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   401 – 600 of 846   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

No one is forcing anyone to give up their life.. the woman gets to live and the unborn child gets to live if aborition is restricted - YEAH! No one is killed. Isn't that what you want?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope... you're the one responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings - not me.

secularprolife.org said...

Grasping at straws is what she's doing.

secularprolife.org said...

You don't see what I am doing.

secularprolife.org said...

You make the intentional choice to let babies die, I make the intentional choice to save babies. That is what the scientific evidence shows. Your self aggrandizing statements that you "save babies" has been proved to be a lie.

secularprolife.org said...

I have made no contradictions. A zygote that "expresses" a human life at birth is a human being from conception forward. Most human zygotes do not produce human life and cannot be proved to be human life.

secularprolife.org said...

YES forcing a woman into the misery of an unwanted pregnancy IS forcing her to give up her life for a minimum of around a year. Yes she might get to live but her life is ruined. She should not be forced into that for an unwanted ZEF.

What I want is for women to make up their own mind about a pregnancy. Little girl myintx should have no say in it.

secularprolife.org said...

of the 1 million abortions done in the US how many are done on blastocysts?

secularprolife.org said...

Relatively few, since RU-486 has not been approved for wide use in the USA (last I recall). Neverthless, we still are not talking about killing a "someone else", since no unborn human qualifies as a person, either in Law or in Science. And again, if you want to claim otherwise, let's see the Objective Evidence supporting that positive claim!

secularprolife.org said...

Most women can do anything they were doing before the pregnancy. No one is 'giving up their life'. A few months of a woman doing the right thing for her unborn son or daughter means the possibility of a LIFETIME for her offspring. What kind of woman wouldn't TRY HER HARDEST to do that for her own unborn son or daughter - What kind of woman?

secularprolife.org said...

AN unborn human is a human being and should have basic rights.


At one point in our history salves weren't considered full people. LAWS had to be changed to consider them full people. Laws can be changed to recognize unborn children as people if that's what it takes to protect them. We already have abortion restrictions after viability, so an unborn child doesn't need to be a legal person to be protected. We should be able to have more laws protecting unborn children before viability as well.

secularprolife.org said...

girls and women are included in "all humans". ALl innocent human beings should have a 'right to life'.


Funny how you claim to believe that, yet you can't bring yourself to support Savita Halappanavar, or any other woman in her situation, having a life-saving abortion.


Of what was Savita Halappanavar "guilty", that you think she was never included in your "right to life"?


We aren't discussing "newborn babies", Myintx. Pay attention. We're discussing pregnant girls and women, who need free access to safe legal abortion because otherwise they die. That you don't care about their deaths and continue to promote the life-destroying ideology that kills them, proves you either don't believe in "right to life", or think all girls and women are guilty lives who are therefore not included.

secularprolife.org said...

The misery of the unwanted pregnancy is going to make it to where the woman CAN'T do a lot of things she did before pregnant.

A woman who doesn't want kids wouldn't give up her life to suffer in misery for an unwanted ZEF and only a horrible person would try to force her into that misery.

secularprolife.org said...

So, basically we've now moved from it being 'fully constituted' and having no 'differences' from me, to it now being different from me in many ways, and not-'fully constituted' in that it lacks the ability to survive on it's own, lacks a digestive system, lacks a brain, and is only 'fully consituted in this 'essence'. I'm puzzled, what does 'essence' mean? Exactly in what way is a one-celled zygote 'fully constituted' OTHER than simply having human DNA?

secularprolife.org said...

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

What do you do with your 'time and money' to help 'other people' who have actually matured beyond the stage of a newborn?

**The machine cannot be cut off unless there is another machine to transfer the preemie to without killing him or her.**, So, basically since there is no guarantee, indeed, it is highly unlikely, that the parents of most preemies can afford such a machine, you've now drastically upped the sacred rights of the sacred fetus, so that instead of merely the mother 'merely coexisting' for a 'few short months' in order to be RESPONSIBLE, which you base on her having had sex, you now are enslaving doctors and several other people in the hospital to the tune of millions of dollars, on the basis of sad feelies (since the doctor and hospital staff were not the ones who had sex).



