Pages

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Abortion, Sex Positivity, and the Non-Aggression Principle

[Today's guest post by Kris Skul is part of our paid blogging program.]
[See Kris' follow-up post: "All You Need To Be Pro-Life"]

Supporters of abortion sometimes insist that the principal objective of the pro-life movement is not to fight any real or perceived injustice, but rather to control female sexuality. To these critics, restricting abortion access is primarily a means of punishing women who choose to have non-procreative sex.

I can’t blame them entirely. Many prominent organizations in the pro-life movement, such as the Pro-Life Action League and Students for Life of America, also support the chastity movement. Groups like Real Alternatives, a nonprofit that stresses the potential risks of premarital sex and artificial birth control, are a regular presence at student conferences. And well-known anti-abortion advocates like Abby Johnson and Lila Rose often champion abstinence in addition to their pro-life activism.

Of course, abstinence is a valid choice. It certainly provides excellent protection against unplanned pregnancies! But with people generally marrying later in life than they did in generations past, complete abstinence until marriage is a rarity.

Where does that leave people like me? I neither practice nor advocate for abstinence until marriage. I affirm fully the right of every person to express their sexuality in a manner of their choosing. I believe contraception is an acceptable option for those not yet ready for parenthood, and I respect the choice of those who decide to forgo parenthood altogether. But I cannot condone abortion.

Does this mean my position is morally inconsistent?

John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty (1859), wrote: “[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” This is closely related to the non-aggression principle, which forms the basis of my personal and political philosophy. It states, in effect, that each individual should be afforded the freedom to do as (s)he wishes, even—and this is important—if his or her actions are morally questionable. It is only appropriate to curtail one person’s freedom of choice when that choice would violate the freedoms of somebody else.

Under the non-aggression principle, sex positivity is perfectly compatible with the anti-abortion stance. Assuming participants take the appropriate precautions against disease, sexual activity among consenting adults—regardless of manner, relationship status, or number or gender of partners—has no effect on anyone beyond those involved. In other words, my sex life doesn’t infringe on anyone’s basic rights. One need not approve of my decisions to acknowledge this.

The same cannot be said for abortion, however, as it is the deliberate termination of another human life. To frame the issue exclusively in terms of the woman’s agency is to deny the humanity of the unborn, which I submit is criterion enough to grant it the protection of the law. Fertilization—when sperm meets egg to form a product that is genetically distinct—is the only objective standard for when new life begins. Terms like “personhood,” commonly used by pro-choicers as a benchmark for when life becomes worthy of protection, are dangerously vague: what constitutes “personhood” to A may not constitute “personhood” to B, and so on.

The mainstream pro-life movement does itself a disservice by propagating the myth that opposition to abortion and a liberal attitude toward sexuality are fundamentally irreconcilable. It overlooks the fact that nearly three-quarters of American teens are sexually active by the time they reach college age. It alienates the overwhelming majority of self-professed pro-lifers who have no ethical objections to birth control. And it surely doesn’t foster constructive dialogue with those on the other side of the abortion debate.

222 comments:

1 – 200 of 222   Newer›   Newest»
ignorance_is_curable said...

Abortion most certainly is the deliberate termination of another human life. That is not the same thing as killing a "someone", a person. I plainly see where you wrote: "It is only appropriate to curtail one person's freedom of choice when that choice would violate the freedom of somebody else." Since presumably you do not consider a mosquito to be "somebody else", you would not curtail one person's freedom to swat a mosquito. Similarly, since an unborn human is also not a "somebody else", there need be no curtailment of one person's freedom to seek an abortion.


Your entire anti-abortion argument is based on the False assumption that an unborn human qualifies as a person. But neither you nor any other abortion opponent can offer one whit of Objective Generic Evidence, the sort of Evidence that could distinguish any type of person from any type of animal organism, anywhere in the Universe, which would even hint, much less Prove, that an unborn human actually qualifies as more than just a mere animal organism, like a mosquito only qualifies as just a mere animal organism.

Charlotte Pollock said...

What qualifies a human being as a person then, What measures can we assign that are not purely arbitrary? that do not also exclude born people (disabled people, comma patients, newborns).
If you want to state that unborn babies are not somebodies you have to give a reasonable scientific definition of a somebody to compare them against.
What would it be in your view?

KM Misener said...

I am glad to see Secular Pro-Life writers speaking up on the issue of positive sexuality and contraception. I do think this voice is desperately needed in the pro-life movement. I have often thought that it is truly unfortunate that organizations such as Planned Parenthood have married the cause of contraception to abortion. Many of us would be happy to support contraception access if it didn't also involve endorsing violence against other human beings.


Like you, I think it is fine to present abstinence as an option. I do think that there are many situations where abstinence is a wise decision. However, the pro-life movement needs to keep in mind that not everyone who wants an abortion is an unmarried teenager. Sometimes married adult women have abortions. There are also childfree people out there who do not ever want a child. It is not realistic to expect every married couple to use natural family planning, or expect childfree people to be celibate for life. We need to have an answer for people in those situations to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
There are certainly many other ways to avoid pregnancy beyond abstinence - very effective methods *if* they are used correctly. We need to look at why many people practice sub-optimal contraception and encourage better use if we want to end abortion.

Charlotte Pollock said...

"any type of person from any type of animal organism" are all humans fair game then. If their existence is inconvenient to more people than would care if they were killed could we bump off anyone we chose

Kevin Cary said...

What about most hormonal contraceptives and IUDs that are abortifacient?

m17l6s85 said...

See here for more info: http://www.secularprolife.org/#!contraception/ctdo

Sunjay Hauntingston said...

The majority of women who get abortions already have children.
http://outspokenviews.tumblr.com/post/16334980748/part-1-gifset-of-guttmacher-institutes-abortion

MarysYes said...

The support of chastity by some pro-life groups stems from the belief that contraception is a refusal to accept the gift of life given to us by God, who is Love. Sexuality in marriage is a life-giving, procreative act which in essence is a re-enactment of the life-giving Love of the Holy Trinity. To block life in the marital sexual act, an act of love which produces life, is the refusal of God's gift of life. We are "products" of Life & Love.

daballa23 said...

As a Catholic I couldn't disagree more. A Catholic does believe the two are fundamentally irreconcilable, that is a fact not a myth. The author's argument would have been much more validated if it had acknowledged that the main reason most pro-lifers hold conservative stances on sexuality is because both are religiously motivated beliefs.

Desert Rose said...

"that the main reason most pro-lifers hold conservative stances on sexuality is because both are religiously motivated beliefs"


Careful. Most vocal abortion opponents may be sexually conservative and religiously-motivated, but the majority of pro-lifers (that is, people who simply believe abortion is wrong) are not. See the link in the final paragraph.


Unfortunately, because the vocal minority is the face of the pro-life movement, the public ties being pro-life to religion and/or sexual conservatism. Also, many "traditional" pro-lifers are less-than-accepting of those with more liberal views on sex, contraception, etc. This discourages secular and/or liberal pro-lifers from speaking out, when they could be invaluable in the fight against abortion. It's incredibly important to let them know they have a place in the movement.

Clinton said...

You've done an excellent job of begging the question. Anything that liberals deem as ridiculous cannot, apparently, by definition, be true. Whether or not you view it as ridiculous is irrelevant to its truth value.

Nate Sheets said...

My apologies for not writing an exegesis on why the commentor's religious beliefs regarding sex are "untrue". There is a context one must assume on a secular blog, and I'm not going to break things up to their very foundational cores for each assertion I make. The pretty package the person above paints of sex will strike most secular people as hilariously delusional or at the very last inaccurate for what the biological purpose of sex is, and the specifics it entails.

daballa23 said...

The majority of pro-lifers are religious, as are the majority of people in America and every country on Earth. While some may be pro-life due to non-religious motivations, to argue that those people are the majority is false. The pro-life movement was started by Christians who believe that life starts at conception seeking to defend the lives of the unborn. People often aren't accepting of those who hold opposing views, and Christians should believe that is wrong. Being pro-life and having "liberal views on sex" are contradictory and "fundamentally irreconcilable" views for a Christian to hold, which explains this phenomenon that the author fails to understand.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Abortion works when other BC methods fail, and that is one of my main reasons for wanting to keep abortion legal. It is most definitely and most certainly a lesser evil then a 99% death rate that a Malthusian Catastrophe will bring with it because pro lifer's fail to see that something like ''right to life'' can be taken to far. I understand it is a good property, but it doesn't need to apply to all entities not capable of understand what it is like fish and unborn humans as two examples.
As for your personhood claim, pro lifer's need to answer what constitutes a person as well and pro choicers like ignorance_is_curable has given a answer for that many times already. We can't sit here forever using species membership to make the distinction anymore unless of course if and when it does happen a alien will land on Earth and under the pro life position, the alien would lack the right to life since it isn't a human since that is what your making your person/non person distinction off of. So I kill the alien and not get charged with murder then his pals will call upon other intelligent species in the area and blow us off of the face of the world because none of you could've offered anything to use. Anything pertaining to ''inherent blank for blank'' will have problems when applied to R-Strategists from outer space.
From some stories I read about some ''people'' being abducted, they claimed they were treated like ordinary animals which could mean that the aliens could be using a property(s) for their criteria for personhood that ordinary humans don't have like telepathy or the ability to phase through walls.

daballa23 said...

Not saying all Christians live their beliefs, myself included. Just explaining why people consider the two beliefs irreconcilable, which the author calls a disservice to the pro-life movement and a myth, demonstrating their apparent lack of understanding that Christian values explain why people hold these beliefs.

Desert Rose said...

"The majority of pro-lifers are religious, as are the majority of people in America and every country on Earth."

You are correct in that the majority of people claim adherence to some religion. But as you yourself have admitted, not all are particularly devout. Secular Pro-Life posted something to that effect earlier this month (link here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/03/secular-pro-lifes-christian-outreach.html).

"Being pro-life and having 'liberal views on sex' are contradictory and 'fundamentally irreconcilable' views for a Christian to hold."

Again, please refer to the link in the final paragraph of this post that states that most pro-lifers approve of birth control.

Desert Rose said...

Link I provided in the above comment doesn't seem to be working. Let's try one more time: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/03/secular-pro-lifes-christian-outreach.html

Scoodley-poopin' said...

Categorically respecting human beings now does not exclude the possibility of categorically respecting certain alien species in the future.

But thanks for the laugh. This is the first I've seen someone who is pro-choice because:

Scoodley-poopin' said...

http://www.picturesnew.com/media/images/aliens-meme-picture.jpg

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''What qualifies a human being as a person then, What measures can we assign that are not purely arbitrary?''

Measurements you would use to determine if a non human entity should be considered a person or not. That's a question pro lifer's need to answer as well besides pro choicer's.

Ignorance gave 8 on his site located at #100 http://fightforsense.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/manyargs/comment-page-1/#comment-209
As for the ''disabled'' you need to be specific about that.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

''If you believe that it begins at conception, you will want to defend that life just as you would that of a one year old''
SO? I can believe that the life of a cat begins at conception but that doesn't mean now I would want to ''defend'' that life like I would with my pet cat. Let's get serious here. In day to day life no one will give special consideration to a 1 cell human as there are plenty of humans out there who have much more to lose that should be given immediate consideration first.
As for the rest of your post, you need to catch up to the abortion debate. It has nothing to do with ''humanness'' anymore.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Clinton are you a personist?

Coyote said...

Nice article!

Let me respond to it piece-by-piece:

"Supporters of abortion sometimes insist that the principal objective of the pro-life movement is not to fight any real or perceived injustice, but rather to control female sexuality. To these critics, restricting abortion access is primarily a means of punishing women who choose to have non-procreative sex."

This pro-choice claim (when one applies it to all politically anti-abortion people) appears to be nonsensical. After all, by such a rationale, why don't politically anti-abortion people advocate or wish to punish *everyone* who has non-procreative sex (which would also include advocating in favor of criminalizing "sodomy" and gay sex), rather than only "punishing" people who get pregnant as a result of sex?

Also, by a similar rationale, wouldn't pro-choicers who support forcing males to pay child support be punishing these males for having sex?

"I can’t blame them entirely. Many prominent organizations in the pro-life movement, such as the Pro-Life Action League and Students for Life of America, also support the chastity movement. Groups like Real Alternatives, a nonprofit that stresses the potential risks of premarital sex and artificial birth control, are a regular presence at student conferences. And well-known anti-abortion advocates like Abby Johnson and Lila Roseoften champion abstinence in addition to their pro-life activism."

Yes, I agree that pro-lifers who advocate *only* abstinence aren't helping their cause much in regards to this. That said, there is nothing wrong with promoting abstinence as *an option* but *also* telling people about all of the other options which they have in regards to this.

"Of course, abstinence is a valid choice. It certainly provides excellent protection against unplanned pregnancies! But with people generally marrying later in life than they did in generations past, complete abstinence until marriage is a rarity."

This information here appears to be accurate.

"Where does that leave people like me? I neither practice nor advocate for abstinence until marriage. I affirm fully the right of every person to express their sexuality in a manner of their choosing. I believe contraception is an acceptable option for those not yet ready for parenthood, and I respect the choice of those who decide to forgo parenthood altogether. But I cannot condone abortion.
Does this mean my position is morally inconsistent?

...

The mainstream pro-life movement does itself a disservice by propagating the myth that opposition to abortion and a liberal attitude toward sexuality are fundamentally irreconcilable. It overlooks the fact that nearly three-quarters of American teens are sexually active by the time they reach college age. It alienates the overwhelming majority of self-professed pro-lifers who have no ethical objections to birth control. And it surely doesn’t foster constructive dialogue with those on the other side of the abortion debate."

Yes, I agree with this part. Essentially, before fertilization and pregnancy occur, there is no other party involved yet. However, once fertilization and pregnancy occur, then there is another party to consider in regards to this if one considers prenatal human specimens to be persons/worthy of having rights.

Coyote said...

You appear to be begging the question here by automatically assuming that all *born* human specimens (or human beings) should be considered persons/worthy of having rights.

Coyote said...

"The root of the argument is when you believe human life begins."

I disagree with this, because:

1. It depends on how one defines "life" (thus, it is essentially a tautological issue).
2. Non-human animals are also alive, but we don't think that all of them should be considered persons/worthy of rights.

Coyote said...

"Categorically respecting human beings now does not exclude the possibility of categorically respecting certain alien species in the future."

OK, but out of curiosity, why should we equate potential with actuality? For instance, why give some human more rights than a non-human animal simply because this human *will eventually* have/acquire greater mental abilities than this non-human animal?

Coyote said...

What exactly is a personist?

ignorance_is_curable said...

To be Truly UnPrejudiced and Generic, any set of Tests for Personhood, that you might some day apply to extraterrestrial life-forms, MUST also be applied to humans.

As GEIxBattleRifle indicated, I posted a proposed list of Tests elsewhere. Some of them, like the notion that a person has Free Will, are ancient in their origin. Others are more modern, like the ability to mentally put oneself into the situation of another.

I will now make the Observation That Abortion Opponents Tend To Exhibit Uniform Idiocy when Exposed To The Conclusion That Infant Humans, Just Like All Unborn Humans, FAIL To Pass Any Personhood Tests. For some reason abortion opponents seem to think that the LACK of a right-to-life is automatically equal to a Death Sentence. That conclusion is UTTERLY FALSE, as proved by millions of unborn humans, most of which are currently, under the Law, not protected that are carried to term each year instead of being aborted.

