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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 846   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

Well said.

secularprolife.org said...

Pro lifers harden themselves to the fact that they let innocent babies die so that they can save fetuses. So what is your point?

secularprolife.org said...

OMG, you got THAT right. And she's a one-trick pony.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah I don't think she's middle class or wealthy. Just a dim bulb.

secularprolife.org said...

The only argument I need for abortion is I AM and I WILL.
Your 'morals' are not my imperative.

secularprolife.org said...

Good. Then you have no issue with me deciding when and if I will gestate any pregnancy to term. Sit down, you are pro choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Um NO, I don't wish to tell anyone they should have been killed before they were born. I am not their mother. The decisions their mothers made are none of my concern. Just as my decisions are none of your concern. And by the way, I've never even had an abortion. I have never been pregnant by rape. However, I have spent most of my life married, with children. How could I ask my husband and kids to accept that? It wouldn't be fair to me, my husband, or my other children. Therefore, I would never carry a pregnancy from rape. It's just not my problem to deal with. Other women are to be supported in whatever decision they make. That's what pro-choice means. That means I support the choices made by women. And incidentally, simply declaring that you do not think rapists should have parental rights... well, duhhhhh. The fact of the matter is that in 31 states, they do. You must deal with how things are... not how you *wish* they were. That's your problem in a nutshell. You confuse how things ARE with how things ought to be. And you don't live in that kind of world.

secularprolife.org said...

Well they can't. Learn to live with the disappointment. You cannot "protect" what you don't know exists.

secularprolife.org said...

No pro-choice woman said women are incubators. EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

My fantasy is that she posts while drinking and we are the only friends she has in this world. That is so sad.
But it is not so sad that I have to talk to her out of Christian charity. She skeeves me.

secularprolife.org said...

Killing those - or euthanasing those with mental illnesses - say, bipolar disorder - could be considered a "social good", with the right points. I could on.

..........
Van Gogh, Florence Nightingale and I all have bipolar disorder.
And at least two of us have had abortions.
Do go on. Come on to my house and tell me killing me is a 'social good' and see what happens.
'Prolifers' think of themselves as sane and caring. That is the chief delusion of the everyday zealot.

secularprolife.org said...

Fueled to a fever pitch by booze and sanctimony, it is the modern equivalent making telephone calls in the wee hours to anyone who will listen - otherwise known in the olden days as black line fever.

secularprolife.org said...

Women get abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. Who are you to tell anyone what they 'should' do?

secularprolife.org said...

Do you wish to force women, who speak of the fetus as a 'tumor' and consider their fetus worthless, to give birth by law?

secularprolife.org said...

Unborn children, except those of the middle class or wealthy, of course. Laws passed for 'show' and to make anti-choicers have happy feelies won't affect women in those demographics, only the poor. Myintx has made it clear that fairness doesn't matter and that she has no desire to support laws that actually have some teeth that would result in prosecuting and holding accountable MORE women, not JUST the low-hanging fruit.

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't support more restrictive anti-abortion laws, you will be 'letting' the babies of more middle class and wealthy women 'die.' Better make them restrictive for 'everybody,' not just those most likely to get caught.

secularprolife.org said...

Facts are not germane to developing standards/morals? Laughing at you.
Morality is a venereal disease. Its primary stage is called virtue; its secondary stage, boredom; its tertiary stage, syphilis. - Karl Kraus

secularprolife.org said...

prolifers buwould not condemn anyone who made such a hard choice


B.S, Prolife harassers outside clinics that provide abortions don't stop to ask each woman going in why she's having an abortion: they just howl abuse.


B.S. Prolifers aggressively campaign to ensure that safe legal abortion is inaccessible/expensive. Prolifers are not interested in supporting women who make "hard choices",

secularprolife.org said...

Savita died of Sepsis and malpractice.

See? Prolifers aren't interested in supporting life-saving abortions: they just lie about a woman who died because she didn't have access to an abortion that would have saved her life.


The "malpractice" was the refusal of the Galway hospital to perform the abortion that would have saved Savita's life on Monday (she was admitted on Sunday, knew she was suffering a miscarriage at 17 weeks on Monday, and asked for an abortion then - and was denied).

secularprolife.org said...

NOPE. Savita's pregnancy was doomed: at 17 weeks, the foetus she was miscarrying could not survive. The prolifers treating her knew that. The prolife laws banning abortion did not allow them to save Savita's life. And you just proved that like all prolifers, you do not support life-saving abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't be silly, myintx. It's prolifers who reject all possibility that girls and women can take RESPONSIBILITY. A person who believes in individual RESPONSIBILITY is prochoice.


You want to force a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. You're against her having RESPONSIBILITY. What is there about that word you hate so much?

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx has made it clear that all her sobbing reasons for the precious zefs 'right to life' are utter bullshit, when she claimed that a rapist whose brain was being controlled by a computer (and therefore not in control of his own actions) is an 'evil rapist' and should be killed.

Lets go down her sob list for the zef, shall we?

"human being" - check
"innocent" - check



But somehow, the 'right to life' and 'chance for a productive and fulfilling life' and 'coexistence just for 9 short MINUTES' don't matter when it's the precious sanctity of myintx's genitals and her fairytale world being violated. Why? Arguably, since the man has an actual, functional brain, he is far more worthy of a 'little coexistence' and a 'chance for life' than an embryo.


Myintx's entire morality is based on two things. Her own selfishness, and how cute someone happens to be. Grown men aren't cute, they don't have a cute little head, or suck their thumbs in an adowable fashion, so the moment they offend precious myintx and her fairytale world, regardless of whether they actually intended to or not, they are 'evil' and should be 'killed'.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx supports killing people who have had a computer implanted in their brain, controlling their actions from elsewhere, because they are 'evil' if they violate the sanctity of her genitals. Poor widdle her can't be expected to engage in a 'little coexistence for 9 short minutes'.


Her entire morality is based on how cute something is.


Not 'human being'
Not 'very life'
Not 'just a chance'
Not 'innocent'
Not 'just a little coexistence'.


Cuteness.

secularprolife.org said...

1. Why should 'human beings' have a 'right to life' when cattle and chickens don't?


2. The embryo is doing 'something wrong'. The fact that you have sad feelies doesn't change that fact.


3. Can I assume that if you need an organ transplant from a brain dead motorcycle accident victim, you'll decline?

secularprolife.org said...

And yet, you would shoot a poor man whose brain is being controlled by a computer, rather than WAIT a 'few short minutes' because you don't 'feel
like having the sanctity of your genitals violated.

secularprolife.org said...

Rats are mammals. They should not be killed.

secularprolife.org said...

No, actually I think she's far, far worse than she lets on. Any woman who would call a man 'evil' because he rapes her while being controlled by a computer implanted in his brain, and say that he should be 'killed' because she can't tolerate the violation of the precious sanctity of her genitals for 9 short minutes, while weeping over the 'right to life' of a brainless zef and claim other people must put up with it for months and risk death, paralyis and health problems, is a serious cockroach brained sociopath.

secularprolife.org said...

**. I was just lucky not to have been thrust into a situation where I would have had to consider having one.**


In other words, unlike myintx, despite having had a fairly good life, you realize that not all people live in a fairytale.

secularprolife.org said...

** 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.**

Fine? That's the only 'difference'? I can survive just fine without being inside another person. So according to you, the zef should be able to, as well. Since it's 'fully constituted'. So you should have no problem with it being removed. And it can survive just fine that way. Abortion problem solved. Correct?

And, I'm sure, you can show me all the zefs and embryos with brainwaves? Since they're 'fully constituted' and there's no difference between them and me. Yes?



Or are you babbling like myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

One of the fundamental errors of abortion opponents is to assume that there is such a thing as "intrinsic value", without actually providing any evidence whatsoever that there actually is any such thing. It should be obvious that if intrinsic value doesn't exist, then it is impossible for any human, born or unborn, to have intrinsic value. Note that the Universe doesn't care what we humans think about ourselves; there are plenty of different astronomical events that could wipe us out, and the Universe would get along just fine without us --just as it did for billions of years before we began thinking highly of ourselves.


The claim that intrinsic value exists is the sort of "positive" claim that puts the Burden of Proof upon the claimant. But like I wrote above, abortion opponents have utterly failed to provide any such proof that it exists. The net effect is that all valuations are actually Subjective (they can't be Objective unless intrinsic value exists!), and abortion opponents generally act like they think their Subjective valuations of unborn humans should be forced down the throats of everyone else. That's one reason why abortion opponents generally deserve to be called 'idiotic" --if they can't prove that intrinsic value exists, how can they possibly prove that their (high) Subjective valuation of an unborn human is more valid than the (low or even negative) Subjective valuation of that same unborn human, made by a woman seeking an abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

actually, the only thing that embryologists agree on is that human development starts at conception...

They do not all agree that it is a tiny person from the get go.

