Pages

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Appealing to Authorities

[Today's guest post by Nate Sheets is the fourth of a series. The next post in the series will arrive sometime next week.]

When we would rather trust another person's opinion over any evidence presented, we may very well be appealing to authority. Again, remember that with logical fallacies, we are focusing on nothing more than the argument being made at the time by either party: does the authority we cite have evidence to support the claim, or are we using their position, title, or experiences as the evidence?

The Balance of Expert Opinion and Appealing to Authority
In the midst of creating a case for our side in an argument, it is common to quote experts on any variety of subjects. In the pro-life arena, many people quote doctors, previous abortion directors, or women who have had abortions in an attempt to solidify their defense of their position.

But appealing to authority occurs when the person arguing either directly or indirectly uses another person's "authority" as the basis for the validity to a claim.

Experts Can Be Wrong/Biased, and Experts Can Be Misquoted
A former abortion clinic director may make a statement which is false. To assert, "Planned Parenthood has abortion quotas--Cindy Larson [fictitious former clinic director] says so" is an appeal to authority. Other evidence (preferably non-anecdotal) needs to be presented, such as an internal document or a transcript of a conversation between clinic workers--and then we can evaluate how accurate or relevant that evidence is.

Additionally, we can skew an opponent's expert's quote as a way to support our own point of view. An abortionist admitting that life begins "at conception" seems like an "aha!" kind of moment, except that what an abortionist says about when life begins isn't evidence: it's their opinion. Likewise, many other abortionists may say that life doesn't begin at conception, so where does that leave us? We can only look at the evidence for when life begins and, if there is controversy (hint hint: there is!), examine the evidence on both sides and draw a conclusion.

Appeals to Authority are Often Uncited Assertions
Most appeals to authority (at least in my experience) are just generalizations of a supposed authority's opinion, but they lack any actual detail. This is a good sign that a person is appealing to authority rather than citing to support evidence. Some examples are below.

Pro-Choice Examples
Fallacy Why It's A Fallacy
"Most scientists are pro-choice."  Really? Perhaps the reality shows more varying, nuanced, or apathetic opinions than mere "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". There are also several reasons why one may be pro-choice: what is the link between science and the pro-choice position that this assertion tries to make?

Pro-Life Examples
Fallacy Why It's A Fallacy
"Dr. Bernard Nathanson used to be an abortionist, and he says the fetus can feel pain." This is not a citation--where is an actual quote? Additionally, what qualifications does Dr. Nathanson have to assert that fetuses can feel pain?
"The Catholic Church's position on abortion is that it is wrong." Stating the church's position in any given topic does not present evidence to show that it is wrong. Many other churches are pro-choice or neutral on the subject. 
There is a fine line between citing sources as evidence and appealing to authority. When in doubt, ask yourself if you are presenting actual evidence or simply summarizing another person's position.

516 comments:

1 – 200 of 516   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

I got an idea... If you are against abortion don't have one and you let other women decide for their own life. This way we can stop the debate about abortion and spend time on other things. Women will always find ways to abort unwanted pregnancies so the anti-choice crowd really does nothing but waste their time.

secularprolife.org said...

Women aren't deciding for their own life, they're deciding to kill another life - that's the problem.

secularprolife.org said...

No they ARE deciding for their own life because the ZEF does not have a life yet.

It has not yet gained the ability to have brain function to even know it exists.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is alive - at 24 weeks and at 26 weeks. Abortion kills a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx why are you so focused on 24 weeks and beyond when MOST abortions happen way before the first trimester is over.

secularprolife.org said...

Ok... how about 23 weeks vs 26 weeks.. or 22 weeks vs 26 weeks :)


Before or after viability an unborn child is the SAME human being - just at a different stage of development. Killing him or her at any point in pregnancy - 2 weeks or 32 weeks - has the same result - that being that a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

secularprolife.org said...

Let's talk about zygotes, myintx, which you always erase from your arguments.

secularprolife.org said...

Glad to see this series return. This entry got me thinking, is there a widely accepted term for the opposite of an appeal to authority fallacy? That is to say, an argument where a person dismisses a position because a group or person they see as undesirable holds it. For example, in secular circles many people dismiss the pro-life position because it is held by the Catholic church and other conservative religious groups.

secularprolife.org said...

I think that would be an ad hominem fallacy, JDC. Except instead of an individual a position is rejected because of what an institution believes. It can be tough not to fall into this--I myself tend to roll my eyes at any proclamation the Catholic church makes; but I have to remember that whatever issues I take with it or other religions don't have any bearing on the argument being made, right now. (Unless of course their argument is "Because Jesus says so.")

secularprolife.org said...

These posts aren't presenting pro-life arguments, someone45, so I am not sure why you are responding with this comment here. We are simply talking about logical fallacies and how both sides (including the pro-life side) uses them.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks, Nate!

secularprolife.org said...

>> Most scientists are pro-choice

As a criticism, you say "There are several reasons why pro-choice". That is beyond the scope of this assertion, which merely states that they are pro-choice, not what led them to it. If it is stated in a way that says "scientists know better than you, and they are pro-choice", then yeah, this is an argument from authority, but if presented with polling data, it could merely be a demographic data point, much like "most fans of Duck Dynasty are pro-life" (don't know if that's true, but Phil has stated he is pro-life, and many supporters of Phil seem to think this is a good thing, along with his hating the sin of homosexuality but loving the homosexual, and belief that African Americans were never mistreated in the deep south in the 60s.).

As for the actual claim "most scientists are pro-choice", as a guy who is a professional scientist, I would have to say this claim is most likely true. Never ACTUALLY asked my colleagues, but judging how they feel about current events and well, some have stickers on their cars that say "Pro-choice", I'd put the pro-choice ratio at around 95% in our institute.

I talked about this in the previous post, but I didn't want to appeal to authority, but wanted to point out that polling shows that the more education you have, the more pro-choice you are likely to be. Less than a high school diploma, you are 2x as likely to be pro-life. A graduate degree, you are almost 2x as likely to be pro-choice. A criticism was that this could be due more to social economic privilege, that the wealthy are more likely to be pro-life, and its not the "openning of the mind" that necessarily makes you pro-choice. I cited another related statistic, that more education makes you a lot more likely to accept the theory of evolution over creationism. The criticism was that the theory of evolution is taught in school, so of course more education would make you more likely to accept evolution, but pro-choice is not taught in schools. I felt this was a fair criticism.



So I now also offer support for same-sex marriage. Compared to 18-29 year olds in general, college freshmen are more likely to accept same-sex marriage.

http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/


So here is an issue which is also not taught in schools, but correlates with higher education levels, much like being pro-choice. So it seems to me that "scientists are more likely to be pro-choice" (experiential for me, but consistent with polling of highest degree earned vs. support for pro-choice) is TRUE, and well correlates with other seemingly "enlightened" positions to hold that are both taught in school (evolution) and not taught in school (support for gay marriage).



While causation of more education == pro-choice cannot be conclusively drawn, a strong correlation can be seen in the data. To say that this correlation is NOT AT ALL causational seems to me to be slightly delusional.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Nate

Also another thing one should point out regarding expert opinion. An expert in field X is not necessarily an expert in field Y. For example, Linus Pauling, while one of the founders of quantum chemistry, also made various claims about nutrition in his later years, specifically the efficacy of vitamin C in high doses.

