vast majority of cases, it will become a real person,” his “vast majority” is only off by 70%. What “IS,” is not, it IS only 30% as ordained by God. Pregnancies that go to term are the minority, a super minority at that. According to science, the “vast majority” of living human embryos will never be born. God, nature, or both are selectively pruning life due to errors making life created unwanted and terminated by God, nature, or both. Who is man to argue with God’s will of having the unwanted be unborn? At that point we come down to the timing — fraking six weeks or less is as stupid as late-term voluntary aborts, but we used to have reasonable minds that could compromise.
Thanks Tom for your research; I always knew I should convert to Judaism. Tom, it appears there is some science behind the Jews on this. Myself, being a lapsed Catholic, quasi Quaker is just so noncommittal :>)
Yes I agree with your views on abortion. I read a survey where at least 70% of Americans are in favor of limited abortion that would be between 15 – 20 weeks. This would take into account those who do not know they are pregnant for a couple of months, as well as those raped and victims of sexual crimes. As I have stated many times, the conversation needs to shift from abortions to successful outcomes for all women. And this should include some form of limited abortion up to 20 weeks. Since Christianity is founded on, and a derivative of Judaism, it is hard to sell me on the very strict absolute no abortion stance, since Judaism seems to disagree with the value of a life in the womb versus life outside of the womb, and this is well documented. I should tell you though, that in Christ’s days, there was a cutoff, and it was 40 days. After 40 days, a doctor could be given five years in prison. I just do not have any evidence of this actually happening. I have also visited Israels website. I am surprised how loose their abortion rules are. You can just about get an abortion for any reason – but while this may surprise me, it is in line with the value of a baby in the womb versus out of the womb.
In Israel, an abortion must be approved by a “termination committee. Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee (two physicians, one social worker) can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[10] in the following circumstances:
The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[12] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[11]
The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally. Many women in Israel get abortions claiming mental duress.
In practice, most requests for abortion that qualify for the above are granted, and leniency is shown especially under the clause for emotional or psychological damage to the pregnant woman. The committees approve 98% of requests. In 2022 new regulations went into effect stating that those seeking abortions could send their requests online and would no longer be asked about their use of birth control.
If an abortion is after 24 weeks, six separate committees consider abortion requests when the fetus is beyond 24 weeks old. So this tells me there general cutoff is 24 weeks.
For more, see the Israeli website at *https://www.gov.il/en/search?OfficeId=104cb0f4-d65a-4692-b590-94af928c19c0&query=abortion*
I feel that in a Judeo-Christian society we should be going by the Jewish doctrine since they are the root of Christianity and rightness with God.
Frank, I am amazed at how documented their abortion process is. See *https://www.gov.il/en/service/pregnancy-termination-permission*
Tom, yes, amazing.
When I was in High School and dreamed of being an investigative reporter, I interviewed folks at an abortion clinic. It was 1971, so only a year old. At that time, I too was impressed by the professionalism, the process (requiring a lot of mandatory consoling) as well as the “variety” of folks there. Of course, your younger set was represented, but also a couple in their late 40’s, very forthcoming about their inability to raise another child now that they were dinks. No one seemed caviler, everyone seemed very serious.
Was a great story, almost got me kicked out of school, did hit the real papers and I was forgotten. Second time I almost got booted, first was in elementary school for correcting the math teacher….. Mom saved me that time and I learned my ‘”style” from her, on that day. Hey, my friend’s father, in a divorce, owned the bowling alley around the corner and had great guilt. Could you turn down free bowling versus school? Especially if the math guy was a turd? In High School, I was a commuter student, a stranger in a strange land, I found myself on the outside on the editorial staff clique, relegated to business manager because I was great at it, and began my distaste for catty journalists in general. Only place cattier is education, imo. I’ll take the boardroom any day over those environments. Got another dose of journalists in college as a volunteer reporter,, so evolved from english (how to make a living with that) to english ed (OMG – the red pencil was next, fuck that), to journalism (what do you mean, work in bum fuck and less money than construction, by far) to public relations (dad’s business) but first office job was being a technical editor —— and I just kept going. Pretty soon I recognized the organ grinder’s song about money making the monkey dance, so I set my sights on managing a high tech p&l where I found I could be a business owner and hired gun at the same time pretty much doing whatever I could convince upper management to invest in. And then I could tell people like Joe what to work on: our business owners owned one budget —- R&D. Pretty funny really.
But it was an interesting story on the clinic and I was impressed by the care, and all the emotional support provided. Chances are it’s more stripped and streamlined now, but back then, it was fledgling and great care was being taken.
Frank, seems like you’ve been quite a pistol your whole life. LOL Great story! Thanks!
Larry, You say you follow the science, but everything you discuss is pure politics. Abortion is a political topic, only because conservatives have made it so. Do you really think that viable fetuses are aborted? I realize that as a Republican you have little faith in people doing the right thing, you prefer government to regulate issues that should be personal decisions, but that is an area where government fails every time. You are obviously picking and choosing your sources on climate change (again for political reasons), but the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with your opinion that we are wasting our time trying to do something about climate change. I mentioned earlier that I was not wading into the topic of transgender-only correcting a misstatement in your tome. You are a good Republican though-you shop around for a source to back your opinions and gleefully state “see I’m right” even though the majority of the population disagrees with you…
Mike f. … If you think you speak for the majority of the people you are both arrogant and delusional.