They are also studying epigenetics and are realizing that the genetic instructions within the zygote do NOT create a carbon copy of themselves at birth. You could take the same zygote, put it in the same woman 10 times, and each time you would get a DIFFERENT baby, because nurture has a profound effect on how those genes are interpreted and expressed.

Also, recent research has demonstrated that a successful conception is meaningless if the egg has certain flaws:http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

secularprolife.org said...

Embryologists can all agree that a fully constituted individual item (liable to develop along the paths in front of it) is there at conception. When you say it's a human at 12 weeks or 2 months - is purely a human choice, often, I fear (research it!), to allow legal killing. Epigenetics is as yet a science of theories, facing extraordinary challenges, at this time. Of course, as regards what you say, influences on our genes continue through life and, under the same science and at any stage can switch off/on a set of same, which eg determines your health in some way. Getting better to know the mechanisms of Nature is very exciting - but the port of call, for the results obtained, should not be ending it all for a helpless and voiceless item, which to Nature is an item living an early part of a human life.

secularprolife.org said...

Please, I am saying that there is no difference in essence between you and the embryo. In what environments you and the unborn child survive are, of course, different. Indeed, a child may be conceived and grown in the laboratory, though this has not yet been taken to term, for legal reasons. As you say, the early removal from a mother of a conception she does not want and its reimplantation in another host (not necessarily human, but safe anyway), would avoid all the ducking and diving (an impoverished scene) to get around moral or secular grounds for not wanting the partial legalisation of killing. Brainwaves, you know well, arise with the development of the brain - and continue apace until the interruption of these, through accident, disease or age, Other functions come and go too - but the status of any human function is not the basis for killing, most especially when life beckons the individual concerned.

secularprolife.org said...

It would be a foolish person who would accuse me of distorting science. Why should I, who have no axe to grind but reason? The woman, suffering in a crisis pregnancy, should receive love, care and support. There are now techniques whereby, eg, the innocent party can be transferred to an adoptive woman and his/her life saved. This is not science, as you say, but common human decency.

secularprolife.org said...

Good grief. I said "not all" pro lifers. I do realize there is a very loud and fundamentalist group out there who are horrid. You are not willing to hear anything at all if you cannot acknowledge that there are many pro lifers who are deeply compassionate, care for the life of the mother, want to find solutions that are helpful, grieve with those women who grieve their abortions (because there are women who grieve them). If you can only make sweeping generalizations then there is no point in having any kind of helpful discussion (helpful for both sides) with you.

secularprolife.org said...

Why don't you guys just leave it alone? Youre only making pro choices look lime ass holes rather than convincing anyone (except yourselves) that you are right.

secularprolife.org said...

You are not willing to hear anything at all if you cannot acknowledge that there are many pro lifers who are deeply compassionate, care for the life of the mother, want to find solutions that are helpful, grieve with those women who grieve their abortions (because there are women who grieve them).


I've never met any prolifers who were at all compassionate, let alone "deeply". (Though all of them liked to talk big about "compassion", none seemed to feel any.)


I've never met any prolifers who supported "life of the mother" exemptions in real life. (As detailed below.)


I've never met any prolifers who respected women enough to be able "grieve with" women over miscarriages or abortions. (All prolifers have rules about what it's OK for women to feel about abortions.)


I've never met any prolifers who weren't totally happy making sweeping generalisations about girls and women and reproductive healthcare.


Prolifers support forced pregnancy and childbirth, regardless of the conscience of the woman. How much compassion can someone like that afford to have before they realise the awful wrongness of their ideology?

secularprolife.org said...

Why is the sky blue?

secularprolife.org said...

And no pro-lifer said it either. The word is mostly spewed by pro-aborts. Pro-lifers know that ALL human beings that have done nothing wrong should have a right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Unborn children are HUMAN BEINGS. They should not be killed because some don't make it to birth. Some newborns don't make it to 1 year old - doesn't mean that any baby can be killed because some don't make it to 1 year old.

secularprolife.org said...

The DICTIONARY disagrees with you. Check out definitions of the word 'unborn'. Several reputable dictionaries have examples using the phrases "unborn child" or "unborn baby". :)

secularprolife.org said...

People's 'decisions' are our concern if they are choosing to kill a human being that has done NOTHING WRONG.


If the 'choice' is to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong, I am proud to be anti-choice. I'm proud to be against abortion - anti-abortion. Are you proud to be for abortion - pro-abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, they don't have a "right to life." Neither do you.

secularprolife.org said...

I do think JoAnna's views are abhorrent: she's pro-force and pro-ignorance.


However, this comment from you, Ann, is very rude: let the prolifers have their routine ad-hominems: as a human rights activist/prochoicer I believe with the facts and ethics and morality on our side, we can stick to attacking their vile ideas, not their personalities or intelligence.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree, Myintx (just for the record) that was very rude.

secularprolife.org said...

I have NO idea what you're talking about. A fetus cannot be adopted, and adoption is no solution to unwanted pregnancy. It's a solution to unwanted parenting.

secularprolife.org said...

The ZEF starts out as a clump of cells. It has to develop into a actual human. Your side does not care at all about the pregnant woman. All you care about is punishing the little sIut for having sex for a reason besides pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

It's a word salad.

secularprolife.org said...

I do a lot with my time and money to help other people.


The machine cannot be cut off unless there is another machine to transfer the preemie to without killing him or her.

secularprolife.org said...

No one is letting babies die. Your 'scientific' abortion 'laws' are b s.

secularprolife.org said...

In Ireland it was legal (and is now) to remove the baby if the mother's life was endangered. The doctor's didn't realize her life was endangered.


Love you pro-aborts like to bring up life of the woman being truly endangered to somehow (?) justify killing for 15 minutes of fame, hiding the results of an affair it simply not being the right time to have a baby.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes we do have a right to life. Unborn children should too.

secularprolife.org said...

if anyone has seen headlines lately about toddler tortured to death by his parents, and you wondered what kind of person could possibly be so heartless and malevolent -- your answer is here in ann morgan!
THIS is the type of attitude/person that effects and justifies unspeakable violence on those weaker/dependent on her. these people exist and one is trolling this board. it's important we all know that.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not trying to insult you, its that I've never met a scientist who tries to demonstrate his credentials by saying "I have considerable experience". You don't necessarily need experience to be respected in science, a few high profile publications or develop a novel method that ushers in a new way of thinking or breaks down previous barriers into investigation, and you could become a PI in your early 20s. A true assessment of how good a scientist you are is probably not possible within most people's lifetimes. The true test of a theory takes many many years and many many investigators trying to disprove it. In the mean time, scientists can only go by how prolific you've been publishing papers, and whether your ideas have been accepted by other scientists. If your work seems incorrect, people will not cite it, or build upon that research for further investigation. So in this way, I am simply saying "experience" doesn't mean too much. Have you been able to find constant funding through your career? Have you been publishing, and have you been cited?

While I may not be as experienced as you, and have never been headhunted by the EU Commission, I am a neuroscience postdoc working at Carnegie Mellon University. In my years as a physics major and physics grad student and postdoc in statistics and neuroscience, I've never seen a scientist refer to "the Natural Order", "a creation of the Prime Cause" or "True religion". Those sound more like the words of a preacher or some New Age guru. Search the literature, go through journals like "Nature", "Science", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "Cell", "Neuron" - and see how often these phrases come up. My guess is that it is 0.

And in another reply you say "but the port of call, for the results obtained, should not be ending it all for a helpless and voiceless item, which to Nature is an item living an early part of a human life." This just doesn't sound like the words of a scientist. It appears that you are starting with a conclusion which you want to be correct, and gathering evidence to support that conclusion. Science is done the other way. Starting with evidence, and narrowing down candidate models to only those that are supported by evidence.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? How about all of the pro life evangelicals, followers of the books "How to Train up a Child" and "Spare the Rod Spoil the Child" who have beaten and starved their children to death?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2011/10/spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child-not-relevant-in-child-abuse-case/

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't matter in the least if you think human beings have "innate worth", if you can't actually prove such a thing truly exists. (Not to mention that the phrase "human being" can legitimately exclude unborn humans!)


That is, the whole concept of "innate worth" should be proven to exist, before anyone can say, "this entity has innate worth". (Look up the word "entity"; it can apply to ANY physical thing, like a rock or a river.) So far as I've seen, no one has offered any evidence that innate worth exists for anything. And do remember, the claim that it exists is the sort of "positive claim" that puts the Burden of Proof on the claimant.


As an analogy, consider a diamond --it has "innate hardness". This is a property of a diamond that is Universally Recognize-able. It can even be measured in terms of the hardness of other substances. For innate worth to exist, it must also be Universally Recognize-able. So now consider a nice large "rough" diamond next to a same-size pile of dung, and we notice a dung beetle comparing the two --and its actions reveal that it considers the dung to be more valuable. Thus the diamond did not have Universally Recognize-able "innate value", see? For a human, just consider what a hungry man-eating tiger might think: the human has "fresh meat value", and nothing else --no better than a deer that the tiger might kill instead.

secularprolife.org said...