Logically, most infant humans will also continue to survive; they will NOT be automatically executed just because they might suddenly lose Legal Person status.

Most disabled and comatose humans will NOT be affected. Most disabled humans can still pass personhood tests (only the severely mentally handicapped cannot).


Most comatose humans were fully capable of passing the tests before becoming comatose, and MOST of the time, a coma is NOT associated with a loss of person-class abilities. Many abortion Opponents Exhibit Additional Stupidity By Failing To Accept The Fact That Having An Ability And Using It Are Two Different Things. Most comatose humans still have their abilities; the few who have actually lost their person-class abilities are the ones in a "persistent vegetative state" (Iike Terry Schiavo was). This state is difficult to accurately diagnose, and differs from those humans who are declared to be "brain dead" --in that group the persons are actually DEAD; only their human animal bodies are alive, kept so by life-support equipment.

ignorance_is_curable said...

FALSE; the real root of the argument is when PERSONHOOD begins. "Human" and "Person" are two different concepts --as proved whenever Science Fiction dreams up a non-human person-class being, and Society accepts the concept without getting hysterical ("No! Only humans can be persons!"). See the fictional aliens in the movie "Avatar" for a very very WIDE acceptance of the notion that we ARE talking about two different concepts when talking about "human" and "person"!

So, while HUMAN life most certainly begins at conception, Human PERSONHOOD, in terms of Objective Generic Tests, doesn't begin until well after birth. Humans don't even develop self-awareness, ONE of the proposed key Generic characteristics of persons, until a year or more after birth. www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/mirror_test.htm

GEIxBattleRifle said...

Look it up

GEIxBattleRifle said...

That has been exposed for what it is. There logic would apply to a intelligent Alien R-Strategist species who would be having over 100,000 offspring at a time. The women from a species like that will give birth and will leave most of them to die out. She will systemically pick maybe 2 or 3 of the ''best'' one's there and leave. Under the pro lifer's position who state that personhood can be grounded around what kind a entity is will make us obligated to take care of all of them. Now what do you think is going to happen? We live on limited resources and we will run out eventually and BANG Malthusian Catastrophe achieved because pro lifer's can't get through there heads that too much of a good thing can always be a bad thing!

VasuMurti said...

Kris Skul, you wrote: "I affirm fully the right of every person to express their sexuality in a manner of their choosing." Does your pro-life definition of sexual freedom include LGBT rights?

This is the Secular Pro-Life blog! I think the real issue in the Hobby Lobby, etc. case before the Supreme Court really is church-state separation rather than reproductive rights. Can a secular business opt out of providing contraceptive coverage for its employees merely due to the religious beliefs of the business owner?

A similar case appears in today's Raw Story (a liberal website) about a Buddhist employee in Texas was fired after he declined to print Christian Bible verses in the company newspaper.

Will conservative Christians defending Hobby Lobby, etc. similarly defend the Buddhist employee on grounds of religious freedom? Will liberals, defending a Buddhist for not wanting to violate his religious tenets, similarly defend Hobby Lobby, etc. ?

How do conservatives and liberals feel about conscientious objectors and pacifists during wartime? Or vegans refusing vaccines which were tested on animals? Or pro-lifers refusing vaccines containing aborted fetal cells?

This should be interesting!

Scoodley-poopin' said...

To that scenario, I will reply that categorically respecting human beings does not lock us into categorically respecting certain alien species in the
future.

GEIxBattleRifle said...

In other words, you want the rest of the human race to be prejudiced towards ''certain'' alien species. That is enough to get us blasted out of existence just so you know.
Like I said, those like you who think the unborn humans potentials should be actualized and think other alien species that have the same mental abilities as your average ordinary human going about should have them as well will HAVE to answer the R-Strategist situation or else there is no need to consider your position at all. If you want us to ignore it then potentiality can't be used to give entity rights and if it does, it applies to R-Strategists as well.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

What is the difference between ''ability'' and ''function?'' Because some pro lifer's say that pro choicers like you confuse ''functioning'' with just being a person.
Is functioning basically the using of a ability like talking? And even if I stop using it like right now at the moment I still have the ability even though I am not using it at the moment? That sound correct?
And since the unborn human utterly lacks it in the first place it would only have the potential for it right?

ignorance_is_curable said...

"function" involves USING an ability, which is a different thing than simply HAVING that ability. So, for example, if you have a pen-knife, you can use it to cut a feather to make an old-fashioned "quill pen". Afterward, you can put the pen-knife into your pocket, which prevents you from using it immediately, but you still HAVE the ability to use that pen-knife.


To qualify as a person, in terms of Objective Generic Tests, one must first HAVE certain abilities. Yes, the Tests expect one to demonstrate/use those abilities, also, but here it is possible to grant the benefit-of-the-doubt in some cases.


For example, suppose you visited an alien planet and Tested some of the most-intelligent and older inhabitants, and found that they qualified as persons. Imagine one of them as being ill and asleep, resting/recuperating, and should not be disturbed. If it is reasonable to think (A) did that entity exhibit characteristics such that BEFORE becoming ill would probably have passed the Tests, and (B) is expected to recover fully from the illness, THEN you can grant benefit-of-doubt and assume that the ill entity qualifies as a person.


Now you Test the youngest members of that alien species, and you find that NONE pass the Tests. You also learn that this species lays eggs and the youngsters had recently hatched. What can you conclude about those still developing inside eggs? They are obviously less-developed than the ones you Tested! Net result, you can assume that all those unhatched aliens do NOT qualify as persons.


And the preceding is reasonably equivalent to the situation for humans on Earth. Unborn humans simply do not have the relevant abilities for personhood. --and we Know this because infant humans can be Tested, and they ALWAYS FAIL the Tests.

freahprince403 said...

To you the argument might be when personhood begins, but to pro-lifers it is certainly not. The fact that the unborn are living humans who will eventually reach your definition of "personhood" makes them a person in our eyes. Seems like having religious/moral influences on your opinion about abortion as pro-lifers do affects whether or not you believe the unborn have a right to life. God says in the Bible "Before you were in the womb I knew you."

ignorance_is_curable said...

The abortion opponents are now, per your description, attempting to equate "potential" with "actual". By That Logic, since every abortion opponent has the potential to one day become a corpse, this means we should right-now treat them like corpses, and bury them Six Feet Under.


I disagree with such absurd logic! We can treat unborn humans differently from persons because they ARE different from persons. PERIOD.


And as for God and the Bible, while this forum is not the best place to talk about such things, you need to keep in mind that more than one Interpretation is possible, of verses like the one you presented. For example, what of "reincarnation philosophy", and God interacting with a soul before it incarnated? Bodies don't matter so much in a reincarnation-based religious philosophy! Especially, since souls, which are supposed to be immortal, can afford to WAIT for a body to be born into a family that WANTS it, before incarnating!

Charlotte Pollock said...

I see no distinction between the ill person who will pass the test again in the unborn or newborn infant who will also pass the test in the future, both have the potential to do but cannot currently. I assume you would legalise infanticide would there be an actual test before personhood is granted because we all develop at different rates

ignorance_is_curable said...

You are making an unwarranted assumption. There is NO guarantee that an unborn human will EVER pass the Objective Generic Tests for personhood. Doing so is NOT an innate aspect of humans; otherwise there would never be any such thing as a "feral child". The DEFAULT Natural development of humans is for them to become clever animals like feral children. Only appropriate Nurturing --something entirely independent of human Biology-- leads them to develop personhood characteristics.

And you are CONFUSED about "potential". Not all potentials are equivalent to each other. As an analogy, consider a long staircase with an abortion opponent at the top. There is the potential for that person to fall down the staircase and break the neck. Now put a protective gate at the top of the staircase. The POTENTIAL still exists, to fall and break the neck, but the barrier must be overcome before that potential can be fulfilled.

MUST a potential be fulfilled?

Meanwhile, an unborn human is at the BOTTOM of the staircase. Its potential to fall depends FIRST on getting to the top of the staircase! It has the potential to do that, but we certainly are talking about DIFFERENT potentials here.

And when different potentials are possible, who are you to decide which ones should be fulfilled?

The comatose person HAS an ability, and a barrier against accessing it, which the unborn human does not have. Those are the Facts.



Regarding infanticide, you Really Are Missing A Key Point: The More That Abortion Is Legal, The Less That Infanticide Will Be Done, Even If It Was Legal. And, of course, infanticide is NOT what the Overall Abortion Debate is about! Why are you trying to change the subject?

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

From what I read about his website under #100 some of those have nothing to do with you using them at the moment. Like theory of mind and the ability to manipulate abstractions in a rational matter and time binding which can be gained through consciousness and self awareness and once when gained the now ''person'' doesn't lose those just like you need consciousness and self awareness to gain the ability to write and once you gain that ability you need only consciousness and self awareness to use it again. All of that has to do with mental development that a human may or may not have received from a very young age so unless the ill ''person'' had a 10 ton brick smashed across his head and suffered severe brain damaging, then he is in no way comparable to a unborn or newborn human.
That type of stuff a human can only gain if raised in a appropriate environment. If a human doesn't get that type of nourishment, then the result would've been a feral child. I know personally from my father attempting to work with them.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

I like your website and will be reading it more closely and will decide on a position. Some of the things you said in #100 I know quite well and noticed that a feral child is only capable of the first item you listed ''self awareness.''
I'm not sure what you mean by conscious creativity. As in creating works of art or something for one's own enjoyment?
Though I always wondered what your family thought of you saying there newborn infant was not a person. Are they into the topic as well or is this something you keep to yourself? Don't mean to be personal about it.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

Someone said this on your site who claimed they took it off another site you posted to.

”Fact: The English language allows nonhumans to qualify as people. The word is even generic enough that the physical nature of a person is irrelevant. Fiction has introduced persons having “bodies” ranging from ectoplasm to subatomic particles to electricity to gaseous to liquid to jelly to solid to electronic/mechanical, to various combinations thereof (a cyborg can be a person).''

You must be big into the science fiction I can tell you that.

''Logic: Because of the wide range of possible types of persons, it is impossible to associate personhood with a fixed set of physical characteristics. Thus it is mental characteristics that distinguish persons from non-persons.''

Ok, just wondering, why should mental characteristics be used to distinguished persons from non persons and not something like skin color or eye color? You would have to answer that claim.

''Fact: An unborn human is inherently unable to exhibit any of the mental characteristics that serve to identify persons.''

Yes, under the items you listed in 100# of your website, a unborn human has none of it.

''Logical conclusion: Although abortion kills an unborn human, it never kills a person.”

Wouldn't that logic be no different from deciding that persons are black and anyone who exhibits white skin color is not a person...once the Supreme Court agreed white people would suddenly become non-persons.

ignorance_is_curable said...

"Ok, just wondering, why should mental characteristics be used to distinguished persons from non persons and not something like skin color or eye color? You would have to answer that claim."

It was Answered in terms of the first part of what was quoted: "Fiction has introduced persons having “bodies” ranging from ectoplasm to subatomic particles to electricity to gaseous to liquid to jelly to solid to electronic/mechanical, to various combinations thereof" --a body made of ectoplasm doesn't have "skin", but the entity having that body is still considered to be a person, in the Fiction (such as Casper the Friendly Ghost) --and widely accepted by readers of the Fiction.



There are NO hysterical complaints that only a live human can be a person!


Basically, there is SO wide a variety of physical bodies associated with Fictional persons --And Accepted By Society-- that the ONLY thing all of them have in common are MINDS.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Whenever one deliberately sets out to devise a tool to solve a problem, THAT is a thing directly associated with "conscious creativity". ("deliberately" relates to "conscious" and "devise" relates to "creativity")


It doesn't matter if the problem to solve is simple or complex; all that matters is the fact that the ability exists to the extent that people expect to succeed, when they use it.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

Thanks for the replies. While I was looking through your website, you linked another website and so I found something called ''involuntary solitude'' and was wondering if you can respond to it in anyway on your site or there.

Here's the link. http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/189424-involuntary-servitude-part-8-child-support.html

Thanks!

ignorance_is_curable said...

I attempted to reply to a message that you wrote but which seems to have disappeared. Here:

Regarding "involuntary servitude", I did not post a link to that Message Thread. In skimming the first post of it, though, it seems to me that child-support laws are "the Logical other side of the coin" of legalized abortion and adoption. That is, for any pregnancy chosen to be carried to term, and not adopted-out after birth, it makes sense to basically say, "You wanted it, so you pay for it!"



Things become more complicated when the parents can't agree on what they want. LOGICALLY, it appears reasonable for a man to not be required to pay child-support if he never-during pregnancy wanted it carried to term. This might cause the woman to seek an abortion when she would rather have a baby, BUT (A) she can dump the man, (B) she can seek a man who wants offspring, (C) the sooner she gets an abortion, the sooner she can get pregnant with THAT man's offspring!


Abortion opponents would be aghast at such pragmatism, of course. Do I care about their worthless delusions? Not in the slightest!

RaBo said...

"Of course, abstinence is a valid choice. It certainly provides excellent protection against unplanned pregnancies!"
Not if you're raped & become pregnant by it. Even if you ban abortion for every case except rape/incest, then women have to prove that they were raped & I'm sure the government would make it a huge ordeal for the traumatized victim to prove it so as to weed out "dishonest" ones who got what they deserved. I refuse to make women jump though hoops in order to prove that they "deserve" an abortion.

"Terms like “personhood,” commonly used by pro-choicers as a benchmark for when life becomes worthy of protection, are dangerously vague: what constitutes “personhood” to A may not constitute “personhood” to B, and so on."
I have not heard one pro-choice person use personhood as an argument, except in opposition to personhood laws. For those who argue that a fetus isn't human, they are following a tired, old, lame rational. Even if we go with the premise that an embryo/ fetus has basic human, they do not have the right to use their mother's body without her consent. Nobody else does. Just because a woman has sex does not in & of itself mean she implicitly consents to pregnancy, anymore that women who are married implicitly consent to sex any time her spouse wants it. She must to be just as much a willing mother as she is a to be a sexual partner . If we can accept that women are sexual beings who can decide whether or not to be mothers by taking contraception, why revoke that same respect in the event that the contraception fails?? We can safely assume the embryo has no consciousness & the fetus has very little to none as well. The woman does, therefore forcing a woman to become a mother is far more harmful to her than it is to the potential person that is completely dependent on her body to survive.

Coyote said...

"Terms like “personhood,” commonly used by pro-choicers as a benchmark for when life becomes worthy of protection, are dangerously vague: what constitutes “personhood” to A may not constitute “personhood” to B, and so on."

For the record, I disagree with the author here, since if this were the case, then we will need to give personhood/(legal) rights to *all* living organisms/specimens out of caution. I don't think that anyone actually wants to do this, so yeah.

Chaoticblu said...

Human beings are persons by definition. And the difference between killing another person and swatting a mosquito is the mosquito is trying to harm you. Swatting a mosquito is self defense..and natural for other animals to do as well (like horses, who use their tails to swat at bugs, like flies and I would assume mosquitoes as well.)

Now, a self defense case for abortion would be medically necessary abortions. Us pro lifers do understand these cases. We by no means want to override a woman's right to life, we just want these rights to be equal for everyone whenever possible. But from what I hear medcially nesssicary ones are very infrequent and for a small amount of reasons. If it must happen it must and is sad, but both mother and child should be attempted to be saved whenever possible, That is the fair thing to do.

Chaoticblu said...