A recent example, Stephen Hawking saying conclusively that God doesn't exist. I am an atheist, and don't think that he exists, but I don't think anyone can conclusively prove he doesn't exist, even Stephen Hawking. I don't think anyone is an expert in this field.

secularprolife.org said...

And William Shockley, a genius, tried to prove that black people are genetically inferior to whites.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, applause!

secularprolife.org said...

It is impossible to abort a zygote so why are you bringing them up.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx has stated that all human life from zygote to 120 yo is equally precious. When she speaks of abortion she spends 99% of her time writing about third trimester abortion.

And uh, in case you have been living under a rock, "the pill kills" slogan was invented by the PL movement that also believes that murder is committed if a blastocyst is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't think anyone rejects any notion simply because the Catholic church holds that notion. I think they reject the notion because it's a horrible, abusive notion that happens to be held by the Catholic magisterium, and not even necessarily by mainstream Catholics.

secularprolife.org said...

NO. You are under no obligation to utilize your body to provide a "chance at a full and productive life" for anyone. You may do so if you want to.

secularprolife.org said...

If an unborn child at any stage is killed, it has the same result as killing a newborn - that is, a human being is denied a chance at life.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.

secularprolife.org said...

First, anyone who doesnt want to provide that chance to their own offspring just because they don't want their body utilized is beyond selfish and it's horrible that you are even on here fighting for selfishness... But I'm guessing you are fighting because you are one of those people.


Second, the obligation a PARENT has to provide food and shelter to their offspring should override any feelings of selfishness someone has. Post viability abortion laws help in that regard. We need more abortion laws pre-viability.

secularprolife.org said...

A guy pulls out, does he deny billions of potential newborn babies from a chance at life?

secularprolife.org said...

"Selfish" is a gas lighting technique used with limited success against women. Shame on you for attempting it. I have children. I stopped having children long ago. NOT because I didn't want my body utilized. Because I didn't want my entire life utilized in the pursuit of having children. I had children because I wanted them. That doesn't mean any number of children will do. Because I wanted three, it doesn't follow that I would also want four, five, or six. It also doesn't follow that if one of my kids needed an organ from me to go on living, I should just go ahead and fork it over, because heaven forbid you should deem me "selfish." You can take that attitude and shove it someplace. I need my organs, too. And thinking of myself is not "selfish."

secularprolife.org said...

Yep.

secularprolife.org said...

Sperm is not a human being. An unborn child - at any stage - IS a human being. A newborn is a potential adult... doesn't mean we can kill a newborn because something may happen and that newborn may not make it to adulthood anyway.

secularprolife.org said...

Are not any pair of sperm and egg also a potential newborn and potential adult?

secularprolife.org said...

Thinking of yourself is the very definition of selfish ("arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others ")


If you didn't want 4 kids and got pregnant with your 4th, you could either give the child up for adoption when it was born or say "you know, this isn't what I wanted, but I'll make it work". Killing because you only wanted 3 kids instead of 4... selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

That's too damn bad. Isn't it? Everyone thinks of themselves. That isn't the definition of selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

When they disregard others, it is selfish. When they would kill to make their life more convenient, it's beyond selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

A newborn is a potential adult... doesn't mean we can kill it because he or she may never be an adult and may never be able to contribute to society, or she or she is inconvenient or unwanted....


Sperm and egg are not human beings - . A unique human being is created at fertilization, not birth. If killed before birth or after, that human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

secularprolife.org said...

They are not "killing to make their lives convenient." They are refusing the use of their body. Huge difference. If someone asked me for bone marrow, and I shot them that's one thing. If I say "No, you may not have mine" that's something else. YOU are selfish. You wish to control the lives of strangers who's life you don't live, and who's problems you don't care about, for the sake of your feelings. Your feelings don't matter, and aren't important to the lives of strangers. Get used to the disappointment.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand sort of where you are coming from myintx.



I'm a materialist, and believe that if I am killed before I have gained the capacity to feel pain or suffering, I cannot be harmed. To a person like me, the idea of "right to life" and that it is possible to be denied a chance at life is absurd. I think people on both sides need to examine what are the core beliefs on these basic issues, otherwise risk talking past each other.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree myintx saying you are selfish is gas lighting. You are not selfish for limiting your family size.

secularprolife.org said...

There is nothing selfish about women spacing their pregnancies and limiting the number of children they want to produce. This is family planning. Every pregnancy does not need to end in a live birth. Women are not chattel or brood mares and shouldn't be treated as such.

secularprolife.org said...

You are not selfish and I'm really flabbergasted by what myintx has said to you.

secularprolife.org said...

I can also have an abortion. I'm not obligated to gestate because I have a uterus any more than you're obligated to run a marathon for breast cancer because you have legs. You're just 'making sh*t up' as you go along.

secularprolife.org said...

You go ahead and keep having babies until your body gives out. That's your decision and you don't get to insult or judge women who don't want to. I find what you've said to lady black insulting, out of line, and mean.

secularprolife.org said...

I've never even had an abortion. But I wouldn't say I never would have one. I was fortunate enough never to be in that situation.

secularprolife.org said...

Killing an unborn child because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted is MEAN. A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should use 2 or 3 forms of protection (forms that would bring the odds of getting pregnant to less than 1% per woman per year) or abstain. If every couple in a consensual relationship did that, it's likely we'd have 1/10 the number of abortions we have today. Maybe there would be more sympathy from most if they knew the only abortions that were done were for when the woman's life was truly endangered, rape/incest or 2-3 forms of birth control failing.

secularprolife.org said...

You could give someone a sedative in a drink to knock them out, kill them and they would never know it. Doesn't make the killing right.


There are some that think killing a newborn is OK (heck, Margaret Sanger used to think that). That is their belief. Doesn't make it right. A human being's life begins at fertilization. Birth is a milestone, but that human beings life began will before birth - it should be protected from the moment he or she came into existence - at fertilization.

secularprolife.org said...

You should have said "no you may not have mine" before you got pregnant. Once pregnant, it is KILLING, not 'refusing'. KILLING.


People use their feelings all the time when they VOTE for people who think like they do - e.g. pro-life candidates. With more pro-life laws being passed, it's only a matter of time before one makes it up to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v wade. Then states can make the laws their people FEEL are best for all the human beings in their state - including the unborn human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi again Purple Slurpy. If you do not believe in a right to life, are there any rights you do believe in? Where do these rights come from?

secularprolife.org said...

I did say "No, you may not have mine." And if I turn up pregnant, I'll abort if I see fit. Nobody is actually going to pass your nutty laws. Nobody ever would.

secularprolife.org said...

No, having an abortion is not mean. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is. It's an authoritarian concept I want no part of. I fully support a woman who wants to be pregnant. She should have all the resources necessary to do this. I also support women who use birth control and if they do not want to be pregnant for their personal reason and decision to have an abortion. I am not judge and jury in other peoples lives. I trust women will do what's right for them and their families.

secularprolife.org said...

because she wants everyone to believe that all abortions occur at 24 weeks. In reality we know most abortions occur in the first trimester and for anyone woman that doesn't want to be pregnant ASAP. But myintx would like to throw out as much guilt and shame as possible.

secularprolife.org said...

So you are saying fertilized eggs are people?

secularprolife.org said...

