56 comments

1. Just skimmed your article. Was brought to my attention by a friend. Yes, putting the bust there was wrong. So was honoring Charles Lindburg because of his history , so is porn magazines in stores and military exchanges, so is topless bars, so is discrimination because of race and attractiveness, so is men running off and leaving families for a more exciting life, so is all the stuff set up by Satan and enjoyed by man. I think your article had some truth to it of course but there is so much more to the abortion issue – desperation, poverty, abuse and ignorance. Some people genuinely (though, I feel mistakenly) think it helps the poor and desperate. Of course we know there are those that now use it for birth control. I think if we see the world and people as the bible describes them, we will realize that railing is impotent and perhaps a distraction. We are delivered from this by our knowing Christ. My question is this, when the United States was so ignorant towards the black American, in the 50’s, what did your parents do to relieve their misery. Probably nothing on a grand scale but possibly on a personal level as believers are to do for the poor and defenseless. Hi Wally

   • Um hi?

2. […] “Plan-B” and Other Twisted Words Of Murder […]

3. “creating a hostile environment for the fertilized egg – a human being”
   Given that two-thirds of fertilized eggs fail to develop, do you not feel angry with your god for murdering so many babies before they even get to grow a nose, or a toe, or have a single thought? What do you think happens to their souls?

4. I posted this to John Zande’s site in response to his arguments posted to this article:

   A nebulous, hyperbolic journey down your imagined corridors of time to define the beginning of all life is just not germane to the discussion of abortion in 2015. I’m not the only commenter who sees this. The life-cycle of an individual human being is what was in view in my article, and that is what I’ll write about. If you’re responding to my article, let’s stick to the scope of my article.

   Human beings have an obvious and easy-to-define life cycle. Like countless other species in nature, it begins when gametes that are shed from a parent organism combine to become a fertilized “starter cell”. It ends when the organism can no longer sustain life as an organism. The organism dies.

   Anything that causes the death of the organism is said to have killed the organism. It may be lack of nutrition and hydration, chromosomal defect, or an intended act to end the life of the organism. The crux of the abortionist’s argument is that the intended act to end the life-cycle of a human being occurs before the organism is an organism. The entire basis of the abortionist’s argument rests on the notion that they are intentionally ending the life-cycle before it has begun. When the gametes combine to form the initial cell, the life-cycle begins. The abortionist’s argument is therefore absurd.

   The only word that I used that is worth questioning is “murder”. It is worthwhile to look at the definition and then put it into context. The technical definition of murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Here, the abortionist would logically attack the words “unlawful” and “human being”. Let’s focus on those two.

   During the civil rights movement, the African American community asserted that in the U.S. they were denied many human rights. They organized, defined their grievances as “civil rights violations”, and they very rightly won. Even though the law at the present time did not call the denying of voting rights, education and equal protection under the law, these were still rightly called civil rights violations. It was prudent to use the term civil rights violation, even though the U.S. law at the time didn’t concur with the usage.

   Presently, human beings are being denied their most basic right, the right to life, simply because a more powerful force can destroy them in their defenseless, voiceless state. Were you to unlawfully and premeditatedly cause the death of the human being at any time after the term of the mother’s pregnancy, the word “murder” would be without question. Because of a slick parsing of words and disinformation, our present law permits violating the unborn child’s right to life. Not unlike the civil rights violators in the 20th century and before, abortionists are getting away with murder, not on principle, but rather on brute-force and legalistic technicality.

   Uninterrupted, the fertilized egg will exhibit each and every sign of life at some point in its life-cycle: movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition. Each of these signs of life occurs on a common schedule of development as the human being goes through the stages of its life-cycle. To propose that, simply because a human being is incapable of one or more functions of life at a particular time in the normal schedule of its cycle, that it is somehow less that the human being it is, is preposterous.

   And there is your answer.

   • well written ajc

5. Hi David

   I’d like to comment on your main point about using ‘accurate and correct words’ rather than to sidetrack into an abortion debate.

   I note that at some point in your courses a journalism instructor introduced you to broadcasting and then you worked in Armed Forces Radio and TV. And interestingly, your dad was a journalist in the Air Force.

   Did either of you gain any experience outside the armed forces or gain any national qualifications? I ask, because you are clearly aware of the power of words. But, had I ever used such grossly inaccurate and incorrect terminology in any of my jobs in government public relations or private sector journalism, then I would at least have got a carpeting and at worst, got the sack.