Also, FYI Kris said that pro choice people do what you are doing and make up there own benmark for 'personhood'..but that doesn't work because it is not the same for everyone. But if you want to play that way, .PROVE to ME your definition of personhood is valid enough for me to accept and justify killing human beings.

Chaoticblu said...

To be honest, you're not making sense. A human being is a person. "Person" is just another name for 'human being'. "Person, People,, Population" they all refer to a or group of human beings, aka homo sapiens. It's not unusual to have multiple words to mean the same things.

Chaoticblu said...

Ok right there, I Googled "personhood" and this was at the top:

per·son·hood

ˈpərsənˌho͝od/

noun

noun: personhood

1.

the quality or condition of being an individual person.

since we know human being is synonymous with person, we would NOT apply or try to apply personhood status to ET life..your theory or hypotheis is completely incorrect so you need to revise it. It's good you actually thought about the concept but your going to have to go back to the drawing board...or get the term "person' used widely enough to mean something other than human being to get dictionaries to change it.

You may be confusing personhood with sentience, which a species would need to interact meaningfully with another species of sentience (such as for trade purposes). So you would want alien life to be sentient for you to be able to properly interact with them.

And FYI, human's in the womb do not LOSE abilities, like comatose people, they merely haven't gained them yet so you can't lose something you didn't originally have at the time. So, if comatose people are allowed to take your 'test' when they have the ability to pass it before they lose those ablities, a preborn human being should also be allowed to take it before they could possible lose their abilities. Of course this means they wouldn't be preborn anymore..so basically by your logic they SHOULD be born so they can take your test. I think you got yourself into a corner here.

Chaoticblu said...

I may have worded that confusing at the end, but to try and be clearer...it's not a fair test if you don't apply the same testing rules to everyone. If comatose people can take it and pass it when they have their ability to do so, so should a human being since they haven't even lost their abilities yet. To be fair, you need to judge the preborn who would then be born (but same human being of course) when they have the same abilities as the now comatose person to pass the test.

Chaoticblu said...

FALSE: pro choice people are the only ones who care when personhood begins. Pro lifers want to protect LIFE, plain and simple. A new human being is alive (science backs this up as cells are the smallest organisms that display all properties of life) the moment they come into existence. We want to protect eveyone's right to their physical LIFE, as well as their rights to make decisions regarding how they live their 'life' (in the social sense, as in how they interact with their environment)

Chaoticblu said...

So, FALSE, the real root of the argument is whether or not all innocent human beings should have the same civil and human rights..and not be discriminated upon or killed without merit.

Chaoticblu said...

Abortion is NOT birth control though in the sense how the term is normally used,- which is to prevent pregnancy-, you do realize that? You just said that when failure to prevent conception or implantation occurs, it should be an option to kill your newly conceive and implanted infant.

What may or may not happen to people currently existing (not familiar with the Malthusian Catastrophe sorry) is NOT justification to kill human beings. It says nothing as to why kill them when they didn't do anything to deserve killing. If you are going to kill someone, you should have a damn good reason, not just cuz they exist.

You are free to believe human beings should be killed but when you or any pro choice person actively tries to rob human beings of experiencing life outside the womb, we have a problem; one I will fiercely fight against.

Chaoticblu said...

If I may share my logic: I think it's more than that. The 'big' picture. This might be only a good argument if you're an omnivore (as opposed to vegetarian/vegan) but I would say other animals don't have the same rights as people because they are a food source for us. And why should we govern them when they aren't our species?

Being sentient and able to interact with our world in a philosophical way, we humans have organized our world, including ourselves. So that would include making laws and determining civil rights and human rights. Our reasoning for some rights may BE because we are human but we still had to SAY that's why.

But we can still CHOOSE to give animals some rights and treat them well...and I think it is our responsibility to a point because we have messed with their environments and the planet.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Your argument fails right near the start: "since we know human being is synonymous with person," --NOPE, the word "being", all by itself, is synonymous with "person". The word "human" is just an adjective describing the type of person. So, a True Artificial Intelligence could be called a "machine being", and would be a person because it was a "being". Likewise "alien beings" and "extraterrestrial beings" and even "supernatural beings" are all types of persons (while all known examples are fictional at this time, of course).

In general, a comatose person DOES NOT LOSE the abilities that distinguish persons from mere animals. In almost all known cases of a coma victim waking up, the possession of personhood is immediately apparent. So, they had personhood before the coma, they still have it after the coma, and therefore they had it during the coma.

Meanwhile, unborn humans simply do not have any of the personhood characteristics. They are only mere animals, not persons (so don't lie about it, please). People generally grant rights to people, not mere animals.

Yes, there is an excellent chance that unborn humans will eventually acquire personhood characteristics. But they won't do it during a pregnancy, which is the only time that matters in the Overall Abortion Debate.

It is quite possible for a woman to claim self-defense:

1. A parasite and an unborn human both steal nutrients from a body not their own.

2. A parasite and an unborn human both dump toxic biowastes into a body not their own.

3. An unborn human (but not a parasite) infuses addictive substances into a body not its own.

4. An unborn human (but not a parasite) infuses a mind-altering substance into a body not its own.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Since unborn humans are FAR from innocent, no problem (worse than vampires, they are, and we all know vampires can be killed with a wooden stake through the heart).

ignorance_is_curable said...

FALSE, pro-lifers DON"T want to protect "life" --they Stupidly and Prejudicially only want to protect HUMAN life. All other life can go extinct, as far as they care --and they are working on doing exactly that, because the more human mouths-to-feed that abortion opponents can force to be born, the less other life can exist on Earth. The operative word is "biomass", a FINITE thing. The more biomass that takes the form of human flesh, the less can exist as trees, flowers, birds, whales, etc.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I've elsewhere on this page posted a comment describing how detrimental unborn humans are. I need not repeat it.


Also, you need to stop "conflating" definitions. A HUMAN is a member of species homo sapiens. This does not automatically make the human a person --see any adult who is brain-dead and on full life-support: THE PERSON IS DEAD, only the human ANIMAL body remains, and The Law Fully Understands This, which is why the "plug" can be pulled on those human NONpersons.


A "human being" is a human that ALSO happens to be a person. So, about that definition-conflation: the word "being" can me "exists". If an unborn human simply exists, it can be called a "human being" --but because "being" can also mean "person", simply calling an unborn human a "human being", because it exists, lets you CLAIM that the unborn human also qualifies as a person. BAD LOGIC.


As proof, consider a rock --it exists, too! So, that means you can call it a "rock being", and therefore it must be a person, too, right? NO??? Well, if you can't do it for a rock, then it would be Stupidly Unethical to do it for an unborn human!

ignorance_is_curable said...

I don't actually care about what exact Objective Generic Tests are used to distinguish ANY type of person from ANY type of mere animal organism --so long as the Tests WORK.

If you want to exhibit Stupid Prejudice and claim that only humans can be persons, try again.


The Universe is too big a place for humans to be the only person-class rational/sentient entities in it. So, the sooner we stop being Stupidly Parochial and Stupidly Prejudiced about the definition of "person", the more mentally prepared we will be, when we encounter nonhuman persons in the future.


So, try proving that unborn humans qualify as more than mere animals, using the SAME Tests that would correctly identify personhood in a visitor from the Andromeda Galaxy.

ignorance_is_curable said...

It is not unusual for language to be mis-used Propagandistically. Remember that dictionaries only RECORD "common usage". www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm



All it takes is a bunch of people using a word in a new way, and eventually some dictionary will record it --all the English teachers in the world, complaining that there is no proper place for the word "ain't", hasn't kept that word from getting used enough to be included in dictionaries.


Meanwhile accurate communication requires the usage of words that have undisputed meanings. And abortion opponents do a LOT of definition-conflation, NOT helping accurate communications! An unborn human is NOT a person-class being, Period. Killing one is nothing more than killing a mere animal.

Ignorance_is_not_curable said...

''since we know human being is synonymous with person, we would NOT apply or try to apply personhood status to ET life''
Cool so if and when it does happen, since there is nothing preventing it from happening, when a alien aircraft lands down on the ground and the pilots exit peacefully, your basically saying if I were to kill them then it wouldn't be murdered? So they will think humans are stupidly prejudiced and blast us off the face of the earth because some humans who have the understanding of the concept of the future where not smart enough to use that mental ability to prepare for a unknown future.
As for your comatose talk, most come out just fine and start using their mental characteristics again (theory of mind, conscience, being able to manipulate abstractions rationally etc). If there brain ITSELF was damaged up to the point where the mental characteristics ignorance listed on his site were DESTROYED from the brain damage, trust me we will know when they wake up.

Lieutenant Nun said...

Blastocysts are not infants.

Lieutenant Nun said...

God is also genocide.

RaBo said...

I'm just cutting to the chase:
"Finally, if you are saying that, regardless of responsibility, the woman's rights should take precedence over any rights that the embryo/fetus should have because the woman is more developed, then a similar rationale can be used to have a woman justify refusing to feed her breast milk to an infant if both of them are on a boat and if they run out of baby formula (or whatever it is called), even if the woman's refusal to do this will result in the death of this infant. After all, adult women are more developed than infants are."

Yeah, a woman can do that. There's no law mandating women to breastfeed. Many women CHOOSE not to breastfeed for whatever reason they want.

You have either no concept of or no respect for individual bodily autonomy. If a 2 year old needed an urgent kidney transplant NEITHER of his parents are legally obligated to undergo surgery to save their child's life. D you think that they should not have that choice? A surgeon does not have to perform an emergency tracheotomy on a stranger choking at a picnic. It isn't an appeal to authority, it's a statement of the law. Perhaps they aren't making the most moral choices, but the law is protecting their right. It doesn't matter that they're choice affects real people, they still have to consent to undergo or perform surgery.

You think women MUST become mothers by virtue of intercourse & having a womb! That they should have a key aspect of their self-determination revoked

Coyote said...

"Yeah, a woman can do that. There's no law mandating women to breastfeed. Many women CHOOSE not to breastfeed for whatever reason they want."

You appear to have missed the part about this infant dying as a result of the woman's refusal to breastfeed in this scenario. Keep in mind that I am talking about a specific hypothetical scenario where there are no other available options other than breastfeeding.

Also, honestly, somehow I am very skeptical that the woman is such a scenario would be completely off the hook for this infant's death.

"You have either no concept of or no respect for individual bodily autonomy."

No, I understand what bodily autonomy is and I respect it. I simply don't think that it should be absolute, and I certainly don't think that it should be a "holy cow". Just like I do not have a right to wave my fist if a bunch of people are standing right next to me, it appears to be perfectly reasonable to say that one should be unable to exercise one's right to bodily autonomy in certain cases where other individuals would be negatively affected by you exercising this right.

"Do you think that they should not have that choice?"

If it is the fault of one of the parents that this child needs a new kidney, then Yes, it appears to make sense to tell this parent that he/she should donate one of his/her kidneys to this child if he/she wants to avoid a worse punishment.

"A surgeon does not have to perform an emergency tracheotomy on a stranger choking at a picnic."

Exactly--because it's not this surgeon's fault that this stranger is choking.

"It isn't an appeal to authority, it's a statement of the law. Perhaps they aren't making the most moral choices, but the law is protecting their right. It doesn't matter that they're choice affects real people, they still have to consent to undergo or perform surgery."

Keep in mind that not everyone agrees with the current law, though. Thus, to use it to back up your point when not everyone agrees with you on this might be a case of you begging the question.

And anyway, your point about forced surgery can easily be responded to: Instead of forcing people to undergo surgery (in cases where they are responsible for creating a situation with a dependent individual), we can simply give them a stronger punishment if they refuse to undergo surgery and if the other individual dies as a result of not getting a new kidney or whatever in time. Thus, this surgery will not be forced--they would still have the choice whether or not to undergo it.

"You think women MUST become mothers by virtue of intercourse & having a womb!"

Nope, considering that I support contraception and gay sex (obviously including lesbian sex).

"That they should have a key aspect of their self-determination revoked by virtue of their biological sex!"

They would still have the right to self-determination. They would simply be held responsible if they decided to violate someone else's rights.

"Men should be able to go to court & voluntarily revoke all parental rights & women should be able to terminate a pregnancy no matter the circumstances that put it there or the motives of the mother."

So you support a complete, full child support opt-out for males? I am glad to hear that. Unfortunately, though, this is not what our current law states in regards to this.

"9 months, weeks of convalescing & a lifetime of responsibility to another human being is not a commitment to be forced on anybody."

No one said anything about a lifetime of responsibility. After all, there is adoption and there are safe-haven laws. Also, nine months of pregnancy due to something which one generally did have control over can certainly be considered to be a lesser sacrifice than losing decades of one's life due to something which one had absolutely no control over.

Coyote said...

"If I may share my logic: I think it's more than that. The 'big' picture. This might be only a good argument if you're an omnivore (as opposed to vegetarian/vegan) but I would say other animals don't have the same rights as people because they are a food source for us."

It is worth noting that there is a thing called cannibalism. Based on a similar rationale to yours, someone can argue that it's okay to kill fetuses and/or infants because he/she wants to eat them.

"And why should we govern them when they aren't our species?"

Because we are able to do this while they are not able to.

"Being sentient and able to interact with our world in a philosophical way, we humans have organized our world, including ourselves. So that would include making laws and determining civil rights and human rights. Our reasoning for some rights may BE because we are human but we still had to SAY that's why.

But we can still CHOOSE to give animals some rights and treat them well...and I think it is our responsibility to a point because we have messed with their environments and the planet."

I appear to agree with a lot of what you wrote here, though as you yourself said here, we can still give non-human animals rights and personhood even in our human-centric world.

bakakurisu said...

Oh geez, it's the "We have to allow abortion because we don't want to offend space-aliens" guy again... :/

Anywho, your rhetoric has been debunked.

First of all, "person" means human; any medical dictionary will tell you that. It does NOT mean space-alien.

Secondly, in order to support abortion, you MUST support infanticide.

Third, you prattle on and on about "prejudice" (towards space-aliens) when we give personhood to unborn children, and go by a MEDICAL standard... But look what happens when we DENY personhood from human beings based solely upon arbitrary, self-serving parameters, and the agenda of a corrupt, eugenical agenda:

"..in the eyes of the law...the slave is not a person." (Bailey/als. v. Poindexter's Ex'or, 1858, Virginia Supreme Court)

"An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution." (George Canfield, American Law Review, 1881)

"The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women." –British Voting Rights case, 1909

"The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews...as 'persons' in the legal sense." (1936 German Supreme Court decision)

Are you seeing a pattern, Troll? Do you see that you're just repeating the same, stupid mistake that your like-minded predecessors did?

Learn from history's mistakes. I know you would just LOVE to believe that YOUR holocaust is the 'right' one, and that YOUR constituency has achieved the enlightenment it takes to dictate human rights.

Get over yourself. You're fighting a losing battle.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Oh, so the Voice Of Stupid Prejudice Speaks Again, eh? Consider the definition of “person” discovered by anthropologists studying primitive tribes: A member of the tribe was a person, and anyone else was a non-person. That sort of Parochial definition leads to genocides, and so, as a result, today most of humanity is included in the definition of person. But this is Parochial relative to the Universe! Do we want to keep a Parochial definition that can YET lead to more genocides in the future (interstellar wars), or do we want a Universally-applicable definition of “person”?


Stupidly Prejudiced humans will think it is completely OK to commit genocides against non-human species. That's because they are Stupidly Prejudiced, of course.