Response to your first paragraph. What you are saying is that pregnancy is a punishment for having sex. If a woman consents to sex that is not consent to pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Ms. Spacecat

I think we can agree that "right" is a totally human construct. As such, I think the idea of inherent rights "existing" is absurd. Given this, I think we identify and grant rights because they protect and project certain societal ideals, and keeps society working harmoniously. As societies mature, we sometimes expand membership. At one time, slaves in the US were denied recognition as human beings on par with white men. Such a system, while profitable for a while, caused social instability, and in many slave-owning nations, slave revolts sometimes even toppled society.

In this way, I believe we grant rights and recognize, for example that slaves are humans out of a need to keep society healthy. So where does the "right to life" of the fetus fit in? The way I see it, denying this right does not cause instability in society, or cause society to devalue life in general. I've talked about why I think it is not possible to harm a fetus, given my materialistic world view. For a person like me, I would see fit to grant fetuses "right to life" if it turned out that 1) fetuses actually can experience suffering during an abortion or 2) devaluing the life of the fetus causes the born members of society to devalue life. 1) As a materialist, what we experience in the here and now is all we've got. If I have never possessed any desires or hopes and cannot feel pain or fear yet, aborting me will have no consequences. This is why I feel justified in assuming fetuses cannot suffer during early term abortions. 2) I see how society has changed since Roe vs. Wade in the US, and I do not actually see evidence of the devaluation of life. Also, looking at another country like Japan where abortion is accepted by about 90% of the citizens, I also don't see evidence that abortion, when legal causes people to devalue life. In both countries, the number of abortions have continued to drop, suggesting that people won't have an abortion just for fun when its legal. In Japan, many women will keep the memory of the aborted fetuses alive, and will sometimes talk to them in a similar way as they talk to their ancestors through the family alter.

This is why I do not think a "right to life" is that crucial or actually real.

secularprolife.org said...

To do that to a born person, you are disrespecting any prior wishes they may have had to keep on living longer. And also to give them a drug without their consent is also bad, so this is a bad analogy in 2 ways. A fetus has never had hopes or a will, and cannot feel pain yet. From my perspective as a materialist, we only have the here and now. If I do not possess and never have possessed the capabilities to feel pain or fear, it is simply not possible to harm me. Do you at least not see that as a valid position, even if you do not agree with it? I agree with your position that "human life begins at fertilization", but do not agree that it has all the right to life as a born person does, but I can see your position as a valid one to hold, yet not agree with it. Do you find my materialist view a valid one (but disagree), or do you find it as completely invalid?

secularprolife.org said...

The strongest PL argument against what you wrote is that the embryo is denied a future, and therein lies the rub...


If, as PL arguments go, all humans have an inalienable right to life, and the right to have a future, and that this right overrides bodily autonomy, then why *not* forced organ and tissue donation for the sick and dying?


Is a 5 year old with leukemia not worth as much as an embryo/ is it not a terrible tragedy if that 5 year old is denied a future because someone found it too 'inconvenient' to donate bone marrow? Seriously, if bone marrow donation was mandatory many sick children *would* be guaranteed a future, no? And I have heard some ardent pro-lifers argue that every life is valuable, no matter how short, no matter how diseased - we are all of equal value. So if we can demand that an embryo is entitled to a future at the expense of a woman, then why can't the rest of us have our bodies exploited to give those dying 5 year olds a future?

secularprolife.org said...

A fertilized human egg is a human being and should have a right to life - the same right to life an unborn child at 39 weeks should have and the same right to life as a newborn. Kill either one and a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

secularprolife.org said...

Family planning should occur BEFORE the pregnancy. Once pregnant, a new member of the family is in the womb. Killing a child - born or unborn - to control the size of the family is eugenics.

secularprolife.org said...

So, let me see if I understand your position... you say it's OK to kill as long as someone cannot feel pain, but you don't approve of giving a drug to someone so they don't feel pain because they might have prior wishes...What about an unborn child at 30 weeks? no prior wishes... can he or she be drugged and killed in the womb if unwanted? How about a newborn 1 minute old... no prior wishes... same question...


"devaluing the life of the fetus causes the born members of society to devalue life." Not sure what this means since an unborn child is alive.... is 'life' and is devalued by pro-aborts. So, since an unborn child is devalued then abortion should be illegal.

I don't agree with your point of view. I don't think it's OK to kill a human being if they cannot feel pain. "we only have the here and now. " - If a relative of yours was brain dead (and never made their wishes known on whether they wanted the plug pulled) and a doctor said it would be likely they would have full brain activity within a few months, would you have the plug pulled because were are in the "here and now" or would you wait a few months and see if their brain started working again?

FYI: I have enjoyed debating with you. Much more so than with those on this forum who resort to insults.

secularprolife.org said...

And - Loki's neck fallacy again.


Refusing to have sex so that your eggs can be fertilized denies a 'human being' a 'chance at a full and productive life'. Arguably, having an oops baby on purpose like you did to trap a man denies him a 'chance at a full and productive life'. Do you have a point, or is it just sad feelie talk?

secularprolife.org said...

**Thinking of yourself is the very definition of selfish ("arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others)**


And I'm somehow worth less than all these others, thereby making 'selfish' synonymous with 'evil' because why?


Oh? And why isn't your rape and extortion activities 'selfish'? Because Myintx is more special than everyone else?

secularprolife.org said...

** When they would kill to make their life more convenient, it's beyond selfish.**


Stop breathing. You're 'killing' thousands of bacteria every time you inhale. That's 'beyond selfish'. Boo fucking hoo.

secularprolife.org said...

** A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant should use 2 or 3 forms of protection**


And what group deliberately lies about the effectiveness of said protection, in hopes of getting people to go with the 'abstain' route, but with the actual results of people having sex and not bothering with the protection, because this group has told them it isn't effective?


Oh yeah? And what group keeps objecting to most forms of 'protection' on the grounds that the protection kills an 'innocent little zef baby' by preventing it from implanting?

secularprolife.org said...

**Once pregnant, it is KILLING, not 'refusing'. KILLING**


So, if I manage to drill a hole in you and start sucking out your bone marrow for someone who 'needs' it for their 'very life', then you aren't allowed to take the drill out, if I ever once manage to get it in?

secularprolife.org said...

**If an unborn child at any stage is killed, it has the same result as killing a newborn - that is, a human being is denied a chance at life**


If you don't have sex at all, and the egg isn't fertilized, the same thing is true. Boo fucking hoo.

secularprolife.org said...

Again - what's your definition of a 'human being' that includes zefs, and in exactly what manner does this definition, and nothing else, justify having rights. This is the 17th time I've asked that.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't have sex and your egg is 'denied a chance for life'. Boo fucking hoo.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree that rights are abstractions that do not exist in the way that trees or rocks exist. Rights are principles or ideals that society should recognize for the benefit of all. I would much rather live in a society where my human rights were taken for granted than one in which I had to prove, to someone else's satisfaction, that I was worthy of having rights.


I do think that human beings can be harmed without their knowledge. To take slavery as an example, suppose a society had a hereditary slave class and that scientists developed an in-utero treatment that altered fetal brain development in such a way that the human born into slavery would be able to carry out orders but would have no desires of their own, not even the will to live. Suppose that these alterations also rewired the brain in such a way that the slaves experienced intense pleasure from obeying their owners. The slaves would be happy and would be incapable of revolting, but I think it is clear that this would be morally wrong. Or suppose that a genetic test was developed that could identify fetuses that were predisposed towards becoming gay, and there was a gene "therapy" that would ensure that they grew up heterosexual. Would it be wrong for parents to treat their child in this way? I think it would, even if the children so treated never found out what had been done to them.