   One of the paramount rules for journalism is NOT to let personal opinion influence one’s reporting, whether political, religious or whatever. Objectivity is our aim.

   Your proposal for use of language here totally negates that and seeks to impose your religious perspective over and above the law and science. That is neither accurate or correct.

   You moan about ‘political correctness … is a public relations spin-tool used to control the thoughts of other people’ and what would you be trying to do about abortion? Apart from exactly the same.

   I don’t know how old you are except you are older than 25, but I suspect I am older than you 🙂

   However, I can inform you that language use changes and some 25 years ago people were moaning about the change to gender neutral language or the differing terms to describe people with disabilities. But seriously, manpower! You must have been hiding under one big rock. Now that one did go out – well back in the last century – in my industries. There are so many options to avoid using gender specific language, why not evolve and try them? Is it really that difficult? Apart from anything else, staff is shorter and sweeter. Or try workers, or employees.

   You are also conflating, disingenuously, two very different issues. Natural evolution of language and societal change, and emotive use of language based on personal opinions. Not the same.

   • Thanks for your response. I appreciate your looking into the background that I have shared on this blog. If you notice the “about” page, you will notice that I am not a journalist. I am a minister, and a counselor. This blog, like so many blogs, contains my personal opinions that I have formed based on facts, as I see them.

     If you’re advocating using political correctness, I promise that you will be offended by what I say. And that’s ok. I’m rarely offended because of how someone speaks, dresses or comports themselves. I have no right to tell someone else how to be their own self.

     There is a majority of the country that is repulsed by political correctness. There is a difference between being polite and allowing others to control your thinking. If there ever was a reason to be upset about the way someone talks, it would definitely be when others try to cram their PC down someone’s throat.

     I wonder how you would feel if you weren’t allowed to disagree with me, because you weren’t doctrinally correct or “DC”. Do you think you would go along with me being offended and shouting you down because you misused the term “contemporary worship”? Of course that would be absurd.

     What makes me vocal, and inspires me to write this blog is to give a voice to what I hear in ministry from Christians. Non-Christians would never know the way we are attacked. Helping Christians have the confidence to stand their ground on issues of the day is important work. Informing them of issues that the store-bought media ignores or downplays is imperative. And just helping folks live a life inclined toward biblical principals is what ministers and counselors do.

     Disingenuous may not be your intended word, as I doubt you are really trying to accuse me of being deceitful. I assure you that my convictions are genuine, and they are researched. I am calling it as I see it, even if you disagree with how I see it.

     Once again, I appreciate your reading, and your commenting. I hope to get over to your blog and check it out.
     Thanks!

     • Hi David

       Thanks for your reply and publishing my comment. I did notice your current description, but I wondered how much journalism you, or your father had actually studied/worked in outside the armed forces. That was why I wanted to explain about the use of language. Professionally, one would not be allowed to use the incorrect and emotive language you are suggesting.

       To split hairs, it’s not so much ‘facts as you [sic] see them’ but rather how you to choose to interpret events based on your opinions, and beliefs. But we could go round in circles on that one.

       But, you are not defining accurate and correct language. That implies there is some agreement somewhere. There isn’t. You are defining language that you consider to be right.

       Let me give you a non-relevant example. One can agree that Elizabeth II is the Queen of England. That is a fact. One can describe her and her family as parasitic leeches on the back of the hardworking taxpayer, or one can say she is emblematic of a centuries-year-old tradition that embodies English heritage. Those are both opinions that may be true in the eye of the beholder depending on whether one is a republican ie anti-monarchist, or pro-monarchy. The only accurate, legal and statutory language used is that she is the Queen of England.

       I find political correctness to be such a narrow derogatory term, invariably used by people who wish to oppose equal rights. Whether it is for different races, disabled people, LGBTQ, women, sex slaves, you name it. My wish is to use the language that these and other minority groups don’t find offensive. I’d like to be open to change and learning. Given that Christianity is AFAIK, the largest religion in the world, I wouldn’t call Christians a minority group. But as I don’t write about Christianity I doubt my lack of DC will be an issue. Although, DC according to which branch of Christianity would come to mind if I did.

