Dan Wilson (D) - MN State Senate Candidate
Oct 11, 2022 14:53:38 GMT -5
Pacelli, Clotilde, and 2 more like this
Post by Caillin on Oct 11, 2022 14:53:38 GMT -5
Dan Wilson, a Democrat running for state senate in MN was out on a bike-ride campaign Saturday, and stopped by my driveway when I was working in the garage. I spoke with him about abortion for about 20 minutes. Toward the end of the conversation I pointed out that it's a scientific, biological fact that a whole, living, human organism comes into existence at conception. He said "No, it's not". I said it's unanimous in all academic literature on embryology. He said, "No, it's not." Neither he nor I were going to be able to cite anything on the spot, so this was basically the end of our conversation. I sent this follow-up email to him yesterday.
Greetings Dan,
My name is --------------, whom you talked with this Saturday, by my garage on -----------------. Thank you for stopping by; it was very nice to get the opportunity to meet you. Much of what you are focussed on is good and praiseworthy, such as helping farmers and small businesses. I think you care about the people in Southeastern Minnesota, and I thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I enjoyed our conversation, even though it was over a contentious topic. You were honourable in maintaining cordiality and friendliness, allowing us to have a good argument without it becoming a quarrel. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “People generally quarrel because they cannot argue. And it is extraordinary to notice how few people in the modern world can argue. This is why there are so many quarrels, breaking out again and again, and never coming to any natural end.” I told my wife I wish more people like you would stop by on bikes to have some good arguments; I could certainly use the practice.
There is much in what you stand for that I, and many people I know, would earnestly support you on, but as I mentioned, we cannot give our support to a Democratic candidate primarily due to the party's stance on abortion. If I remember correctly, I think we both agreed with the principle that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, but disagreed on when a human being comes into existence. We particularly came to an impasse when we disagreed on the most fundamental question of biological fact. The natural end of our argument was this:
You denied that biological science has determined that a new living, whole, human organism comes into existence at conception.
I think this implies that, despite your emphasis that there is a wide range of religious beliefs, you do recognize the importance and significance of science on this matter. You believe abortion can be an individuals right because it's not, biologically, a human being that's being killed. I think you would agree that no individual has a right to kill what is, per biological science, a living, whole, human organism. My hope is that you'll see this really is a biological, scientific fact, that you might rethink your position on abortion, and that you might, perhaps, become an instrument of change, even within Minnesota's Democratic Party, encouraging others to look at and speak about the science involved, which is conspicuously absent from public Democratic talking points on abortion.
The biological literature is overwhelming and unanimous in stating that a living, whole, human organism comes into existence at conception. As a matter of fact, in a recent survey of over 5,577 academic biologists from 1,058 academic institutions, 96% affirmed that human life begins at conception (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703). Indeed, even your own sponsor, Planned Parenthood, agreed in court that this was a biological fact. In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (2008), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that requiring abortionists to say that the fetus is a "living, separate, whole human being" does not force an abortionist to espouse an unconstitutional religious viewpoint. The Court ruled that this statement was a biological fact that even the affidavit submitted by Planned Parenthood accepted. The ruling declared:
"Planned Parenthood's evidence at the preliminary injunction stage does not demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits.... The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician.... Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppoose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that 'to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation."
The academic biological literature overwhelming affirms the fact that at conception a new, living, whole, human organism comes into existence. Attached is just a small sampling of this literature. I hope you will think deeply about this scientific fact, and what it means, under all the euphemisms, the Democratic Party is actually saying individuals have a right to do - the right to directly kill an innocent human being.
I wish you and your family the best.
Sincerely,
-------------
P.S. To emphasize that, for the state, this is a question of science, not personal religious belief, here are a few points to consider by the late renowned liberal author and journalist, and passionately anti-religious atheist, Christopher Hitchens:
“Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions]…In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain…break some bones, and rupture some organs.”
"That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense, by the new debate over stem-cell research and the bioethics of cloning. If an ailing or elderly person can be granted a new lease on life by a transfusion of this cellular material, then it is obviously not random organic matter. The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge."