You don't think that legal abortion has any negative effects on society. If all pro-choice advocates made a sharp distinction between third trimester abortions and earlier ones, or between abortion and infanticide, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, they don't make this distinction. Pro-choice philosophers like Peter Singer argue that there is no morally relevant distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby and that infanticide should therefore be legal. He doesn't consider fetuses or infants to be persons. Other philosophers call infanticide "after-birth abortion" http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

and a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood said that the question of what to do with an infant born alive after a botched late abortion should be left up to the mother and her doctor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qEv1afKaLhA
Euthanasia advocates often cite abortion as a legal precedent. They may advocate it for infants (not a person yet), the demented elderly (not a person any more) or the severely mentally handicapped (never will be persons). I read a lot of what disabled people write about disability rights, and nearly all of them agree that with the push towards legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in recent years, disabled people are increasingly seen as a burden to others and as having lives not worth living. They are often pressured not to take life-sustaining medical treatment and may have DNR orders placed on their medical charts without their knowledge or consent.

secularprolife.org said...

Prolifers only want to abuse and force girls and women by claiming that a girl or a woman who chooses to have abortion is a killer so abortion ought to be made illegal/difficult to obtain.



My evidence for this is your comment here.

secularprolife.org said...

The adoption industry utilises prolifers selfishly to make low-income women give birth for wealthier parents.

secularprolife.org said...

I just don't see the point of people trying to chnage pro-choice people's mind. Why can't we spend our time worrying about important things.

secularprolife.org said...

Again why the focus on late abortions? Do you really think that is when most happen?

secularprolife.org said...

There is no human being involved if you're not pregnant...

secularprolife.org said...

DId I say you were worth 'less'? No. every innocent human being has EQUAL value. Every innocent human being has an equal right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Define 'human being' in such a way that it includes zygotes, and that that definition, with no additional qualities, explains why it has 'rights'.


This is the 18th time I have asked you to define that term.


Otherwise all your babbling about 'human beings should be protected in all stages of developement' amounts to is: 'clumps of cells with human DNA but no functioning brain, that I pretend to have sad feelies about, should be 'protected' so that they can be used to punish human beings who do actually have a brain and feelings who have offended me by daring to be happy in their lives.'

secularprolife.org said...

No it is not.... An egg by itself isn't 'a human being. An unborn child IS a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh... and is there a 'human being' involved when you decide to rape and extort that 'human being'? Or are adult men just clumps of cells for myintx to try to extort money from, and she doesn't have sad feelies about them because their head isn't cute enough or something.


And stop already demanding 'proof'. Everyone here knows your story with babydaddy. I have better things to do than play hunt the slipper on the internet for the posts where you told your story, which you've likely as not deleted now, since some people have finally called you out on it.

secularprolife.org said...

What is your definition of 'human being'? This is the 19th time I've asked you that. Right now your definition is a cell with human DNA. Sorry, the mere existence of human DNA or the potential to 'someday' have a brain, doesn't grant rights. Neither do your sad feelies, or it's 'very life'. And there are no 'human beings' even with a brain, that have a special right to occupy someone else's body.

secularprolife.org said...

For some, saving lives IS important.

secularprolife.org said...

The abortion industry manipulates women into killing so they can rake in big bucks for killing.


Pregnancy centers try to HELP women facing unexpected pregnancies. If the womens reasons for wanting an abortion having nothing to do with a fixable problem such as finances or concerns over whether she'd be a good mother, adoption is brought up as an option. The goal of adoption is to give a new human being a chance at life, not to make a rich couple happy.

secularprolife.org said...

Stop eating meat.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion should be illegal because it takes the life of a human being that has done nothing wrong. The only time abortion should be allowed is if it is absolutely necessary to save the woman's life.

secularprolife.org said...

Define 'human being'.


Or is what you really mean is: "Abortion kills a clump of cells with no functioning brain, that I'm going to call a 'human being' and pretend to have sad feelies about because it has human DNA, so that I can use it to punish everyone and make them as miserable as I am because I got stuck with my failed attempt to oops babydaddy."

secularprolife.org said...

**Before or after viability an unborn child is the SAME human being - just at a different stage of development.**


And what were we before conception? WHAT exists in the fertilized egg a second after conception, that didn't exist in either the egg or the sperm a second before conception. No DNA in it that wasn't either in the egg or sperm. Not a single atom in the zygote that wasn't in either the egg or the sperm. Does a fairy come down and sprinkle 'human being' dust on it? Or is the zygote just another stage in developement, that comes after the egg and sperm?

secularprolife.org said...

okay. Lets play your little game myintx. You claim the zygote is a 'human being' and that human beings 'should be protected at every stage of developement'.


Fine. I think 'human beings should have a full complement of rights and responsibilities at every stage of developement'. Can I prosecute a newborn for manslaughter and put it in jail if the mother dies during childbirth. Can I prosecute it for assault due to the injuries caused by childbirth. Can parents require a 4 year old boy to pay for his food and put him to work in a factory to do so? Can a 4 year old girl get a job as a hooker in the Mustang Ranch to pay for her food?


Or do you just want to treat the 'different stages of developement' as a 'real person for sure' only in SOME things? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either it's a 'real person for sure' with all the protections, rights, and responsibilities thereof, or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.

secularprolife.org said...

Your made up b s makes you look immature.

secularprolife.org said...

The abortion industry manipulates women into killing so they can rake in big bucks for killing.

Demonstrably, you know nothing about the provision of abortion in the US or anywhere else.

Pregnancy centers try to HELP women facing unexpected pregnancies.



Demonstrably, you know nothing about the "crisis pregnancy centres" that either pretend to be abortion clinics to lie to women about how dangerous abortion is (it isn't) or that simply funnel desperate women into the adoption industry.

secularprolife.org said...

Including the lives of innocent human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion should be legal and accessible as abortion bans take the lives of human beings that have done nothing wrong.


That prolifers think that pregnant women don't count as "human beings who have done nothing wrong" just proves the basic immorality and inhumanity of the prolife movement: akin to pro-slavery. Slaveowners also saw women they could force to breed as less than human.

secularprolife.org said...

Girls and women who need abortions are innocent human beings: that prolifers are happy for them to die rather than have access to safe legal abortion says it all.

secularprolife.org said...

Because we need to change your minds: it's important that prolifers stop devaluing the lives and humanity of pregnant women.

secularprolife.org said...

Unless a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, no one 'NEEDS' an abortion. It's a 'WANT'. And no 'wants' should result in the death of a human being that has done nothing wrong

secularprolife.org said...

And making an 'oops' baby on purpose like you did is mature?


Refusing to answer my question (this is the 21st time now) of what exactly your definition of a 'human being' is, so as to be able to keep playing your equivocation game is mature?


You remind me of the spoiled bitches at my work who call me 'immature' because I like to read comic books, but they are so effing mature that they can't even set an alarm clock and get their butts into work on time without my calling them every morning as if I were their mommy or something.

secularprolife.org said...

So, you've gone vegan?

secularprolife.org said...

What Myintx really has, IMO, is a giant-sized case of existential angst. She keeps thinking "But what if I didn't exist" and projecting it onto a zygote.

secularprolife.org said...

You need to learn the difference between academic philosophical arguments and generalizing about "what pro-choicers think," IMO.

