Pages

Friday, November 7, 2014

Working it Out: Audience Participation Requested!

Taken from woodleywonderworks
I am a newer writer for Secular Pro-Life. I have been writing blog posts about logical fallacies (and will continue to do so occasionally), but now I’d like to move to another phase of blog posts that I’m really excited to start. I hope to hear perspectives from both sides of the debate, and to foster a respectful dialogue to “work out” some contentious points in the debate.

Some background: I used to be hardcore pro-life. As a Christian teenager, I engaged in blogs and debates on the subject for several hours per day, and I worked for a short period of time for a pro-life organization. I was pretty inflexible in my beliefs on the right to life, as 1) my brain had yet to finish developing, 2) I had never been taught critical-thinking skills, and 3) I had the blissful reassurance of "being right" that is common among fundamentalists. I had it in my mind that the pro-life side could answer any and all objections pro-choicers came up with, and I saw no nuance or gray area in the issue. I was honestly perplexed at how a pro-choicer couldn't read pro-life answers to their objections and not simply be assured that the pro-life side was the way to go!

My opinions on abortion began to change when I left religion and took some Women’s Studies courses. Having a better understanding of how women have been treated in a historical context suddenly brought a cloud of uncertainty regarding the entire issue, and I essentially became very-reluctantly pro-life. Today I would describe myself merely as “reluctantly pro-life”.

I am hoping to hear well-reasoned thoughts in these series of posts from both sides. My hope is to make a statement that is currently what I believe, and to have both sides either confirm or reject my belief, and provide me with reasons and evidence why. On the next post, I will highlight the comments that I found compelling on both sides, and then open up the discussion once more with the new information. 

Please note: while I will do my best to try and read all comments, if you would like to make a point to me directly, please comment with an ORIGINAL comment directly on the post. On our blog in particular, a lot of debate (both fruitful and tedious) occurs, and so if you have a great insight hidden deep into a debate thread I may not see it.

The goals of these posts (besides my selfish desire to have help in fleshing out my reluctant positions and to see if my middle-of-the-road outlook is truly reasonable) is to encourage respectful dialogue between both sides.

Current Statement: scientific information about fetal development does not answer the question of the worth of the fetus.

Reasoning: However a person views the fetus will be based upon their own personal value system. Scientific evidence may inform this view, but it does not dictate the view. Science can answer emphatically certain questions, such as "Is the earth is experiencing severe climate change?” or “Is evolution is a fact based on the evidence?”

So let’s see how this goes! We may have some kinks to work out, but I hope that everyone participating will find these discussions enlightening, helpful, and even fun!



846 comments:

1 – 200 of 846   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

I'm very excited for this series too, Nate! And somewhat selfishly, I'm going to get in first on the comments.


To be pro-life, a basic understanding of prenatal development is *necessary but not sufficient.* You're right that science does not directly answer ethical questions. At the same time, though, someone who believes that unborn children are "goo" or "clumps of cells" is extremely unlikely to ascribe any moral worth to them.


A sizable contingent of rank-and-file pro-choicers are motivated by such scientific ignorance, and for them, an argument focused on prenatal development alone can be highly persuasive. Thus I completely support a pro-life emphasis in this area, even though, as you say, science does not directly "answer the question of the worth of the fetus."

secularprolife.org said...

"scientific information about fetal development does not answer the question of the worth of the fetus."

It has often been said that science can tell us what is, but not what should be. Similarly, science cannot ultimately determine moral values. Personhood and worth are philosophical questions.

Not a direct reply to your above statement, but a comment: The bodily-rights argument says that worth is irrelevant in the abortion debate. It is willing to concede that the fetus has the same worth as a born person, but argues that a woman would have a right to kill a born person if that was the only way to stop that person from using her body against her will. I have thought about the bodily-rights argument as best I could here --

http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/

I like your middle-of-the-road, reluctantly pro-life outlook.

secularprolife.org said...

Current Statement: scientific information about fetal development does not answer the question of the worth of the fetus.

Quite true.
The only person who can make an informed decision about the worth of each individual fetus (or embryo - as I'm sure you know, probably a majority of abortions take place at embryo stage) is the pregnant woman herself, with support from her nearest and dearest and advice from her doctors.

No one else is qualified - and no one else should be empowered - to make a decision like that on the pregnant woman's behalf, and then force the woman - or the girl - through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

The two chief ethical problems with the prolife ideology are firstly that prolife mandates forced use of human beings, and this is always wrong; and second, that prolife makes sweeping judgements without any individual information about a matter extremely personal to the individual pregnant woman and her family.

For these reasons, I think the prolife ideology is entirely wrong, and clearly it leads to so many bad consequences, damaging to women, children, families, and reproductive healthcare.

Those are my primary reasons for opposing the prolife ideology: it's about forced use of girls and women and about disrespecting the judgement of women.

The various arguments against abortion that rest on the importance of an embryo/fetus gestating for nine months til a baby is born, generally dehumanise or disregard the conscience and the health and wellbeing of the pregnant girl or woman, subordinating her life and her human rights to the use of her body. No human life is worth dehumanising or forcing another.

secularprolife.org said...

Over 50% of conceptuses spontaneously abort. As far as nature is concerned, these genetic blueprints are worthless.

A precious human baby is not created the moment sperm meets egg. Reproduction takes 9 months, not a few minutes, or days, and this is one obvious reason why an infant is far more valuable than a blueprint that may or may not ever make it to birth.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't think science can give morality. That's a realm of philosophy and religion. Science can't tell me that gold is worth whatever it is on the market. The fact that it's valued, is a human construction. It might tell is it's scarce or durable or weighty but it can't tell me worth.

I'm wondering what is it about the historical treatment of women that makes this uncertain for you. I don't know that I can accurately address that though I'll give it a go to the best of my ability.

As a woman, even in modern times, I've experienced discrimination or ill treatment. I've been cat-called. Sexually harassed. Unable to get my preferred birth control due to cost. I've felt the panic of getting hired at a job and then immediately finding out I was pregnant and wondering how that was going to turn out (I had a great employer, other women aren't so lucky).

I had a strong willed grandmother and great-grandmother who would have fit the bill of feminist at the time. My great-grandmother refused to be satisfied being treated as a second class citizen and my grandmother went to college in the early 50s.

I know scientifically that the pre-born is alive. I also think human beings have an innate worth. (So a mixture of science with philosophy). Sure, plenty of pregnancies don't make it to term and many before the woman even knows she's pregnant. I don't think that defines worth though. There's a difference between a natural end and actively working to end something. People die of cancer all the time. It doesn't mean it's right to take them out back and shoot them.

It seems to me the option is either value is innate or it is conferred. If it is conferred then it can be taken away. The best example I have is slavery. A slave was 3/5s a person. Some might argue that there's a difference between a full grown person and the one in the uterus. That's usually where I push back with - at what point have they "earned" their value? Is it viability? Is it birth? Why that point and not another?

However, if it is innate, it is there from the moment they first exist. Science says existence happens at conception although I have a doctor who thinks the science shows implantation being the start and I think I could accept that, I'm still exploring that idea.


Yes, women have a history full of oppression *and* one person's oppression doesn't make it right to oppress or kill another. However, that's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Sorry if this is a bit rambly. I have a toddler with a cold but I wanted to try to answer :)

secularprolife.org said...

Many born people die of natural causes. That doesn't mean we are worthless or anyone should be killed because someone thinks they are unwanted.


A human being is growing months before he or she is born and YEARS after. If you think reproduction takes 9 months I guess you're OK with killing a preemie born at 23 weeks?

secularprolife.org said...

Technically the statement is true, but only because of the shortcomings of mankind mentally and philosophically.

The unique combination of chromosomes contributed from the father and mother is what makes a new person, objectively. All other conditions/determinations are subjective and therefore susceptible to a dangerous slippery slope.

If your paradigm includes categories "Human with worth" and "Human without worth," as has occurred so many times in history, you might still be able to say that scientific knowledge isn't enough, but if so, then you have to be prepared for others to come and say "well, your sum total of my own criteria doesn't meet my definition of 'human with worth' so you should be killed."

Rather, if we look at the science and see that all the genetic material and DNA that makes a unique person is present at conception, and that zygote is therefore a human, with all the worth that all human beings posses, we have a solid foundation.

So...ultimately, can science tell us the *worth* of a person? Probably not because "worth" is a subjective economic term, and human beings have a looong history of under-valuing or de-valuing certain others of our species, but can science objectively define a human being? Sure, and we ought to protect and value all human beings against those people who don't.

You can look at the history of slavery and genocide to see that others continually have a sliding scale of "worth" of some humans. The problem with relying on the sliding scale of worth is 1) it's not objective, and 2) it will bite you in the ass. Read the original "I Am Legend" to see, allegorically, how the sliding scale of human worth can turn. (You can also just read Wikipedia's plot summary, but what fun is that??)

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, reproduction takes 9 months, until the offspring can actually survive as an independent organism you cannot say that you have reproduced.

secularprolife.org said...

Rather, if we look at the science and see that all the genetic material
and DNA that makes a unique person is present at conception, and that
zygote is therefore a human, with all the worth that all human beings
posses, we have a solid foundation.



Not necessarily. A zygote is just a genetic blueprint, that DNA has to be read, interpreted and expressed. A zygote is not a homunculus, it is not a complete person that just has to be form - it is both incomplete and unformed, and it may *never* become an autonomous individual, because embryological and fetal development is a roll of the dice, and many things can go wrong along the way.

secularprolife.org said...

I can kind of see where Nate is coming from. I'm not sure if I can call myself "reluctantly pro-life" but have been having, I don't know, doubts I suppose. Now, I KNOW a fetus is a human being, one of us. Although, bodily rights are important. I don't like how pro-lifers sometimes shrug off this point. I remember a few articles back, SPL was talking about LGBT's views on the movement. One of the people being interviewed recently turned pro-life and still had reservations about BA, I found myself agreeing a lot to what she was saying. Now I find the pro-life movement in need of fixing, and some of the things pro-life "leaders" do annoy me. On the other hand, what pro-choicers do anger me. I don't like how they're willing to dehumanize fetuses for the sake of their point. They're duhumanizing humans! Perhaps, if the typical pro-choice view of fetuses were different, I'd be different. I don't know. Sometimes I find myself not caring, which I think is worse.

secularprolife.org said...