1. Because we are human beings... if cattle want to get together and decide they have rights they can... then they can tell us all about it. Or, you can GO AWAY to another website and petition that we save cattle... buh bye.


2. No, he or she is not.


3. No I wouldn't decline, but organ donation has nothing to do with intentionally poisoning, dismembering or killing someone.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS a human being.


I want pregnant women who are facing difficult pregnancies to GET HELP so they can have good pregnancies. I don't want to see any human being that has done nothing wrong be killed just because they are unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

No sweetie it is a potential human being...
There is no help to stop the misery of an unwanted pregnancy for some except an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

killing an unborn child is NOT taking responsibility - it's taking the easy way out.


Laws tell people what they should do ALL THE TIME. In many cases, like infanticide laws, it is to PROTECT the vulnerable among us.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion opponents don't use the English language consistently; it makes them look like Stupidly Prejudiced Hypocrites. You, for example, just spouted the phrase "human beings", without any consideration of what you were actually talking about.


PLEASE SPECIFY: What is the difference between "a human", and "a human being"? If there is no difference in your mind, then it logically follows there is no difference between equivalent other phrases like "a mouse" and "a mouse being" --so why do you never use the language consistently, and routinely use phrases like "mouse being", "goldfish being", "dandelion being", "python being", and so on, in your ordinary conversations?


To link the word "being" with "human" almost exclusively means that you understand that there is some sort of difference between the phrases "a human" and "a human being", even if you can't specify exactly what that difference is. But I can explain the difference easily, because there are a few other places where you might have no objection to linking the word "being" to some other word. Relevant phrases are "intelligent being", "extraterrestrial being", and "alien being" --in each case you would be referring to an entity that you perceive has having certain characteristics also possessed by human beings --you would be talking about persons.


So, you don't use the phrase "mouse being" (and so on) because a mouse (and so on) is not a person. Meanwhile, there is the original question, "what is the difference between "a human" and "a human being" --the Answer is now clear: "a human" is an entity that is not a person, while "a human being" is a human that is a person. You might claim that all humans are also persons, but you would be wrong. A hydatidiform mole can be totally human in its DNA, and it most certainly is very much alive, but not even the most staunch abortion opponent would consider for a moment that it qualifies as a person. A brain-dead human on full-life support is no longer a person, because the person died when the brain died, and the Law knows it! --which is why the "plug" can be pulled, even though the human body is still very much alive.


Even YOU know there is a difference between "human" and "person" (and thus there is a difference between "a human" and "a human being"), and I can prove you know that difference by asking a simple Question. All you have to do is think about modern medical technology, and how close it is to being able to keep alive that brain-dead human even if the head was completely removed from the body. Because when modern medical technology can do that, it can also keep the head alive, separate from the body. So, the Question, "If you suffered an awful decapitation accident, but rescuers arrive in time, do you want them to save your human body, because your think "human equals person", and your head is irrelevant to your personhood, or do you want them to save your head instead --which way saves you-the-person?


Then remember what was written above, that an intelligent being is presumed to have a mind equivalent to a human mind, and ditto for an extraterrestrial being or an alien being. But does an unborn human have such a mind? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Its mental abilities are far exceeded by many ordinary animals, and therefore the unborn human is therefore itself only-a/just-another mere animal organism, not a person-class entity --it is only "a human", not "a human being".

secularprolife.org said...

The most obvious nonsense spouted by abortion opponents is the part where they call themselves "pro life". LIARS!

They are not actually "pro life", not when they care nothing about all the OTHER life being killed all over the Earth, due to human overpopulation --the current estimates are that 3 species are being made extinct every hour --and those self-called "pro life" people want to help that happen, by insisting ever-more human mouths-to-feed must be born? What they actually are: "Liars Stupidly Prejudiced In Favor Of Human Life Uber Alles, Calling Themselves 'Pro Life' When They Are Actually Liars Stupidly Prejudiced In Favor Of Human Life Uber Alles". But that's quite a mouthful, so I usually just call them "abortion opponents".

secularprolife.org said...

In Ireland it was legal (and is now) to remove the baby if the mother's life was endangered.

Interesting how you prolifers strive to stay ignorant of countries where prolife legislation is enforced, isn't it?

Until 2013, all abortion was illegal in the Republic of Ireland under an 1861 Act. A woman who provided illegal abortions was sentenced to death under this Act in 1957. Doctors knew that if they provided an illegal abortion they could be sentenced to two years penal servitude. In September 2012, only weeks from Savita Halappanavar's death by abortion denial, a group of medically-qualified prolifers declared (apparently, ignorant of ectopic and molar pregnancy, eclampsia, prolonged miscarriage, etc) that abortion was never medically necessary/

The doctor's didn't realize her life was endangered.

Yes, they did. Any doctor or nurse or even midwives know that prolonged miscarriage can kill.

Furthermore, they all knew that the foetus's life could not be saved. The faux-justification that prolifers like to tout, that it's all about saving the unborn babies, was obviously void in this instance: the 17-week-foetus could not be saved. Yet prolifers still reject supporting an abortion that would have saved Savita Halappanavar's life.

Love you pro-aborts like to bring up life of the woman being truly endangered

Yes, repeatedly, just to show how you prolifers lie through your teeth pretending your motivation in forcing women is to save foetal lives and pretending that you'd support a life-saving abortion, when it clearly isn't and you won't.

Calling human rights activists "pro-aborts" also shows how you can't imagine why people would support the basic human right of safe legal access to abortion out of compassion and respect for women.

secularprolife.org said...

Dictionaries were created by humans for human purposes, and include human Prejudices. The definitions of words allow many of them to be used in a Prejudiced and/or Hypocritical way. That doesn't mean you should do it, though!

secularprolife.org said...

I see. So, in your view, abortions are easy. Doesn't that make you a pro-abort?


Forcing a girl or a woman to gestate a baby against her will, when her reason and conscience has decided that it is not right for her to have a baby, is blanket denial of responsibility. You prolifers - or in your case, you pro-abort, you! - refuse to allow that a girl or a woman can be responsible.


In prolife cultures, where safe legal abortion is unavailable, infanticide is far more common. That's because all prolifers care about is forcing the girl or the woman, denying her responsibility: they've no concern for what happens to the baby once they have forced the girl or the woman through childbirth, unless the baby is suitable for the adoption industry and can be used profitably in that way.


The fact that you do not regard a girl or a woman who is pregnant as a vulnerable human being who deserves protection, shows again how you pro-abort prolifer dehumanises and disrespects women.

secularprolife.org said...

ANOTHER common error of abortion opponents is to Deny Facts, claiming that unborn humans are "innocent", or "have done nothing wrong" HAH! The FACTS are very clear: Every unborn human steals nutrients from another human's body (much like a parasite). Every unborn human dumps toxic biowastes into the bloodstream of another human body (much like a parasite). Every unborn human infuses addictive substances (mostly related to progesterone) into the bloodstream of another human body (worse than a parasite). And every unborn human infuses a mind-altering substance (oxytocin) into another human body (worse than a parasite). The addictive substance is part of the reason "post partum depression" exists --it is a "withdrawal symptom" associated with the cessation of drug-infusion. The mind-altering substance is why a woman, who might early in a pregnancy be willing to adopt-out her newborn, changes her mind by the time birth happens, and decides to keep it.


An unborn human is NOT a parasite. Note that the things parasites do are entirely adequate for destroying them. An unborn human acts WORSE than a parasite. It is not-at-all "innocent" or "did nothing wrong".

secularprolife.org said...

No, you really *don't* have a right to life. You might have 30 years left. You might have 30 minutes. Nobody is owed a tomorrow. I found that out in a painful way. You're just going to have to settle for now.

secularprolife.org said...

Glad I wasn't the only one. I thought maybe I just needed more coffee.

secularprolife.org said...

It was a total word salad. I know I said I was upvoting you at LAN and I thought I was but because both my accounts are banned my upvotes don't work. I'm cheering you from the sidelines. Much applause!

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is a member of the species homo sapiens. He or she IS a human being.


There is help out there - women just have to know about it and be willing to put in the effort. That requires thinking of their unborn son or daughter's welfare in addition to themselves. Are you willing to do that if you get pregnant again?

secularprolife.org said...

By your 'logic' you're not pro-CHOICE either unless you approve of all choices - a woman killing her newborn, a person killing their elderly parents that they deem unwanted, the choice made to rob a bank, etc.


And by your 'logic' I guess we can start killing newborns if the world is overpopulated?


You're spewing ignorant b s .... hope you find a CURE for your ignorance.

secularprolife.org said...

That's too bad. Maybe she doesn't want to be pregnant for whatever reason. Giving life is a gift, not an obligation.

secularprolife.org said...

I've seen plenty of aborted fetuses that can't be described as human beings. Anencephalic fetuses come to mind. And a lot of the DU monstrosities removed from Iraqi women.

secularprolife.org said...