And you CANNOT have a DNR order without your own consent. Nice try.

secularprolife.org said...

There are some that think killing a newborn is OK (heck, Margaret Sanger used to think that)

Citation needed.

secularprolife.org said...

A fertilized human egg is a human being and should have a right to life

Will you be seeking to have all women arrested each month when they menstruate? After all, 70 percent of "human beings" (according to your definition) exit a woman's body that way ...

secularprolife.org said...

It's all fetus porn to her.

secularprolife.org said...

"Selfish" is a gas lighting technique used with limited success against women.

Exactly. Myintx is just pissed because she sees herself as having made a huge, selfless sacrifice -- and anyone who isn't as miserable as she is, well, that can only be because others are "selfish.'

Myintx needs to read a book by Dr. Freida Porat called "Positive Selfishness." Alternately, she can look to William Shakespeare: "Self-love is not so great a sin a self-neglect."

secularprolife.org said...

She volunteers at the White Rose CPC in Dallas. Where do you think she gets all of her "talking points"?

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. Of course, and I have been thinking about this of late..why does this torturous (And I do believe it causes them a great deal of anxiety) case of existential angst not translate to concerns about sustaining the lives, by any means possible, of dying infants and 5 year olds? Where is the empathy for the 5 year old who will be denied a 'full and productive life' because myintx was too selfish to donate bone marrow?

I suspect that it's because pregnancy is related to sex, and it all feels very 'unseemly' to have some slutty slut slutting it up and then killing an innocent widdle embwyo because she couldn't stop spreading her slutty slut legs for every man (or husband) in her vicinity. This is where the horror comes in. That someone might be experiencing some *pleasure* at the expense of an innocent, angelic embwyo.

Of course, it does still go beyond the whole sex factor, just look at the reaction to Brittany Maynard's decision to die with dignity. The invective hurled at her...the hate. The thought that someone, somewhere, might take control of their lives, is absolutely terrifying.

When I think of pro-lifers who oppose euthanasia and abortion (or even dying without intense suffering, hi Mother Theresa), I always think of this:

http://www.tmt.missouri.edu/


It is no surprise, imo, that the *most* fanatically religious also tend to be the most 'pro-life'.

secularprolife.org said...

You don't think that legal abortion has any negative effects on society.


No, it doesn't, because fewer unwanted children are born, to be abused and yes, to be victims of infanticide.



And women will generally have the exact number of children that they intend to have - at the right time, and spacing. Simply having kids because you can is irresponsible, imo. Having a child when you can create the best possible quality of life is the responsible thing to do. Spacing births for a healthier child - and mom - is the responsible thing to do. Simply creating 'life because it's life' is the height of irresponspibility, imo. You believe in quantity of life, I believe in quality.

secularprolife.org said...

>> You believe in quantity of life, I believe in quality.

My sentiments exactly.

secularprolife.org said...

If there are abortion bans, all people have to do is OBEY THE LAW. We're not going to keep something so horrible legal just because someone might do it anyway and get hurt.... people sometimes kill their newborns. What if they dont want their newborn and they don't want the mental anguish from knowing their child is in the system? can they kill so they don't 'suffer'? Heck no. They are killing a human being. A human being is killed in every abortion too. Abortion should only be done if absolutely necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

secularprolife.org said...

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte
and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Company, 1998). (FYI: Keith Moore is an embryologist)



All innocent human beings should have a basic right to life. They should not be KILLED because they are unwanted or inconvenient.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Ms spacecats

OK, so we agree on what rights are.

As for your reply to the slavery part, if we COULD genetically engineer a slave class of humans to be servile and they would derive pleasure from it (kinda like worker bees?), I would not in principle be opposed to such a modification, as I am not in principle opposed to GMO foods. Though in developing that line of humans, there'd probably be lots of trial-and-error on getting the right genes knocked out and in, and lots of suffering there, and because of that experimentation, I'd be against trying to manufacture these clones. In the same vein, if the "gay gene" exists (I think its a combo of genetic and epigenetic factors) and could be turned on or off by the parents, I see nothing wrong with it. So I don't agree with you there. Genetic engineering of humans in principle I am not against, but because to reach that goal there'd have to be lots of trial and error, I would be against it.

As fiona64 states, not all pro-choicers have the same views. I am a pro-choicer who believes certain restrictions on abortion are warranted, ie OK until 24wks or so. Also, note that certain positions can also evolve in time. I'm sure I wouldn't agree very much with Margaret Sanger. I am a pro-choice advocate that believes in distinctions between early and late term abortions. Just like ALL pro-life advocates don't necessarily believe in forcing child rape victims to have that baby.

As for your points on disabled and euthanasia. I myself am an advocate of euthanasia. I myself do not wish to have overly aggressive life sustaining measures applied to me if I am not likely to come out of a coma, or if dementia makes me unable to recognize any of my family members and friends. I'm sure there are certain similarities between the abortion debate and euthanasia. I would have a problem if euthanasia was forced on people who have specifically expressed that they do wish to be kept alive at all costs, and there should be strict measures in place to assure that abuses don't happen on either side, but that is an implementation issue. In principle, I am for pro-choice on euthanasia, as was my now deceased grandmother, and my parents. For me, life is worth living if I can experience it, and when the time comes that I cannot live a high-quality life anymore, I would not wish to prolong it.

secularprolife.org said...

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte
and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated
by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Company, 1998). (FYI: Keith Moore is an embryologist)



your babydaddy b s is making you look like you're grasping at straws to justify the killing of unborn children... pretty pathetic.

secularprolife.org said...

Unless you yourself are pregnant and needing an abortion, you have no idea how to distinguish "need" from "want". You merely want to ban safe legal abortion, and your "want" will result in many, many deaths of innocent human beings who have done nothing wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

*nods nods* So, she needs to believe that her volunteer work is somehow useful.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you really believe the only reason people don't kill newborn babies is because it's illegal?


What a strange, strange world you live in.


Making abortion illegal doesn't take away the need for abortions: it just ensures abortions are performed illegally - usually at greater expense and risk.


It also ensures that a woman who needs an abortion to preserve her health can be forced through pregnancy and childbirth with consequent huge, permanent damage to her health, without any concern from prolifers because all they care about is force.

secularprolife.org said...

myintx should be busy holding tampon funerals.

secularprolife.org said...

CPCs lie to and deceive women.

CPCs exposed: http://txpregnancy.org/cpcs-exposed/

We had volunteers of reproductive age go to CPCs and pose as visitors seeking information about all of their options, including abortion. The investigations took place in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Bryan/College Station, El Paso and their surrounding suburbs. Eight of the investigated CPCs receive state funding from Texas Pregnancy Care Network and two CPCs receive funding from the “Choose Life” license plates. Our investigations revealed that CPCs use similar tactics to pressure people into continuing their unintended pregnancies, including stalling access to health care so that pregnancy progresses, proliferating false information about health risks associated with abortion and providing incorrect information about fetal development. Use the menus at the top and side of the page or the list below to explore the findings of our 2014 crisis pregnancy center research.

Shady Sonograms- Learn about how CPCs use ultrasounds to manipulate people into continuing their pregnancies.

Delay Tactics- Find out how CPCs delay pregnant people’s access to healthcare services.

Lies and Misinformation- Discover some of the lies that CPCs tell their visitors about abortion and fetal development.

Scare Tactics- CPCs will say anything to convince their visitors to not have an abortion, check out this section to learn more.