How is it possible to dehumanize a zygote? Please, explain. How can you dehumanize something with no brain, no mind? A fetus doesn't gain the capacity for sentience until 25 weeks gestation btw...


As for dehumanization, think of it from this angle...


A woman has a mind. A woman can think, suffer and feel. A zygote is a single cell genetic blueprint. It has zero awareness. Why should a woman be subjugated to a single cell? Used as a reproductive object - an object that should have ZERO say in how her body is used, kind of like how your fridge doesn't have a say about what you put inside it - it exists to keep your food cold, just like a woman exists to make babies. Now, denying women's humanity, and using them as easy bake ovens IS a clear example of dehumanization.

secularprolife.org said...

A zygote fits the biological definition of a human organism. This is scientific fact.

You could also say that a newborn may never grow to be an adult because many things can go wrong along the way. Doesn't mean the newborn doesn't have the right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

On what scientific evidence do you base this statement?

secularprolife.org said...

So what. That doesn't mean anything. A partial hydatidiform mole also fits the definition of human organism.

And all of that is irrelevant, as I could say 'a cat is an organism of the species felis catus'. It doesn't mean anything.

Rights don't magically appear out of the sky simply because something is a human organism. An anencephalic baby is also a human organism, as is a beating heart cadaver (alive, but no mind) and, as I stated, a partial hydatidiform mole (which is a grossly deformed fetus, but still a fetus).

secularprolife.org said...

Well if zygotes are babies then there is no need to take it any further, right? You can have your entire family in a petri dish, by your logic!

secularprolife.org said...

>> A sizable contingent of rank-and-file pro-choicers are motivated by such scientific ignorance


That's interesting. So how would you explain data which shows that the more education you have, the more likely you are to become pro-choice? Do you think too much book learnin' overcapacitates the brain, and they just forget biology they learned in the past?


Also, I made a list yesterday to see the stances of pro-life vs. pro-choice politicians yesterday. Pro-life US governors almost universally denied man made climate change, were often in favor of prayer in public schools and were Creationists as well, and unanimously were against LGBT rights. The pro-choice politicians took exactly the opposite positions. Now other polls also show that higher education negatively correlates with God belief and Creationism. The same education that causes people to abandon magical thinking tends to make them pro-choice, it seems.


So perhaps to get people to the pro-life side, educating them seems to be exactly the thing you shouldn't be doing.


Just to be sure, I think there are certain merits to the pro-life positions. But I often find pro-life arguments are made in a vacuum. Abortion is a social policy that affects fetus, mother and the whole family. Once people begin to widen their scope and see the bigger picture, I find the pro-choice position to often be of the greater social good. And I think this is why education tends to make people pro-choice. They realize it is not only about the fetus, that overvaluation of the fetus can negatively affect the society at large.

secularprolife.org said...

I think the reason fetal development does not matter is that there is a distinction between describing what something is and assessing the consequences of one's action (i.e. moral agency). Scientific information about the fetus applies only to the former camp, and by definition, is limited temporally (by only focusing on the present) in the context it can provide to assess the consequences of your actions. Indeed, a pro-choicer is inclined to rely on scientific points on fetal development (lack of consciousness) to avoid the question of consequences altogether.

But this is wrong because our actions clearly have real world consequences even when we use fetal development as an argument against a fetus. Here I am thinking about things like sex selective abortion, the impact of abortion on people diagnosed with down syndrome and other conditions identifiable before birth. Somehow, our treatment of the unconscious is having an effect on actual pockets of the population. Why is this? The answer is simple: when making a moral calculation, the impact of that calculation on the future matters, perhaps in many cases, more than the impact of the present. Pro-Choicers will deny this with religious fervor in the context of abortion, but such an argument is an exception, not a rule. Think of any moral decision you are trying to make and try to remove your thoughts about the impact on the future. You might be surprised about how difficult this is.

So to put it succintly: scientific information about fetal development does not matter because in making moral decisions, the future matters. (as a side note: above I relied on future effects on segments of the population. I did this, because I think its more illustrative. But I think the reasoning holds on the individual level, (i.e. abortion is wrong because it denies a fetus a future as a fully functioning human). I haven't read it, but I believe this is similar to an argument by Donald Marquis

secularprolife.org said...

I don't necessarily think they are dehumanizing a fetus. While I recognize that a fetus is human, I believe abortion to be a question of social policy. It is known that abortion has led to a decrease in infanticide in many countries after legalization, and when a society becomes more stable, abortion rates go down.



To me, being pro-choice means recognizing that there are more factors at play than just the fetus. When the bigger picture of all those involved are considered, I think allowing women and the entire family involved to make their own decisions as to the best course for prosperity and success, an overvaluation of the fetus just doesn't make sense.



Pro-choice is not about dehumanizing the fetus, but recognizing that sometimes priorities must be identified and made in order for a greater social good.

secularprolife.org said...

I respect that it isn't about that for you, or for many pro-choicers, but it is for many others. There are plenty of people who speak of the human fetus as a blob of cells, a tumor, and other language that makes it clear they consider them worthless.

secularprolife.org said...

This issue of abortion is about human action, not natural tendencies. The inherent risks of reproduction at the very beginning should have no bearing on our moral calculation of one's worth.


If you had two people and you knew a piano was about to fall on one of their heads, it would not be ok to kill one of them on the theory that they had a 50% chance of dying anyway.

secularprolife.org said...

There are plenty of people who speak of the human fetus as a blob of cells


Yes, they do, because they are not projecting human qualities onto something that has no mind, and in the case of a zygote, no brain.



Pro-lifers often fetishize human DNA, projecting qualities onto it that it doesn't have. A zygote has no self - it is just a genetic blueprint that may or may not develop a self someday.
A zygote does not have any of the qualities that we associate with people other than h.sapiens DNA.

secularprolife.org said...

Like I said.

secularprolife.org said...

I want to add that I agree with other commenters that scientific literacy on the matter is important. I just think its more important as a matter of appearances and legitimacy. I don't think its important in formulating a moral argument.

secularprolife.org said...

The inherent risks of reproduction at the very beginning should have no bearing on our moral calculation of one's worth.


Which is interesting.



Why don't more people have tampon funerals for dead zygotes? Why do pro-lifers, even some of the posters here, not cry tears for all of the dead embryos? Why do they say that they 'intellectually' acknowledge that a zygote has the same worth as a baby, but shed no tears and feel no emotion when thinking of the hundreds of millions of zygotes that fail to implant, or simply spontaneously abort? I mean, if hundreds of millions of newborns were dying, there would be some concern, you think? a public health crisis? So where is the concern for all of the doomed zygotes?

secularprolife.org said...

What qualities does a zygote have that a person has? And how are those qualities denied? How is the zygote dehumanized? Can you explain?


For example, during slavery, the human qualities of slavers were denied. That they were thinking, feeling beings. That they had hopes and dreams. That they loved, that they had families etc. All of that was denied. They were seen as mere human machines.



Now, what qualities does a zygote have, like the slave above, that are denied? Can you list them?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, I'd say "blob" is not exactly right, but otherwise I myself don't care to project too much human-ness onto a fetus which cannot process any sensory inputs yet, and has no will, fear or pain.


In Japan, where near 90% of the populace support abortion rights and a pro-life movement does not exist, it is nonetheless relatively common for women who have an abortion to visit Suiko shrines and memorialize their fetuses, and to keep a trinket on their family alters.




I would support reasonable restrictions to abortions at some stage of development, to me 25~30wks seem reasonable, where I begin to see humanness really take hold.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi,

This is off topic, but I thought you should know that the lightweight font used on that site is really hard for a lot of people to read, especially for a post as long as that.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't like how they're willing to dehumanize fetuses for the sake of their point. They're duhumanizing humans!


All prolifers dehumanise women for the sake of your ideology. They're dehumanising humans.


Yet this doesn't bother you at all? I suppose if it did, you'd be on the human rights side of the fence and be prochoice.

secularprolife.org said...

Worth noting, too:


The historical links between the pro-slavery / pro-segregation / anti-civil rights movement, and the modern prolife movement in the US, are clear and factual.


Slaveowners were prolife: they did not believe the women whose bodies they legally owned had the right to decide for themselves how many children to have, and when.


Prolifers dehumanise women for the use of their bodies. Ideologically and historically, prolifers in the US are akin to pro-slavery.

secularprolife.org said...

You've got several topics swirling around:


1) I do feel emotion when I think of the zygotes who do not survive the treacherousness of the beginning of existence. That's a separate issue from what can be done about it. The beginning of life is treacherous just like the end of life. Why is this surprising

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, and if a pregnant slave woman needed to be disciplined, a hole was dug in the ground to protect the fetus, and she was made to lie in it, while they whipped her back. Gotta protect the fetus, after all.

secularprolife.org said...

Why should a zygote have just as much worth as a newborn, as a teen, adult or centenarian?

secularprolife.org said...

the issue isn't worth its treatment. There are various reasons why you might treat a human being a different levels of development differently, but none of those amount to the right to actively and purposefully kill a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

That doesn't answer my question.

secularprolife.org said...

I believe it did.

secularprolife.org said...

No. I asked why should a zygote have just as much worth as a born human?

secularprolife.org said...

I cannot truly wrap my head around this. First of all, I didn't think you read my comment all that well. All you saw was "Anti-choicer, women hater - get her!" and gave me your standard fee that you give all other pro-lifers without truly addressing my issues, like bodily autonomy, that I said was having doubts of.
Second - you say zygote. A lot of. As if its relevant.

What is a zygote? A zygote is the result of when conception just occurred. It is indeed a "single cell". For a short time, afterwards it quickly divides in many cells becoming an embryo, then it implant into the uterine wall - grow into fetus and eventually births into a newborn. I hope you know this, I'm not saying this to patronize you. Simply, so I can clear up misunderstanding. You may use the word zygote in reference to fetuses, similar to how pro-lifers use baby in reference. However, you also say "single celled" which a fetus (or embryo) is not. Fetuses and embryos are what are being aborted. In scientific definition, "pregnancy" does not occur until successful implantation. When this happens, it'd no longer be a "single celled zygote". Which is why calling it such, is irrelevant and misleading to those who are not knowledgeable to fetal development.