Um, yes Savita did die because of the abortion laws. By the time a woman is septic, she has a 50% chance of dying from it. STILL... they waited until the dying fetus (who never had a chance at 17 weeks) to evacuate the uterus. You call that malpractice, and so do I. The fact is that the law CAUSED the malpractice. The law won't allow for anything BUT malpractice. It takes a principled person to say "I don't CARE if I go to prison, I am GOING to end this pregnancy and give this young mother a shot at life." None of these doctors had the guts.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry myintx, but that's pure horse manure. Of COURSE they realized her life was in danger. they're doctors of medicine. Even an RN or LPN knows that a pregnancy with ruptured membranes cannot be permitted to continue for days on end. They just didn't care, because at the end of the day, they weren't going to jail, and it's wasn't their life on the line. What discipline has been done to those doctors? I'll bet nothing. They will go on to malpractice on other pregnant women, and it happens here too, in Catholic "hospitals." If I could shut down the whole Catholic "healthcare" system, I would do it... YESTERDAY.

secularprolife.org said...

To argue about abortion, one needs precisely zero knowledge of prenatal development, whether to be "pro-life" or pro-choice. I was pro-choice before I knew much about prenatal development. Just by participating in this debate, I have since learned a lot more about prenatal development and pregnancy in eight months than I ever learned in the last thirty years. If anything, that knowledge has solidified my stance. Whatever might have been gained by learning of the wonders of prenatal development has been more than overcome by my new knowledge of the dangers of pregnancy.

Be it as it may, my stance on abortion has always turned on the consideration of rights, not prenatal personhood. The questions I asked myself were: Who has what rights? Are those rights in conflict? If so, how do we go about resolving that conflict? And there is nothing--nothing!--about prenatal development that will help answer those kinds of questions.

secularprolife.org said...

Very well said. OF COURSE every one of the doctors and nurses knew that Savita's pregnancy could kill her. They just didn't have the guts to defy the law and save her life.

secularprolife.org said...

If you were human rights activists you'd be fighting for the rights of ALL HUMANS - born and unborn. You're not human rights activists, you're fighting for the right to kill defenseless human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

They are VALID terms.. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in legal dictionaries and used in laws :)


But hey, feel free to donate all your extra money to fight fetal homicide laws that use the term "unborn child". Guess you don't care about protecting women whose evil boyfriends kill their unborn children, do you?

secularprolife.org said...

Terrorists like to kill. That makes abortionists - and the people who support them more like terrorists than anyone wanting to save lives.

secularprolife.org said...

As an addendum: None of those doctors should have needed to have the guts to save Savita's life.

secularprolife.org said...

You STILL don't know what you are talking about. I strongly support the ability/freedom to make choices. That doesn't mean I support all possible choices that might be made.

secularprolife.org said...

DU?

secularprolife.org said...

They are SUBJECTIVE terms, not Objective. They exist in dictionaries only because of "common usage" --that is the exact criteria by which dictionary-editors add words/definitions to dictionaries. It matters not-at-all if the word is bigoted --if enough people use it the same way, some dictionary will include it.


Thus, to claim you can use a word in a certain way, just because it is in the dictionary, is exactly like saying, "duh, lots of other people do it, so I wanna do it too!" I recommend you try thinking about how you use the language, instead of being just another copycat/follower.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't matter if the fetus has any "worth." The only way to get to an argument prohibiting abortion based on the fetus' "worth" is to argue that the fetus is "worth" more than the woman carrying it. While I get this is ACTUALLY the "pro-life" stance, how many pro-criminalizers are willing to make that argument OPENLY?

secularprolife.org said...

OK, I thank you for telling me where you come from and I respect what you are doing very much. I think we need not get caught up too much with words. I am not a scientist of the calibre which will take decades to verify. I have publications in the best journals, of course, and have been cited. I was variously funded all the way into retirement. The EU Commission indeed took me on board, for my skills, and also, eg, the Dutch Government sought my scientific advice. An EU Official once said that 'when the Irishman spoke, the others listened'. So I am not Einstein but I can speak with unquestioned authority.

Now there are those who see things in religious terms and I wished to say to them that they are not divorced from Nature as a scientist can see it. Readers here comprise more than those of us in the proverbial White Coat. Why not allow them a seat at table?

A bit before your time, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry were called the Natural Sciences.(still used in Cambridge, I believe): a phylosophical
offshoot of this was the Natural Order, that order constructed by the totality of Natural Laws.

As regards my reference to the Prime Cause, scientists sometimes refer to the Big Bang. Since this followed on from something else, it is reasonable to call it a Prime (or First) Cause. What are you at?


Deprecation of the other chap is not a prime characteristic of an intellectual and is not very attractive. Substance, not Attitude is required. As far as what I write is concerned, res ipsa loquitur. No need to imagine any unusual motives or anything like that. I wish you well in the years ahead: 'head down, spirits up' and never say die.

secularprolife.org said...

Most pro-lifers do not believe the unborn child is worth more than the woman carrying him or her. They believe all innocent human beings have the SAME value. A newborn isn't worth more than his or her mother or father, but the parents are responsible for ensuring his or her safety. The parents cannot decide to kill their newborn if they don't want it. They have to at least ensure his or her safety by handing the baby off SAFELY to someone. Even if that takes time and even if they don't want to - unless they want to put themselves at risk for being charged with a crime.

secularprolife.org said...

All killing of children - born and unborn is horrible. And the support of the killing is horrible too.

secularprolife.org said...

Depleted uranium.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course not.

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman is SO PARANOID about resources being "stolen" from her, she should have her uterus removed before she ever gets pregnant. Your load of b s is the most selfish excuse to kill another human being. Parent's have a RESPONSIBILITY to care for their offspring. Yes, with a newborn that may mean sleepless nights and even sleepless nights at the thought of putting a child in the system if they don't want him or her - neither of those excuses are good enough to kill a human being. None of your post above is a good enough excuse to kill a human being eiither.

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't mean anyone should be allowed to kill you.

secularprolife.org said...

CARING for your unborn child is a responsibility all parents should have.

secularprolife.org said...

They are still human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

Puh-leeze! Time and time again, pro-criminalizers show they think the prenate is somehow exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else--including neonates. Parents cannot decide to kill their parents, but parents are not obligated to let a newborn draw sustenance or life from their very bodies. I don't have to give so much as a drop of blood to my child (assuming I had any). If a newborn doesn't have a right to my body, then neither does a prenate have a right to a woman's body. Come back when you are willing to advocate that anyone can use my body parts if they need it for their very life. THEN you can say that you believe all human beings have the SAME value. Until then, the only one you are fooling is yourself.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh. Is this something I really want to know more about?

secularprolife.org said...

If the 'choice' is killing a human being that has done nothing wrong, I'm proud to be anti-choice. I'm proud to be anti-abortion: against the killing of unborn children. Are you proud to be pro-abortion: for the killing of unborn children?

secularprolife.org said...

your skin cells might be human. A newborn is a human being. That same 'being' one second before birth is a human being too, right? A trip down the birth canal does not a human being make.

secularprolife.org said...

That will never happen. You're reverting back to fairy land again.

secularprolife.org said...

If the 'choice' is killing a human being
-----
NOT APPLICABLE, as proved in an earlier message, to which you failed to reply (mentions Stupidly Prejudiced Hypocrisy).
=====

that has done nothing wrong,
-----
NOT APPLICABLE, as proved in another message, to which you failed to reply.
=====

I'm proud to be anti-choice.
-----
FOR NO REASON??? Because the so-called "reasons" you just spouted are Not Applicable!
=====

I'm proud to be anti-abortion: against the killing of unborn children.
-----
ANOTHER "NOT APPLICABLE", but the proof wasn't posted yet in this thread. You can find the proof easily enough, just do a web search for [ "You, Baby/Child" fightforsense ] (where the brackets represent the search box), and read the first thing found. What the English language allows you to do, and what it is wise to actually do, are two different things!
=====

Are you proud to be pro-abortion:
-----
MISREPRESENTATION. Being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion. That is, being pro-abortion means actively promoting abortions, and I don't do that. I only promote keeping the option legal, and allowing people to choose that option.
=====


for the killing of unborn children?

-----
NOT APPLICABLE. A child is a different thing from an unborn human animal organism. See that "You, Baby/Child" article for the proof!

secularprolife.org said...

I have a strong enough stomach. OTOH, I don't typically watch gorehouse flicks, either.

secularprolife.org said...

I never claimed that a trip down the birth canal turns "a human" into "a human being".


There are, however, two different things to keep in mind about that, though. One is the Law --for the Law, the trip down the birth canal does convert a non-person into a person; the Law is quite arbitrary that way.