I'm genuinely puzzled here, myintx. When I asked you why you didn't save the life of precious frozen embryoes in fertility centers, your answer was that you didn't have to, because it was the 'parents responsibility'. So apparently, in that case, it's acceptable to you to let the precious embryoes die, if the parents won't take responsibility. Yet now, in this case, it's suddenly not acceptable to let the preemie die, if the parents won't 'take responsibility'. Instead, the doctors and other hospital staff are on the hook for all the 'responsibility'. Why do they have 'responsibility' for the precious unborn that they aren't the parents to, but you don't? Other than your wanting it to be that way?

secularprolife.org said...

Uh huh. Let it be noted, that in the REAL world, rather than the pro-life fairytale world, banning abortion has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS led to infanticide, of newborns that can actually feel real pain and fear.


Ann Morgan, being so heartless and mean and violent, and wanting to prevent real suffering of real people with real brains, rather than sobbing over the pretend suffering of brainless zefs, wants to keep abortion legal, as the least bad of several unpleasant real-world (vs fairytale world) options.


Mariel, not wanting to deal with the unpleasantries of the real world, wants to insist on a fairytale world where banning abortion will result in instantaneous mass celibacy on the part of anyone who doesn't want children, and angels and food and nannies descending from the sky in a golden light to care for and protect all children.


Of course, when this fails to happen, and you get Romania instead, this is the fault of the mean old Ann Morgans of the world.

secularprolife.org said...

**. Because we are human beings **

Umm, no. That's a circular answer. 'Human beings have rights because we are human beings' does NOT explain why human beings have rights.

Is there any actual, real, quality, other than just 'being human beings' that distinguishes human beings from other animals, such that we have rights but other animals do not?

If you feel that rights simply descend magically from the sky, for no explainable reason, just because we are 'human beings', can you photograph or otherwise offer proof of these magical rights coming out of the sky? Otherwise, if you just 'feel' that way, why can't other people 'feel' just as validly that Vampire Bats have rights, 'because they are Desmodus Rotundus' and round up helpless newborn human babies to feed them to Vampire Bats?

I don't really see why not, unless you can show some real, qualitative difference between 'humans' and 'vampire bats' that justifies preferentially giving rights to one, rather than the other.

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



See, now you're contradicting yourself in several ways. You just said in your first statement that the ONLY reason human beings have rights is because they are 'human beings', implying that there is no other quality, other than merely 'being a human being' that either exists in human beings or is necessary to exist in human beings, in order to give them rights.


The brain dead patient is a human being. It isn't a rat or a pig. If merely being a 'human being' in and of itself always grants a 'right to life', as you claim, then the brain dead patient must also have a 'right to life'. Yet you are now saying that you would KILL, that you would DISMEMBER (since it has to be cut up to take the kidney out) a helpless, innocent, human being, just for your own selfish convenience.


Why do you get to KILL innocent human beings, Myintx, but nobody else does? What makes you that much more special than everyone else?

secularprolife.org said...

And I see you're trying for the continuum fallacy again, as well as your usual handwaving away of the birth process.

secularprolife.org said...

And can you show me exactly where and how it would be legal to dispose of a born person who died of natural causes by throwing their body in the trash, and not reporting the matter to the police and having a death certificate filled out? Failing that, do you propose that all used tampons be turned into the police, tested, and paperwork filled out on them?

secularprolife.org said...

Just because someone does not look like a human being does not mean they are not human....people blown up in the World Trade Center did not look like human beings even after some of their little pieces were collected. Just because an embryo does not LOOK human does not mean it is not

secularprolife.org said...

So, what you're saying is that if I write my own dictionary, and claim that a cow is a 'human being', then the next time you eat a hamburger, I can force you to say, loud and proud 'I support eating that human being!'

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, Ladyblack, I disagree that a man must necessarily pay for child support. Unless the man and woman are married, I feel that if a woman has X number of months to get a 'do-over' when she is pregnant and get an abortion, a man should have the SAME number of months to decide whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the child. And HIS 'X number of months will start when he first becomes aware of the existence of the pregnancy/child. There will be no more nonsense of some millionaire football player having a one night stand with a woman who claims she is on birth control, but not only is not on birth control, but tested positive on her fertility strips earlier that day, then she vanishes from his life, only to re-appear 10 months later with a month old baby and an army of lawyers demanding $10,000 a month 'child support'.

secularprolife.org said...