       Thanks but, disingenuous was as good a word as any to link political correctness, gender neutral language, and emotive inaccurate language about abortion in the same post. And to accuse people of PR spin when you go on to post graphic pictures, without a warning is a very sophisticated trick. Especially when the post starts off innocuously. You get points for effect, sensationalism in fine inaccurate tabloid style.

       Don’t bother with my blog(s). I rarely write about religion, so nothing to interest you there 🙂

     • I wanted to mention that appreciate that you converse with civility. It is refreshing. Let’s attempt to address just a few of these. I’m sure you have more important things to do.

       I wanted to address the journalism angle, first. My father served in Public Affairs in the US Air Force, as well as being a deputy public affairs officer for the FAA. He wrote under the rules of the “journalism code”. I took journalism in my sophomore year of undergrad. From the inside, it looks like a fair-minded way of discourse. I remember thinking that way.

       From the outside, it operates like a bunch of people who have only 1-side of a story they are allowed to tell. The only competition is how much higher one liberal reporter can stack talking points when compared to the other. I am grateful that I don’t have to attempt journalism, because my faith and convictions would never allow me a moment’s success.

       Also, you mentioned “…how you to choose to interpret events based on your opinions, and beliefs.”

       I am trained as a minister. I see things with a biblical worldview, and that’s how I interpret things when I write. I really do want to know the “Gospel Truth”, and I want to share it. Academic discipline is of serious importance to me, and having correct facts is also important. In pursuit of two master’s degrees, I clearly know the rules of academics, and I carefully present the facts and evidence that I find. I can defend what I say in an academic forum, if necessary.

       As a minister, there are topics that compel me, ethically, to communicate the truth in the strongest terms possible, without sparing anyone’s feelings. Abortion is such a topic. It is an evil so horrible, vicious and genocidal that it must be stopped immediately. You will find many ministers today and in history used the most powerful language possible to use to compel change when people are spiritually and soulically sick, and choose to be willfully blind. Jesus spoke truth to power in a discomforting way, calling out the evil that religious leaders chose to be blind of. He is my guide. Almost 58-million human beings have been killed by their mothers and abortionists since 1973.

       You also state, “I find political correctness to be such a narrow derogatory term, invariably used by people who wish to oppose equal rights. Whether it is for different races, disabled people, LGBTQ, women, sex slaves, you name it.”
       You pose this sentence as an opinion, so you can easily write-off defending it if you choose to. I would. Telling a minister who fights for the rights of all people on a regular basis that he wishes to oppose equal rights is going to be an uphill battle. All lives matter, I am disabled, women are equal and in complimentary roles to men, and I have recently reblogged a story exposing slavery in the UAE.

       NOTE: “DC” is a term I made up in the previous comment for demonstration purposes… Sorry. It seemed obvious when I wrote it, but it may have been too jargonistic.

       Finally, you stated “Thanks but, disingenuous was as good a word as any to link political correctness, gender neutral language, and emotive inaccurate language about abortion in the same post. And to accuse people of PR spin when you go on to post graphic pictures, without a warning is a very sophisticated trick. Especially when the post starts off innocuously.”

       It seems like you come from a liberal/secular worldview, so you may not know how the other half of the country thinks and speaks. I vividly remember thinking the right-wing Christians entire worldview was nuts. I know the liberal mindset, because I had it. You know my background well enough to know that I realize how to detect spin – I made my living in it.

       I believe you genuinely believe what you are saying, but I also believe your thinking has been infused by liberal spin. I don’t deny conservative spin, so this isn’t a left-right thing. Disingenuous is a spin way of calling someone a liar, and it isn’t fair to use on someone who expresses honest differences of viewpoint. Also, what graphic pictures? The drawing of the D & C is a clinical overview that you would find in a college textbook.

       Thanks again for your comments.

     • It is an evil so horrible, vicious and genocidal that it must be stopped immediately.

       David, with all due respect, if you actually believed this then you would not be simply typing out articles with purposefully emotive (misleading) language. You would be, as i would be, at the point where this “genocide” was taking place, and throw myself before it. The fact that you are not there throwing yourself before this “menace” proves that you don’t actually believe what you write. It’s just words in the air, vaporous and meaningless to the crime you “say” is taking place.

     • parasitic leech sounds about right (queen)

6. […] at Applied Faith, penned a thoroughly interesting post on the language used in the abortion debate: Plan-B” and Other Twisted Words Of Murder. The opening salvo gets right to the point of the article and implores the reader to “use […]

7. Hello David,

   There are a few things I’d like to comment on here if I may:

   1) I wouldn’t recommend Genesis 38:8-9 as a barrier method of preventing pregnancy. In verse 10, “What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.”