The other thing is Science --as far as Science is concerned, a newborn human is still exactly as much a mere animal organism as any unborn human, not a human being. It takes significant Nurture to convert "a human" into "a human being" --look up data about "feral children" for proof; when appropriate Nurture is not provided, the default "intrinsic nature" of "a human" is revealed; all you end up with is a clever animal, not a person, "a human being". It is another MAJOR error of abortion opponents, to think that personhood is an inevitable consequence of human biological growth --they are wrong, as proved by the existence of feral children.

secularprolife.org said...

"Unborn child" is a valid term. Too bad if it makes you THINK about they tiny human being you support killing. Think about it some more. While looking at a 4D ultrasound of an unborn child at 16 weeks. Can you say loud and proud "I support killing that tiny human being"?

secularprolife.org said...

We have different rules for human beings of different ages. (e.g. voting rules, smoking laws,etc). Rules have to be different for unborn children because of where they are. They should be protected from being killed - before and after viability.

secularprolife.org said...

A child is different from an unborn human animal organism. For one thing, the unborn human animal organism includes a placenta as a vital organ, while a child doesn't. For other differences, see the "You, Baby/Child" article mentioned in another message here. That message indicates that while you can call an unborn human animal organism "a child", it is not a wise thing to do. So, I repeat what I wrote above, try thinking about how you use the language, instead of being just another copycat/follower.

secularprolife.org said...

We don't have different rules when it comes to fundamental rights. They apply to everyone, or no one. Where they are is irrelevant. If "unborn children" should be protected from being killed, then so should everyone. If I can refuse to donate my part parts to keep someone alive, then so can a pregnant woman.



But, back to "value." If prenates have the SAME value as everyone else, then there wouldn't be any need for different rules. The fact that you even think there "have" to be different rules shows you place more value on the prenate than you do the woman.

secularprolife.org said...

AND YET ANOTHER fundamental error of abortion opponents is exposed!!!


I invite you to go to a fertility clinic and ask them "who is to blame" when a wanted pregnancy fails to happen. They will not assign the blame to any person, they will assign the blame to various independently-acting entities, such as sperm and egg and zygote and morula and blastocyst. Sex does not force them to do the things they are genetically programmed to do --and of course, if the genetic program is faulty, they will fail to do what you might expect them to do.


THEREFORE, when they actually do what they are genetically programmed to do, sex did not force that to happen, either. Those independently-acting entities deserve EXACTLY as much blame for succeeding at causing an unwanted pregnancy, as if they had failed to cause a wanted pregnancy.


Which means your worthless blather about "responsibility" is exactly that, worthless blather.


FURTHERMORE, you are entirely ignoring a completely different and totally relevant factor. If you write a story, you are as free to destroy it as you are free to try to publish it. If you paint a landscape, you are as free to destroy it as you are free to try to sell it to an art collector. If you are a mad scientist creating life in a laboratory, you are as free to destroy it as you are free to cherish it. SO, TO WHATEVER EXTENT you want to associate the actions of sex-participants with the creation/formation of a new living thing, a zygote, in spite of what was written above about independently-acting entities, that is exactly the extent to which the sex-participants are free to destroy it. The choice is entirely theirs, not yours, to make.


So, take your worthless blather about "responsibility" and toss it into the waste bin, along with the rest of your utterly idiotic anti-abortion arguments.

secularprolife.org said...

Sad that you still think that girls and women aren't included in "ALL HUMANS" and "defenseless human beings" to you just doesn't include vulnerable pregnant women who need abortions.


But strangely illogical (like other prolifers) that you appear to see no connection with the life, health, and wellbeing of a pregnant woman and the wellbeing of her pregnancy. You're fighting in opposition to healthcare for pregnant women: yet you don't appear to realise that the only way anyone but the pregnant woman herself is to help her. Dehumanising her, as you do, to a walking womb, to an object to be used, merely proves the point: you have no real concern for "unborn children" either. All you want is to force pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

This is a common misunderstanding (I had it too). There is no such thing as a life saving abortion. Abortions are by definition only meant to produce dead offspring. The term you are looking for is "Preterm parturition", which is the medically nessicary separtion of a woman from her pre born offsring (aka child/ immaturehuman being by common definitions) because something is going wrong. In preterm parturiton the intent is not to produce dead anything, but for the doctors to do their best to ensure the health of both mother and child.

Read more here
http://www.macombdaily.com/opinion/20140620/life-saving-procedures-arent-essentially-abortions

I wasn't aware of the different term till this year I believe. It'd be great if we could pass this info and understanding of the distinction around so that we could focus on the true abortion debate and not on medically necessary procedures that to the best of my knowledge at least, aren't in jeopardy.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is not a state of health. Not being pregnant and especially NOT going through a torturous labour and birth is infinitely safer than pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

"Scientific
evidence may inform this view, but it
does not dictate the view"

This is exactly right. The abortion debate has (or should at least) roots in science but what you do with the scientific information is where philosophy comes in.

For me, I look to current laws. We already have laws saying it is a crime for one person to kill another. A 'person' is a 'human being' by common dictionary definition.* "Personhood" is merely the state of being a person, or human being. Science tells me fetuses are human beings developing as they are supposed to to eventually be born( therefor 'fetus' is just what we call them during that time, like how 'toddlers' are children between 2-3 arguably).

Since fetuses are part of our human family, I see no reason to not extend the same basic rights to them that born people already have, such as the right to continue existing- provided you have not done anything to compromise that right. I'm not saying I agree with capital punishment, but I acknowledged it currently exists in some states and people who break laws in those states may be risking their right to life.

So, it's that simple for me really. I just don't believe in discriminating aginst anyone in our human faimly who hasn't done any wrong. Laws should be consistent and I feel they aren't currently in regards to human rights.


*I mostly use online dictionary sites such as http://www.thefreedictionary.com/, and http://www.merriam-webster.com/ which anyone with internet access has access too and may look up. If someone would like me to cite the definitions I am referring to however, I can.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes.

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't mean we should let people kill their unborn children. We can at least try- just like we have laws protecting infants from uncaring parents - they at least have to care long enough to ensure their child's safety.

secularprolife.org said...

The ZEF is a potential human being and it has no rights to anything unless the host decides it does.
Yes there is help and if a woman decides she wants the help to be an abortion that is HER choice.
The ZEFs welfare really would not be important to me. My life would be what matters. If I get pregnant I will have an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Is occupying another persons body, using that body as a life support machine, and threatening that person's health and life a "basic human right?"

secularprolife.org said...

Very well put. I don't understand how the historical treatment of woman can really dictate this issue either.

It's true woman have endured a lot, and may have to do with why some feel 'driven' to abortion. But how does that relate to whether a fetus should have rights or not? Something someone else is going through has nothing to do with the value of another.

Hardships may give us understanding as to why some woman feel 'driven' to abort, but it doesn't justify abortion. If you want to take your problems out on someone, take them out on, say your job for not giving you enough maternity leave, or the government for not making them have to. I"m all for helping out pregnant woman and families be self sufficient, but abortion is not going to solve those issues.

(woman here btw)

secularprolife.org said...

We do have something in common here. We both believe in applying the same rules to everyone. But this is exactly what I *don't* see happening with pro-criminalizers. To take night porter's example, who else is required to allow someone to occupy another person's body and using it as life support? No one. Who else is required to give up their body parts when they are needed to keep someone else alive? No one. Who else is required to to risk their life and health to keep someone else alive? No one. Who else is required to give up their rights without due process even though they have committed no crime and have done nothing wrong? No one.

I could go on and on with this. You're right--laws should be consistent. But what pro-criminalizers want to do is make them even *more* inconsistent by carving out a special exception against women who just happen to be pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

Then get your house in order and start working on the problems that make some women feel driven to abort first.

secularprolife.org said...

You are a mass murderer. The law of charity says you have a choice to save a baby or a fetus. Do you have that choice? Your choice is to let babies die, right?
Of course you have a choice, so the law is valid and you are a murderer.

secularprolife.org said...

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "reluctantly pro-life", and what specifically in your studies made you "reluctant"? Where's the line of logic from, say, "Before 1920, women were not allowed to vote." to "The unborn being treated as human beings is indesirable."?


To answer your question, of course science can't tell us about the worth of the fetus; that's philosophy's job. Saying science can't tell us about the worth of the fetus is like saying geology can't tell us how DNA works; they're two different areas of study.

secularprolife.org said...

It's not a zero-sum game. If you want to save a toddler, does that mean you have to let infants die? Does that make you "a mass murderer"?

secularprolife.org said...

Why not both?

secularprolife.org said...

If you've "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", you must not read this blog very often.

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/11/what-does-savita-halappanavars-death.html

secularprolife.org said...

1. Blastocysts are never aborted.
2. "Clump of cells" is also a fitting description for you or I.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you saying feral children are not human beings? Do they have no right to live?

secularprolife.org said...

A hydatidiform mole is not a human organism.

secularprolife.org said...

The dictionary you are reading was written for children. We are discussing whether a zygote with the wrong number of chromosomes is a human child. I say it is neither human nor a child. Children's dictionaries do not cover that usage of the word.

secularprolife.org said...