AN unborn human is a human
-----
TRUE.
=====


being
-----
FALSE. It most certainly is not a "being", any more than a rabbit is a "being". Both have "being", but that is a different definition from qualifying as "a being", the way an extraterrestrial alien intelligent being would qualify as "a being".


Note that in the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authortative of them all, the word "person" has, among its definitions, "a rational being". Unborn humans and rabbits simply don't qualify!


And, again, if you want to claim that an unborn human qualifies as something more than just a mere animal organism, Let Us See The Objective Evidence For It --not your worthless unsupported (or, stupidly, Subjective) claims.
=====


and should have basic rights.

-----
Human beings should indeed have basic rights. But since "a human" is not, per the Objective Facts, automatically the same thing as "a human being", and the difference is measurable (for example, look up "rouge test" or the article "Mindful of Symbols"), it would be Sheer Stupid Prejudice to grant basic rights to, say, a hydatidiform mole.


OR to any unborn human.
=====


At one point in our history salves weren't considered full people.
-----
There have always been idiots who Deny Facts. In those days the idiots Denied Facts about actual people. In these days the idiots Deny Facts about mere animals organisms, claiming they are equal to people. Tsk, tsk!
======


LAWS had to be changed to consider them full people.
-----
YES, the idiots were overruled.
=====


Laws can be changed to recognize unborn children as people
-----
THAT WOULD BE PUTTING IDIOTS IN CHARGE OF THE LAW, exactly like when they originally Denied Facts about actual persons. Are you really that gung-ho about Stupidly Denying Facts? --including the Facts that children, lacking placentas, are different from unborn humans that include placentas?
=====


if that's what it takes to protect them.
------
THEY DON'T NEED PROTECTING. It occurs to me that I have yet to see one single reason why they should need protecting, any more than the average mosquito needs protecting. They ARE extremely easy to replace, after all!
=====


We already have abortion restrictions after viability, so an unborn child doesn't need to be a legal person to be protected.
------
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PERSONHOOD. It has more to do with the "interests of the State", which tends to think that the more taxpayers there are, the better.
=====


We should be able to have more laws protecting unborn children before viability as well.

------
NOT WITHOUT A VALID REASON. And you haven't provided one. Even the thing just mentioned about "more taxpayers" has a fundamental flaw: Too Much Of ANY Good Thing is ALWAYS A Bad Thing. No exceptions, ever.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually... what about HIS responsibility to use birth control???

secularprolife.org said...

Those were proved to be human. They had already been born and lived as humans.

secularprolife.org said...

The most recent post on this blog from Nick Reynosa, "Living in the future as a pro-lifer" envisages a happy (from the perspective of a male prolifer) future " a world without state-sanctioned abortion". He doesn't, of course, make any exemptions for life-saving abortion, so I presume he either doesn't know or doesn't care how many more girls and women will die preventable deaths without safe legal abortion in his happy, happy future.

I await with interest all the prolifers who'll post comments to Nick Reynosa pointing out to him that it's still necessary to have doctors trained to perform abortions and legally allowed to provide them, as otherwise life-saving abortions won't be possible.

I suspect the only objections will come from pro-choicers, though.

secularprolife.org said...

I would ask a woman if she were a woman or a mouse. And nobody has the ability to ruin your life without your permission. If a custodial parent is denying the other parent custody time (who likely has joint legal custody anyway, since that is the rule) the other parent takes them to court where they are told they better stop doing that, or they will lose physical custody. That's how it works.

secularprolife.org said...

Tell me something. Does your "right to life" actually mean you can't die? Does it actually mean no one can kill you, or if they do kill you, they are in some way held responsible? Think about that before you answer. I studied law in college, I don't have to "cobble things together" from law sites on the matter of torts and crimes. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. People are killed by other people all the time, in accidents, and nobody is held legally liable for the death. People are killed by police all the time and nobody is held legally liable for the death. Even when the killed person did nothing wrong. That's just two examples. So much for your "right to life" eh?

secularprolife.org said...