Now that's over. Let's talk about what is being aborted. Abortions happen in the first trimester. What does a fetus do in this time? What is it? What makes it human? In the mere first weeks it already starts to develop a heart, spinal cord and brain. Long ways away from a single cell. By six weeks, while far from working, the brain is starting develop in its complexity. Brain waves can be detected by EEG around forty days.

So to answer your question: "How is it possible to dehumanize a zygote?" By making it less than what it is.

In terms of bodily autonomy. You accuse me of wanting women just to be used to make babies. Going an highly emotional argument isn't my problem. If you understood my comment, you'd see how I'm a bit confused on front. But you didn't care, you just wanted an argument.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand where you're coming from, Purply Slurpy. For me, it isn't about a social good. Its more a psychological question. There are things that would be a "social good" but wouldn't add up to the moral sense. I try not to let morals dictate politics, but in the end that's what we all amount to. Our morals. One may consider "after birth abortions" a social good for whatever reasons but it wouldn't cause anyone to jump on board with that. Killing those - or euthanasing those with mental illnesses - say, bipolar disorder - could be considered a "social good", with the right points. I could on.



I do believe, sometimes, we have to think more for everyone else instead one. Sometimes killing is the answer, but for that I think more of a scenario of war or something similar, than that of abortion.


Like another commenter said, I didn't mean to say that all pro-choicers dehumanize fetuses, in the terms of calling them blobs or anything. Sorry, if that's what you got from my comment.

secularprolife.org said...

So, we're all dehumanizing humans?

I guess we have more in common than we thought...

secularprolife.org said...

I am starting with a zygote because the mainstream pro-life movement, and many here at SPL, consider a zygote to be a person. This is why, as the recent Hobby Lobby decision revealed, that certain organizations oppose contraception, because they consider it *murder* to deny a zygote the right to implant on the uterus. They go so far as to even say that the pill is *murder*.

Now that we've got that cleared up, I also started with the zygote in order to keep it simple. Now, when an abortion occurs should be irrelevant, right? Also, what a zygote will develop into should also be irrelevant if that zygote, as is, is a person? Is that zygote a person even if it will NEVER develop? You wouldn't look at a toddler with a rare genetic disease which will result in it never growing and say 'that toddler isn't a person, he is no longer developing'.

So, I would like to know, how is it possible to dehumanize a zygote? What human qualities does a zygote have that pro-choicers are pretending don't exist? Can you list them?

As for your little aside regarding embryos and fetuses, well, yes, they have hearts, spinal cords and brains, but so do most animals. A cow has brainwaves, a heart and a spinal cord. So, what qualities does the human embryo have *as is* that a cow does not? Why should a human embryo have more rights than a cow? Actually, the cow is at least sentient, unlike the human embryo...those primitive brainwaves have nothing to do with consciousness btw, specific brainwaves are associated with thinking, and an early embryo doesn't possess them.

"How is it possible to dehumanize a zygote?" By making it less than what it is.

Except you didn't explain 'what it is' other than to point towards what it *may* become. A sperm and an egg *may* some day join to become a toddler. Does that mean that a man is dehumanizing his sperm by tossing one off, since sperm = half a person?

You accuse me of wanting women just to be used to make babies


Well, if you are pro-criminalization of abortion, and seek to deny women reproductive freeom, then yes, I would say that you are dehumanizing women and treating them like mindless baby making machines.

secularprolife.org said...

"What human qualities does a zygote have that pro-choicers are pretending don't exist? Can you list them?"

I just did. Only now are you changing your argument from the "singled celled" one. I cannot talk about all pro-choicers though, only what you are saying to me.

"Now, when an abortion occurs should be irrelevant, right?"

I suppose. But I'm talking about "real life" rather than analogies. In actuality, no one aborts zygotes.

"those primitive brainwaves have nothing to do with consciousness btw,"

Didn't say they did, I was just point out they were there. You said, and I quote. "How can you dehumanize something with no brain, no mind?" Highlight brain.

"So, what qualities does the human embryo have *as is* that a cow does not?"

Human DNA. To clear things up, its a human organism. I don't want to to get the idea that I'm talking a skin cell or something.

"Also, what a zygote will develop into should also be irrelevant if that zygote, as is, is a person?"

I never commented on what a fetus would be. I only said what it was.

"Except you didn't explain 'what it is' other than to point towards what it *may* become."

When did I mention what it may become? Are you possibly confusing me with someone else? Or are you still on that zygote thing?

"Well, if you are pro-criminalization of abortion, and seek to deny women reproductive freeom, then yes, I would say that you are dehumanizing
women and treating them like mindless baby making machines."


....Okay, then.

secularprolife.org said...

What makes you think human rights activists "dehumanise humans"? Prolifers do that. We don't.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Stormii

"Social good" was not the best choice of words. My contention is that given data about how people actually behave - that as prosperity and social mobility of women improve, abortion rates go down naturally in many countries, and abortion has also cut down on infanticide. Given choice, women don't go around having abortions for frivolous reasons. The specifics of the morality of abortion will be debated forever, and I'm sure that with new science showing us a better picture of the life and times of the fetus, opinions will change on this issue. But for now when faced with actual data that shows legal abortions improving the lot of women and families in impoverished nations, it seems to me that allowing choice tends to lead to a healthier society.

Also, another difference between fetuses and the unconscious or mental patients - I'd say that fetuses have never had a will, fear or hope. If they are unable to process any sensory information, killing them just doesn't seem to cause anyone or anything harm. Yes, the fetus has been deprived of a future, but it never had and never will have existential angst about its demise. Unless I gained religion and became convinced that there was innate value put into the fetus by God or something, I simply don't see where the harm is.

secularprolife.org said...

I just did.

No, you didn't. All you did was talk about it's potential to grow a brain, a heart and a spinal cord. What makes a zygote special AS it IS, say, sitting in a petri dish. What human qualities does it have, and how is it possible to dehumanize a zygote, which is, btw, a snippet of DNA surrounded by a cytoplasm.

To clear things up, its a human organism. I don't want to to get the idea that I'm talking a skin cell or something.

Yeah. So? Explain why being a 'human organism' is significant. A cow is a cow organism. An amoeba is a member of the Amoebidae family.

What makes a human organism special, and a cow or amoeba organism not? How is it possible to dehumanize a zygote in a petri dish, but not an amoeba in a petri dish? What special qualities does the zygote have, AS IS, that the amoeba does not have? Qualities that human zygote possesses RIGHT NOW, not 'what it may become' but, RIGHT NOW, as of this minute, that make it special vs an amoeba.

....Okay, then.


Well, do you seek to criminalize abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

The difference is the newborn has been born and is able to survive without the use of an actual person's body against her will. A zygote can only survive if the host is willing to let it stay there.

secularprolife.org said...

Purple Slurpy,

I wouldn't deny the "improvements" so to speak, of abortion of society. But, perhaps its putting a band-aid on a knife wound? Before, you mentioned how we don't live in a world that gives that such luxury. But maybe we can help? As a pro-lifer myself, I don't bother with legality of abortion - I care, of course, but I won't be protesting down in Washington when I can help mothers on a more local level.

Women mainly get abortions because of lack of resources, if she had them, she wouldn't consider abortion. What I want to one day do is help those women get those resources, that encouragement and support. I fail to see how one can champion for women's choices without thinking about all of them. Note, I'm not say YOU don't but I believe the world could be in better use trying eliminate stigma of teen moms. Not saying teen parenting should be encouraged, but many people see a teen mother and think they will amount to nothing and with that kind of views placed upon you, you start to feel that way about yourself. These so-called women's rights activist fight for eliminated stigma of abortion, their baby, but when it comes to other options the world still holds such a close minded view.
At least pro-lifers admit that they won't destigmatize abortion.

Concerning fetuses and unconscious patients. I've never made the comparison, so I'm guessing your going on experience from other pro-life arguments.Anyways, like another debater tells me we can't work on future tense of what may be. All we have is now. Now, they don't have those abilities. At that moment they are not conscious of past deeds, wants and accomplishments. If you kill them, you wouldn't be "hurting" them either, just their memory.

secularprolife.org said...

Again, I'm not talking about zygotes. Fetuses don't sit in petri dishes. Fetuses are growing. Now, before you say that's I'm comparing what they may do in the future, no, I'm simply stating at this point they are growing. That is all.

"possible to dehumanize a zygote, which is, btw, a snippet of DNA surrounded by a cytoplasm"

DNA is DNA.

"Yeah. So? Explain why being a 'human organism' is significant."

Because I'm talking dehumanizing humans. That was my point originally, in case you forgot.

"How is it possible to dehumanize a zygote in a petri dish, but not an amoeba in a petri dish?'

Amoeba is not human.A zygote (and yes, I do actually mean zygote) is. That's the whole point in deHUMANizing.

"What special qualities does the zygote have, AS IS"

DNA, but I already said this. Just like when I mentioned that heart, brains and all that good stuff is common in fetuses, the ones being aborted.

"Well, do you seek to criminalize abortion?"


Its not currently on my To-Do list, if that's what your asking.

secularprolife.org said...

So your argument is that its human DNA that is special and deserving of rights?

OK. How does one go about dehumanizing human DNA?

secularprolife.org said...

Purple Slurpy recognizes the basic truth of human history, and he's not doing the best job of articulating it. Historically, up to and including today, Homo sapiens have three strategies for dealing with unwanted offspring. Contraception, abortion, and abandonment/infanticide. Where you make the first two difficult or impossible, you make the third option inevitable. In times of stress, all three will naturally increase as people go into survival mode. In stable societies, contraception will be very easy, abortion will also be very easy, but less necessary, and no abandonment or infanticide will be almost unheard of. If you want a good peek at what happens in modern society when contraception and abortion aren't available, take a close look at what happened in Romania. That's a cautionary tale.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't feel anything at all about lost zygotes. They were not meant to be.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. Beautifully stated.

secularprolife.org said...