Service Limitations-CPCs are incapable of handling the nuances of unintended pregnancy and there are many limitations to the services they offer, visit this page to find out more.

What about the CPC industry? (http://txpregnancy.org/section/your-tax-dollars-at-waste/) "The Texas Legislature has increased the funding to the Texas Alternatives to Abortion Program over the years, and has most recently budgeted for $5,150,000 in 2014. "

More sources:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/get-involved/issue-campaigns/crisis-pregnancy-center-campaign.html

http://www.naralva.org/what-is-choice/cpc/common-lies.shtml

secularprolife.org said...

I never said it was OK to kill someone because they cannot feel pain.
If that someone cannot feel pain, has never expressed a wish to live, and
will never be around to regret this loss, I simply cannot see the problem.
A person in a coma presumably prior to being in a coma, might have

For the aborted fetus, aborting it to me is akin to not having conceived it in the first place. Until rudimentary brain functions are in place, the fetus to me is not yet "experiencing life", and as such cannot find meaning in it, even in the most rudimentary way. I simply don't see anything special in conception alone. Conception happens billions and billion times a year in all species all over the earth. To me conception itself is neither miraculous nor special.

An analogy I made before is conception is like creation of a blank MS Word document "Untitled 1". When another blank "Untitled 2" is created, it is actually not byte-by-byte identical to "Untitled 1". In that sense they are unique, the blank document contains some unique meta-data supplied by Microsoft from the outset. This meta-data is auto-generated and pseudo-random, and probably is some fairly long string of alphanumeric bits - long enough that the chance of generating an identical one is highly unlikely, say 1 in (26+10)^20. Kinda like identical genetic material being extremely unlikely. However without someone actively writing his or her thoughts into it, the meta-data being unique to me alone is not enough for me to value it. For me, adding non-trivial user-generated content into that file is akin to a fetus gaining some rudimentary brain function, and starts processing sensory input on its own. Prior to that, a fetus to me is really just a mass of cells differentiated from other fetuses only by its unique DNA. Unique does not necessarily mean valuable. To me, life at that stage is neither special or meaningful.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you understand how horribly women are treated in countries where abortion is illegal, like El Salvador? Women are imprisoned for miscarriage. Christina Quintanilla was 17 years old at the time of her miscarriage. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/09/22/320323339/why-a-teenage-mom-was-jailed-in-el-salvador-for-a-miscarriage


And this is exactly what happens when abortion is illegal. I applaud the El Salvadorians for being consistent with their pro-life position. If abortion is the murder of an innocent, then the woman SHOULD NOT be shown compassion or understanding. Every miscarriage should be deemed a potential crime and investigated. She needs to be treated like a murderer, or else anti-abortion laws will be a farce, and women will be encouraged to try self-inducing miscarriages or going to illegal providers.



To me this seems like a no-win social policy. Make it illegal and STRONGLY enforced and you make every miscarriage suspect. Make it illegal but WEAKLY enforced, and you create a potential public health crisis of women taking it into their own hands or going to illegal providers.

secularprolife.org said...

You were created at fertilization Ann. They lifecycle of a human being starts at fertilization.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and
obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of
human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages of development in the womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”


Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome: “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical
contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has
a very neat beginning, at conception.”

In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held
hearings where they discussed when human life begins. Internationally-known geneticists and biologists spoke.

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”



I'll trust DOCTORS over a pro-abort any day.

secularprolife.org said...

Is every miscarriage after viability investigated by the police? NO!


People die of natural causes every day. It doesn't make killing an elderly person OK just because some of his friends may have died of natural causes.

secularprolife.org said...

Margaret Sanger:
“The most merciful thing that the large family
does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Sure, you and all the other liberals will claim it was taken out of context... blah blah blah... I've read the claims it was taken out of context, it wasnt.




And there are these 2 nut cases: Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
"[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
I even found a liberal citation for you so you wouldn't have a cow: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html - if you don't like that citation, GOOGLE IT YOURSELF.


It's a slippery slope... support killing human beings in the womb, and killing at birth is the next step.

secularprolife.org said...

Granted I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist. I'd say 99.99% of scientists agree that embryo at conception is alive, and is human. But the societal judgement of whether it has a "right to life" and whether aborting it is unethical or not, is not the domain of science, and I'm pretty sure you will find no reputable scientific journals in which an author would state something subjective like whether that embryo should be treated by society at large as a person.

secularprolife.org said...

Still too stupid to properly provide a citation. Must we do all of your work for you, you lazy sow? Well, I did ... and now you're going to regret it.

And yes, you have once again taken the quote out of context -- to the surprise of exactly NO ONE. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html

It was an IRONIC comment about the high infant mortality rates and how they worsened with continued increase in family size. No wonder you never provide sources; you wind up with egg all over your face.

Quote (in CONTEXT):

The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner’s family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of thesewas that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. 1 Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:

Deaths During
First Year
1st born children 23%
2nd " "20%
3rd " "21%
4th " "23%
5th " "26%
6th " "29%
7th " "31%
8th " "33%
9th " "36%
10th " "41%
11th " "51%
12th " "60%
Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. 8

This does not complete the case, however, for those who care
to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for
a year die before they reach the age of five. 9

Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is stillan abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The
most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant
members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant
mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack ofmedical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

----
Be careful what you ask for, Mathilde; so far your record of having your demands that we "look it up ourselves" is 100 percent for having it bite you right in the ass.

secularprolife.org said...

You just said that you think that all late-term miscarriages should be investigated by the police. Are you too stupid to remember what you wrote?

secularprolife.org said...

Or collecting stamps. Or anything other than being pissed at women who don't do as she says.

I swear to god, I envision her as an overgrown Shirley Temple, stamping her Mary Jane-clad foot and sticking her lower lip out in a giant pout every time she repeats one of her asinine talking points.

secularprolife.org said...

Indeed. Plus she did the "selfless" thing and gestated ... there is more to that backstory, but I'll leave it alone for now.

secularprolife.org said...

She "needs" to feel morally superior, that's all it is with this one.

secularprolife.org said...

That's exactly how she sees it.

Plus, failing her little "oopsy" has made her bitter because the attempt to create a diaper-clad anchor didn't keep babydaddy in the picture. I'm just sayin' ...

secularprolife.org said...

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

Aside from the fact that your reply is non-responsive to Ann, I hasten to point out the word in bold. That doesn't mean it IS a new human being, you ninny-hammer. It means it is a potential human being.

secularprolife.org said...

In 1981

Do you have any citations from *this* century?

secularprolife.org said...

Do you realize how many fertilized fail to implant?

secularprolife.org said...

Good visual.

secularprolife.org said...

Family planning is not eugenics. That's a lie.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope... wanting to ban post-viability abortions isn't wanting to feel morally superior is it? It's about protecting human beings from being killed. Same with wanting abortion to be restricted prior to viability.

secularprolife.org said...

>> If there are abortion bans, all people have to do is OBEY THE LAW. We're
not going to keep something so horrible legal just because someone
might do it anyway and get hurt.... people sometimes kill their
newborns.