Find me one pro-lifer who believes it should be legal to kill children after birth.

secularprolife.org said...

A partial mole is.

secularprolife.org said...

In November 2012, this blog declined to support life-saving abortion for Savita Halappanavar, and did not support any change in the law in Ireland to allow life-saving abortions.

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/11/what-does-savita-halappanavars-death.html

Two other examples I cited where prolifers refused to support actual examples of women needing life-saving abortions were from 2009, which predates this blog, but I can find no evidence that this blog supported Dr George Tiller in his dedicated work providing life-saving abortions before a prolifer murdered him: indeed, rather the reverse. http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/09/8-things-after-tiller-left-out.html



So, what examples of real-life girls and women who really needed a life-saving abortion (and got one, and survived) or who were denied one, and died - are you thinking of?

secularprolife.org said...

Do you consider a blastocyst to be a person?


And no, 'clump of cells' is not a fitting description for us, because unlike a blastocyst, we can *think*

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, I'm sure prolifers love the idea of forcing a girl or a woman to give birth and then getting to prosecute her for abandoning the baby she knew she couldn't care for to die. Double-fun for prolifers, who have no concern for girls, women, or babies.


Notably, prolifers show zero concern for unwanted babies: they are only interested in forcing pregnant women. See (for example) the prolife focus on sex-selective abortion in India - while ignoring the gendercide of infant and young girls, child brides, dowry murders, etc.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes little girl you people DO think the ZEF is more important than the pregnant woman or you would not force her to give up her life and health for it.

The value cannot be the same when ones life is destroyed for the other to gain a life.

secularprolife.org said...

Why not? A hydatidiform mole has human DNA, came to exist because it was conceived, and is a separate being than the mother. If that is enough to call a zygote a human organism, why isn't it enough to call a hydatidiform mole one?

secularprolife.org said...

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean they don't have enough human DNA? Are you saying that a large percentage of eggs and sperms are just missing genes, and when they come together you don't have a working genome?

secularprolife.org said...

Blastocysts are aborted all the time. Every time it fails to implant, for example.

secularprolife.org said...

In a zero sum game, a toddler and a child are living, saving a toddler would cause the death of a child. In this situation, both a child and a toddler are dying. And because they are dying at the rate of 1.8 per second, you can save only one or the other. So a choice to save one allows the other to die. That is not a zero sum game. There is a net increase in life, either born or unborn. You get to choose which you will let die.

secularprolife.org said...

Because you can't have both a world in which abortion is a necessity and forbid having one at the same time.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, 42 percent of conceptions are genetically flawed and cannot produce human life.

secularprolife.org said...

You are so ignorant of human fecundity that it is laughable.

secularprolife.org said...

DO NOT CONFUSE THE LAW WITH THE SCIENCE. Per the Law, feral children are legal persons with the rights of persons. Per the Science, they are mere animals, not persons --they are "humans" but not "human beings" (see another message on this page where the distinction between the two terms is clearly described).

secularprolife.org said...

1) Yes they are. By nature, all the time.
2) No it is not. You and I have all the differentiation of cells needed to sustain life as a human. A blastocyst does not.

secularprolife.org said...

How about you "try" something else? Something that might actually work. Like stop voting for politicians who cut social programs.

secularprolife.org said...

Blastocysts can indeed be deliberately aborted. Look up how the drug "RU-486" works, when it is used as a "morning after pill".

secularprolife.org said...

Only if human beings lack a brain and parts of their skulls, sweetheart. You can't lack a brain and qualify as a human being. You can't lack a brain and qualify as an animal.

secularprolife.org said...

Science shows that 70 percent of conceptions will not produce human life. So your whole pro life belief is based upon a false assumption. I suggest you learn a little about human reproduction before you finalize your belief system.

secularprolife.org said...

The scientific evidence is that most zygotes do not produce human life. So when you set the zygote to be equal to a woman, you are devaluing the woman to the status of non human life.

And when you claim to be "pro life" yet value non life over human life, that is a contradiction that is untenable. Either you are pro human life or you are pro "whatever" life. Which is it?

And you have a choice, you can call yourself pro life and choose to save real babies or you can call yourself pro life and attempt to save zygotes that most of the time are not human life. If you claim to be pro life, you have a duty to actually save life. If you fail to do your duty, by saving zygotes and not human life, then you have committed murder by omission.

secularprolife.org said...

What we need are rules that make pro lifers pay for all the damage they do. You are responsible for the death of millions of born babies, children and adults. You should be forced to financially support the families you harm.

secularprolife.org said...

Far as I can tell, women walking into abortion clinics aren't going in for an abortion to save their lives (I would imagine medically necessary abortions are happening in hospitals).

Not all pro lifers stand outside clinics. Many instead lobby the government or work in places intended to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

Pro lifers are interested in supporting women who make hard choices. They just do not support one particular choice.

But I will readily admit, pro lifers who want to truly support women should be out there fighting to make contraception available, accessible, and affordable (or free), fighting against poverty, educating girls, etc - to make a real difference in lessening the felt need for abortions. And I will readily admit, the loudest pro lifers are not the ones who are campaigning for such support for women.

I think there is a common ground for pro choice and pro life - that of empowering women. Abortions are the result of many other problems in the world. If we could stop insulting each other and recognize that, there would be a lot more good done.

secularprolife.org said...

And yes, I know you will say that pro lifers are not wanting to empower women. I think a huge group of pro lifers are not even thinking about empowering women. But there ARE people out there who want to empower women who ARE pro life. The ideas are not mutually exclusive.

secularprolife.org said...

But there ARE people out there who want to empower women who ARE pro life.
----
I'm sorry, but this just does not compute. You can't empower women by depriving them of fundamental rights.

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. "

Science does not say that, you are projecting that a human embryo/foetus exists without proof that it does in fact exist. Even with ultrasound, genetic testing or any other test no one can know of the product of conception is capable of producing a human life or if it contains enough human DNA to live as a human. At best, one could say that the product of conception is separate from the woman.


"Equally, it says that the conception is fully constituted from the get-go. "

Again you are making a projection fallacy. There is no way to know if the POC is fully constituted from the get-go. The POC may not form into an implantable zygote or fetus.

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

It is impossible for you to know if there is for certain an unborn child. You again are making a projection fallacy, assuming an unborn child exists, with on proof. Most zygotes do not produce human babies. So an assumption that there is an unborn child is a false assumption fallacy.


"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). "

So far I have seen no science. So if you have some "science" you would like to share, please do.


"True religion, axiomatically, must run in parallel with the Natural Order - a creation of the Prime Cause."

I am not interested in a creation of the prime cause so much as I am interested in the entity that created the entity that created the prime cause and the entity that created that entity ad infinitum back through time. If there is a prime cause, who caused it and who caused the cause that created the prime cause. I don't think you can answer how everything was "created" and what created the thing that created everything. I also don't think you can prove there is a natural order beyond our current position is space time. Most explanations I have heard are B.S.^2.


"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"

Lets leave unsupported personal opinion, religious and scientific dogma out of the conversation and deal with the facts.

secularprolife.org said...

Now you are claiming to know how myintx votes? How progressive and 'tolerant' of you!

secularprolife.org said...

"Please, I am saying that there is no difference in essence between you and the embryo."

there are multiple differences between a born person and an embryo. The differences are both structural and functional. A human zygote is different from a born human in every way. ---Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype at birth, there is no proof the product of conception is human, can produce human life or will live to birth. Why? because the DNA must "express" life under its own terms and at its on speed without revealing its course of action. DNA Expression is hidden and unknowable at this point I time.




"In what environments you and the unborn child survive are, of course, different."

That is a projection fallacy. You have not established that there is an unborn child. Proof is impossible to obtain because we are not at a point scientifically where we can read the "expression" of the DNA code before it is in fact expressed.


"Indeed, a child may be conceived and grown in the laboratory, though this has not yet been taken to term, for legal reasons."

You cannot prove there is a "child" until the human phenotype has been expressed at birth. There are numerous changes that must occur during birth, if those changes are not coded and run successfully, the DNA may have been flawed and human life may have always been impossible.


"As you say, the early removal from a mother of a conception she does not want and its reimplantation in another host (not necessarily human, but safe anyway), would avoid all the ducking and diving (an impoverished scene) to get around moral or secular grounds for not wanting the partial legalisation of killing. "

Only by non scientific means can one say there is a "child" that must be protected. Science cannot confirm that the zef is capable of human life until it is in fact born.



"Brainwaves, you know well, arise with the development of the brain - and continue apace until the interruption of these, through accident, disease or age, Other functions come and go too - but the status of any human function is not the basis for killing, most especially when life beckons the individual concerned." |

One cannot know if life beckons from a scientific perspective. Why, because we cannot know if the zef is capable of "beckoning".

secularprolife.org said...

Your explanation of the commencement of life is false.


You cannot prove your claims.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my post if it was actually meant for me ( I know from experience reply functions can be tricky at times.)