"Those were proved to be human. They had already been born and lived as humans." ... so in order to be considered human you have to be born according to your statement

secularprolife.org said...

Basically, yes.

secularprolife.org said...

Congratulations. you have just given human rights to a hydatidiform mole.

secularprolife.org said...

It doesn't work that way. Nobody is obligated to the use of their body for the benefit of another. I remember a case years ago where a couple conceived and bore a child in order to provide donor tissue for a child they already had who was dying. I have a BIG problem with that. What about the right of the younger sibling NOT to be used by the older sibling, even though she needed the tissue "for her very life."

secularprolife.org said...

It has human DNA and arises from a fertilized ovum. You give "human rights" to a zygote, you have just given human rights to a mole.

secularprolife.org said...

In all fairness, that isn't an abortion. That is a menstrual period.

secularprolife.org said...

That's how it works in your little dream world. Real life is not so generous to non-custodial parents.

secularprolife.org said...

There is a right to life. Your claim to have studied law in co.llege is belief by the fallacies and straw men you are spouting here

secularprolife.org said...

And what on earth does "marriage" have to do with anything? Married women are prohibited from deciding to abort?? And the "millionaire football player" can surely afford condoms or a vasectomy. I don't put the onus for preventing pregnancy on women's backs, and neither should you. A man CAN use his own contraception and should do so whenever he's not interested in procreating, A man CANNOT compel a woman to abort on threat of financial hardship. He has to take responsibility for his own actions. For him, his part in procreation ends when he ejaculates inside a woman. Her part is only beginning. Therefore his choice is not to ejaculate inside a woman. Notice I didn't say "not have sex."

secularprolife.org said...

a mole will NEVER have his or her own heartbeat, brain, cause his or her mother to go into labor within 9 months AND come out as a newborn baby - EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not at all impressed by all your implied threats, dumb plumpling.

secularprolife.org said...

Now we're back to the projection fallacy, So you do NOT believe that responsibility begins *at conception* because a mole is *conceived.* Thank you. I always knew you were full of it, but now we've made that public knowledge.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you saying that a newborn isn't a human being?

secularprolife.org said...

NO one is proposing that. We should have laws protecting unborn children - before and after viability.

secularprolife.org said...

If you own dictionary is as accepted and recognized as Merriam Webster and the Oxford dictionary... go start working on that - buh bye.

secularprolife.org said...

And by the way, neither will most zygotes.

secularprolife.org said...

It is measurably no more a "being" than any stage of unborn human. Didn't you see what I wrote above about "feral children"? Go study the subject, if you don't believe me! Pure biological growth and development, by itself, is inadequate to the task of converting "a human" into "a human being", a person instead of just-a-clever-animal. Only significant Nurture can do that conversion (and, by definition, feral children failed to receive that Nurturing, and newborn humans have not YET received enough Nurturing).


MEANWHILE, of course, there is still the Law, which doesn't care about the phrase "human being" at all. It is only interested in persons, whether they be legal constructs (like a corporation can qualify as a legal person), or biological like extraterrestrial aliens (do you know that the United Nations has a formal Office of Outer Space Affairs, in case we happen to meet some?).


The Law grants legal-person status to newborn humans, so it doesn't currently care what Science has to has about the subject. But that's entirely because the Law was written long long before Science had made any relevant discoveries about the subject.


DO NOTE THAT YOU ARE PLAYING A RISKY GAME. Nowadays, when writing new Laws, or even revising old ones, it is quite common for relevant Science Facts to be incorporated. So, since in this case, since the Facts are quite clear, that newborns don't qualify as "beings", your desire to change the Law could backfire, and end up legalizing infanticide. I almost think abortion opponents are so idiotic that they deserve such a change in the Law to happen! ALMOST... my personal preference is that we simply let sleeping dogs lie, and shouldn't seek to change the Law at all, regarding the assignment of personhood, legal or otherwise, to humans.

secularprolife.org said...