He did answer it. He did not say it was worth "as much as" a born human (I find using the adjective-noun combo "born human" odd), but that just because it merits different treatment doesn't mean it merits death.

secularprolife.org said...

No, he didn't.

secularprolife.org said...

Then it seems the problem is one of reading comprehension.

secularprolife.org said...

No, he just waffled around without answering anything.

secularprolife.org said...

Our DNA is what makes us humans. Different cells coming together to make us organisms. You can't dehumanize DNA, only those who carry it.

secularprolife.org said...

So human DNA = person? So like, the human DNA in my skin cell is a person, and should have personhood rights?

secularprolife.org said...

That's interesting, because I rarely see pro-choice bloggers referring to a human fetus as a "blob" or a "tumor." Blob is a fitting description of a human blastocyst. Tumor is wholly incorrect. A fetus is human tissue, but depending upon the fitness of the specimen and stage of gestation, it may be unsuited for life as a human being. I share the view of Edinburgh Eye that the forced use of human bodies is always wrong, even if the use is "natural." Forcing a person to be used sexually is rape. Forcing a person to labor on behalf of another without remuneration is slavery, and that includes gestational slavery (which was a HUGE factor in the institution of slavery in general). Fortunately for us, as a species, we have plenty of women who want to bear children (like myself) and have done so. That cannot be used as a rationale for using the bodies of others against their will. You will simply have to settle for what women are willing to give, because that's all you're going to get.

secularprolife.org said...

Stormii, with all due respect, rational people have a much higher threshold for personhood than "human DNA." That's why "personhood amendments" keep failing. Rational people are very uncomfortable giving human rights to human tissue. If a zygote has human rights, congratulations on having just handing personhood to a hydatidiform mole. That just isn't intelligent. In my opinion, it's simple-minded.

secularprolife.org said...

What a steaming load. Pro-choice people are mental midgets, you say? Facts prove you wrong. Dunning-Kruger effect in a stunning example.

secularprolife.org said...

No disrespect, I understand your position.
In my opinion, the difference between a zygote and a

Hydatidiform is that it is a simply a mass, and not living. Its sometimes categorized as a miscarriage so that would be like me saying that corpses deserve rights - though, corpses have some rights. A zygote is living, growing healthy human.

But this kind of goes off track from my original point to night porter. My point wasn't that zygotes deserve rights, it was that they are human.



Also the last comment you sent me about conception/abortion/infanticide was very interesting. I'll make sure to look into that later one.

secularprolife.org said...

"Different cells coming together to make us organisms"


- I made sure to add the word "organisms" so I would avoid this...

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, and then you simply started talking about 'human DNA'


Whatever.


What makes a human organism special vs a cow organism?


PS a beating heart cadaver and a hydatidiform mole are also human organisms.

secularprolife.org said...

Hydatidiform is that it is a simply a mass, and not living.


A mole is as alive as a zef - it grows and everything.



And a partial mole is merely a grossly deformed fetus. Don't be so ableist.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Stormii

I agree in a perfect world, abortion would naturally look like an awfully unattractive choice among the plethora of choices she has. Even in such a world, I wouldn't dream of making it illegal. Even if its not illegal, sociological data already show that abortion rates decline anyway (as explained by lade_black.)

In the current world, abortion DOES improve the lot of women. I think that's a fact that many health organizations would attest to. I think we should work towards a world where abortion is simply unattractive. Luckily, such a world probably also has a host of other positives. I think working toward social justice of all kinds will naturally lead to such a world.

My mom was an ambitious girl, but she grew up in an era and country where girls were not encouraged to achieve academically. She aspired to be a biomedical researcher, but in our country (Japan), women were not paid to do research and were told to leave to make room for the men who had families to support. She came to America in the 70s with my dad, and joined a prestigious lab at Stanford headed by a Nobel laureate. In addition to wanting to succeed as a researcher just because she loved science, she wanted to be a role model to the girls and boys in Japan. That is when she became pregnant unexpectedly with my younger sibling. Given the kinds of hours she worked (way too many, but absolutely necessary working and caring for E. coli cultures that didn't care whether you were a working mother and needed to go home at soon) and the demands of her first child, she agonized over the decision, but she chose abortion. A factor was that we had no extended family in the US to help with the care, and that I had been clamoring for a sibling. There was another relative back home who wanted to adopt if my mother gave birth, but she felt I might be devastated if I had a sibling that was suddenly taken away.

I fully support her decision, and because of women like her, the climate in Japan has improved for working mothers, and she's contributed to modern biomedical technology that has improved the quality of life of humans. Its difficult to say she would've been able to do the same had she chose to keep the baby, but I know it was not an easy decision. To me, each person's situation is different. Outlawing abortion is a one-size-fits-none solution. The best we can hope to do is to make a society where abortion is simply unattractive. Humans have already shown that given more attractive choices than abortions, they will choose it, and naturally, abortion will decrease.

As for the unconscious, it was sort of in relation to the mentally ill patients you referred to.

secularprolife.org said...

You know, your right about the mole thing. My bad, I should have researched more about that before saying anything. Also I should have worded that differently. Similarly to how you use zygote, I use organism to define species.

"Yeah, and then you simply started talking about 'human DNA'"
I started talking about DNA because originally, that was what the argument was about, dehumanizing those of our species. Feel free to read back on our time together.

Whatever the case, night porter, this wasn't an entirely unpleasant conversation. Besides finishing up a few conversations here, I must go. Maybe we'll talk again, if you hang out here a lot that is.

secularprolife.org said...

One last comment about the deformed fetus. Some molar pregnancies don't carry any fetal tissue. If it does, the mass kills the embryo. That goes back to my corpse comment. I guess I knew more about this than I thought.

secularprolife.org said...

Purple Slurpy,

I think we may have some sort of agreement. Making abortion unattractive isn't necessarily a goal for me, nor is banning it but I guess its nice to know that not all pro-choicers love abortion. I'm more into what you said about creating other options for mothers, I believe that goes farther than any law could. I also believe I'll save more of the preborn by doing so. Its also good to know, pro-choice/life, a lot of other people have that same goal too.

secularprolife.org said...

They do, actually. It's common and normal to mourn a miscarriage--not as a lost opportunity to have a child, but as a child who has actually died. Many women grieve their children that die before being born. What's interesting is that many of these women aren't even religious or remotely pro-life.

secularprolife.org said...

Seeing the aftermath of a D&E will make most people feel that abortion is wrong and immoral. Abortionists themselves either harden to it or quit the practice. That is why so many people refuse to see it. It's hard to deny what is in front of your eyes.

It's much easier to stomach when they staunchly justified what they're doing as a service to society.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks very much. I've learned that websites are good for publishing text, but I haven't become sensitive about the importance or possibilities of presentation.
If there is a way to improve things that you can easily explain to me, I would appreciate that. On the About page of my blog there is an email address.
Otherwise I can probably find someone to help.
My WordPress 3.3.1 doesn't seem to support any playing around with fonts, beyond bold & italic.

secularprolife.org said...

And many don't. In fact I would have to say that tampon funerals are pretty rare, if nearly non-existent.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, a full mole doesn't carry any fetal tissue, but a partial does. And it is a human organism.

secularprolife.org said...

>> By six weeks, while far from working, the brain is starting develop in
its complexity. Brain waves can be detected by EEG around forty days.


Nope, nope, nope. Sorry, don't think so. Neuroscientist here, not experimentalist, but I know some stuff about neural recording technologies. At 6 weeks, fetuses are on the order of 1~2cm total body length. Even if they had a brain (which they hardly even have neurons at that stage), doing EEG recordings on anything that size floating in electrolytic solution is probably impossible. Just too noisy and invasive would be my guess, as EEG requires direct electrical contact at the surface of the cranium. I found a review paper in Trends in Neurosciences, v. 29 2006 discussing EEG recordings in premature born neonates > 20wks. The only way you can get recordings in vivo of a fetus is probably through a non-invasive technique like fMRI, but fMRI has spatial resolution on orders of cubic centimeter or so. No way you are going to get recordings from such a tiny fetus. There are some papers using fMRI on fetuses, but those are from 35wks~.



Kelsey quotes this 6wk brain activity nonsense in a pamphlet. She really should stop as any scientist would scoff at this falsity. The source is from an ancient paper, but most likely they were just picking up noise and not brain activity.

secularprolife.org said...

After birth the offspring can survive as an independent organism? Not likely! We are all more of less dependent on others for most of our lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Really? So a baby, after birth, can't breathe eat or shit on it's own, it needs to drill into the bloodstream of another human so that person's organs can perform all of life's metabolic processes for it


Tell me more.

secularprolife.org said...

Pro-lifers do not dehumanise women; we respect and value all women, born and pre-born.

secularprolife.org said...

This is what an average abortion looks like:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

And by your logic, we should outlaw any medical treatment that is gross, because gross things are upsetting!

Also, by that logic, women should not be permitted lifesaving third trimester abortions, because eww!!

Oh, and birth is pretty gross too. Better ban birth!

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, yes you do. If you deny women their free will and the right to plan their own reproductive lives, you treat them like appliances, a fetal delivery system, a mere means to an end.


THAT is the very definition of dehumanizing. To pro lifers, women are just the meat around the uterus.

secularprolife.org said...

And from what I understand, all of the stationary neurons are not even in place by 6 weeks. Stationary neuron = neural cells have finally began to differentiate from one another, and settle into their respective roles, and prior to 6wks, perhaps it's even 8, the neurons are NOT stationary and have no function.

secularprolife.org said...

To be sure, there probably IS some kind of activity going on. Its just that we don't have the technology to measure this activity. That is why I say with improved technology, there might be revelations that show the tremendous complexity of the fetal mind at that stage, and my pro-choice position MAY change. But I doubt we will find such unexpected activity, and the correct position is to say we don't know, and not to assume too much about the richness of the fetal mind at 6 wks.

secularprolife.org said...

There's no such thing as a pre-born woman.


A woman is an adult human being.