I stated a fact and posted my source.

Pregnancy is natural however. If one is having a healthy pregnancy , they are indeed in a state of health. A good one. Prgnacy is the natural state that occurs when sexual intercourse asccomplishses what nature intended it for. I don't care what people want to use it for, that's their business but it has an actual purpose dictated by nature. So complain to Mother Nature, not me about that one.

I believe the "abortion is safer than pregnancy' statement is a myth that has been debunked in several places. I can probably find a link to at least one debunking in a few moments. Also I'm not sure again what relevance that statement has. It seems you are claiming that no one should become pregnant (or everyone should have abortions) and the human race should go extinct?

Many things in life have risks. If someone is having a risky pregnancy I suggest they work costly with their doctor during the process. I am nor I do I claim to be a medical professional.

I will say though: If someone believes they may be at risk for a problem pregnancy they may want to consider those risks before becoming pregnant. Again, talk to your doctor.

secularprolife.org said...

Citation for this claim?

secularprolife.org said...

Easy for you to sit at the comfort of your keyboard and say the doctors should have risked prison terms. Really easy.

secularprolife.org said...

Anti-Catholic bigotry.

secularprolife.org said...

It's kind of like how some pro choicers have the unrealistic view of: if you want to save babies so much why aren't you adopting all of them?' isn't it?

Cuz you know, in order to have an opinion on something and want to help, you HAVE to be able to single handily solve the issue yourself.

In that case, shame on all those people who claim to be pro choice but aren't out there performing abortions themselves.

secularprolife.org said...

I can't see how you and I are going to agree on this. Maybe you and I should just put the gloves on sometime to work it out.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. Anti- malpractice bigotry.

secularprolife.org said...

Well of course the gutless wonders should have saved her life.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't care how she votes. Or IF she votes. If she's interested in lowering abortion rates, that's a great start. There are other things she could be doing to lower abortion rates even if she's apolitical.

secularprolife.org said...

And she may be doing those things.

secularprolife.org said...

It's ridiculous to claim that a born person doesn't have a right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

"Embryologists can all agree that a fully constituted individual item (liable to develop along the paths in front of it) is there at conception."

It does not matter if you and all your friends "believe" that there is a "fully constituted" individual at conception, because you are guilty of a projection fallacy. You cannot know what the DNA will "express" or when it will express of if it will express anything at all. It is impossible for you to prove there is human life until that life is born. Why, because the human fetal heart must transform into the human baby heart. And all fetal systems must transform into human baby systems. There is no way to know if the code for those systems even exists until the fetus is brought to term either naturally or by induction. If the code to change from fetus to baby does not exist, then the fetus was never capable of becoming human life.



"When you say it's a human at 12 weeks or 2 months - is purely a human choice, often, I fear (research it!), to allow legal killing."

You understand that there are hundreds of thousands of eggs and millions of sperm that will be wasted if one forces pregnancy to remain intact.
The choice to force one birth takes away the opportunity to have several others. Each time a pair of egg and sperm die, there is a loss of potential human life. So forcing birth also causes death.
And one has a choice from another perspective as well. There are 10 wanted zefs that die each second, 1.4 unwanted zygotes and 1.8 born people that die each second. We may choose to save any of those three that are dying. Who is to say that it is more "moral" to save a fetus rather than a born baby, child or adult. A choice to save any one is a choice to let the others die.



"Epigenetics is as yet a science of theories, facing extraordinary challenges, at this time. Of course, as regards what you say, influences on our genes continue through life and, under the same science and at any stage can switch off/on a set of same, which eg determines your health in some way. Getting better to know the mechanisms of Nature is very exciting"

I have not seen where you understand what science shows us with regard to zefs. Most (70%) zefs do not become humans and 42 percent cannot become human life.


"- but the port of call, for the results obtained, should not be ending it all for a helpless and voiceless item, which to Nature is an item living an early part of a human life."

That is another projection fallacy. There is no indication that the zef is human, can become human or will live to birth if it is human. And you are making human like projections on "Nature". I seriously doubt that nature feels anything one way or another.

secularprolife.org said...

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf+html

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for the information.

secularprolife.org said...

I see what you are doing here, but to claim that a figment of one's imagination can be a human being is not terribly persuasive.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are referring to sponantious abortion aka miscarriages I am well aware of them. To the best of my knowledge the zygote is formed, but there is something wrong them to the point they cannot continue developing so the woman's body rejects them.

If you are referring to something else can you please clarify? I do not claim to be a professional scientist; I have merely taken high school and college level biology courses like most people. I also don't have a photographic memory so some jogging would be appreciated.

But what I DO know is that human gametes when combined properly, will ONLY produce human offspring. Not a gamete, not a blood cell, not a skin cell. The briefly single cell that is produces has 46* chromosomes and human DNA just as I do now , making them genetically the same as me species wise and therefor human life.

It should be noted that I didn't refer to zygotes in my original post. Since we were talking about (surgical or chemical) abortion, which happens post implantation, I chose to keep my post focused on that. But perhaps I should clarify that from my understanding of the science, a human being comes into existance at conception(aka fertilization) when the process goes correctly.

When you say "70 percent of conceptions will not produce human life" are you considering human life to start at the same point as me? Maybe that's where we are conflicting?


*I am also aware of chromosome disorders, but those that have them we know to still be human since we know that like produces like.

secularprolife.org said...

Oddly, though, we do force men to "parent" and treat them effectively as walking wallets in relation to children they did not choose. So much for equality!

secularprolife.org said...

You don't. You have a right not to be unjustly killed. That's not the same thing as a "right to live." Just as an example, suppose your liver failed. Suppose I was a match, and you asked me to consider donating a lobe of my liver to you. You would pay for the surgery, and my liver would grow back in time. (YES, that actually does happen. The liver is the only organ that re-generates.) I can tell you NO, you may not have a piece of my liver, that I do not wish to miss the time from work, and besides that, I really don't like you. Or that I really do like you, but I can't take the risk of taking time off work because I fear losing my job, or I can't afford to lose income while I recover. Or maybe I just plain don't want to. You cannot sue me to force me to give you what you need on the basis that "you have a right to life." You don't. Even if you were my parent, my sibling, my own child or another relative. You will lose your case. And if you can't find a suitable matched donor, you're going to die. So NO, you do not have a "right to life." Another person's right to bodily integrity and autonomy will always come first.

secularprolife.org said...

Nah. She isn't. She isn't donating to women's health organizations that will help women obtain reliable long-term contraception.

secularprolife.org said...

No, writing a check is not "parenting" Festus.

secularprolife.org said...

In the United States of America, one has the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There most certainly is a right to life.

secularprolife.org said...

Who is "Festus"? And writing a check is a part of parenting. Your disdain for men is obvious.

secularprolife.org said...

No, writing a check is only writing a check. It's not parenting. Parenting is actually raising a child. Lots of men write checks only because they don't want to go to jail. If he were parenting? He would write those checks voluntarily and take an active role in raising them. Writing a check because a judge orders you to, is *never* enough to be considered parenting.

secularprolife.org said...

That refers to the government. That means the government cannot execute you without due process. That refers exclusively to criminal law. It doesn't mean you have a right to life from anyone else, or that the government will force anyone to allow you to live. If you don't understand the difference, you don't belong on this thread.

secularprolife.org said...

You just disparage men. Many men do not have access to their children and, thus, cannot spend time with them. Who is fault there? Yep, a manipulative female! You may not value a man's contribution to the raising of his child--even if it is primarily done by providing funds to feed, clothe, and house the child--but it's quite obvious that society deems that contribution *very* important.

secularprolife.org said...

Quit your waffling. If anyone doesn't belong on this thread, it's you. FYI, those rights apply to civil settings, too, not just criminal. That is why we have a civil action for wrongful death when the right to life is violated, and a whole set of causes of action when the rights to liberty or property are infringed upon.

secularprolife.org said...

There is a civil remedy for wrongful death. But you must understand that in order to prevail, someone must owe you a duty, be in breach of that duty, have reasonably foreseen that his breach of duty could result in your death, and the breach must be the proximal cause of your death. The less reasonably foreseeable, and the more intervening factors between breach and harm, the less clear cut the matter becomes. It's not as easy as it sounds. If you fail to prove any of those four elements, you have no wrongful death suit.

secularprolife.org said...

Further, the four elements are needed to state prima facie case. Whether the evidence will prove all of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence is another matter (assuming the matter is not adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment). We're still talking about the right to life as the theoretical underpinning of the whole wrongful death cause of action.

secularprolife.org said...

Not really. Society views the payment of child support as the very minimal amount you should be doing for your children. And NO I am NOT "disparaging men." Men can be, and ARE custodial parents. When I use the word "he" that's in the generic sense and applies equally to women. There is no damn excuse for a man (or a woman) to "not have access to their children." You act like an adult and work it out. And if you cannot do that, then you go to court and demand involvement in your child's life. That's your right and responsibility as a parent. You don't even need a lawyer, you can represent yourself. And if the custodial parent balks, he's likely to lose custody for doing that. What are you? A man or a mouse? Any man who doesn't spend time with his children doesn't WANT to spend time with them.

secularprolife.org said...