   2) While we’re on the topic of asking for more accurate descriptions of things, the picture of the Birmingham, Alabama clinic you have in this post performs abortions as only one of the offerings it makes to women in the community. I’ve known plenty of women who have used that clinic for its contraceptive services (that’s prevention of pregnancy, not abortifacients) and other free screenings for poor women. Abortions make up only a small part of what that clinic does. If it’s an “Abortion Clinic,” then hospitals are “Amputation Centers.”

   I know this because I was an undergrad at UAB, and I lived a few blocks from that place. Across the street is a Mediterranean restaurant named “Al’s,” and it’s a great place to eat. The only worry that locals have for being near to such a clinic is that it might get bombed. Again.

   3) Based on your best guess, do you think that there are more protections for unborn rights to life in modern times after the so-called legalization of abortion (post Roe v. Wade), or do you think there are fewer protections? Also, do you think that older, more Christian societies did more to protect unborn children, or did they do less to protect them?

   • SB,
     Thanks for commenting. I always like to hear from you.

     1) Agreed on Gen 28. I only mentioned it to illustrate that contraception has been a concern of a couple millennia. I wasn’t using the verse to illustrate the mistakes of Onan, which are a whole ‘nother article, hence I wrote “This article is not written to focus on the theology of using contraception.”
     2) The Alabama clinic sign just literally states “women’s health” while it conducts abortions. It may do other things, but they are not the taking of an innocent life. Amputation is a legitimate medical procedure that routinely saves lives. The focus of the article is not as much women’s health as it is baby’s health.
     3) Your question is vague, general and doesn’t address the key issue: abortion is killing a human being and no slick linguistic packaging can excuse that. I have no idea how to answer your third question.

     Thanks again for commenting!

     • David-

       2) It does state “Women’s Health” because women’s health is the primary focus of that clinic, and not abortion. They do community information on contraception, provide care for victims of rape, provide screenings for illnesses and other things that women suffer from, as well as a host of other things for women. Based on your own reasoning in your post above, it would be wrong to just call it an abortion clinic and leave it at that.

       Let me put it another way: abortions are performed in many hospitals. Are you demanding that hospitals where abortions are performed be called abortion clinics now?

       3) The question actually drives at some underpinnings of the thoughts you present above. What you put in this post is nothing new, and some necessary implications of what you’re writing includes an idea that changing terminology to reflect your framing of the issue isn’t going to protect unborn children.

       Let me simplify my question for you, then: do you think that calling abortion “child murder” or putting it in a different slick linguistic package will actually save a single unborn child’s life?

     • Honesty and accuracy is all I am advocating. Using terms like “emergency contraceptive” for an abortifaciant is a lie. “Demise the fetus” is an unusual statement and is very misleading, vice what it really should be: “kill the child”.

       The lies are horrific, and the purpose of covering up the murder makes them even more horrific, if that is possible.

8. amen. thank you for the post blessings from http://www.comfortatthecross.wordpress.com

9. solidly pro-life, but I can understand the pro-choice side too. sad to see that the 2% or so abortions done in the US for circumstances of rape, incest and life of the mother are used to consistently justify the other 98%

   I just can’t shake the thought that both sides of the debate over ‘life’ before birth are missing the larger portions of what the other is saying, due to the inability to listen compassionately or intelligently to someone you may admittedly ‘profoundly’ disagree with.

   how do we solve the impass? from my perspective, obviously the US is not going back to the ‘pre-Roe’ situation. how do we move forward to ‘Understand first, then be Understood’?
   -mike

   • Maybe honesty will help. One poll showed that 57% of America is now pro-life. Thanks for the comment.

     • According to Gallup (May 2015) its only 44%

       http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

     • alright. here’s one for you. are there any situations where you would support the option of abortion?

     • I would never “support” abortion. It’s nothing to be in favor of, even if it’s legal.

       In cases of rape, incest & life of the mother, it’s hard to argue for such an exception when it is the life of the voiceless children that we are fighting for. These children may have been conceived in trauma, their mother is a victim, but what did they ever do that deserves a death sentence?

     • is there anything of the other side’s point of view that you would be willing to understand better?