". . . once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of “the woman’s right to choose.” If the unborn is a candidate member of the next generation, it means that it is society’s responsibility. I used to argue that if this is denied, you might as well permit abortion in the third trimester. I wasn't as surprised as perhaps I ought to have been when some feminists—only some, and partly to annoy—said yes to that. They at least were prepared to accept their own logic, and say that the unborn is nobody’s business but theirs. That is a very reactionary and selfish position, and it stems from this original evasion about the fetus being “merely” an appendage. . ."
My name is --------------, whom you talked with this Saturday, by my garage on -----------------. Thank you for stopping by; it was very nice to get the opportunity to meet you. Much of what you are focussed on is good and praiseworthy, such as helping farmers and small businesses. I think you care about the people in Southeastern Minnesota, and I thank you for taking the time to talk with me. I enjoyed our conversation, even though it was over a contentious topic. You were honourable in maintaining cordiality and friendliness, allowing us to have a good argument without it becoming a quarrel. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “People generally quarrel because they cannot argue. And it is extraordinary to notice how few people in the modern world can argue. This is why there are so many quarrels, breaking out again and again, and never coming to any natural end.” I told my wife I wish more people like you would stop by on bikes to have some good arguments; I could certainly use the practice.
There is much in what you stand for that I, and many people I know, would earnestly support you on, but as I mentioned, we cannot give our support to a Democratic candidate primarily due to the party's stance on abortion. If I remember correctly, I think we both agreed with the principle that it is wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, but disagreed on when a human being comes into existence. We particularly came to an impasse when we disagreed on the most fundamental question of biological fact. The natural end of our argument was this:
You denied that biological science has determined that a new living, whole, human organism comes into existence at conception.
I think this implies that, despite your emphasis that there is a wide range of religious beliefs, you do recognize the importance and significance of science on this matter. You believe abortion can be an individuals right because it's not, biologically, a human being that's being killed. I think you would agree that no individual has a right to kill what is, per biological science, a living, whole, human organism. My hope is that you'll see this really is a biological, scientific fact, that you might rethink your position on abortion, and that you might, perhaps, become an instrument of change, even within Minnesota's Democratic Party, encouraging others to look at and speak about the science involved, which is conspicuously absent from public Democratic talking points on abortion.
The biological literature is overwhelming and unanimous in stating that a living, whole, human organism comes into existence at conception. As a matter of fact, in a recent survey of over 5,577 academic biologists from 1,058 academic institutions, 96% affirmed that human life begins at conception (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703). Indeed, even your own sponsor, Planned Parenthood, agreed in court that this was a biological fact. In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (2008), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that requiring abortionists to say that the fetus is a "living, separate, whole human being" does not force an abortionist to espouse an unconstitutional religious viewpoint. The Court ruled that this statement was a biological fact that even the affidavit submitted by Planned Parenthood accepted. The ruling declared:
"Planned Parenthood's evidence at the preliminary injunction stage does not demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits.... The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician.... Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppoose that conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Wolpe's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, states that 'to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation."
The academic biological literature overwhelming affirms the fact that at conception a new, living, whole, human organism comes into existence. Attached is just a small sampling of this literature. I hope you will think deeply about this scientific fact, and what it means, under all the euphemisms, the Democratic Party is actually saying individuals have a right to do - the right to directly kill an innocent human being.
I wish you and your family the best.
Sincerely,
-------------
P.S. To emphasize that, for the state, this is a question of science, not personal religious belief, here are a few points to consider by the late renowned liberal author and journalist, and passionately anti-religious atheist, Christopher Hitchens:
“Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions]…In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain…break some bones, and rupture some organs.”
"That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense, by the new debate over stem-cell research and the bioethics of cloning. If an ailing or elderly person can be granted a new lease on life by a transfusion of this cellular material, then it is obviously not random organic matter. The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge."
". . . once you allow that the occupant of the womb is even potentially a life, it cuts athwart any glib invocation of “the woman’s right to choose.” If the unborn is a candidate member of the next generation, it means that it is society’s responsibility. I used to argue that if this is denied, you might as well permit abortion in the third trimester. I wasn't as surprised as perhaps I ought to have been when some feminists—only some, and partly to annoy—said yes to that. They at least were prepared to accept their own logic, and say that the unborn is nobody’s business but theirs. That is a very reactionary and selfish position, and it stems from this original evasion about the fetus being “merely” an appendage. . ."