If you want to gloss over all stages of development from fertilisation to birth into one phrase "pre-born human", those stages of development are none of them adult human beings.

That you claim you "respect and value" women while comparing them to brainless embryos gives the lie to that.

secularprolife.org said...

Science may not directly answer the question, but it certainly constrains the answers one can give, I would argue to the point that a fetus cannot be considered to have the moral worth of a person.

Some people seem to attach moral worth to human DNA. Science tells us that if that is true, we must believe that the brain-dead human is of equal moral worth to a healthy conscious human. Science tells us that if that is true, we must also believe that every time you scratch yourself (killing many skin cells) it is mass murder. And I assume you've encountered the burning IVF clinic argument? If moral worth comes with human DNA, science tells us what conclusion we must draw there. All of these scenarios lead to absurdities, so science constrains us to reject the idea that moral worth comes with human DNA.


Some people seem to attach moral worth to the ability to feel pain, and science is certainly useful in telling us when in fetal development that happens. But also tells us that if that is the measure, we must regard killing a rat as equally morally wrong as killing a human, and I cannot accept that conclusion.

My view is that moral worth comes with human level cognitive abilities. If a being an communicate in a language with a recursive grammatical structure, that is sufficient (though perhaps not necessary) evidence that that being has moral worth. That is the only coherent line I can draw, the only line that explains why normal humans have more moral worth than normal animals. The comparison between what science tells me about the qualities of a fetus and what science tells me about the qualities of an animal forces me to reject the idea that a fetus has the moral worth of a person at any stage of fetal development. That is the role I see science playing.

secularprolife.org said...

So a preemie dependent on life support can be killed?

secularprolife.org said...

You do every time you come up with a lame excuse to kill them while they are still in the womb.

secularprolife.org said...

Only if you are gonna eat it.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't matter if a molar pregnancy contains a 'recognizable' fetus or not. Both full and partial molar pregnancies result from a zygote (fertilized ovum). Neither type is ever viable, fetus or no fetus, and they are life threatening because they are invasive. If any material is left behind after the abortion, it can become a cancerous tumor. So not only is the woman dealing with the loss of a pregnancy she wanted, but she has to worry about what little time bomb it might leave behind. Plain and simple... Human DNA does not equal human being.

secularprolife.org said...

So is a non-beating heart cadaver. They have human DNA that remains for long periods of time after decay has begun.

secularprolife.org said...

"Our species" doesn't mean the same thing as "person" or even "human being." A hydatidiform mole arises from human DNA, whether fetal tissue is present or not.

secularprolife.org said...

No, a zygote is not a human organism. It's a single cell, i.e. human tissue. A human organism is complete with everything necessary to sustain life independent of someone else's organs.

secularprolife.org said...

D&E is rare.

secularprolife.org said...

**Current Statement: scientific information about fetal development does not answer the question of the worth of the fetus.**



Which really means, of course, is that it answers the question just fine, but you don't like the answers that firstly, value and worth are very subjective, and secondly, a fetus doesn't have a functioning brain prior to 6 months old, and lastly, there is nothing in the fetus that can justify giving it special rights to someone else's body.

secularprolife.org said...

**Rather, if we look at the science and see that all the genetic material and DNA that makes a unique person is present at conception, and that zygote is therefore a human, with all the worth that all human beings posses, we have a solid foundation.**



And why do 'human beings' but not cattle or bacteria, 'possess worth'?


Your supposed 'solid foundation' is just the same old equivocation fallacy, where you want to use one definition of the word 'human' in order to justify having 'human worth', then switch to a different definition of the word 'human' in order to sneak the zef in.


Do you honestly think we are going to fall for the same old equivocation fallacy THIS time, when we didn't fall for it the past 10,000 times?

secularprolife.org said...

** Read the original "I Am Legend" to see, allegorically, how the sliding scale of human worth can turn.**


Uh huh. And which slaves in history or vampires in that story entirely lacked a functioning brain. Tell me which ones, and then you'll have an argument. Otherwise all you have are sad feelies.

secularprolife.org said...

Or ban menstural cycles. The blood in my diva cup is a lot more bloody than that photo.

secularprolife.org said...

**A zygote fits the biological definition of a human organism. This is scientific fact.**


Well, whoop te do. Nobody denies it. But this is the 24th time you've danced around and avoided explaining why ANY 'humans' should have rights, but not cattle or bacteria.


Don't babble about 'potential' either, because that just leads to more handwaving, where you get to decide which 'potential' is valid and which isn't. An unfertilized egg is a 'potential human being'. A bacteria, is a 'potential human being', given 900 million years of evolution. Why do you get to decide what time periods and what conditions of 'potential' are valid? Sad feelies?

secularprolife.org said...

In other words, you're trying for the continuum fallacy again. You're also handwaving away the fact that the 'preemie' is no longer inside the mother's body, and attempting to equate it with an unborn fetus, just because they are the same age, which is about as nonsensical as claiming that since you wouldn't castrate a man who was standing at the opposite end of the room and doing nothing to you, you therefore shouldn't take any violent action against a man who was raping you, because both penises were the same length.

secularprolife.org said...

The machine can be shut off if the owner wants it back. Deal with it. If it makes you sad, then why don't you spend your money to buy care for preemies. Oh, I forgot, you are only generous with other people's bodies and money, never your own.

secularprolife.org said...

God, you're dumb. Does your dentist need a manure spreader after he gets done with you?

secularprolife.org said...

Why should any 'human being' have rights, when cattle and bacteria don't?

secularprolife.org said...

Guess what Sweetiepie? I have a right to kill someone who is violating my rights. Occupying my body, without my consent, is violating my rights. Tough shit if it's not 'intentional'. Tough shit if you have sad feelies about that.


If I choose to tolerate someone violating my rights, because I feel they can't help it, or for whatever other reason I might have, that is a pure gift. It is not a 'right' on their part to do so, it is not an obligation or responsibility on my part to do so. Grow up and deal with it.

secularprolife.org said...

Expect joanna or myintx to babble about how it is a 'human being' because it's an 'organism of the human species'.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you seriously comparing a fetus to a rapist?

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx thinks that if we outlaw abortion, we won't get Romania. Instead, angels will descend from the sky in a golden light, everyone will 'be responsible' and have sex only once every five years or so when they want children, severe birth defects won't happen any more, and we'll all go live in fairyland.

secularprolife.org said...

The question is, are they pro-choice because they have more education or are they pro-choice because they're more liberal and there is a trend to think that to be politically liberal is to be pro-choice?

More education doesn't mean that a person is necessarily capable of understanding or grasping the scientific points. Let's take a look at the vaccine or GMO debate (I highly recommend the GMO Skepti-Forum and the Vaccine Skepti-Forum on Facebook). In at least the vaccine "debate" (since 99.99% of science supports vaccination), there is a vein of very educated, liberal parents who aren't vaccinating. They're essentially the liberal version of climate change deniers. And yet *they're highly educated.*

It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Essentially you don't know what you don't know and you're pretty darn confident in your ignorance.

I won't deny that very conservative politicians have co-opted the pro-life position to grab votes. That doesn't mean, however, that they're necessarily wrong on this issue. In sussing out if they're right or wrong, it would be good to go to the best representation of the argument. Ignorant people can be right, but if they're ignorant, maybe go check out the people who aren't (like SPL LOL).

secularprolife.org said...

Stormii: The comparison that pro-lifers like to use of an embryo to a patient who is unconscious, or in a coma, is invalid for a number of reasons. One is that even a patient in a coma still has SOME brain function. An embryo or fetus below 6 months of age has NO brain function. It's a piece of meat with a beating heart.


A brain dead patient also has no brain function, and genuine brain-dead people do not 'miraculously recover' regardless of what pro-lifers sometimes claim.


A human being's rights over their own body cannot begin prior to the existence of some sort of functioning brain, and do not extend to any time AFTER that brain stops all function. This is analogous to ownership of some peice of property, a chair, say. My ownership of the chair starts at a specific point, when I pay for it. While I own it, I have the right to do whatever I want with it, including setting it on fire. This right is not retroactive to any arbitrary point in the past, prior to my paying for it. No matter how many sad feelies I might have about it, I can't go into a furniture store and set a chair on fire on the grounds that I'm going to buy it in '9 short months' or even '9 short days'. Nor can I rightfully prevent the owner of the furniture store from setting the chair on fire, before I actually buy it, no matter how sad I might be about it.


Likewise, an embryo or fetus does not and cannot have any rights, prior to the start of brain function, just because the brain will start to function in 'a few short months'. It does not own itself, and I have no right to stop the mother from destroying it, no matter how many sad feelies I have about the matter. Even when it does start brain function, that does not grant it special rights to another person's body.


Anyway, back to the chair. My rights over my chair start when I pay for it, and they stop when I permanently throw it away, into the dumpster. Once I throw in in the dumpster, I don't have a right to complain what is done with it. Same thing with my body, my ownership and rights over my body start with brain function, and they stop when brain function is permanently gone. They do NOT stop when brain function is merely partly impaired, or even gone, but temporarily, any more than I lose ownership of my chair because I am trapped in another city for some arbitrary length of time.

secularprolife.org said...

". For a short time, afterwards it quickly divides in many cells becoming an embryo, then it implant into the uterine wall - grow into fetus and eventually births into a newborn."

Continuum fallacy.

**Brain waves can be detected by EEG around forty days.**



Umm, no. There are specific reasons why there cannot be organized brain function until the 6th month. Until that point, the brain is basically a giant short circuit, there cannot be organized thought. No matter how many sad feelies people might have about it, you cannot violate the laws of physiology.

secularprolife.org said...

**To be sure, there probably IS some kind of activity going on**

'activity' does not equal organized thought, any more than the static on TV channel with no broadcaster equals 'The Game of Thrones', or even a coherent signal from an oscilloscope. Unless there is something very radically wrong with our understanding of how the brain works, any sort of organized thought or sensation is simply not possible in a fetus prior to the 6th month.

secularprolife.org said...