     • Sure. I would love to understand what they are thinking. When I was a freshman in high school, I was one of the agnostics room so I got tapped to join the the pro-abortion side of class in a debate. We studied, prepared notes, determined our best speakers, and stepped up to bat on debate day. Every single argument got slaughtered.

       I would love to understand the logic behind their position, because I have never been good at understanding it.

     • prefaced with my above declaration to be solidly Pro-Life:

       I think the real question is not whether the ‘fetus’ is human (genetically it is human DNA from conception and ‘life’ from the beginning of cell division), but at what point is it ‘valued’ as a separate life in itself, apart from other considerations (ie the life of the mother, her situation and consideration as well as the possible future ramifications of deformities and health concerns of it’s own… long term care wise)
       every sane and intelligent person knows it’s a new life. when does it become a ‘valuable’ and ‘separate’ life? and does a government have the power or right to legislate those choices and decisions available to it’s citizens?
       these are ways I am thinking to try to understand the other side’s position and challenge my own. have you thought of these or similar questions? -mike

     • Oh, certainly. It is gut-wrenching for me to consider the idea that a woman may have to carry the child of her rapist because the government tells her she has to. I never knew how precious and beautiful a child with trisomy could be until my dear friend Bryan’s daughter Hope was born. She lived for 5-hours, and her parents love her dearly. Hope’s mother was counseled that she should have aborted her, but that would have robbed the child of 5-hours that God gave her.

       I believe God gives us life. Only when the aggression of one threatens the life of another do we resort to lethal force to preserve life. The life of the mother is one place that, to my mind, is simply a judgement call at the time, but it should be from a medical consensus and not just one doctor.

       All good questions!

10. Hi David,

    Curious: how can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

    • Let’s see, do I want to argue abortion with an atheist. Nah.

      • Wouldn’t make any difference to the validity of the question if I were a Hindu.

        How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

        The language is yours. You used this language, so i’m assuming you can back it up in a rational, adult, and coherent manner.

      • It’s not the language, it’s the tediousness arguing with you. I don’t have time to waste trying to work bad soil. Maybe another time.

      • David

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but your entire post is about language, correct? You even conclude with this call to action regarding language:

        Can we all agree that we call it what it is, and not deny it and hide behind twisted and perverted language?

        So, as this is the central theme of this post I’m hoping you’ll listen to your own plea and address the question of your language.

        How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

        If you actually agree with your own post (and I’m assuming you) then you should really be able to justify this language, should you not? 😉
        

      • Isn’t it an easy question for you to answer, David?

        If it isn’t, if you can’t actually answer it, then don’t you have to admit that using language like “killing” and “murder” is in error, and you should stop using such deliberately emotive, unjustified language?

    • john, I don’t understand the reference. can you identify what part of the post you are referring to? thx
      -mike

      • Hi Mike

        I’m referring to David’s use of the words “kill/killing” and “Murder.” The title of the post is, after all, “Plan-B” and Other Twisted Words Of Murder

        Here are the places he uses this language:

        “Abortionists and their supporters, deceitfully call their targets fetus or tissue, but they then deny that they have killed anyone. “

        “A little medication in a box, and a person is conveniently killed.”

        “Mammograms and pelvic exams don’t kill”

        “Calling the killing an unborn baby a “demise” is purposely misleading.”

        “Abortion is almost never healthy for a mother, and is always unhealthy for the murdered child”

        “It is a fight where the abortionists are fueled, in part, by lies about murder.”

        “If you are a Christian, lying is undoubtedly evil, and it is the practice of murderers.”

        So, as it’s clear David enjoys using these words I was expecting he’d be able to actually justify their use. Hence the question:

        How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

        As he cannot answer this question it’s clear he knows fully well that such language is not justified and, at best, he’s being deliberately misleading. At worst…

        Interesting that the post is actually about the language used, but all of a sudden David doesn’t want to talk about the language used.

        Somewhat disingenuous, wouldn’t you say?

      • ah, but I would say that the ‘fetus’or unborn child if you like, can in fact die at anytime after conception starts the combination of DNA to ‘create’ a wholly new life on up thru the division of that one cell into the millions and billions that will one day, if unmolested, emerge from the body of the mother as a fully human and breathing Baby.
        it’s actually alive from the time those two cellular partners complete their ‘dance’ to form a single cell with it’s own unique DNA. Life is first a cellular and genetic thing that ‘works it’s way’ outward to a more complex form.