My "rhetoric" has not-at-all been debunked, and History is on my side --only those NOT Stupidly Prejudiced can build a civilization that lasts a long long time and doesn't end up collapsing from civil strife.


Dictionaries, written by humans for human purposes, OF COURSE don't need to mention anything about non-human intelligences. That doesn't exclude such beings from qualifying as persons. And, speaking of medical stuff, are you aware that the subject of "regeneration" is being seriously researched, and progress is being made? In the end, when perfected, if YOU should suffer a horrible decapitation accident, YOUR Stupidly Prejudiced Definition Of Person would require any rescuers (let's pretend they actually arrive in 2 minutes flat) to put your BODY into a regeneration vat, to grow a new head, right? After all, your head, with your MIND, has nothing to do with YOUR personhood, according to you. Only your mindless body matters, much like a human zygote. In no way do you want any rescuers to put your head into the regeneration vat, so you might grow a new body. Right?


Second, Your Logic Is Stupidly Flawed. It Is Quite Possible To Support Abortion And Be Neutral About, Or Even Mostly Against, Infanticide. See #103 at fightforsense.wordpress.com
--mostly because unborn humans act worse than "parasite"-type animals (despite not actually qualifying as parasites; perhaps they don't qualify exactly because they act worse), while infant humans do not act in the slightest in such ways.


Third, all your examples from History are worthless, because they are about denying personhood of those who could Objectively and Generically qualify as persons, much like many fictional space-aliens, and very much unlike any unborn human.


If humans are SO traditionally against any non-humans qualifying as persons, then please explain why people all over the world have imagined non-human intelligences interacting with humans much like persons (like dragons in China, for example), for thousands of years.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

Are you fucking serious? If you were doing a science project on say one of the elements from the elementary table are you going to google and read the first thing? Don't expect to be taken serious on a topic like this if you ain't going to take the time to research about it. Here is more

http://www.xenology.info/Xeno/26.3.2.htm

http://www.economicsandethics.org/2010/12/on-artifical-intelligence-and-personhood-with-thanks-to-isaac-asimov.html

http://ufpbm.blogspot.com/2011/02/animals-artificial-intelligence-and.html

http://fightforsense.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/manyargs/comment-page-1/

Don't worry your prejudiced definition of person was shown as it was in the movie Avatar I suggest you watch it some time. You want humanity to be stupidly prejudiced once when we got out on into the stars more and you could care less about the long term consequences of your position

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

''all your examples from History are worthless, because they are about denying personhood of those who could Objectively and Generically qualify as persons, much like many fictional space-aliens, and very much unlike any unborn human.''
Yes the history examples are worthless. Pro lifers fail to realize they were declared non persons based on skin color and ethnicity. The question is, are we going to use that for criteria to determine if a organism is a person or not? OF course not.
There prejudiced definition of person was shown especially in the movie Avatar. The humans in that movie were blowing the Na vi apart to get one precious resource they wanted. It all back fired on them in the end when Jake who was in a Na vi body assembled the whole force of the world on the humans and defeated them.
That's the conclusion to any pro lifer that wants to say person=human.
BTW I don't know how the test got black. It was probably because I copy pasted you from above.

Ignorance_Is_not_Curable said...

The rest of your comment was debunked by ignorance before and also more are becoming more aware of what the word means and doesn't want humanity to be stupidly prejudiced in the long run.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

4. Philosophy: a self conscious or rational being

As for the losing battle part, where have you been? The majority of the world has abortion legal and abortions are done by over 100,000 a day http://www.numberofabortions.com/

ChrisChuteBox said...

Your position is illogical. I was directly to your website where you brainwashed GEIxBattleRifle into being pro choice. He was once pro life and now you turned him into a monster where the both of support killing innocent human beings in the womb on demand.
Science shows the unborn are humans and since a human exists it is also a person since it has a inherent rational nature.
You in your personal opinion think the unborn are not of value. Now this is your logic so watch how it backfires on you. Can I kill a preborn human because they ain't ''PERSON'' enough in my eyes? This is your position. So many have there own personal opinions on personhood that we don't want to run the risk of killing humans so to be on the safe side, the line needs to be drawn after fertilization.

ignorance_is_curable said...

You can do HTML tags in your comments here. I'm not sure how wide is the allowed variety. I most often use the tags associated with bold text and italic text. This is a test of the "span" tag, which if works will display red text because of the "style" attribute.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Your position is irrational.

I do not force anyone to read what I wrote at fightforsense.wordpress.com

Therefore I cannot "brainwash" anyone. Especially since the word has more to do with telling lies, than truths. If you think there are lies among my refutations of anti-abortion arguments, please feel free to explain exactly.

Next, YOU are telling lies, just like most abortion opponents. Unborn humans do not in the slightest qualify as "innocent", any more than you yourself are not-guilty of breathing.

And as for that phrase "human being", only the word "human" is needed to identify one of us. Human offspring, even at the zygote stage, are absolutely 100% human. That does not automatically make them "beings", however! --any more than a cockroach qualifies as a "cockroach being".

Remember that the Law allows brain-dead humans on full-life-support to be unplugged. Why? Because the thing about those humans, which qualified them as "beings", is gone. "Being" is a synonym for "person", and when a human is brain-dead, the person part of the human is dead. Only a living animal human body remains.

An unborn human is only a living animal body, nothing more that that for at least half a pregnancy. When it finally starts growing a mind, the mind it grows is purely animal-level, not superior to the mind of, say, adult dogs (most of which don't have enough self-awareness to recognize themselves in a mirror).

We even have proof (the existence of "feral children") that when left alone, human biology does NOT automatically produce a person-class entity. So you have told another LIE; we do NOT have an "inherent rational nature." It Is Our Natural Biological Heritage To Be No More Than Clever Animals --it takes significant Nurturing to convert human animals into human persons (the Nurturing stimulates additional brain-growth, and THAT is how we acquire a rational nature).

Regarding the zeal of GEIxBattleRifle, it is a well-known phenomenon that those who reverse their opinions tend to become zealous. So long as he restricts it zeal to words instead of actions, you have little to fear (except for getting your lies exposed, of course!).

You are also lying about my personal opinion. Unborn humans can be valued to whatever degree their owners want to value them. As animals under the Law, not persons, they do have owners. So, suppose you own a cell phone --do I tell you that you MUST value it more than the Brooklyn Bridge? No, because it is YOUR cell phone. So, think about Precedent. If you abortion opponents can force YOUR valuation of unborn humans upon others, then someday some other group will come along to force THEIR valuation of something on you, and you won't like that one bit.

And as for the "safe side", you have NO idea what you are talking about. Haven't you heard of the Population Explosion, and what it is doing to the biosphere, in terms of Global Warming, Deforestation, Species Extinctions, and more? The REAL safe side is for even more humans to choose abortion, than already do. We can either have a voluntary population drop, or one will be forced upon us, A.K.A. "Malthusian Catastrophe". The History of Easter Island proved that we are NOT immune, and Island Earth is nothing more than just a bigger island....

ignorance_is_curable said...

[Part Three]
========

UM NO some of the stuff you have on your website like theory of mind and the ability to manipulate abstraction rationally is INDEED IQ based.
-----
You have misinterpreted something. Others have the SPECIFIC goal of allowing abortion. One of my specific goals is peaceful relations between wildly different intelligent species. How Do We Distinguish Them From Mere Animals, When Maybe Their High-Tech Is A Deliberately Broken (sharp-edged) Stone? If you know an Objective Generic Universal Test For Personhood that DOESN'T encompass mental abilities, tell me! Until then, allowing abortion is just a side-effect of my goal.
====

The severely and profoundly mentally retarded don't have none of that. I'm smart enough to know it comes in four degrees and those who have it mildly would still fit your take on it who make up the majority. However, not sure about the one's who have it moderately. But still that is in your PERSONAL opinion on what gives a entity value. If someone said you needed a IQ of 200 to be a person then your take on it isn't better then his/her.
-----
Read #103 at fightforsense.wordpress.com --while YOUR stand is illogical: The severely and profoundly mentally handicapped Did NOT Have The Sort Of "Human Nature" That Yields Rationality. Yet you call them persons in spite of YOUR definition --which DOES encompass a mental ability ("rationality")!
====

Unborn humans have free will also
-----
PROVE IT. Fact: "Kicking" In The Womb is Nature's Programmed Evolutionary Answer To A NASA Question: "How to promote bone growth in a reduced-gravity environment?" There's NO evidence for Free WIll in unborn humans.
====

and no YOU indeed are making him sociopathic and your a psychopath which is even more worse.
-----
Your lies don't bother me, but should bother you. How do you like proving to Society that you are lying, spouting "slander" and "defamation"?
====

SUPER EASY. Science says the unborn are humans thus they are persons saying that they ain't is completely arbitrary. Bugs Bunny is not real and is a rabbit. We EAT rabbits for food. Your position lacks logic and I can see your desperation since you have to resort to science fiction for your illogical position.
-----
FAILURE (expected). Fictional Bugs Bunny is ALWAYS portrayed as a person-class entity, and one with legal rights. That makes him like ANY other fictional person-class entity, say Sam Spade, a human. Only Stupid Prejudice Claims One Fictional Person Is More Of A Person Than Another Fictional Person.

Which returns us to the inadequecy of human-ness for personhood. Remember the abducting space aliens? Even if THEY don't consider US persons, a huge number of humans would be willing to consider THEM to be persons, due to a general exposure to science fiction for most of a century, such as things like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", showing lots of different intelligent species interacting mostly peacefully.
====

FALSE. The proper way to handle this is NOT kill innocent human beings. Your position is a fail. I suggest you look to David Boonin. Even though I don't agree with him, at least he tries his best to defend the killings with his dispositional desires thing.
-----
A Personal Opinion: The best way to deal with human overpopulation is to invent Reversible Sterilization, and apply it to EVERY human before puberty. Note Natural Fact: For Members Of Many Species To Successfully Reproduce, Individuals Must Earn It; Breeding Is Not A Right. Failure to earn it, in Nature, means offspring DIE. If we followed Natural Fact, we should only (temporarily!) unsterilize humans who EARN a breeding privilege ...maybe by proving they can support offspring. Result: legal abortions would seldom happen --almost all pregnancies would be WANTED.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I kept getting "internal server error" messages, and never saw any comment get through. I will delete the excess as much as possible.

ChrisChuteBox said...

''FALSE. Your mere claims are worthless without evidence. And so far, you have offered Zero valid evidence. Nor, skimming what you wrote below, do I see any valid evidence yet being offered. It looks like YOU are the one who has been brainwashed!''

NO, it's you that has been brainwashed since you have no offer anything besides science fiction which has no place in the overall abortion debate. That my man is lacking logic.

''A description of an imaginary thing is not the same thing as a description of a Real Thing. Try again! Or, better, the next time you encounter a hungry man-eating tiger, just tell it you have "intrinsic value" and therefore should not be killed, and see how well that works out for you. Because if intrinsic value was Real, it can be recognized, ALWAYS.''

A tiger can't acknowledge just a thing exist since it's not intelligence enough to understand the abstraction while in the case of the unborn human it's rational nature is what ENABLES it to gain that mental ability even if there is something preventing the human from getting it like in the case of the feral children.

''The Universe is too big for there to NOT be non-human intelligences --and, in fact, not only does one definitely exist right here on Earth (Koko the Gorilla), but various dolphin species may qualify, too.

''

Koko and dolphins are not humans thus are not persons where is your logic from lol

''NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. That word "allows" confuses "potential" with "actual", two very different things. The FACT is, Nothing In Human Biology Guarantees That Personhood Will Be Achieved. It is our DEFAULT "human nature" to be clever animals, nothing more. To claim that we ARE more, just because we have the potential to be more, is equivalent to saying "You ARE dead, just because you have the potential to be dead." It Is Pure Nonsense/Rhetoric.

''

NO NO I meant to say ENABLE not ALLOW.

''If you can think of an Objective Generic Universally Workable Test For Personhood that does NOT encompass mental characteristics, I'd be happy to hear about it. But until then, allowing abortion is just a side-effect of my goal.

''

I have one that will work here is my definition of person.

Person- A organism substance of a rational nature this includes ET and unborn humans.

''The severely and profoundly mentally handicapped, By Defintion Did NOT Have The Sort Of "Human Nature" That Allows Personood To Be Distinguished From Mere Animals. Yet you still call them persons in spite of YOUR definition! Not to mention that, even though you don't say it explicitly, your definition DOES encompass mental characteristics (such as "rationality")!

''

The DIFFERENCE between them and mere animals he that the severe and profoundly mentally retarded brains can be repaired someday to allow rationality again while this is not true of mere animals thus they are persons still.

''The Following Is A Personal Opinion: The best way to deal with human overpopulation is to invent Reversible Sterilization, and then do it to EVERY human before they are ten years old. Then Note This Natural Fact: For Any Member Of Almost Any Species To Successfully Reproduce, That Individual Has To Earn It. Failure to earn it, in Nature, means that the offspring DIE. Therefore successful breeding is not a "right"; it is actually a privilege that must be earned. So, if we followed Natural Fact, we should only (and temporarily) unsterilize the humans who EARN the privilege of breeding...perhaps by proving that they can support their offspring. And as a result, even if abortions were legal, they would almost never happen, because practically all pregnancies would be WANTED.

''
WOW do you ever debate out in public or anything.

ChrisChuteBox said...

''Obviously you don't understand the purpose of science fiction. Besides entertainment it is also educational --they call it "science" fiction for a reason! So, what does it educate about? Almost anything! It expands the mind in a way no ordinary schooling can match --because ordinary schooling is seldom both educational and entertaining.''

Most pro choicers who debate never bring science fiction into the debate so why is this?

'' Already SOME dictionaries simply define a person as "a rational being" --no hint of human-ness required!''

MERE claim is worthless without evidence! I never saw a dictionary that has a non human definition in it. Oxford may though since they have no problem with euthanizing infants and say it's not murder which murder is the killing of a person.

''You don't know what you are talking about.''

You obviously don't from your rhetoric and obfuscation you been doing.

''Regarding unborn humans, they certainly have "potential". They do not now have a "rational nature". Nor is there anything in their biology that makes it inevitable that they will ever have a rational nature.''

There biology is what makes them have a rational nature rather or not they actualize it, it doesn't matter.

''Dictionary definitions CAN AND DO change with time. All I have to do is wait. There is NO chance that the definition of "person" will forever be limited to an association with "human-ness".''

Until then, the dictionary still stands as undisputable and 100% fact about the word person.

''So, like I said, if you want the merely potential to be treated like the actual, then you should be prepared to be buried right now. OR you should stop spouting Rhetoric/Nonsense.''

No that is not a good potential but the unborn humans potential is a good so no, your little potential to actual is nonsense/majoritarian rhetoric.

''You are still talking about "potential", and trying to say it should be equated with the "actual". Does that mean you are ready to be buried now?''
Read above
I do agree with one thing though which I'm not sure if you do is that humans don't have natural restraints and can do as they please. So opposing abortion based solely on abortion being unnatural is not much of a good appeal to free will beings which is WHAT unborn humans are also unless of course, you got facts to show why?

bakakurisu said...

OK, so you have no argument of your own - you're just piggy-backing on your pro-abort cohort? Your names show just how original you guys really are.

Please explain to me the pertinence of the definition of "philosophy" in this debate.

...And where have YOU been? ...Or do you not understand simple English conjugation? "Losing" is present-tense; you'll note that I didn't say "lost". You are, in fact, LOSING this fight.