Barry wrote: **Here I am thinking about things like sex selective abortion, the impact of abortion on people diagnosed with down syndrome and other conditions identifiable before birth.**


Thing here, Barry, is that people with Down's syndrome will need lifelong care. So basically, if pro-lifers claim that you should not get an abortion because the embryo has Down's Syndrome, they are thereby invalidating their other two major claims, in which they say the 'Parents have to be responsible', and 'Only for 9 short months', because that now changes to either 'Relatives and taxpayers have to be responsible' and 'for 70-80 long years'.


They can't have it both ways. If they want to demand the second way, fine, but they can't have it both ways, and I should point out that there are way too many cases of hypocritical pro-lifers who look down on other people who have down's syndrome embryoes aborted, but go running for the nearest abortion clinic when THEY are diagnosed with a down's syndrome embryo themselves.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes. They are both violating my body. If I choose to let a fetus remain in my body, because it 'can't help it' or to let a man rape me without shooting him in the head, because I have information that his brain is being controlled by a computer implant put there by an evil scientist, so he 'can't help it', that is a pure gift on my part. Neither of them has a 'right' to do what they are doing, without my consent, regardless of whether they can help it or not, and I do have a right to kill either or both of them, if I so choose.


And, btw, given the choice between letting the widdle embwyo live and letting a brain controlled rapist live... I'd choose to spare the latter, because he actually has a brain. I could care less how many cute sad feelies you have over the former. If you want to make the opposite choice, with your own body, feel free to do so.

secularprolife.org said...

Generalizing from the example. The fact that you are nuerotic and stay up nights worring about the death of genetically defective zygotes is not proof that very many other people do so.

secularprolife.org said...

Ok. Stormii, you are handwaving and deliberately trying to avoid answering the question. So, thought experiment here:


I'm a mad scientist. I take a newly fertilized zygote, with precious, special human DNA, put it in a tank that keeps it alive, but also put a chemical in the tank that keeps it in the one celled zygote state. Permanently.


Pro-lifers claim that human DNA is special, and that zygote's are 'real people for sure'. A real person, in 25 years, or even sooner, could compose music, or fix a car, or do surgery. At what point does my precious zygote in a tank start doing these things?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm bringing this back to a direct reply to the OP because conversations with prolifers on this and other threads repeatedly return to the same thing:


Prolifers don't see women and children. Prolifers dehumanise and disrespect the girl or the pregnant women and concern themselves solely and exclusively with the fetus she is carrying.


That prolifers think the morality of abortion is determined by how much "worth" can be allotted to a fetus, and literally don't understand that for most normal people the morality of abortion is determined by the effect of the pregnancy on the human being who is pregnant.


For human rights activists, obviously, the ethics of abortion are around the right of each human being not to be forced, used, enslaved, or harmed at the will of another.


But you don't have to be a human rights activist, just a normal person who knows women are human, to see that pregnancy is an action undertaken by a human that can permanently change her health, her wellbeing, her life.


Yet for prolifers, human health, human wellbeing, human life, are never discussed except with regard to fetuses. The girls and women they want to force do not exist.

secularprolife.org said...

That you think basic human rights are a "lame excuse" and reference a living human being as a walking "womb", says it all about prolifers dehumanising and disrespecting women, doesn't it?

secularprolife.org said...

Many women who need to have late-term abortions mourn the child they lost. Prolifers taunt and bully and insult those women, both before and after their decision, showing neither compassion nor understanding.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Shannon, some valid points, but there are some valid objections I have to what you are saying.



>> more education != grasping the scientific points.
I'd agree if the higher postgraduate degrees in survey consisted mostly of MFAs or history PhDs. However, I'm a postdoc in computational neuroscience at Carnegie Mellon, and amongst my colleagues, while I've never talked about abortion with any of them, judging from their political leanings and some bumper stickers I've seen on some cars, I can't think of only a handful that may be pro-life. Other natural scientists I've come across give me a similar impression of being highly pro-choice. I'd say engineers come across a bit more conservative, and there are some that might be pro-life, but I'd say professional scientists are VERY likely to be pro-choice, I'd put it at 80~90%. Climate denial amongst these folks I'd say is 0%, evolution denial is also 0%. LGBT rights seems to be largely embraced, I'd also say something near 90%. There are a few obvious homophobes I've met, but for the most part, no one cares.

For the GMO and anti-vacc, that is a good point of quackery primarily afflicting well-educated crunchy types. My impression is that GMO might be more prevalent than anti-vacc. But as a movement, it is not quite mainstream, and is a bit of a fringe. Put into survey form, I bet you'd find something like the following 2 hypothetical surveys:

1) SURVEY OF ALL professed anti-vacc, anti-GMO people:

high school degree 20%
postgraduate degree 80%

Assuming GENERAL populace anti-vacc, anti-GMO ~2%

2) SURVEY OF GENERAL POPULACE, ask pro- GMO, vacc?
high school degree 2%
postgraduate degree 2%

because these fringe folks are such a small slice of the general population, if you did a random sampling of the general populace, I doubt its going to affect the outcome too much of a survey of the general populace, ie. you wouldn't find a significant correlation between anti-vacc and education in the general population. In that way, I think your example, while interesting, is of a very different nature than the pro-choice / education survey because pro-choice is not exactly a fringe belief, that you measuring correlation between education and pro-choice belief in the general populace actually is meaningful.

secularprolife.org said...

You're not getting any argument from me here, see my first comment to 6wk EEG.



However, as a scientist, I'm not allowed to completely rule out a possibility. I don't think there is something radically wrong with our understanding of the brain, but it is possible there are still key missing components. While pyramidal neurons are thought to be the principle computing elements in cortex, there is for example some evidence that glial cells do some sort of computation or modulates the neural state to change the nature of computation. Also, it is known that we can create logical gates from things like slime molds and dripping faucets arranged in certain ways. I think the arsenal of computational devices nature has evolved is wider than we currently know, so I can't completely rule out some sort of computation in 6wk brains. I think its highly unlikely they do, but hey, who knows. But until there is positive evidence, I think it best to assume they don't.

secularprolife.org said...

OH please. It's your side that does the dehumanizing and denies a human being what should be their basic human rights.


All human beings that have done nothing wrong should have a basic right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't that definition exclude babies?

secularprolife.org said...

Case in point...
http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/the-battle-of-abbie-dorn/

Just the meat around a uteris. She gave him what he wanted - children - but now that she is damaged, she can be discarded.

Oh, have I mentioned, some of the folks here believe that paralyzation from pregnancy is a sacrifice that women should be forced to make. But that isn't dehumanizing, as only zygotes can be dehumanized.

secularprolife.org said...

It's your side that is doing the dehumanizing. Calling unborn children 'clumps of cells' and not even acknowledging that they are human beings.


Most pro-lifers care about the lives of men, women, children AND unborn children. Many volunteer time and money to help families, not just pregnant women.


It is not dehumanizing ANYONE to tell them they should not be able to kill another human being that has done nothing wrong.


All innocent human beings should have the right to life - in a pregnancy, that means a woman and the unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

So you deny that women are human?

secularprolife.org said...

Unborn children should have a right not to be killed just because someone has 'sad feelies' about their body being 'occupied'. REALLY? You're that selfish that you'd kill your unborn child because you didn't give your 'consent'? REALLY? You'd kill your own unborn son or daughter? Wow. That's selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.... never said that. ALL human beings should have a right to life. If that means a woman with a newborn has to WAIT to safely hand over her unwanted newborn, even though she doesn't FEEL like it, TOO BAD. She has a RESPONSIBILITY to keep her newborn safe. Should have that same responsibility for her unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow... Kill an unborn child because he doesn't have a functioning brain, but let an evil rapist live? Really? That's pro-abort 'logic' for you..


IF (key word IF) there was a new kind of brain death where a doctor said "it's likely that your relative on life support will have a functioning brain within 6 months" would you seriously argue the continuum fallacy as an excuse to pull the plug on your relative? Are you that insane?

secularprolife.org said...

That was rude. Just adding more evidence of the way pro-aborts really are.

secularprolife.org said...

She didn't say zygotes are babies. She said babies are dependent on others just like an unborn child is dependent on his or her mother. It's selfish for someone to kill an innocent human being that is dependent upon them for survival.

secularprolife.org said...

A zygote can live in a petri dish. It doesn't need a uterus.

secularprolife.org said...

Well of course she does. She's not the brightest bulb on the string.

secularprolife.org said...

It cannot grow for 9 months in a petri dish.

secularprolife.org said...

So what.

secularprolife.org said...

Kill an unborn child because he doesn't have a functioning brain, but let an evil rapist live?


While prolifers support allowing rapists to force their vics through pregnancy and childbirth and then claim parental rights in the forced-birth child....

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx, downthread -and elsewhere - I have seen you dehumanise a living human being to just "the womb" - referring to a woman, a breathing, thinking, feeling human being, as if to you she were merely a walking incubator.


Most prolifers don't support life-saving abortions: if a woman will die if she doesn't have an abortion, most prolifers shrug this off with "oh she would have died anyway".

Of course prolifers care about the lives of men. Prolifers know men are human. But prolifers show utter indifference to the lives of born children - not merely the children who were raped and need abortions, whom prolifers dismiss as being no longer "innocent lives" - but any child once born. No prolifer cares about women: you routinely dehumanise women as mere incubators who exist to gestate babies and should be forced.

secularprolife.org said...

See, Myintx: this is you dehumanising women, and arguing that women exist merely to be used.

secularprolife.org said...

For a short time, afterwards it quickly divides in many cells becoming an embryo, then it implant into the uterine wall - grow into fetus and eventually births into a newborn.


Biologically incorrect, FWIW. A zygote grows into both the fetus and the placenta.


If the position of prolifers is that the zygote has the same moral worth as the newborn baby, presumably the placenta also has the same moral worth as the newborn baby.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.... never said that.


Odd. You see, anyone who sincerely believed that all human beings have a right to life, and who also knew that women are human, wouldn't be arguing for the forced use of human bodies against their will, to the huge detriment to their health and the risk to their life, just for the sake of forced gestation.


You obviously don't believe that girls and women have a right to life, since you argue so vehemently against access to safe legal abortion. So, logically, you don't believe that girls and women are human.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. And yet she keeps ranting she's not doing this.

secularprolife.org said...