      • Hi Mike

        No, with all due respect, you’re mistaken here, which is precisely why I asked David to justify his language… which he can’t.

        At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

        The definition of “life” therefore is when its twin, “death,” enters the picture. One cannot have a defined ‘life’ without that life being able to ‘die.’ Without death there is no life. The former begets the latter. The latter assigns meaning to the former. One delineates the other, and fortunately the legal, medical, and scientific definition of death is not in dispute. Death is when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. That’s it. That’s death. It follows quite naturally therefore that the onset of defined human life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained wave patterns, and that occurs consistently around week 25 of pregnancy, with bilateral synchronicity occurring only at week 27/28. Only after something can die can it be considered alive. Only after something is “On” can it be turned “Off,” and to argue anything to the contrary is not only patently absurd, but factually wrong.

      • i’ll have to take more time to read this again. I admit I have a lot to learn. I’m able to be wrong. thx

      • so, if I understand you, although the fetus is ‘alive’ by definition… it’s not ‘actually’ A life until it has the ability to ‘not’ be a separate life, defined by brain and electrical activity?
        did I understand you correctly?

      • Hi Mike

        Precisely. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. To say a distinct and defined human life begins at conception is just factually wrong, and it is therefore in extreme error to use deliberately emotive (factually wrong and unjustifiable) language like “killing” and “murder.”

        This is why the legal, scientific and medical definition of death is so important, and it’s not in dispute.

        In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.”

        This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.”

        Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

        This is mirrored in US law:

        U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing.”

        It is also mirrored in Australian law:

        The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation defines death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

        So, the legal, scientific, and medical definition of death is quite clear. Death is the cessation of brain activity. It is clear, therefore, that one cannot “kill” something that cannot “die.” One cannot turn something “Off” that is not “On.”

        And to repeat: Sustained brain activity only begins in the developing foetus’s brain at week 25, although full bilateral synchronisation is not established until week 27/28. (Note: the legal expiration of all abortion laws is week 22/23)

        Now, it’s funny that David says above in a comment: “Honesty and accuracy is all I am advocating.” If he were being ‘honest and accurate’ then he would immediately do one of two possible things:

        1. Admit his mistake and cease using the language he’s using, or
        2. Explain to me, and everyone, how exactly one can “kill” something that cannot “die.”

        I think we all know though that, despite his words, David is not at all interested in being either “honest” or “accurate.”

      • i need time to process this and think about it. thanks for the response.

      • You’re welcome. One can only try to be ‘honest’ and ‘accurate’ 😉

      • So, after 25 weeks would you consider it killing?

      • After week 22 it is illegal to perform abortions. There is a reason for this date, and although extremely conservative (full bilateral sychncronisation does not occur until week 27/28) I think its fair.

      • Not sure that’s the standard here in the us. Roe ‘legalized’ it thru the full term. I thought anyway

      • No, it’s week 22. 99.9% of all abortions occur well, well, well before even approaching this cut-off date. The 0.01% are extreme medical emergencies.

      • Ok. Thx. I’ll have to check my facts then. So as I asked. If done after 25 weeks would you consider that ‘killing’?

      • It is illegal to perform abortions after week 22, so yes.

      • History has been made today. John zande has agreed with a christian 🙂 just kidding. Thx for the honest answers and information to chew on. I appreciate it.

      • I appreciate the conversation, Mike.

        And here, I just found this for the dates for legal abortion in the US, by state. It varies, but the majority (26 states) have the cut-off at 24 to 26 weeks, meaning they consider a conservative side to full bilateral synchronisation to be the threshold.

        http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0

      • Thx I’ll check it out.

      • Not sure I agree with you as the fetus already has a beating heart and a separate blood supply and type before 25 weeks, but at least I understand you better
        I still have to think on this a bit. You’ve given me a lot to consider. Thx

      • No problem. The question simply is: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

      • Mike,

        The word language is used 8 times in this post, and David even says this:

        It is about language that makes the difference between life and death. Let’s stop accepting spin-words about abortion.

        So, as this post is about the “language” used, I’m enquiring as to David’s use of “spin-words.” I’m simply asking if he can rationally justify the use of this language.

        And again, for a post about the language, David now doesn’t feel at all comfortable talking about the “language.”

        Odd… although it does speak volumes.

11. Very powerful David

    • Thanks, Wally

Comments are closed.