Here, you can pick your own source:


http://bit.ly/1l0ZFIe

Ignorance_Is_Not_Curable said...

''You are, in fact, LOSING this fight.''
I live in Canada where it is completely legal full nine month and no, abortion is legal in the vast majority of developed nations including the United States so don't try to boost your self esteem

bakakurisu said...

No, but they ARE human beings.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Unborn humans have the potential to become rational beings
-----------
True. They ONLY have potential. Not the actuality of being rational beings.
=========

since they have a rational nature that ordinary animals don't have.
----------
FALSE. They only have POTENTIAL that ordinary animals don't have. They do not NOW have a rational nature.
=========

Also why will it be important?
------------
It will be important as soon as we widely recognize appropriate rationality in non-humans, such as, say, Koko the Gorilla, and possibly dolphins (and likely a few decades from now, True Artificial Intelligences).
=========

Care to define rational as well please?
-------------
Why, don't you have a dictionary? I will say this: In my opinion, rationality alone is NOT sufficient to identify a person from a mere animal. Computers, after all, can be extremely rational, but none, at this time, have OTHER characteristics that can distinguish persons from animals. Free Will is important (and very distinct from rationality).

It is therefore apparent to me that when, philosophically a dictionary defines a person as a "rational being", there is more to the word "rational" than you will probably find in some other dictionary definition.
=========

I wonder when I can cure your ignorance!
-------------
I've basically done that already, with respect to a lot of things related to the Overall Abortion Debate. That's why I am against the nonsense/rhetoric spouted by abortion opponents such as yourself.
=========

They [unborn humans] have rational minds from the moment of conception
-------------
UTTERLY FALSE. I'm stopping right here, in responding to your post, and I'm tempted to stop right here in discussing things with you, since You Obviously Are Exhibiting Denial Of Fact. But I'll give you a chance to PROVE THAT CLAIM, first. Go ahead, let's see you demonstrate exactly how a just-formed zygote can right-now exhibit a rational mind, equivalent to say, the mind of Koko the Gorilla.

ChrisChuteBox said...

''True. They ONLY have potential. Not the actuality of being rational beings.''

Yes and they have potential unlike ordinary animals so they are persons because of that. Man, I'm getting tried of debunking your post.

'' They only have POTENTIAL that ordinary animals don't have.''

EXACTLY and that is why they should be persons only for k-strategists only and not R-strategists.

''They do not NOW have a rational nature.''

Then why do me and you have one then?

''It will be important as soon as we widely recognize appropriate rationality in non-humans, such as, say, Koko the Gorilla, and possibly dolphins (and likely a few decades from now, True Artificial Intelligences)''

NO, only humans can be persons. We need to stay stupidly prejudiced as long as possible so our species definition of the person can stay in law and as long as the average pro choicers doesn't know what the word means, then we will win.

''In my opinion, rationality alone is NOT sufficient to identify a person from a mere animal. Computers, after all, can be extremely rational,.''

Computers are NOT rational beings.

''I've basically done that already, with respect to a lot of things related to the Overall Abortion Debate. That's why I am against the nonsense/rhetoric spouted by abortion opponents such as yourself''

No you have not at all and actually, GEIxBattleRifle did the samething and I smashed him in debate and I'm doing the samething to his obedient master!

''You Obviously Are Exhibiting Denial Of Fact.''

NO, I'M NOT, Your position kills innocent children there mothers should be protecting and nourishing in the womb.

''I'm stopping right here, in responding to your post, and I'm tempted to stop right here in discussing things with you''
NO, I'm enjoying the conversation we're having here, Your the best pro choicer I meant though your position does have faults which I have shown already.

''Go ahead, let's see you demonstrate exactly how a just-formed zygote can right-now exhibit a rational mind, equivalent to say, the mind of Koko the Gorilla''
Well it can't RIGHT NOW just like those in comas can't either, Zygotes are comparable to them. The only time those in comas are not comparable to the unborn is when they are in a ''lock in'' state. I do see though you would've been ok with GEIxBattleRifle's life being snuffed out while he was comatosed by his adoptive mother who just so happens to be a nurse who works with coma patients.

BloodShot9182 said...

''Again, if we meet any space-aliens, we can give them the rights OF persons. Giving personhood rights to ALL PERSONS is not a threat to ET. Calm down.''

Throughout your rambling here, you given no reason for why unborn humans should be persons. If you were out in real life debating about this topic and your audience KNEW about the actually topic of personhood and were open up to non humans being persons you will be hit hard to offer what we should use to determine if a entity should be a person or not. You won't be able to whine arbitrariness since YOU would have to offer something to the plate as well and if you won't like you haven't throughout your posts here on the site then step down.

Your posts are also snarky and for anyone to take you seriously I would suggest you tone it down a bit.

bakakurisu said...

I'm sorry, but are you retarded?

PAY ATTENTION.


I cited a MEDICAL DICTIONARY for my definition of "persons". I would love to see you stand in front of an audience, and explain that give unborn children the right to live is wrong because it's "racist" towards space-aliens. As I said, we can give other beings the rights OF personhood. Giving all persons personhood is not a threat to ET.

...And your piss-poor spelling and grammar makes it hard for YOU to be taken seriously.

BloodShot9187 said...

YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO ACTUALLY ARGUE WHY your definition of person should be accepted which you have not from your recent posts at all. Citing dictionary definitions rather they be medical or not is not going to convince those who know what the word actually means and are looking at the bigger picture.
What criteria should we use to determine if ET's should be considered persons or not?You have yet not answered this because you KNOW whatever you will use will indeed exclude unborn humans. So, step up to the plate like I said and offer something and since you said Ignorances criteria is arbitrary then list criteria that does NOT invoke using mental characteristics then. Have fun with that!
I suggest full grown adults like yourself should stay civilized and stop being childish by calling others like myself who are minors still retarded and answer what I told you or else don't bother wasting my time. Thank you!

bakakurisu said...

More and more countries are abolishing it. You guys legalized it after we did, and you will abolish it after we do. Advocates of life are increasing in numbers, volume, and impact.

Again, at no point did I claim that we have ALREADY WON.

You're not even paying attention to what is being said.

Ignorance_Is_Not_Curable said...

''More and more countries are abolishing it.''

MERE CLAIM is worthless without evidence! Google abortion and look at the map where it is all blue and there is quite a bit of it that signifies it is completely legal.

''You guys legalized it after we did, and you will abolish it after we do.''

Don't get delusional now.

''You're not even paying attention to what is being said.''
Sure I am your claiming abortion will be abolished and I'm stating it never will. Do pay attention please.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I've never considered the bodily autonomy argument to be particularly relevant. That's because it is not really about abortion. It is about one person vs another person. Abortion involves a person and an ANIMAL.

The link you provided is a "news" site. Anything I might post to such a Stupidly Prejudiced site would be ignored. However, the news article was copied from a blog. It might be better to try posting there.



On the other hand, like I already said, I'm not a fan of the bodily autonomy argument. If you would like to see some other reasons why abortion should stay legal, see the "Penultimate" section of the Refutations document at fightforsense.wordpress.com

ChrisChuteBox said...

bakakurisu is jumping off the walls like I did with you when we started debating. Your opening my mind a bit to your position here.

ignorance_is_curable said...

I've noticed. To the extent that one has a rational nature, I expect to open that one's mind, too. But some are more stubborn than others, so we shall have to wait and see.

ChrisChuteBox said...

This is an emotional debate and that is the problem since those who participate in it MAKE it that way. Usually before you debate on a topic, you should always know what words mean and if you don't, you get the typical pro lifers who have no clue what they are talking about spouting nonsense like l did a bit ago. Anyone who has been paying attention in history class or found that dictionary definition of person found in the oxford dictionary and questioned about it should know what it actually means.

ChrisChuteBox said...

Not sure if you this TV show it's called Monster Rancher. They could typically fit your person definition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuVkKScaA6s

ChrisChuteBox said...

''They can only continue to do it by pretending feral children can't happen. But it doesn't really matter, because of the R-strategist argument. Even if we did have exactly the sort of rationale nature they talk about, R-strategists can be like that, also, and STILL almost all of their offspring MUST die. Basically, offspring are not that special, that we need to make a big deal over abortion''

WOW offspring are not special? That will take a bit to enter a pro lifers mind while pro choicers would agree with you on that point.

'' The fact that humans can have a population explosion, even while mostly having only one offspring at a time, even with 30 million abortions a year world-wide, proves how easy it is to replace any that might be aborted.''

So, your saying that the law of supply and demand applies to human life as well?

''In other words, the "kind of organism" argument specifically exists (along with other arguments) to make it seem that undeveloped human offspring are special, while the R-strategist argument shows that all those arguments apply just-as-much to their offspring, and yet most of them MUST die, and therefore NO individual undeveloped offspring is truly special.''

Isn't it JUST your opinion that they ain't nothing special?

''I had other things I wanted to do more, with that 1.5 hours..''

Oh I understand, I knew you weren't going to watch it because it was long. I just wanted to post it to you to show a point.

''I think GEIxBattleRifle has been doing something like that.''

You got him interested in all the science fiction stuff so who knows.

''Humans ARE K-strategists, so the desire to protect offspring is built-in. Some simply have it stronger than others.''

Some don't have it at all especially athiests who the majority are pro choice. GEIxBattleRifle claimed to be one as well. Some compare atheism to Nazism.

'' You don't have to "convert" from pro-life to pro-choice; you could simply become "neutral" (as in "it is no longer any of my business what others do, on this subject" --instead of "promoting" choice, you would be "tolerating" choice)''

Hmmm

''We have Free Will. We are not required to select any particular response to any particular action. I ask you to study #103 at fightforsense.wordpress.com to see SOME of the possibilities.''
I smell arbitrariness in the air. We can do things on a whim now can we?
Gotta go so I will reply to the rest of your comment later.

ignorance_is_curable said...

Thank you.

ChrisChuteBox said...

For what exactly? The show?

ignorance_is_curable said...

For understanding.

BloodShot9187 said...

Your seemingly forgetting the ill person already meets the mental requirement to pass the test again while a unborn or newborn infant does not as they still have to develop still.

ChrisChuteBox said...

No problem. I just had to keep my emotions under control to fully understand what you were saying.
I am not in opposition of keeping abortion legal now. So, you won't see me trying to make it illegal again though, I will keep my pro life beliefs to myself.
As for you being a computer programmer, I bet you do equate the human brain with a computer do you not? The parts as well?

ChrisChuteBox said...

1. Self-consciousness - awareness of oneself as existing over time, with a past and expectation of a future.

2. A notion of freedom - an ability to initiate a purposive sequence of actions and be recognized as responsible for them.

3. Have reasons for acting, and an ability to understand the idea of having a reason for acting.

4. An ability to communicate - to use language.

5. A moral sense - a capacity to make moral judgments.

6. Rationality
I found this list among the web and was wondering if your list is the same as this one.

ChrisChuteBox said...

Ok I was correct. Your list is the same as the one I found just worded more differently.
Also isn't self awareness different from self consciousness? I thought self consciousness is just an advanced stage of self awareness. Care to explain more further?

ChrisChuteBox said...

''It is a self-programming computer --any time you create a "habit" you are essentially creating a computer program.''
Your talking about free will here are you? Correct me if I'm wrong, Most animals are predictable in there behavior which is why we have there behaviors noted down well and are predictable in what they do. With post natal humans we can do whatever we want since we don't have natural restraints. If I want to rape or kill a women I can do it at a moments notice. If I want to starve myself to death I can and can resist the urge to eat while ordinary animals can not resist the urge. Does this sum it up?
I do think we can one day build a artificial intelligence. You can explain them quite well since your a computer programmer. Your friend GEIxBattleRifle explained one of the fictional AI's quite well and Philip who made a false assumption about Cortana got butt hurt about it lol.
Also, is your blog getting a increase in visitors yet?

ChrisChuteBox said...

How would you answer this, ''All humans are persons but not all persons are humans?''

ChrisChuteBox said...

It seems like bakakurisu is getting snotty with you here http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/03/an-agnostic-on-sidewalk.html.
That is the problem with the pro lifer movement. They get very snotty and no one will take them seriously.

ignorance_is_curable said...

While it is possible that the issue is more complicated than I've indicated, I tend to think of "being conscious" as being equivalent to "being awake/aware". A great many animals have consciousness. But few are conscious of how they themselves fit into their environment --"self-aware". (Humans can over-do that, How many animals besides us can experience "stage fright"?)

ignorance_is_curable said...

Technically, you have presented two statements, both of which should be separately proved. Regarding the latter statement, that not all persons are humans, we have Koko the Gorilla as strong factual evidence, dolphins as still-being-debated evidence, legends as apocryphal evidence, and huge amounts of fantasy and science fiction as imaginary evidence.

Regarding the former statement, that all humans are persons, there is only the imaginary evidence of "common usage", as presented in dictionaries.

ignorance_is_curable said...

He wrote a bunch of posts about the same time, and I'll get to them in due course. Perhaps the word "desperate" is more relevant than "snotty", though. :)

ignorance_is_curable said...

'It is a self-programming computer --any time you create a "habit" you are essentially creating a computer program.''

Your talking about free will here are you? Correct me if I'm wrong, Most animals are predictable in there behavior which is why we have there behaviors noted down well and are predictable in what they do.
----------
Yes, most animals qualify as biological stimulus-response machines. The ones with significant learning capability, though, are able to create habits without being consciously aware of it. We call it "Pavlovian conditioning" --any time the Environment consistently offers an appropriate reward, the animal will eventually do the simplest thing that can acquire the award --and it becomes a habit. Bears, for example, are aware enough of the time of year to habitually head for a river just about the same time the salmon start going upstream to spawn.
=======

With post natal humans we can do whatever we want since we don't have natural restraints. If I want to rape or kill a women I can do it at a moments notice. If I want to starve myself to death I can and can resist the urge to eat while ordinary animals can not resist the urge. Does this sum it up?
--------------
Well, don't confuse choice with action; they are two different things. Lots of folks have been known to say something like, "If I had my druthers, I'd shoot him" --they are talking about a preferred choice, which they then choose to inhibit (generally speaking). Have you waded through all that "social contract" stuff in #103 yet at the fightforsense blog?
==========

I do think we can one day build a artificial intelligence. You can explain them quite well since your a computer programmer. Your friend GEIxBattleRifle explained one of the fictional AI's quite well and Philip who made a false assumption about Cortana got butt hurt about it lol.

Also, is your blog getting a increase in visitors yet?
----------
The blog is not hugely busy. I'm not sure I'm prepared for the kind of traffic that this blog gets. And I have other commitments....

ChrisChuteBox said...

Sorry to keep pecking at you but what is your opinion on this from Francis Beckwith?

''What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his or her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether or not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally (either because she is too young or she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature. Consequently, it makes sense to speak of a human being’s lack if and only if she is an actual person.''
Also, I do agree with what your saying. Some times also if you enter one of those circus tents that is dark with mirrors in them and turn on the lights you would some times get spooked of your reflection in the mirror BUT you will quickly realize in a second or so it's just you you are looking at in the mirror.

Chaoticblu said...

1. YES I'm f*cking serious

2. I can give you tons of other dictionary definition to "human being"...I HAVE done my research.

3. I don't care about your alien talk as it irrelevant to the issue of all human beings having the same rights.

4. However, I suppose you could call it 'murder' to kill an alien , but only in say everyday conversation. Murder is a legal term we have created to in making laws regarding human beings killing other human beings.