As a scientist of considerable experience, I may speak with some authority. Science says that the embryo/foetus is an entity separate from the mother. Equally, it says that the conception is fully constituted from the get-go. The difference between you, the reader, and the unborn child is time allowed for your growth, and food. For those who would enter the field of science with me, rather than speak about it, I should be very glad to let you have an article which sets out these and allied matters (with reference to recent developments). True religion, axiomatically, must run in parallel with the Natural Order - a creation of the Prime Cause. Individualists and Secularists often (happily) take a lead from Science and the Natural Order. I like to argue, please, from the secularist side - as sight of the 'induction and deduction' required, for this subject, can be lost when the religious element is introduced.

secularprolife.org said...

The difference between you, the reader, and the unborn child is time allowed for your growth, and food


O rlly?


A 'scientist' who believes in the homunculus theory of human development...


I suppose you are not at all familiar with epigenetics then, eh?

secularprolife.org said...

Saying a woman should be able to kill her unborn child because there MIGHT be a complication down the road is like saying that because most rapists are men a woman should be able to kill ANY man that walks by her house because his presence on the sidewalk stresses her out and there is a small chance he MIGHT rape her.


If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should be able to have an abortion to save her life. But, until there is a serious threat bringing up the 'detriment to her health' b s is a strawman. A vast majority of abortions have NOTHING to do with serious threats to a woman's life - in that case BOTH human beings involved in the pregnancy should have a right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.. Saying that a woman HAS TO CARE for her newborn - at least until he or she can be handed off safely - is NOT dehumanizing - it's EXPECTING a woman to take RESPONSIBILITY. Same with an unborn child - a woman should have to CARE (GASP!) for her unborn child until he or she can be delivered and handed off SAFELY to someone else. Pro-aborts seem to hate the words CARE and RESPONSIBILITY.

secularprolife.org said...

Fair intellectual endeavour is recognisable. Your low ridicule of me does not become you.

secularprolife.org said...

Kill the rapist, not the unborn child.


I don't believe rapists should have parental rights.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS dependent upon his or her mother for his or her very LIFE. Unless a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should not be allowed to kill her own unborn son or daughter.

secularprolife.org said...

And your distortion of science doesn't become YOU. I'll tell you what science DOESN'T say. It doesn't say a woman has to derail her entire life for the sake of an errant sperm.

secularprolife.org said...

A clump of cells is a fitting description of a blastocyst (embryo at implantation). Nobody has any "rights" that come at the bodily expense of another.

secularprolife.org said...

We do not force women to parent, before or after birth. That never works out well for the parent OR the child. I won't allow you to turn the USA into Romania.

secularprolife.org said...

Most babies have cognitive abilities.

secularprolife.org said...

Here's a moral argument for you. If I were carrying a fetus with Down syndrome, I would have to be concerned about 1) the effect on my other children and my marriage, and 2) the effect on society at large, because the kid will likely outlive me, and I don't have a trust fund to leave behind for the child's care after I'm gone. Every family needs to ponder these issues for themselves. But if you choose to bring such a child into the world, you better be prepared to deal with the challenges. And if you aren't prepared, and have the child anyway, THAT is a selfish act.

secularprolife.org said...

Abusing girls and women who need abortions by saying that want to be able to "kill their their unborn child" is the classic way in which prolifers show their disrespect of women. You just can't tolerate the idea that a girl or a woman is more than an object to be used for forced gestation.


No prolifer ever supports real life abortions to save a woman's life or preserve her health, so stop pretending you do.

secularprolife.org said...

But they don't.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey, I'm not the one abusing the argument from authority fallacy:P


Now, 'scientist', tell me all about how the zygote is a homunculus.

secularprolife.org said...

** But until there is positive evidence, I think it best to assume they don't.**


Well, I would rather think so, since such a mechanism as you describe, allowing thought without the near-completion of the brain would be of 'use' ONLY in the embryo-fetus, which raises the question of what possible evolutionary pressure would select for such a thing (other than sad feelies on the part of those who want to ascribe consciousness to the embryo), since such 'thought' in an embryo fetus would not enable it to survive any better than it currently is.


As for 'positive evidence' as someone pointed it, it's remotely possible that jellyfish are mentally superior to human beings... so mentally superior that we can't even get an inkling of their true superiority. But all the actual evidence we really have suggests that this is not the case.

secularprolife.org said...

 I have never seen a pro-lifer that does not support abortion if the life of the woman is truly endangered from the pregnancy.

Now you're just lying. I have literally never seen a prolifer support life-saving abortions in any actual instance where a girl's or a woman's life is at stake.

In prolife Ireland, in 2012, Savita Halappanavar needed an abortion to save her life - and instead was left to die in agony because a prolife law would have sentenced a doctor to two years penal servitude. Prolifers didn't support life-saving abortion: prolifers opposed passing legislation that allowed doctors to perform life-saving operations without going to prison.

In Arizona there's a 32-year-old woman who's alive today because she had a life-saving abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center. Did prolifers support this? No, prolifers squealed in outrage.

In Brazil there's a 15-year-old girl who's alive today because she had a life-saving abortion at the age of 9 after her stepfather raped her. Did prolifers support her abortion? Not that I saw.

In Kansas there was a doctor who ran a clinic which focussed exclusively on late-term abortions where the girl or the woman's life was at risk or where the fetus was terminal and threatening the pregnant woman's health. Did prolifers support Dr George Tiller's dedicated, life-saving work? No, prolifers threatened him, abused his patients, broke both his arms, and eventually a prolife assassin shot him dead in church. And not a single prolifer that I ever saw said how much they regretted the death of a doctor who had saved so many women's lives.

No, myinxt. I'l believe the b.s. prolifers talk about supporting life-saving abortions when I see prolifers actually support life-saving abortions, the doctors who perform them, and the girls and women who need them.

Never happened yet. I doubt it ever will. Anyone who cares for living girls and woman is always prochoice.

secularprolife.org said...

Experience doesn't mean too much in the world of science. What have you published and how many times have you been cited? Its a crude measure of your prolificness and whether your ideas have contributed to advancement of your field.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry for the repeated comment, but as Nate requested points to be made to the OP:

On the defense prolifers make that they sure would support life-saving abortions, I call b.s..

I have literally never seen a prolifer support life-saving abortions in any actual instance where a girl's or a woman's life is at stake.

In prolife Ireland, in 2012, Savita Halappanavar needed an abortion to save her life - and instead was left to die in agony because a prolife law would have sentenced a doctor to two years penal servitude. Prolifers didn't support life-saving abortion: prolifers opposed passing legislation that allowed doctors to perform life-saving operations without going to prison.

In Arizona there's a 32-year-old woman who's alive today because she had a life-saving abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center. Did prolifers support this? No, prolifers squealed in outrage.

In Brazil there's a 15-year-old girl who's alive today because she had a life-saving abortion at the age of 9 after her stepfather raped her. Did prolifers support her abortion? Not that I saw.

In Kansas there was a doctor who ran a clinic which focussed exclusively on late-term abortions where the girl or the woman's life was at risk or where the fetus was terminal and threatening the pregnant woman's health. Did prolifers support Dr George Tiller's dedicated, life-saving work? No, prolifers threatened him, abused his patients, broke both his arms, and eventually a prolife assassin shot him dead in church. And not a single prolifer that I ever saw said how much they regretted the death of a doctor who had saved so many women's lives.

Returning to Ireland, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, there's a Marie Stopes clinic that is legally allowed to perform abortions when (and only when) a woman's life is at stake. Do prolifers support this clinic? No, they regularly demo outside it and they want it shut down, so that a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy will have to travel to London or Liverpool.

I'l believe the b.s. prolifers talk about supporting life-saving abortions when I see prolifers actually support life-saving abortions, the doctors who perform them, and the girls and women who need them.

Never happened yet. I doubt it ever will. Anyone who cares for living girls and woman is always prochoice.

secularprolife.org said...

To that, I would say that dogs and cats have demonstrated (albeit limited) cognitive ability. It certainly doesn't take an infant long to figure out how to manipulate an adult. Whoever argues that premise is mistaken.

secularprolife.org said...

No we aren't. You dehumanize existing human lives in favor of potential lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Brava. Of course, in the eyes of myintx, you're "selfish." I can deal with that. She's selfish too.

secularprolife.org said...

Women do not have to care for newborns, though. If you gave birth in the hospital, you don't even have to LOOK at your newborn unless you want to, much less take care of it. If you give birth outside the hospital, call 911 and they will come and take the newborn away. I've explained many times over why you talk nonsense, and it never gets through. Instead of accepting the FACT that we don't force women (or men) to parent, you have to get into a dissection of what a newborn is. It's exactly what it sounds like. A one month old isn't a newborn. A six month old isn't a newborn, Only a newborn is a newborn. Now stop with the silly analogies. They don't work.

secularprolife.org said...

Your mother is a very courageous woman, and she raised a great son.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't love abortion, in fact I have never had one. I was just lucky not to have been thrust into a situation where I would have had to consider having one. My own mother and sister were not so lucky. For them, and for all the other women who aren't so lucky, abortion must remain legal. We could do much more to make it rare, but that takes political will, and outlawing abortion won't do it, regardless of myintx's rich fantasy life.

secularprolife.org said...

Nice goalpost moving. Nobody said women don't "mourn" a miscarriage (or feel relieved, if she didn't want to be pregnant in the first place.) Nobody holds funerals for their used Kotex or Tampax, which may contain a "pwecious embryo" (given that most either never implant, or are lost within hours or days). Such behavior would be considered bizarre.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, they want to be able to say "infants are not sapient, and we let them live, and we do so because they are human, therefore, we should let embryos live, because they are also human."

secularprolife.org said...

Nope on the first assertion. A big YES on the second.

secularprolife.org said...

That's incorrect.

secularprolife.org said...

Well let me tell you something Ladyblack. I actually have an ancestor who was alive when I was a child, who was actually a slave. Greek, not black. Surprise!