Not that that will ever happen, but you do realize that won't solve anything, don't you?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. It's about forcing people to pay when they don't act responsibly. Everything I just told you is true of ANY civil lawsuit. Every time someone has a bad outcome, or dies as a result of someone else's action (or lack of action), doesn't provide grounds for a civil suit. Much of the time, it's because they owe no duty to you in the first place, or you were a major negligent contributor to your own bad outcome. Example: walking out into traffic against the signal, or without looking.

secularprolife.org said...

Never say never. :-)


It could solve providing a good workout for us and perhaps some sport-generated male bonding that just might make us a little more likely to see one another's point of view.

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant or disrespectful; I mean it in the most positive way.

secularprolife.org said...

Duties and rights go together like ham and eggs. You seem to be cobbling together bits and pieces of content from some law-related sites and arguing in vain that there is no legally protected right to life. That shows the silly extremes that members of the pro-abortion crowd will accept to try to justify their demand for abortion on demand.

secularprolife.org said...

Custodial parents interfere all the time with the relationships that non-custodial parents have with the two parties' children. With impunity.

Your misandry is showing with the "man or mouse" comment. Like most feminists and pro-abortion types, you want special rights for women.

secularprolife.org said...

Correct. She's ranting that there is no right to life. If she knew anything about the law, she would know that the right to life is alive and well. The right to life is protected, at least, by criminal law and tort law.



I can see how a pro-abortion individual would not want to acknowledge that a pre-born human being might have a right to life; however, to expand the claim to say that no one, even a born person, has a right to life is the height of absurdity.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is the natural state that occurs when sexual intercourse accomplishes what nature intended it for. I don't care what people want to use it for, that's their business but it has an actual purpose dictated by nature. So complain to Mother Nature, not me about that one.
----
What makes you think nature intended sex to be for reproduction among humans?
===

It seems you are claiming that no one should become pregnant (or everyone should have abortions) and the human race should go extinct?
----
No, night porter is merely claiming that the choice to get or remain pregnant belongs solely to the woman.
====

Many things in life have risks.
----
Yes, but we get to *choose* whether to take those risks. Get how that works?
====

I will say though: If someone believes they may be at risk for a problem pregnancy they may want to consider those risks before becoming pregnant. Again, talk to your doctor.
----
Like that helps someone who has gotten pregnant unintentionally.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not interested in sports, so "sport-generated male bonding" would be impossible between us. And as a pacifist, the particular sport you have in mind will most certainly not make us more likely to see one another's point of view.


I'm afraid you're just going to have to rely on logic to help me see how depriving women of their fundamental rights actually empowers them.

secularprolife.org said...

Far as I can tell, women walking into abortion clinics aren't going in for an abortion to save their lives (I would imagine medically necessary abortions are happening in hospitals).

Mostly in the UK, that's the case. However, in the US, a sustained campaign of terrorism against abortion providers by the prolife movement - mostly in the 1980s, but continuing in a desultory way even today - has ensured that many hospitals will not provide abortions out of concern for the safety of their staff. Also, hospitals which identify as "Catholic" will never provide abortions and their staff are largely neither trained nor experienced in performing abortions: a woman who needs an abortion, even to save her life, will be referred to another hospital or a clinic, no matter how desperately ill she is. Prolife protesters outside clinics simply have no idea how ill a woman is entering the clinic: they just howl their abuse regardless.

(The rare exceptions for Catholic hospitals, such as the St Joseph's hospital in Arizona in 2009, where the patient would have died en route if the abortion had not been performed immediately, are followed by outrage and expulsion from the Catholic Church, which does not (for doctrinal reasons) support even life-saving abortions.)

Not all pro lifers stand outside clinics. Many instead lobby the government

Yeah, lobbying the government to deny basic human rights to women is actually just as bad as standing outside a clinic howling abuse at patients.

or work in places intended to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

No, you're confused. Prolifers don;t help women who have unwanted pregnancies. Some work in "crisis pregnancy centers", but those aren't intended to help women: they usually try to fake out being health clinics, and often try to funnel women into the adoption industry instead.

Pro lifers are interested in supporting women who make hard choices.

Never seen any evidence of this, anywhere in the prolife movement.

But I will readily admit, pro lifers who want to truly support women should be out there fighting to make contraception available, accessible, and affordable (or free), fighting against poverty, educating girls, etc - to make a real difference in lessening the felt need for abortions. And I will readily admit, the loudest pro lifers are not the ones who are campaigning for such support for women.

Well, that's interesting that you're aware prolifers don't try to "truly support women" and that prolifers aren't interested in preventing abortions. Now you might ask yourself, why is this?

Abortions are the result of many other problems in the world. If we could stop insulting each other and recognize that, there would be a lot more good done.



Well, when prolifers move on from insulting and dehumanising women, lobby government to force women and deny basic human rights to women, you're welcome to join the rest of us do-gooders over here. Cross the fence to the human-rights side. You don't need to hang out with these misogynists if you don't like them.

secularprolife.org said...

I think it's unlikely the doctors would have gone to jail; medical evidence would have shown they had good reason to believe they were performing a life-saving abortion.


But we know from past experience when a life-saving abortion is performed and actually saves the woman's life: there would have been an international howl of outrage from the prolife movement, from the prolifers in the Irish government, from all the bishops of Ireland (who also protested the change in the law). The doctors might well not have gone to jail, but they would most likely never have worked in Ireland again.


All because prolifers do not support life-saving abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

You are quite right. Indeed, neither I nor you, by definition, can prove anything, we being of limited minds. For your interest, I am putting together (slowly) a list of natural phenomena, which defy our endowment to fathom, even at the level of normally accepted comprehension - eg Nuclear Tunnelling and Black Holes. That said, your bland statement that what I write is false, without rebuttal or perhaps even knowing how to ask about what scientific and medical works are inducted, is only reminiscent of the poorer quips of Shallow Hal.

secularprolife.org said...

A couple of points. Conception can occur in vitro. The product can be grown in the lab - though such have not been brought to term for legal reasons. However, this provides reasonable grounds for saying the entity conceived is whole. In the case where a conception does not thrive, this is in the way of Nature (a side reaction, if you wish). I am speaking of letting entities with a future live. To give you some science, the Prime Cause is also called the Big Bang. We recently saw evidence of the creation/formation of a planet. 'Cause and effect' requires a cause, no matter what you call it. And the Cause in the Cosmos is a pretty complex piece of work. In my original secular piece, I made space for those of religious persuasion. Fundamentalism, wherever found, eschews reason. A number of comments received come from people on a high horse. Not scholarly.

secularprolife.org said...

girls and women are included in "all humans". ALl innocent human beings should have a 'right to life'. That means a woman or man cannot leave their newborn home alone - they have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect their newborn. They cannot wake up one morning, scream about their rights being violated and walk out the door. Their newborns LIFE is worth more then their feelings about their rights being violated. Same with an unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

So? Born people die of natural causes all the time. Doesn't make poisoning, dismembering or shooting someone else OK.

secularprolife.org said...

"A couple of points. Conception can occur in vitro."
However, there is a question about the life in vitro. Normal human life cannot be frozen and reconstituted, yet the in vitro life can. So it is not the same as other life.



"The product can be grown in the lab - though such have not been brought to term for legal reasons. "

Yet we don't know if the in vitro life is the same as normal human life in situ. It could very well be there is no difference and then again there may be evolutionary differences that end the race or make the race better.



"However, this provides reasonable grounds for saying the entity conceived is whole. "

No, we don't know if the in vitro life can exist until it is implanted in the uterus, so there is no indication that it is viable or that it is whole. We do know for a fact that at this juncture, the zygote requires a uterus to continue to develop.


"In the case where a conception does not thrive, this is in the way of Nature (a side reaction, if you wish)."

You cannot prove that.


"I am speaking of letting entities with a future live. "

Life is a continuous process that does not require your control. If you were to remain out of the process, life would then be controlled by the person creating it and not by an intervening third party. Your injection of your personal belief destroys the "Nature" of the process.


"To give you some science, the Prime Cause is also called the Big Bang. We recently saw evidence of the creation/formation of a planet."

You have no proof it was "created" by an outside force.

" 'Cause and effect' requires a cause, no matter what you call it. And the Cause in the Cosmos is a pretty complex piece of work."

There may be no cause and effect that created the Universe. We only know the rules of science in our little spot in space time.

" In my original secular piece, I made space for those of religious persuasion. Fundamentalism, wherever found, eschews reason. A number of comments received come from people on a high horse. Not scholarly."

Your characterization of them is not definitive.

secularprolife.org said...

So which is it in your min - are defective zygotes not human life or all zygotes? you're contradicting yourself.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 846   Newer› Newest»