There are so many things wrong here. So even if a law is unjust, you believe people should just shut up and obey? Also am I correct in assuming that you believe women who have abortions should be punished to the full extent of the law, since they did something so horrible? Do you also think miscarriages should be investigated? If so, I at least respect your consistency on the issue. And the point of abortions is to prevent people from killing newborns, no? Japan legalized (well, made it practically legal) abortions post-WWII precisely because infanticide and illegal procedures were so common. Now 90% of the populace approve the procedures, and the abortion rate is dropping steadily nonetheless. Give women and a choice, and usually they'll make the right one.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is never safe for the unborn child. And, just because something is legal it doesn't make it riight.

secularprolife.org said...

I do believe laws sometimes prevent people from doing things.... don't you? Otherwise, we wouldn't need laws at all because people would always do the right thing.


Unless a woman's life is endangered from the pregnancy, she doesn't 'need' an abortion. If she doesn't want the baby, she can work with an adoption agency. If she needs money, she can work with an agency that can help her get benefits or donations, etc. She can ask for help from friends, family, her church (if she has one), her partners family, her partners friends, etc. Help is available. Killing doesn't need to be a 'choice' - it shouldn't be a 'choice'.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you understand that about 3000 unborn human beings are killed in this country every day - many in the name of 'convenience'? Their lives matter too.

secularprolife.org said...

LIAR.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't fall for Fiona's lies... I've had decent debates with some people that are for abortion, like Purple Slurpy. Then, there are those like Fiona, who resort to lies and name calling.


... that said, pregnancy centers and places like them DO help women.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/catholic-charities-uses-bus-to-offer-free-counseling-guidance-on-unplanned-pregnancy/25740872

secularprolife.org said...

A football game has a BEGINNING... It's still a football game.


The life of a human being has a beginning. He or she is still a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Agree. There is a really good thread at The Atlantic. I posted the link at RH. Sorry I can't repost it because I haven't mastered that skill on my phone yet. lady black and refruits are there kicking butt.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_copy_paste_web_url_iphone/


I'm not doing much, it's all lady black.



Try out that Iphone tutorial.

secularprolife.org said...

Roe V Wade was decided much earlier than 1981... how about we get rid of that p o s....

secularprolife.org said...

You told us on Yahoo comments, two years ago, that you work for a CPC in Texas, tut tut dearie.

secularprolife.org said...

So? Lots of born people die from natural causes every day.. doesn't make killing them just because they are unwanted OK does it?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. never said that. Once again, you're LYING.

secularprolife.org said...

Family planning should be done before someone gets pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. not taken out of context... pro-aborts will twist anything. And I provided names of others that think infanticide is OK. Gosnell supported infanticide and he loved killing unborn children. Not a stretch to see that if someone is for killing a full term or nearly full term unborn child that they could also be for killing that same human being right after birth.

secularprolife.org said...

Most pro-aborts debate about the humanity of the unborn child. Many scientists believe that a human beings life begins at fertilization. I never did say those scientists were pro-life or pro-abortion. I was just attesting to their scientific information on when a human beings life begins.


Many pro-aborts on this forum use the "it's not human" or "it's not a human being" lines as an excuse to kill. It's pointless. Of all the survey's I've seen on reasons women have abortions, "it is not a human being" wasn't on any list on any of them. Reasons like "cannot afford a child" and "not the right time for a child" were though - so, those women knew they were carrying unborn children. Perhaps they didn't know all the resources available to them. Perhaps they never got proper counselling and support. If one of those women who said she couldn't afford a child walked into a real counseling center instead of a killing center, the counselors could show her the government benefits she might be eligible for, show her places like Catholic Charities - places that can help if she is just a few dollars short every month - places that can give her diapers, wipes, food, clothing, etc. Too many people are encouraged to take the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.. You made that up, dearie.

secularprolife.org said...

I love lady black. She is uber incredible.

I will give the iPhone tutorial a try. :)

secularprolife.org said...

If fertilized eggs are sloughed off in a menstural cycle, and this is a large percentage, then why dont these dead fertilized eggs have funeral services? According to you these are persons. If this was a belief of the entire population of the U.S., then why no mass funerals?

I'll cut to the chase. Most people do not belive a fertilized egg is a person. I belive every attempt at a fertilized egg as person legislation has failed.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry you're so stupid.

secularprolife.org said...

You're the liar here; you said you would have no problem with the police investigating late-term miscarriages.

secularprolife.org said...

Nice try, nitwit, but no dice. Your "medical information" is more than 30 years old.

Why do you hate other women so much, Mathilde? Are you jealous that that somebody, somewhere, is not stuck with a kid they don't want?

secularprolife.org said...

And here I thought that your feral toddler scenario was the most moronic thing you'd ever come up with. Now you've just doubled down on stupid.

Jesus wept.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. You were caught out on that one fair and square.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep, you're all about thinking you're better than everyone else because you "selflessly" had a kid you didn't want.

secularprolife.org said...

Many women grieve miscarriages - even if they occur early on in the pregnancy


If a homeless person disappears and dies and no one knows he is missing or even dead is his death not important? If a woman gives birth in her bathroom, kills her newborn and disposes of the body without anyone ever knowing, is that OK? No funeral was held... by your 'logic', I guess that's OK?


Miscarriages don't justify abortions any more than natural deaths in born people justify murder.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand your reasoning and the reasoning used by anti-choice forced-birthers to treat women like chattel and brood mares basically second class citizens to be forced to gestate against their will. If she doesn't give birth to a live baby then she's a criminal. Every miscarriage will be investigated as a crime scene. Every woman of child bearing age will be treated as a possible criminal. Sounds like that's what you want.

secularprolife.org said...

There are no "pro aborts" on this forum.

secularprolife.org said...

I didn't say ALL.... just ones where DOCTORS suspect the miscarriage wasn't natural.

secularprolife.org said...

Making abortion illegal would have a negative effect on society. Illegal abortion is a public health problem. Outlawing abortion only makes it more deadly for women who don't have resources to get a safe abortion by leaving the country or having enough money and resouces to get an abortion "legally."

secularprolife.org said...

Your posts are a great example of taking things out of context and twisting the truth.

secularprolife.org said...

I just watched the documentary 12 and Delaware. Myintx is using the same talking points of the people at the CPCs in the film. Have you seen the film?

secularprolife.org said...

There is no pregnancy if a fertilized egg fails to implant, this is basic biology. Why can you not understand this?

secularprolife.org said...

So you're putting human life above all other life?

secularprolife.org said...

No. Being prolife doesn't mean wanting people to have as many children as possible. Women have the right do decide if and when to have children, whether they want no kids or ten. I support the right to use whatever contraceptives you wish, but once you have conceived, whether it happened by accident or not, you are responsible for that life, at least until birth when care can be turned over to someone else.

secularprolife.org said...

If abortion becomes illegal I will disobey the law. I will help restart the Jane Collective and help women access abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't bother. The rudeness coming at you is disgusting. These particular pro choicers are not here to convince you or develop their arguments or become more thoughtful about the debate. They are here to irritate, antagonize and insult. And bully.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes! Well said.

secularprolife.org said...

No sperm no pregnancy. All part of the life cycle.

secularprolife.org said...

Rape exception? Yes or no?

secularprolife.org said...

I never said that all or most pro-choicers are in favor of abortion on demand up until birth. However, what academics like Peter Singer and others think does matter because they teach at prestigious universities and author textbooks, and so their positions do affect the attitudes of the next generation of doctors and other health care workers.

You are wrong about DNR orders. A number of states and provinces do have futile care laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Advance_Directives_Act

http://www.notdeadyet.org/disability-perspectives-on-public-policy-in-advance-care-planning

which allow physicians to unilaterally withdraw life-sustaining care which they believe to be futile, without the consent of the patient or their surrogate decision maker, or even against the expressed wishes of the patient or their decision maker.

secularprolife.org said...