I'm sure it will come as a great shock to Myintx and her little fairytale world that there were people who were still slaves, here in the US, in the early 1900's. In fact, there are people who are still slaves, TODAY in the US. And other unpleasant situations that Myintx and her fairytale world like to pretend don't actually exist, and the people in them are just (sob) 'irresponsible and selfish'.



Anyway, I find it offensive in the extreme, that myintx keeps trying to claim that my great grandmother, who was always very nice to me, is worth no more than a precious widdle zef. So, what am I supposed to conclude? That given the choice between freeing my grandmother from her situation, and saving the 'very life' of a pwecious widdle zef that she'd choose the latter? I can only assume so, especially since she's made it clear that she has no problem with, indeed, actively wants, women to be enslaved, for the sake of the pwecious zefs. Grrr!

secularprolife.org said...

Ladyblack, Sometime you might try reading the 'Infinity Hold' series, by Barry Longyear. It's about some convicts who are dumped on another planet, and have to come up with a system of laws in order to survive. I doubt that myintx and her sad feelies would much like the laws they came up with regarding 'can't help it' as an excuse to violate someone's rights.


Their definition of a 'human' was someone who could choose not to kill. If you were able to choose not to kill, and did so anyway, you were executed for murder. If you were not able to choose not to kill (or not able to choose not to violate someone's rights in whatever manner you were violating them) you were, by definition, not human, you were a 'mad dog', and would be shot as such.


The convicts didn't have a whole lot of sad feelies about 'can't help it' because someone was 'insane', or needed something for their 'very life' or was a juvenile or embryo, or any other reason. They'd all played the sad feelie 'can't help it' game too many times themselves in court to be fooled by it. The only 'out' allowed by their law was if the victim happened to survive the crime, the victim could choose to let the perpetrator off. Which was a pure gift, not a 'right' of someone that 'couldn't help it' for their 'very life'.

secularprolife.org said...

Among other characters in the book who myintx would probably put under the 'sad feelie can't help it' category included an insane woman, whose mental state consisted of 'kill, eat, go into neutral' and a teenage girl 'Tani Aduelo' who killed another teenage girl 'Misi Pihn' because Tani was starving and Misi had plenty of food but refused to share it, so Tani needed (so she claimed) to kill Misi for her food, for her 'very life'. The convicts had a different opinion. Misi's food belonged to Misi, no matter how much she had, or how badly Tani needed it, and it was not Misi's job to feed Tani. Not even for her 'very life'. Nor were they impressed when Tani tried to play the 'juvenile' card because she was under 18.

secularprolife.org said...

I plan to read those books, I already have Longyear bookmarked from last time we chatted.

secularprolife.org said...

I know a prolifers who chose an abortion upon learning she had a malignant tumor. She felt her other rchildren needed her. It was a very hard decision. She remains prolifers buwould not condemn anyone who made such a hard choice. Nor would I. Not all of these decisions are made public and not all prolifers protest them.

secularprolife.org said...

Savita died of Sepsis and malpractice. Not because of the abortion laws.


There are evil killers on both sides of the debate. The one who killed Tiller and the one who killed a pro-life activitst a few year ago.


There are about 1 million unborn children killed every year - over 95% of the killing had NOTHING to do with the woman's health.


You should be caring about unborn females too. Some of which are killed just for being females. But you're a-OK with that I'll bet.

secularprolife.org said...

No one is dehumanizing women... except your side -when YOU call them incubators - even women who want their babies.

secularprolife.org said...

So my words are 'abusing', but killing is not? wow.


Unborn children are human beings - they should not be killed. Just like parents are REQUIRED (and may feel 'forced') to CARE for their born children - at least long enough to hand them over SAFELY to someone else, the mother of an unborn child should be required to wait until she can give birth and hand over the baby SAFELY. A few short months of her doing the right thing and getting help if needed will save the life of her son or daughter and give her son or daughter a chance at a full and productive life. If a parent has to put aside any "sad feelies" (as Ann likes to say) to ensure the safety of their newborn, a pregnant woman should too.


RESPONSIBILITY. What is it about that word that you hate so much?

secularprolife.org said...

Most pro-aborts use the "clump of cells" b s to justify abortions well beyond the first few days of a pregnancy.


Unborn children should have rights and should be protected. States are allowed to protect unborn children after viability - ie. telling a woman she has to remain pregnant unless she meets one of the states exceptions. States should be able to protect unborn children before viability as well.

secularprolife.org said...

Scientific laws and facts make it clear that there is no substance to the pro life movement. These scientific laws and facts control:
1. There are more people dying than can be saved, therefore one must choose whom to save, a born person, wanted fetus or unwanted fetus. No life is "saved" by the pro life movement. All that occurs is that one life is traded for another.
2. In the first 9 months of pregnancy, a forced birth precludes a wanted pregnancy. Forcing the life of an unwanted fetus denies life to a wanted fetus.
3. All new DNA is derived from old DNA.
4. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype at birth, there is no human life. It is impossible at conception to tell if there will be human life.

5. Most conceptions end in abortion. Therefore there is no proof that life starts at conception.
6. Any consent to sex is consent to abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Please provide proof that a clump of cells is an unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

Savita died because pro lifers have a choice, they could have saved Savita but they choose to let her die and save a fetus instead.

secularprolife.org said...

You want to tell Pam Stenzel, and Rebecca Kieslling they should have been killed before they were born?


It's the rapists who are evil and deserve punishment, not the unborn child. The woman should get all the help she needs to get through her pregnancy - including counseling to help understand that the unborn child is a victim of the crime too.

secularprolife.org said...

You dehumanize women by choosing to protect fetuses and let women, children and babies die.

secularprolife.org said...

NOPE.. She died because of malpractice. The unborn child died too.

secularprolife.org said...

You make the choice to let innocent born babies, children and adults die.

secularprolife.org said...

no one is letting children and babies die. Go away with your crazy theories.

secularprolife.org said...

If you had chosen to save her by setting up a system that protected women from pro life doctors, then she would have lived.

secularprolife.org said...

It's not a dog or a cat now is it? Has any pregnant woman ever given birth to a dog or a cat or something that isn't a human being?

secularprolife.org said...

42 percent of conceptions do not have enough Human DNA to produce a human life. That is a scientific fact. Deal with it.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Most conceptions are not any species of known life. Most are simply clumps of cells that produce undefined life forms.
The conceptions are no dogs, cats, humans or other defined life forms.

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice to save innocent born babies or let them die and you choose to let them die. Go away and stop letting babies. die.

secularprolife.org said...

She died because of the pro life movement.

secularprolife.org said...

So, you're claiming that a newborn baby can't eat, breath, or poop on it's own and needs to be attached to another person's bloodstream? Is that what you're claiming? If not, my statement stands, JoAnna is full of shit.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is a human being, but an unborn fetus is not. And the unborn child is a figment of your imagination.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow!
Miss my entire statement about how the 'evil rapist' in question is having his
body and brain controlled by a computer put there by an evil scientist! That's
forced gestationer reading comprehension for you...

But lets pretend you're really smart, and actually understood what I wrote, instead of the idiot you obviously are. In that case, I would have to assume that you fully understood that the 'rapist' was not at all in
control of his actions, that he really 'couldn't help himself' which is the same simpering argument you use for the poor widdle zef, but you want to negate the argument in the case of the man, and that you are terming him as 'evil',
despite any lack of real evil intention on his part, simply because he is engaging in what you find to be an un-cute action of rape, rather than doing something cute like sucking his thumb, and he doesn't have a cute head like the widdle embwyo.

In other words, you make moral judgements and grant rights based entirely on cuteness.

Not on intention.

Not on brain function.

Not on 'very life'.

Not on rights of any sort.

On cuteness.

So which is it? Are you an idiot with no reading comprehension,
or do you make moral assessments and grant rights based on cuteness? Those are the only two possibilities, so which one is it?

And your babble about someone who once had a functioning brain
being in a 'temporary' brain death is just that. Babble. Because firstly an
embryo NEVER had a functioning brain. We don't grant priveleges and rights
based on future 'potential' any more than we punish people based on future
possibilities. We punish people based on present of past actions, and we grant
rights based on the same thing.


Secondly, the 'temporarily brain dead person' is not attached to another person. If he were, the other person would have a right to remove him, even if it cost him his 'very life'.



Lastly, a person does not have a 'right' to care and machines at the expense of others. If the patient has insurance or sufficient wealth to cover such care, great. If not, his relatives don't have an obligation to pay for it, no matter how many sad feelies you have. If you want to spend your money to pay for the care of such 'temporarily brain dead people', you will not be stopped.

secularprolife.org said...

So we kill a poor man who had a computer controlling his actions, rather than killing the evil scientist who put it there. A man who actually still has a functioning brain, and is probably horrified by what he is being made to do. But we sob about the brainless embwyo. Because it has a cute head or something.

secularprolife.org said...

Please, experience and the use of knowledge in gaining it, do mean much in the world of science. Argumentum ad hominem is a cheap ploy and I shall not engage further in it. I was head-hunted by the EU Commission, as a scientist, for one thing. What I have written here, for the Blogger, about the commencement of life stands, based on establlshed scientific principle.

secularprolife.org said...

And you have still yet to explain why ANY 'human beings' should have a 'right to life', when cattle, chickens, cockroaches, bacteria, and pine trees do not.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, it's 'selfish' when I kill a mosquito, too, because I don't want it drinking my blood. Yeah, I have 'sad feelies' about the mosquito drinking my blood. That's why I (gasp) 'kill' it.


You've yet to give ANY reason, why ANY 'human beings' should have a 'right to life' when mosquitoes do not, let alone, explaining what it is about the zef that gives it special rights that justify it being allowed to do things that I would have the right to kill any other human being on the planet for doing.

secularprolife.org said...

She's selfish enough to realize that laws that actually place restrictions on middle class and wealthier women might inconvenience her or women she cares about, so she does not support laws that will actually protect the zefs in that demographic.

Everybody who's surprised that as far as myintx is concerned it's open season on poor women, raise your hand!

secularprolife.org said...

She's just the only one that never burns out.

secularprolife.org said...

What a disgusting illustration. Ewww.
I am pro life. So naturally I am pro reproductive privacy and autonomy for women. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 846   Newer› Newest»