5. There may be other types of beings, but we are TALKING about human beings, what WE are. NOT tree beings or some other beings or persons from a fictional movie.
Human beings are members of the Homo Sapien species. Human beings are also persons. This is who the abortion debate applies to.

6. Your non understading of basic biology and basic definitions makes you no longer worth discussing with, if you ever were. You really need to pick up a biology book. And several dictionaries. I suggest Merriam Webster.(just was too lazy to post all the definition I have saved to Word before)

7. I recalled a while ago that we've crossed paths before. I remembered why I stopped debating with you. You're full of nonsense.

8. Sorry for the late reply. Was talking a break from your nonsense to regain my sanity.

Not trying to deflect, just REALLY can't deal with your crazyness anymore. K? I will rememver not to strike up a conversaton with you in the future if I wan to keep my brain cells.

Chaoticblu said...

lmao ok gotta interject. unborn humans are incapable of deciding to kill another person or shooting someone. They don't poison prey..they have no prey. They don't claw at you or bite you They can NOT decide to harm someone or not.

People can have pregnancy complications yes, but it is not the child directly harming them. Some woman have weak uteruses that can't handle a growing baby. Some have issues with developing blood clots -which is a common symptom and common to treat (I've had them and I know pregnant woman who got shots of blood thinners while pregnant. They were fine after the meds worked. )

If you are trying to insinuate the parasite argument..I have a response for that. It's one I heard from another who got it from somewhere else..quote from a doctor I think. I haven't tracked down the original publication but I have the Facebook post copied and it has the doctor's name I believe and maybe even where it's from. I just never tracked it down myself.

Human beings are not classified as parasites. (though some may argue that they fit the concept of destroying things.) But we need to talk FACTS here.

Laws need to be based on FACTS. And the current fact is, preborn children are NOT parasites, they are homo sapiens who are not causing harm. They are meant to be created to further our species.

If preborn humans were 'bad for us' bad for us woman to carry no one would every carry one. They would be deemed an epidemic and everyone would abort if they ever got pregnant and our species would die out.

But nature makes sense, even if we don't always understand it. Reproduction has a purpose , its not 'alien' or harmful to us..rather it lets us further along our species.

Again, yes some people have pregnancy complications for whatever reasons but there are exceptions to almost everything(keyword almost) . But in general, babies=a sexually reproducing species being able to pass on their genes and not die out=good.

Chaoticblu said...

Vampires are actually an interesting situation. And fictional.But on one end, they can't help they need blood. So yes attacking people for their blood is them just being who they naturally are. Like viruses and ACTUAL parasites. But it IS ok to defend against them because they often kill their victims when drinking. And even if they didn't, they attacked you in the first place. The thing is, there are different types of vampires. some could be considered 'innocent' in that they weren't actually targeting you specifically, they were just acting on instincts. But it still doesn't change they tried to harm you and you have a right to defend yourself.

some, like in Buffy are fully self aware and can control their thirst. Some go to other types of animal (non human) blood. Some hit up blood banks , depending on the lore or show or book. These kinds aren't hurting humans so..it's debateable whether they should be allowed to live or not. But I'm not going to further debate something fictional with you like that, that is irrelevant to the abortion debate.

A preborn child doesn't attack you. They need nutrition from their mother yes, but woman were built to carry children. (She by all means doesn't have to ever conceive any. That's her choice ( *save for the conflicting issue of rape that I have discussed a ton in other places already.)

A baby doesn't take nutrition it's mother needs , the mother usually develops a larger appetite to compensate for having another person in her to feed. Plus she will produce milk to purposely feed her child. Some don't produce enough for varying reasons that could do with diet and meds shes' on -a factor of being a species that has more going on then basic primitive instincts telling us to eat sleep and reproduce.

But it's a fact woman are supposed to by nature carry preborn children to further the human race. Again we have free will though so it's fine for someone to choose not to conceive.

Chaoticblu said...

Even if you chimed in just because he was bugging you to, thank you. He's driving me nuts. I appreciate the support. I don't claim to be the best at debate but I really try and be thoughtful with my answers. But some of the stuff he's saying about aliens and other things go over my head, I'm not a science major or anything.

And I just saw this so sorry for the late thank you. Please don't let him get to you though, I recall dealing with him before and he was just as nonsensical.

Chaoticblu said...

I think you are just being lazy. You can very well do a search for "state abortion laws' or "country abortion laws" and find out info yourself. But if you must have your hand held, here

http://www.aul.org/your-state/

Click any state on the map and a description on it's aborton laws will come up. If you don't like it or want to compare it with another abortion laws list go ahead and do more research.

Abortion has not YET been 100% abolished but things take time. States could be considered in the process of abolishing it since there have been recent laws interacted concerning it, and we already have some so if abortion keeps getting more and more restricted it's reasonable to believe that eventual all ELECTIVE abortion should be banned.

I can only speak for the states though since that's where I reside.

And it's important to note the pro life movement is about abolishing elective abortion, due to it being the deliberate intent of killing another human being without good cause.

With a medically necessary abortion , the INTENT is NOT to devalue the child or kill them because they are inconvenient or because the woman hates the father and is projecting her negative feelings towards him onto the child. Usually the child cannot survive because of the medcial situation either and not removing them would only cause both them and the woman to due.

Life saving measures for BOTH mother and child should always be tried first but if both just simply cannot be saved it isn't acting out of malice that the child is killed.

It's not right still to kill ANY innocent person, but it's not wrong in this case either as it's to save another's life who the child is temporarily connected to. That connection makes the ethic situation tricky. But really it's not a right or wrong situation in that case. It just 'is'..if you can understand that philosophy.

Chaoticblu said...

I didn't read all his and your arguments but there is NO reason dragons need to be mentioned in an abortion debate.

Ignorance- We are discussing abortion, which is a topic that involved the homo sapiens species! This is NOT the place to fight for dragons and aliens having personhood rights!




Noun1.personhood - being a person; "finding her own personhood as a campus activist"http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/personhood


personhood
Syllabification:
per·son·hood
Pronunciation: /ˈpərsənˌho͝od



/

noun
The quality or condition of being an individual person.More example sentences

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/personhood?q=personhood

Chaoticblu said...

THANK YOU Coyote for mentioning consensual incest. We all KNOW it happens and someone shouldn't be allowed to cry rape and get away with killing her kid because she want's to hide her relationship or whatever. Lying about a rape is NOT acceptable and hurts men who didn't actually hurt you. Don't agree with inscset because of the social stigma and that it can cause birth defect in resutling children (along with them carrying a stigma) but hate how people usually make exception for "rape and incest" like ALL incest is rape or that non consensual incest has to be called such and can't just be called rape.

Now, a Public Service Announcement:


People really do need need to accept responsibility for their own actions. Consenting to sex DOES mean you acknowledge what you are doing is a reproductive act that can lead to creating new lives. Those new lives are innocent beings just like you, and it's not usually legal to kill innocent people so why should we kill innocent preborn people? The laws right now aren't equal.

If you don't understand human reproduction, your birth control options (ethical ones that don't impede implantation), and 100% do NOT want to risk becomming pregnant DON"T RISK it. You are not ready for sex if you cannot handle becomming pregnant. A life is not a toy. Everyone needs to make an informed choice when having sex. Parents need to teach their children this.

I'm sick of people whining they that don't want to own up to their own choices. You make a bad investment, you go bankrupt...you blame someone else? You kill your stockbroker even though he did his best -and in this scenario- did not cheat you or scam you in any way? Should you have the right to kill them?

The baby needing your body temporarily is irrelevant. If anything it makes it EVEN MORE important you actually THINK before you sleep with someone. If you can't deal with pregnancy DON"T conceive. Please by all means kiss, touch each other, engage in anal if you want. But do NOT bring another life into the picture if you don't plan on letting them live.

We don't let people kill puppies because they bought them and then later decided they didn't have time for them. No, they find them a new home, even if that means taking them to a (no kill!) shelter. People are tried for animal abuse when found out. Our preborn children the same if not more respect.(I mean treat them like children.)

*I'm talking about CONSENSUAL sex with this post, as it is a huge reason people abort. Rape is a serious issue too and I have discussed it in many places already.

Chaoticblu said...

Hear hear! If you want to use an act for a purpose other than intended , be prepared to possibly become pregnant. If it would be so devastating for you to become pregnant , then get your tubes tied. Get your womb removed. Do whatever you want with YOUR body to prevent CONCEPTION. That is certainly your right.

The situation changes when another person's rights conflict with your own. And death is a harsh sentence anyway..why should someone die for NOT committing a crime?

And in general, woman were made to carry children. That is, we are the ones who biologically have to. Don 't want to? That is fine don't conceive them. But preborn people deserve the same protections and rights as ever other human being. Otherwise it isn't fair or equal and fairness is (supposed to anyway) be important to us as people. Otherwise no one would care about woman getting equal pay for the same work.

Some people have complicatons with pregnancy and medically nessicary abortons are understandable. But other things like fatigue and blood clots even are typical issues that will eventually go away (blood clots with meds). Sorry it sucks but that's nature. If someone has issues with their pregnancy they should see their obgyn for treatment.

If you don't want to even RISK getting bad pregnancy symptoms then don't risk becoming pregnant. End of discussion. That may mean tubes being tied, a vasectomy for the woman's partner, or abstaining from vaginal intercourse. Take your pick. But I wouldn't settle on daily birth control or anything than as there is still a risk of conceiving. And if someone would dead set abort they clearly need something stronger than average birth control.

I certainly hope we have more ethical birth control l options on the market soon.

*again discussing consensual sex right now.

Chaoticblu said...

I think religious freedom should apply to business owners as well when they are acting as business owners as well as individuals like any of us. So I think any business like Hobby Lobby has the right to not play for insurance plans that cover contracpeton it's against.

However, I do believe there should be some limitations to their rights to do so. Like a business owner who doesn't believe in modern medicine on religious grounds should still have to provide insurance plans that cover basic preventive and emergency care. Maybe not the prescriptions the person gets after the visit though.

I'd like to see people be able to buy riders for many things and really personalize their plans. I think that would be a fair compromise; business owners having to at least pay for preventive care (excluding contraception) but a person being able to add a rider to their employee plan that covered whatever they wanted it to.

I don't believe though that a business has the right to do some things in the name of religious freedom if what they are doing violates an existing law/policy (with the exception of Obamacare because it's still really new and people are legally fighting it ). But an employer still shouldn't be able to fire someone because they are a different religion than them or because of their gender or anything like that that people already have protection from.

So overall it is not quite a black and white issue and compromises will need to be made.

I don't really have a head for business or the insurance system (I hate it and thinks it needs an overhaul) so I don't know if the rider idea would be feasible really but I'd like to think so.

Chaoticblu said...

The laws currently can't make anyone get vaccinate,except under certain circumstances , so that needs to be thought about. I'm on the fence about vaccines in general- whether it should be someone's choice or not, especially if we are talking about vaccinating children. I believe they are safe, just not sure we can rightly force parents to vaccinate their children.

That said, currenly it's a choice and I would say vegans like everyone have the legal right not to get vaccinated.

I'm actually against embryo research and animal testing, so I got the new egg free vacine this year. It covers 3 or 4 flu strains. Sorry but I forgot what its' called.

I think it's great we have that option now, but I wouldn't fault a vegan for getting the older one. I read about this issue once on a vegan blog. The blogger acknowledged that sometimes compromises have to be made..if vegan friendly options aren't available. I agree. It doesn't' mean you support your cause any less. Just the reality is life is full of compromises.

I wouldn't think it was hypocritical of them to get an egg containing vaccine and still protest against animal testing or for animal rights then. My way of thinking is, at least that chicken embryo didn't die in vain. You can thank the animals for their sacrifice to help your health and thank them by fighting against further testing and donating to fund more ethical alternatives.

Chaoticblu said...

I agree with this. No one is forced to work for places with stipulations. It's the employers duty to explain any conditions for maintaining employment, and the prospective employee either accepts them or walks away. This would usaully be down by signing or not signing a contract.

Now if the condition violates a law or policy the prospective employee can rightly file a grievance with the BBB or other organization that handles those matters. I certainly don't condone unfair or illegal conditions.

I can see some people maybe feeling they are 'forced' to work somewhere with stiuplations they don't agree because they have trouble finding employment , but that doesn't change you signing the contract. I would suggest again maybe going to the BBB , or your union or looking into forming one or flat out quitting if you really have a problem with the job conditions and going to a Michigan (or other state) Works! or other place for employment help.

Chaoticblu said...

Oh and you don't have to get insurance through work. Though I hear they are usually discounted policies than buying one from somewhere else. I've never had health insurance from work so I can't really compare.


But if you don't like the policy then feel free to get one somewhere else. But I think the employer should explain the policy during the interview or at least during job training, and also a person should ask about it if it's important for them to know.

Chaoticblu said...

Yes they are.

1in·fant noun \ˈin-fənt\

: a very young child

Full Definition of INFANT

1

: a child in the first period of life

2

: a person who is not of full age : minor

See infant defined for English-language learners »

See infant defined for kids »

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infant

In case of any confusion

CHīld/

noun

noun: child; plural noun: children

1.

a
young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

synonyms:
youngster,
little one, boy,
girl;
More

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

A human being in their blastocyst stage is certainly "a young human below the age of puberty", and also "a child in the first stage of life" cuz well it's certainly the first stage of life when you are newly conceived.

And not to forget "person"

per·son noun \ˈpər-sən\

a human being

: a person who likes or enjoys something specified
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

A preborn infant is certainly a "person who is not of full age" as well.

Do I need to define "human being" as well for you?

I can site more sources if you like.

Chaoticblu said...

Thanks for the positive feedback, I tried to consider your question carefully.

Cannibalism is an interesting point. Not every species practices it though and I believe humans are one that is not meant to by nature. Some people have been known to do it in extreme situations to survive and maybe some people are mentally ill and would want to- but otherwise that is not the norm as far I understand it. Otherwise we'd have to figure out which humans to legally kill for food, and we haven't yet so it's not the norm.

Like I said we are sentient , self aware, can interact with our world on a more complicated level than other species. We've created artificial food and drinks like soda. But I still think in some ways we still need to take a cue from nature, and cannibalism to me is one of those situations.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by governing other animals than? A lion has the instincts to lead his pride for example. A queen ant controls her nest. Why do we need to interfere with that?

I think animals should have rights..like the right to roam freely , get reestablished int the wild. If we want to eat them we can properly hunt them. Bow and arrow preferred.

They should be protected from poaching and not killed just for fun. For food and clothing (at the same time, not kill an animal just for its fur. Use as much from them as you can.)

I am not sure giving them rights such as these means it would be given them "personhood" but we may differ on our view of the term.

I don't think the focus is on purposely given more rights to human as opposed to other animals. But just given both humans and other animals rights and protections they seem to need.

Chaoticblu said...

Ok maybe I should add, that animals should be allowed to roam freely ...in their own habitat. I'm not saying I want lions walking down my street. And perhaps fencing some large areas off to protect people from invasion (and vise versa) would be a smart option. So I want them to be able to safely live in their own environments.

Chaoticblu said...

Thanks for backing me up. I stand by my use of infant though. I double checked the dictionary after they challanged it. From the best of my knowledge I am correct.

Chaoticblu said...

Oh and I would never knowingly get a vaccine that contained aborted fetal remains. That is just creepy to me even if the abortion was a medically necessary one. Maybe to akin to cannibalism to me?

if it was "MN" however I do feel like the parents should be allowed to donate the remains to medical research , just like anyone else who chooses to. Just the parents have to make that choice because the child wasn't of age to make it themselves. The remains should be cremated after if possible though out of respect.