No. We don't execute rapists. We shouldn't execute children (or zefs) who were conceived in violence, either.

secularprolife.org said...

Right. So you do NOT believe that women "have the right to decide if and when to have children" since you clearly support the right of a rapist, with government approval (abortion ban) to force the woman of his choice to birth his child.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said all of them, just ones that doctors think might not be natural miscarriages. e.g. if there are high levels of drugs in a womans system, or she was beaten up.

secularprolife.org said...

oh please, you know you were proven wrong and all you can do it throw insults like a troll.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope... you made up B S. Doesn't really matter anyway. CPCs don't kill unborn children. Planned Parenthood does.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm proud to be anti-abortion - against the killing of unborn children. The opposite of that is pro-abortion - for the killing of unborn children. Which one are you - anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

You can be anti-silicone breast implants, and forbid anybody from having them, or you can be pro-choice about silicone breast implants. People can get their boobs enhanced if they want or not get them enhanced if they so desire. Pro-choice about silicone breast implants doesn't make you pro-breast implants necessarily. I hate those things, but I support anybody who wants them to get them. So I'm pro-choice breast implants, but not pro-breast implants.

secularprolife.org said...

I have used a similar analogy, except instead of boobs, I talk about tattoos. I really don't like tattoos, but I don't think that people should be forbidden from covering their entire body with tattoos.



And I have known some pro-choice women who would gestate a pregnancy even if raped - except they would never seek to ban abortion - because that is what being pro-choice is all about.

secularprolife.org said...

Guess we need to re-visit Roe V Wade if you think any information over 30 years old needs to be revisited.


Post viability abortion laws aren't about hating women, they are about PROTECTING unborn children after viability. We need more laws to protect unborn children before viability as well.

secularprolife.org said...

You're right... with the possible exception of Purple Slurpy.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roland-c-warren/the-misconception-deception_b_5867192.html

secularprolife.org said...

Human being: an organism of the species homo sapiens. Really, this isn't a difficult concept.

secularprolife.org said...

No rap exception. That puts you in the tin hat wearing category of pro-life zealotry. You do realize that if you were to make a that public policy, you WILL be putting women at risk to harm themselves. I remember back in uni, a female student committed suicide after she was raped, shocking our campus. I don't know if she was impregnated, but its a situation where forced pregnancy could be dangerous. If such a woman really really wanted an abortion, and threatened suicide, would you support restraining her against her will?

secularprolife.org said...

Um... not seeing how that is taken out of context. Sanger clearly said that killing an infant would be "merciful" if that infant happens to be the 4th, 5th, etc. child.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roland-c-warren/the-misconception-deception_b_5867192.html

secularprolife.org said...

A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. Really, this isn't a difficult concept. Why do you have so much trouble with it?

secularprolife.org said...

What is your definition of the term 'human being'. This is the 22nd time I have asked you.

**All innocent human beings should have a basic right to life. They should not be KILLED because they are unwanted or inconvenient.**



All human beings should have a full set of rights and responsibilities. They should NOT be exempt from any of them, because of their developemental stage. Therefore, all newborns should be immediately prosecuted for assault, due to injuries caused to the mother during the birth process. Also, all laws regarding pedophilia will be immediately stricken from the books, a 3 year old has just as much 'right' to have sex as a 23 year old, just like a zygote has just as much 'right' to life as a newborn.

secularprolife.org said...

Saw someone else post this somewhere:
Pro-stealing : "stealing is okay, anyone should be able to do it."
Anti-stealing : "stealing is wrong, nobody should be able to do it."
Pro-choice [to steal] : "stealing is wrong, but if someone else thinks it's okay, then whatever, go for it!"

secularprolife.org said...

The only problem being that abortion is not wrong. I realize we disagree on whether it is or not. Another problem with that analogy is that stealing involves 2 people while abortion and breast implants involve only 1. Sure, we may disagree on that as well, but for an analogy to work, you need to make it so that even someone who disagrees with you will find it sufficiently close to their perception of the scenario, otherwise it is not terribly persuasive and appears only as sloppy thinking.

secularprolife.org said...

A ZEF is a potential person. Potential is key

secularprolife.org said...

Is there an easy way to distinguish between a legitimate miscarriage and one that may have been induced? If abortion is made illegal, don't you think some will resort to trying to miscarry? Don't you think then that some effort needs to be made to discourage doing this, and to also prosecute someone if they do? Then it seems like there needs to be a procedure to in place to determine a suspicious miscarriage, no?

secularprolife.org said...

>> Many scientists believe that a human beings life begins at
fertilization. I never did say those scientists were pro-life or
pro-abortion.



Yes, I agree. I can't imagine any rational human being saying otherwise. But I think its worth pointing out that those same scientists who believe life begins at fertilization are also highly likely to support the right to have an abortion. Scientists almost always have a doctoral degree, and gallup says holders of doctoral degrees (including non-science degrees) are almost 2x as likely to be pro-choice. And my daily life working in a research institute are in-line with this.



It says that highly rational, educated people who believe life begins at fertilization can also support the right to have an abortion. In fact, those who support the right to have an abortion out number those who don't in this demographic. And it is interesting that among those who are highschool dropouts, those who don't support abortion rights outnumber those who do - the opposite trend as among the scientists. Please draw your own conclusions.

secularprolife.org said...

**A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens.**

You're gerrymandering.

**Really, this isn't a difficult concept. Why do you have so much trouble with it?**



Because you are being deliberately evasive and giving both circular and complex definitions in order to keep playing your equivocation game.

secularprolife.org said...

What is the minimum standard to be considered a 'human being'? Exactly what qualities in this standard, and nothing else, justify granting 'rights'. Do you feel that rights are granted by human DNA, and nothing else? By a heart? Exactly by what means does human DNA or a human heart grant rights, but not animal DNA or animal hearts? Apparently it's not the brain, so what is it? A magic 'rights' fairy that sprinkles rights all over selected cells that happen to have human DNA?

secularprolife.org said...

You don't get it though... Your woman hating rants will NEVER change my mind. By telling a pregnant woman she is nothing but an inferior incubator you are "devaluing the lives and humanity of pregnant women."

secularprolife.org said...

Why not focus on the people that are actually alive and no onlt potentially alive? I know its because once it is born its not your problem right?

secularprolife.org said...

By telling a pregnant woman she is nothing but an inferior incubator you are "devaluing the lives and humanity of pregnant women."


I agree. That's what prolifers do: they devalue the lives, health, will, and conscience of pregnant women, reducing all women to "inferior incubators" - machines or slaves to be used til they break.


The women-hating rants of prolifers will never do anything to change the minds of those of us who support human rights.

secularprolife.org said...

That's because, apparently, you are just as stupid as Mathilde ... because neither of you is capable of comprehending irony.

secularprolife.org said...

That's right, Mathilde. Double down on the stupid.

secularprolife.org said...

That's right; keep doubling down on the stupid. It shows the ignorance that is the root of the anti-choice position.

secularprolife.org said...

No, dear. You're just doubling down on your stupidity.

As usual.

secularprolife.org said...

Okay, so if a woman has been beaten and she miscarries, *she* should be investigated?

I was right; you are one sick, evil, heartless bitch.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 516   Newer› Newest»