I wouldn't advoate this for a non MN aborton as I feel like it might ecnourage people to abort more. And if the parents are going to kill their child they don't have a right to decide anything as they have revoked their 'parental' rights. Those children should still be cremated properly though.

I'd like to maybe start a fund/organization that does that. Collects money to properly bury/cremate aborted children. Maybe buy plots in cemeteries for them too. (The remains have to go somewhere.) It's just an idea that needs more work.

Maybe also help people with funeral /burial arrangements for there deceased born children (though I wish that never happened.)

Jessica Taylor said...

My 2 year old daughter didn't qualify for personhood under your explanation. As a perfectly normal child of her age, while she hates to see others she loves suffer, she doesn't yet have the capacity for empathy. So you'd saying it should be my right to drown her in a bathtub, or maybe just neglect her to death and go on with my Now unencumbered, carefree childless life if I so chose? You say that unlike a fetus in the womb, a born child would most likely go on living even if they weren't protected by laws. While that's true, a born child needs far more care and patience on the part of its caretakers, and would certainly die without one and would likely die if in the care of a bad one. Pregnancy is a breeze compared to parenthood. What I think is the only thing separating a born child from an unborn is being able to see and hold it in your arms. People come up with all these philosophies to justify abortion, when really it all comes down to a lack of imagination. They just can't fathom the little human inside well enough to foster any sense is connection to it on its own merits, as they would a tiny baby in arms.

purrtriarchy said...

How often does parenthood kill maim and injure?

And if pregnancy is a breeze, then surely mandatory organ and tissue donation should be instituted to save the lives of born children.

Jessica Taylor said...

The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. was .028%, and would probably be even lower if having "the experience" of home birth wasn't so trendy these days. In this country, in this age, I think that particular arguement is nearly moot. The maiming and injury? You mean like vaginal tears and c-sections? Had both. They heal. As much as childbirth hurts like anything (and ohhh but it does), the daily grind of raising children is harder. And organ donation? Do your mean in the case that someone dies? I don't understand NOT being an organ donor. Hell, IMO maybe it should be mandatory.

purrtriarchy said...

Children are dying in hospitals as we speak. Mandatory organ donation would save their lives. And wounds heal!

Jessica Taylor said...

If I knew a kid who needed a transplant of some part of my body I could do without AND I was a match, I'd do it. Also, comparing donating or not to a very ill child (that may die even if it got a transplant), to dismembering or not a healthy fetus seems incongruous to me.

Conchita said...

It is lovely to discover a group that talks personhood from the moment of conception under purely scientific terms.
Indeed, trying to change this is a purely arbitrary way of interpreting life for what could be convenience.
Many thanks.
I am Catholic, yet, even I do use this language, people take a while to see that I am not informed by religion, but by science!
Thus I am engaging here in pure scientific language.

As regards contraception, well, I am sure you agree that every type does a disservice to women. From the condom to the IUD to the hormonal pill (apart from the fact that these last two are abortifacient, so I assume your organisation does not approve of them). The only "service" it does woman is to allow her to have intercourse in the same non-committed way as men (though not fully, as women can always, not matter what, conceive, as many cases have shown). I writhe "service" (in inverted commas) because, as I write later, it really is not such.

Please study the scientific positive effect for the woman of natural/non contraceptive sexual encounter. From antiseptic, to oxytocen trigger, to bonding, to... It remains to be studied what the pshycological effect of female orgasm is for the woman in her fertile time (with condom use, thus tricking the woman's body). Indeed what it does to the psychosexual man's approach to her and to the possible conceived child.

Another aspect of contraception is that it could run the risk of increase in lust versus a loving committed relationship that is also open to the possible conceived child. Thus abstinence is clearly a way forward that respects women fully and respects a possible conceived life.
The only "problem" with abstinence is that it does not allow sex in the woman's fertile time!
But why embark on behaviour that has negative consequences (contraception) when there is one that has none (abstinence)?
I find the use "positive sexuality" misinformed....

Conchita said...

Theodor, I have explained the disservice and the "service" part in my comment. Maybe you can read it again? There are biological reasons for my point. Plus possible psychological ones,

I appreciate you want for women the "freedom" from pregnancy men have.
But, by taking it to the extreme of calling a pregnancy "life threatening" instead of "life giving"... would this not be precisely the mental correlation pro-abortionists make?

As regards this "contraceptive mentality", I prefer to have men accept pregnancies that their women have to by their natural healthy biology. In fact a man who loves the woman so much that the baby is always welcome and looked after by the two.

I would like to think that every encounter is aware of the likelihood of a baby emerging... so I prefer a non-contraceptive mentality. Encounters that value all aspects of sexuality equally: reproduction, relationship and pleasure. It is possible.

Natural planning, based on the knowledge and acceptance of the woman/s fertility cycle, work really well, and do away with my descriptive disservice of contraception, while allowing her full control of both conception and avoidance of it. And it does not lead to abortions.
In fact iit is working really well for many many couples and in may countries, giving figures of "unplanned pregancies" (but not "crisis" or "unwanted", as a contraceptive mentality would have them) as good or better than with combined artificial (and harmful) systems.

I hope I have made myself understood now.
Basically: what seems to be a "service" or, as you say, a "good thing" seems not to be the case, all things considered.!

Also... please reread my motives for what I explain as disservice as regards the pleasure, health and relationship of the woman.

thedoorisajar said...

So if the pregnancy kills the woman, it's 'life-giving' by your metric?

Conchita said...

I wrote a lot, Theodor. Yet you only comment on this.
Yes, a woman can be killed in pregnancy. A man cannot.
A woman can also give birth. A man cannot.
And, by the way, a woman can also be killed by oestrogen derived cancer.
Kind regards.

thedoorisajar said...

So?

Conchita said...

A woman vives BIRTHDAY And that carried a risk.
Contracepción carried a risk with no baby!

Conchita said...


A woman gives birth and that carries a risk, yes.
Contraception has side effects, as expressed in my first comment, including life-threatening cancer due to the artificial oestrogens.
So either a woman accepts the possible maternity

Conchita said...

Or is this "service" being done to men, at no cost to them?

Conchita said...

If a woman dis not want the risk of any life threatening pregnancies then she would have other artificial side effects, as expressed above, and some threatening to her health.

secularprolife.org said...

but a mosquito is not a human being. We were never mosquito's so we cannot and need not empathize. But we were all once fetuses.so we must empathize.

secularprolife.org said...

But we were all once fetuses, so we must empathize.

-----
EMPATHIZING DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS, that the unborn human organism is a mere animal that acts worse than a parasite, that it is guilty of doing things no adult would tolerate being done by another adult, and that it does those things in accordance with "might makes right", the Law Of The Jungle, just to survive.


A pregnant woman is entirely free to decide how she wants to respond to being subjected to such treatment. Your opinions as an outsider are worthless in this matter, because your life isn't being affected in the slightest, whether she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, or to abort it. (And if your sensibilities are detrimentally affected, that just means you need more sensible sensibilities!)

secularprolife.org said...

Your life is not being effected by people being killed in Sudan, but you should still empathize and want to change it. You're confusing things. The aborting mother goes by "might makes right", by taking the life of her baby, who has no chance of escaping death. Adults have the "might", not the fetus. This human "parasite" is only asking for 9 months to grow and then the mother can get on with her life and give it up for adoption. Or induce at 24 weeks and give it up, if she can't take 9 months of pregnancy. It is not much different from a newborn in the way it behaves. At 3 months it sucks its thumb, grasps objects with its hand, drinks and pees amniotic fluid, moves around vigorously, and most importantly RECOILS FROM PAIN. This is a human being who has a survival instinct, like you, like all of us.

secularprolife.org said...

What if it kills her? Is that "too much to ask?" Does it also have the right to torture and maim her?

And no, fetuses prior to 25 weeks gestation lack tbr capacity for sentience. Plus, they are unconscious in utero. You have no idea what you are talking about.

secularprolife.org said...

The recoil from pain, so yes they can feel pain. I know the argument, that fetuses before 25 weeks can't interpret the pain emotionally. But neither can some mentally retarded people. They still feel it!! And, you say fetuses are unconscious?? Are you ok??? When was the last time an unconscious person moved?? Everyone knows that a even an 8 week old fetus swims around in the amniotc fluid. it is seen on ultrasounds, including mine! If the life or health of the mother is at stake then of course it is ok. But if it is 22 plus weeks, then it is viable, so it makes sense to extract the fetus live, let the dr's help it, then give it up for adoption. If you don't believe me look it up. The youngest baby to survive was 21 weeks. Better than tearing the baby a up live.

secularprolife.org said...

Ok, wow, the ignorance on display here. Wow.

The recoil from pain, so yes they can feel pain

A braindead patient can recoil from pain. So can a brainless anencephalic fetus. And an amoeba. That doesn't mean that they can actually *experience* the sensation of pain, as it is, you can strike a braindead patient/brainless infant in the knee, and both will react *involuntarily* because a brain is not needed to reflexively react to a stimulus - all that is needed is a spinal cord / brain stem.

But neither can some mentally retarded people.

Mentally disabled people are fully sentient and they do in fact have emotions. Your use of the term 'retarded' is also incredibly ableist. I am appalled. A mentally disabled person is completely capable of suffering, and of feeling pain.

When was the last time an unconscious person moved??

An unconscious person is still sentient and is perfectly capable of DREAMING while asleep, and of also MOVING - ever heard of sleepwalking?

Everyone knows that a even an 8 week old fetus swims around in the amniotc fluid.

Involuntary movements. Meaningless.

If the life or health of the mother is at stake then of course it is ok.

Every pregnancy has the potential to kill and maim. An abortion is 14x safer than bringing a pregnancy to term.

The youngest baby to survive was 21 weeks. Better than tearing the baby a up live.


21 weeks, more like 23 or 24, as the lungs are nearly completely solid at 21 weeks. It is likely that they got the dates wrong on the gestational age.



And as a fetus is incapable of sentience prior to 25 weeks, it doesn't matter HOW it's removed, as it can't feel a goddamn thing.

secularprolife.org said...

CONFLATION. The people being killed in Sudan are people. Abortions kill mere animals. Period. Therefore empathizing with the Sudanese makes sense; we are people, too. Empathizing with mere animals only makes sense when they are pets. You don't empathize with pests, food-animals, etc.


The aborting mother has a perfect right to use "might makes right", because the unborn human did it first! And you are not paying attention to one of the most disappointing of facts, which is the mind-altering substance, oxytocin, that the unborn human infuses into its hostess. That substance is responsible for making many women change their minds after birth, and NOT adopting-out the newborns.


Huge numbers of would-be adopters are disappointed by that "might-makes-right" thing that unborn human animal organisms do. So, it doesn't actually matter if the unborn get aborted or not, if in neither case will an adoption happen!

secularprolife.org said...

Correction: What kind of animal are we? Humans. Same for fetuses. Correction: Might makes right: Who put the fetus there in the first place? Correction: Many babies are adopted, and yes, sometimes the mother wants that baby back, but i know a lot of adopted people whose mother never contacted them. So what if the oxytocin works and the mother changes her mind? She still has the choice, whether she makes it when the oxytocin wears off sometime postpartum or right after the birth.
You are trying to convince yourself of something that is convenient for you, because you are selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

A fetus is not braindead, it is almost constantly moving. I was pregnant, I know, and I have seen objective medical videos on a fetoscope. As my Northeastern U child development text book said, the 3 month old fetus shows us it can feel, including painful stimuli at 3 months. It is just a MATTER of INTELLIGENCE for the fetus. They lack a fully functioning frontal cortex which would enable them to emotionally or cognitively interpret pain, that is even what the pro choice side says. Look it up. the mistake they make is saying that this means it cannot feel in any other part of its brain. It has brainwaves also in the Thalamus that interprets feeling and pain. Newborns react on instinct and don't completely emotionally interpret their pain. It is a gradual process, the acquisition of emotion and cognitive function, and does not negate the value of their lives. As I have said, mentally handicapped people lack some cognitive function in their frontal cortex. As for the 21 week premature baby who survived, yes her parents said 21 weeks. She is a healthy toddler now. Babies bodies develop sometimes quicker than others, as do kids. If you want to think you know more than her doctor, than go right ahead. WHy can't sexually active women take a pregnancy test once a month and then if they don't want the baby, abort before 11 weeks. and also use reliable contraception. We have to act responsibly because we have the power to produce setient human beings very quickly.

secularprolife.org said...

A fetus is not braindead, it is almost constantly moving.

Involuntary movements, sweetie. The EEG brainwaves that are associated with consciousness ARE ABSENT.

As my Northeastern U child development text book said, the 3 month old
fetus shows us it can feel, including painful stimuli at 3 months.


Nope, you are wrong. Again. Fetuses are incapable of distinguishing touch from pain until week 35 of gestation. Here is a citation, read it please: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

. Look it up. the mistake they make is saying that this means it cannot feel in any other part of its brain

Yeah, clearly you are not intelligent enough to understand the science. It's body can react to noxious stimuli, but because the thalamus and the cortex are non-functiona, it cannot consciously process the sensation of pain, which means it can't actually feel a goddamn thing.

Newborns react on instinct and don't completely emotionally interpret their pain.

Newborns can feel pain because, as my citation shows, they are in fact SENTIENT. They have the brainwaves that are associated with THOUGHT.

As for the 21 week premature baby who survived, yes her parents said 21 weeks.

Yeah, and they most likely got it wrong.

We have to act responsibly because we have the power to produce setient human beings very quickly.


So you are all about punishing women for having non-procreative sex?

secularprolife.org said...

Who put the fetus there in the first place?


So conception = a negligent and/or criminal act in your opinion?

secularprolife.org said...

Correction:
-----
MORE LIKE AN INTRODUCTION OF IMPRECISION
=====

What kind of animal are we? Humans.
-----
TRUE --BUT: we consider ourselves to be more than only mere animals, and we have a specific reason for making that claim.
=====

Same for fetuses.
-----
TRUE --BUT they are in no way more than ordinary animals. If you want to claim otherwise, that they qualify-right-now as more-than-ordinary, let's see the Evidence!
=====

Correction:
-----
NOPE, NOT THIS TIME.
=====

Might makes right: Who put the fetus there in the first place?
-----
IT DID. Sex does not force a blastocyst to implant into a womb. It does it all by itself. Note that when a wanted pregnancy fails to happen, the blastocyst is often blamed for it. That means it can also be blamed when a blastocyst implants to cause an unwanted pregnancy. Any other blame-shift is Pure Hypocrisy.
=====

Correction:
-----
NOPE. Because I didn't specify "all"
=====

Many babies are adopted, and yes, sometimes the mother wants that baby back, but i know a lot of adopted people whose mother never contacted them.
-----
There are always people less-influenced by drugs, than other people.
=====

So what if the oxytocin works and the mother changes her mind?
-----
IT MEANS YOU THINK THE UNBORN HUMAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH MIGHT-MAKES-RIGHT, that it is OK to drug people against their will (e.g., date-rape drugs must be OK for you, too). Tsk, tsk!
=====

She still has the choice, whether she makes it when the oxytocin wears off sometime postpartum or right after the birth.
-----
LESS THAN YOU CLAIM. Partly because lots of folks only want to adopt newborns, not months-older babies. That's why unwanted children end up in orphanages instead of other people's homes.
=====

You are trying to convince yourself of something that is convenient for you, because you are selfish.
-----
FACTS ARE FACTS. No convincing necessary, except on your part, to Stop Denying Facts. Selfishness has absolutely nothing to do with it --and in fact, in the Overall Abortion Debate, both sides have rationales based on selfishness. Here:

Per The Law Of Supply And Demand, businesses know that if they can restrict production of Resources, then they can increase their profits. Therefore, despite claiming to embrace competition, businesses generally strive to put each other out of business (thereby reducing Supply while Demand is unchanged, and thus prices and profits go up).

But there is another way that businesses can profit. If they can increase Demand without increasing Supply, that works for them, too. The most common way to attempt to increase Demand is through advertising. But that's not the only way.

Note that "political conservatives" are very often associated with businesses --you can be sure they know all about The Law Of Supply And Demand. The association of political conservatives with businesses is such that if Demand can be increased, the politicos will personally profit from it.

And most of those political conservatives oppose abortion! By seeking to force extra people to be born, they plan on directly profiting from increased Demand!

But that is not the only consequence to making more people get born! See, those extra people will mostly eventually grow up and need jobs --they have to compete against each other to get those jobs. This prevents wages from rising, and can even reduce wages. The businesses profit from that, too!

SELFISHNESS!

secularprolife.org said...

I was replying to her comment that "the aborting mother has a perfect reason to use might makes right because the fetus did it first". My answer is no, the mother did it first, by putting the fetus there.

secularprolife.org said...

Except having sex doesn't put a fetus in the uterus. Don't be stupid.

secularprolife.org said...

I am not religious, nor conservative on any other issue than this. One needs only look at the way a 4 month old fetus acts , doing somersaults in the womb, sucking its thumb, grasping with its fists, using its sense of smell, taste (it can smell and taste the food the mother eats when it breathes and swallows the amniotic fluid). It does not look or behave much different than the newborn it will become! This is not an "ordinary animal" as you would like to believe. Any idiot can observe the facts and tell you it is a baby, as much as a newborn. At 5 MONTHS IT CAN DREAM, HAS REGULAR SLEEP PATTERNS, HEAR AND RESPOND TO LOUD SOUNDS. ALso from my Northeastern U text book. I'll bet you proclaim to know more than them.
& seriously, comparing the oxytocin to a date rape drug?? Not wanting the newborn to "get away with" making its mother love it? You are talking like this newborn is the most conniving, evil thing. It was not their fault that their father put sperm into their mother's vagina! Everyone, including adults have very strong survival instincts.
& Btw, no such things as orphanages in this country anymore. And yes people adopt older infants all the time. Most of the adopted people I know were adopted as infants and toddlers, and are much loved. Most people don't want kids older than 4.

secularprolife.org said...

As I said previously, we need to act responsibly by taking pregnancy tests each month if we are sexually active, using reliable contraception if we do not want a baby, and aborting before the fetus can feel pain. It has nothing to do with sexual morality. I am not religious nor conservative in any other matter. I have no agenda except humanitarian.

Your article said the studies "suggest" the so called facts you wrote to me. That is not a fact. And it also said very little is known still about how the brain works, in regards to the studies they did. There is no way you can prove it. Obviously, in some part of the brain, there need to be brainwaves sent down the spinal cord to the part of the body being touched. No one really knows for sure how that part of the brain is interpreting it. The only way we can be pretty sure is by how the fetus reacts. And brain dead officially means no brainwaves; that means nothing to carry any reflexive responses down the spinal cord. Obviously fetuses have brainwaves.

secularprolife.org said...

You know what I mean, do I have to spell it out to you? With no sperm there is no opportunity to fertilize and with no fertilization there can be no implantation. I am not religious or moralistic, we just need to use birth control and take frequent pregnancy tests if we know we don't want a baby. There is no need to wait 3 months before getting an abortion.
I see you like to name call and use derogatory terms like "sweetie" do you have anger issues?

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, 50+ years of neuroscience SATs that you are incorrect. And the regions of the brain that are associated with sentience need not be operational to react reflexively to a noxious stimulus. A chicken with its head cut off will move as long as the lower brain and spinal cord are intact. The lower brain IS NOT associated with sentience.

Get that through your thick skull.

secularprolife.org said...

I know what you mean, and you are still wrong.

Is a woman at fault if the embryo attached to her fallopian tube? If it fails to implat? No, she has zero control over the process.

And monthly pregnancy tests are expensive, check your fucking privilege.

Also, many women have irregular cycles, or do not know that they are pregnant because they are on BCP. And all methods of birth control have known failure rates. Again, check your privilege, slut shamer. Oh yeah, add shamed of low income women to the list, who may need 3 months to save up the money.

secularprolife.org said...

Why would you call me a slut shamer? I have already told you I put no shame in sex, I am not even religious. The failure rate of the pill is something like less than 1 percent. Definitely more women than that have abortions. Pregnancy tests for once every 2 months unaffordable? less than 15 dollars in 2 months, or 7 to 8 dollars a month.
True that we do not have any control over where it implants but we can try our best to make sure it does not fertilize.
And watch your filthy mouth

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah I was right.

Tone troll as well.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes the chicken with its head cut off will walk but not respond to touch. The 3 month old fetus has more than a brainstem. you can see it in the fetoscope through its transparent skull. before disputing that try looking it up.

secularprolife.org said...

An amoeba will respond to touch.

So will a brainless anencephalic baby.

So will a brain dead patient.

Keep flailing. You are wrong.

Read up on involuntary reflexes
http://www.brainfacts.org/sensing-thinking-behaving/movement/articles/2012/involuntary-movements/

The part of the brain that is responsible for consciousness does NOT play a role in this kind of reflex. And the final paragraph states that ONLY a spinal cord reflex is necessary to respond to being poked with a sharp object.

secularprolife.org said...

You think you were right, that most women cannot afford 14 dollars in 2 months for a pregnancy test? you do not think the pill has a more than 99 percent success rate? There should be no abortions over 3 months except for the life or health of the mother, or severe fetal deformities.

secularprolife.org said...

But realize 3 month old fetuses have more than just a brainstem, they have a brain with brainwaves.

secularprolife.org said...

Not the brainwaves that are associated with consciousness.

secularprolife.org said...

Check your privilege
Many women already have children, and are so poor that they often have to choose between feeding their kids or paying the power bill.

secularprolife.org said...

Thumb sucking, sleep wake patterns, all originate from the non sentient portions of the brain ie no consciousness required. Its meaningless. And my cat is actually more advanced than that - she is conscious and can think, feel and experience life. A thumb sucking fetus is engaged in a mindless, involuntary act.

secularprolife.org said...

Hoe the fuck old are you anyway?? "check your privilage" doesn't even mean anything. Like I said, The Pill!! Less than one percent failure rate, and much more cheap than an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

**So it is ok to kill fetuses and not ok to kill animals of other species? Strange for you to say, especially since you only value a being's life if it is conscious and self aware. You say that it is no more than a dog, but would you dismember a dog live? you'd be jailed.
**Most pro choice people even agree that 24 weeks is the mark that fetuses are able to really feel, including pain. Like I described before, they hear, dream, have regular unique sleep wake patterns. They show preference to certain kind of music. Their cerebral cortex is working. Like you asked me to specify, they are just like babies. Look it up. It is everywhere. That is why in most state, it is not allowed to abort after this time, except in dire circumstances. But they do. There are so many people who just wait and wait and then decide to do it. When they could just wait 2 weeks and have it delivered, put in an incubator then adopted.
**Speaking of adoption, I know more than 10 people who were adopted, and they were infants and toddlers at the time. You are wrong. It is extremely hard for the average person who is not a movie star, to be able to adopt a real newborn.
**Lets make this simple for you. No sperm introduction= no fertilization. No ovulation= no fertilization. The pill, condoms, etc. There are options. failure rate less than 1 percent.

secularprolife.org said...

Look it up. Most pro choice people even agree that 24 weeks is the time the cerebral cortex becomes active. The fetus has UNIQUE sleep wake patterns and has its own preferences to music. If one is not conscious how can one dream? Yours is the first I have ever heard of anyone mentioning that consciousness originates after 35 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Articles of evidence:



**nature.com: nocioreceptive reactions in the 19th week. I the 28th weeek facial expressions similar to adults experiencing pain.
At 25 weeks a heel prick produced increase in hemodynamic response in somatosensory cortex. The bilateral activation includes S2 cortex , anterior cingulate cortex, etc. 22 weeks-23 weeks: some memory



thebrainbank.scienceblog.com.

fetus consciously interprets sound at 26 weeks.


According to Dr. Paul Randall pain begins at 20 weeks

secularprolife.org said...

Neither of your links work

Its Dr. Paul Ranalli, and he is a biased pro lifer

And your "evidence" only proves what I have been saying - the body reacts to noxious stimuli, but until the thalamus is connected to the cortex at 25 weeks and up, consciousness - sentience - is NOT POSSIBLE.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey dumbass, if you'd been reading my citations, you'd have known that you are merely confirming what I have been saying all along - thalamus and cortical connections begin to form around 24 weeks and those connections strengthen all the way up to birth. But the capacity for sentience is not there until at least 25 weeks gestation.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, check your fucking privilege and stop pretending thay poor women are made of money.

secularprolife.org said...

you'd been saying 36 weeks. I did not send links I sent names of websites, that you are supposed to look up on google, and you will see them. It is so easy a 5 year old could do it.

secularprolife.org said...

asshole, you've been saying 36 weeks (and your "source" read "probably" and evidence "suggests". If it were at all confirmed, the writer would've gone out of his/her way to say so!

secularprolife.org said...

explain to me how the pill is hard to get when medicare covers it (as well as abortions) It is also fucking free no matter what insurance you have, here is MA

There is no such term or phrase as "check your privilege" how the fuck old are you 12?

secularprolife.org said...

No dumbass, I said that the capacity for sentience was not possible until 25 weeks, and that the fetus is incapable of *consciously* discerning touch from pain until 35 weeks.

However, a non sentient prenate can respond to noxious stimuli because that does NOT require sentience or sapience.

secularprolife.org said...

You're wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

No, the pill and IUD is still not covered for millions of women or did you miss the whole hobby lobby fiasco, also, your average low income woman can't necessarily afford to spend money on monthly pregnancy tests when she can barely put food on the table.

secularprolife.org said...

And no, medicare does NOT COVER ABORTION, HYDE AMENDMENT

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.checkmyprivilege.com

secularprolife.org said...

In a late term abortion the fetal heart is stopped
http://www.latetermabortion.net/what_to_expect.html

And your average late term abortion is performed through induction of labour and delivery where possible.

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't think they are aware till 18 mo. doesn't that make them less of a person? If someone kills a 5 month old then does that make it less terrrible than killing a 15 year old? ANd just because a fetus, even when conscious at 26 weeks, is not exposed to as much learning material, it is ok to kill it? What about the facts that it can hear and memorize (that has been proven by experimentation of certain sounds and their heart rates) and can dream (REM brainwaves have been measured) and they show preferences to certain music by their responses. Most of the pro choice sector has agreed that 24 weeks is the cut off. So even though they are still fetuses technically, shouldn't they be afforded most of the same rights as babies? As far as being humane I think the mother's life or health need to come first and if the fetus is severely deformed then it should be humanely aborted. But if someone just wants to abort a healthy 5 month old fetus, can't they wait a month and then just deliver? So what if it would need support to survive? Lots of conscious adults need medical support to live. The only difference between these ages fetuses and newborns is the help they need to survive. Like lots of other people. The cost of incubation, not an issue. Can't put a price on someone's life. Cost of a heart transplant if a high, but who would deny that to somoene. Raise the taxes on the rich a little bit. I don't care. BTW suffocation is a painful death (cutting the cord to kill the fetus quickly). Even if they did it a painless way, if someone killed a patient by overdosing on morphine the would that be ok? It is TAKING A CONSCIOUS LIFE. It is impossible to just draw the line as fetus and newborn and just say as long as it's in the womb its ok. The sedation of the womb does not put it to sleep constantly. My baby used to move lots of the time in there. The whole process of emerging consciousness is slow. But it there is enough of it by 5 months so that dr's can measure all these things that I mentioned before.

So it seems that you want to believe it is ok because it is a convenient belief for you.

secularprolife.org said...

everything I cited said it can feel pain at 25 weeks if you even read it, and they are non objective sites. It's face grimaces in pain like an adult, and they measured the types of brainwaves, I wrote it all in that message and quoted it.

secularprolife.org said...

In MA IT IS and for medicaid it is, that is what most poor have

secularprolife.org said...

in MA it does

secularprolife.org said...

Actually sweetie, you've been arguing that embryos could feel pain and were fully conscious as early as 8 weeks.

Now you've moved the goalposts as I keep proving that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Facial grimaces. Thumb sucking. Sleep wake patterns have NOTHING to do with consciousness/awareness/sentience - which are all the same thing. The centers of the brain from which the capacity for sentience arises from - the thalamus and the cortex - are not functional until 25 weeks gestation and up - any reaction to noxious stimuli prior to 25 weeks is simply an involuntary reaction, and does NOT require any sort of awareness. As I have repeatedly explained, a patient in a persistent vegetative state, or a brainless anencephalic baby or even a frog in a lab with it's brain removed will reflexively kick if exposed to noxious stimuli because the reflex is purely involuntary and is governed by the spinal cord and lower brain.

Also, as the research has very strongly suggested (and not been disproven btw), the neuronal bursts at 35 weeks are *specific* when the baby is pricked with a pin, and prior to that they are simply random. This means that the brain has not yet fully matured to distinguish touch from pain.

Also, to truly understand pain, it is first necessary to have a *concept* of what pain is..

Read this:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

And this:

http://www.ansirh.org/_documents/research/late-abortion/RHM31S_Derbyshire.pdf

And this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/


------


BTW, if an organism is NOT SENTIENT, it cannot feel pain, period. It cannot consciously experience anything, period. It can REACT, like an amoeba will react to being poked, but it cannot consciously experience a goddamn thing. You can't torture an amoeba to death, even though it might instinctively try to move away from damaging objects or chemicals.

secularprolife.org said...

No, it doesn't, not unless it is for life of the mother, or rape. The Hyde Amendment makes it clear that no taxpayer funds will pay for abortion.

Read up on the Hyde Amendment:

http://nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=1

First passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment ensures that abortion is not covered in the comprehensive health care services provided by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered.


Elective abortion IS NOT COVERED.

secularprolife.org said...

First passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment ensures that abortion is not covered in the comprehensive health care services provided by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered.

secularprolife.org said...

the pill IS covered by medicare, and there is such a low failure rate on it that it very few women should need to rely on abortion. There is no reason why a low income woman would be more prone to the pill failing. If they need an abortion and are not in a state that covers it, then that is not fair, but if they really want their abortion they will find a way to get to another state.

secularprolife.org said...

Then show me a citation proving that all poor women can get the pill for free. All of them. In every single state.

secularprolife.org said...

i only moved the age to an age when MOST PRO CHOICE PEOPLE AGREE on because you refuse to believe the fetus can feel at 8 weeks.

A reaction is a reaction, and your evidence only suggests not proves. I do not need to "disprove" something that cannot even be proven. The burden of proof is on you.

secularprolife.org said...

It is up to the state and 15 states are covered one of which is MA look it up www.fundbortionnow.org

secularprolife.org said...

Your link doesn't work.


Try again.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 222   Newer› Newest»