What she is "ranting" about is a Simple Natural Fact, that There Is No Such Thing In Nature As A Right To Life. The notion is a human construct invented for human purposes. We find it useful for getting-along with each other, but it is always wise to keep in mind that it IS a human invention, and not a Naturally-existing thing. She probably should have been more clear about the distinction, but she is not wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

LOL. It has become crystal clear exactly how much you MRA types love to whine, but rarely get around to action. Do you think I haven't been down this road before, Bluto? The first thing I would say is that a man (or woman) experiencing custodial issues has made a baby with an immature jerk. Shame on them. This isn't "misandry." I'm here to tell you I also made a baby with an immature jerk, and there is a heavy price to be paid when you do that. In my case, I had to do without for YEARS before the law finally caught up with deadbeat daddy and started doing what they should have done in the first place. Garnish his wages. I quickly learned that whining wasn't doing me any good, and set about doing the heavy lifting. I was married to this loser, and not only did I have to chase him around to get him to support his child, but I had to put up with his mental masturbation in the form of a paternity test. That's fine. I went, he paid for it. LOL. That's the price you pay when you make a baby with an immature jerk. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. So... be a squeaky wheel. Tell whatever buddies you have (or anyone) who is experiencing custody problems because they made a baby with someone who is not an adult, but an immature jerk to get off his/her butt, stop whining, and for once do what is best for his/her children. Fight for custody. It's in the best interest of your children to have a relationship with BOTH parents. But especially so for someone who makes a baby with an immature jerk who somehow ended up with custody in the first place. If you choose a mature partner in the first place, these things don't happen. Adults work these things out for themselves.

secularprolife.org said...

I have donated time and money to thrift shops, food banks and other organizations that help families. You don't have to be involved to have an opinion on an issue - though. If you want the government to pass laws protecting whales or certain types of birds, do you have to go to a beach to rescue whales or build bird houses to prove you care? Parents should care for their own iVF embryos, or put them up for adoption. Just like they cannot kill their newborn - even if he or she survives an abortion, they should not be able to kill their unborn child - at any stage of development.

secularprolife.org said...

You admitted here that you are pro life and choose to let babies die so that you can save non human fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that always bothered me. And again, forced birthers are inconsistent, as they seem to ONLY believe that life is so precious that bodily autonomy must be abrogated in the case of pregnancy. A dying 5yo does NOT apparently have the right to "a future like ours" if it even involves forcibly taking a drop of blood from a forced birther.

secularprolife.org said...

Derp.

secularprolife.org said...

Here's your problem...It's not illegal to pull the plug on a born person. We do it all the time. How much more so is that true when we are not talking about a machine, but a human being who has other interests than being a life-support system for a uterus? Aborting is similar to pulling the plug. A born person isn't given access to the bodies of others.

secularprolife.org said...

The simple truth is that nobody has "a right to life." You have a right to vote. You have a right to decide not to watch television. No one has the right to take from other bodies to sustain his own life. EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

'For me, I look to current laws.'
.....................
Abortion is legal.

'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.'

.....................
Born people do not have the right to drill into my veins and use my blood at will or without my consent. A fetus does not have that right either. I totally agree with you.


What is the penalty born people face if they do drill into my veins? I have the right to kill them to make them stop. Therefore, by your lights, abortion is perfectly moral and fair.

secularprolife.org said...

-Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype at birth, there is no proof the product of conception is human

This has bothered me before, what I think you're trying to say is that there are genetic diseases that if expressed, will lead to non-viable or short-lived offspring. These genetic diseases are often recessive traits, and this is what you mean by "correct phenotype".

"DNA of the genotype" makes no sense. Your chromosomes --ARE-- the genotype. We each carry 2 copies of DNA, one from mom and one from dad. Your genotype is the directly what's written in your 2 copies of DNA. Your outwardly expressed traits are taken from one set of these 2 copies, and that trait is your phenotype. Your eye color may be from the set you got from mom, while your height may be from your dad.

Also, I've never heard the term "correct phenotype". Quite frankly its pretty offensive. I think what you mean to say is a "viable phenotype". Otherwise, you'll be open to charges of "what eye color is the 'correct' phenotype?" Is down syndrome the "wrong phenotype?" I know you mean "correct" in the sense that it produces normal, viable organism, but it can be taken to be quite offensive and sounds vaguely discriminatory.

- 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.

Hmm, this just sounds wrong. It seems like you're trying to personify DNA. I believe (I could be wrong) but there are many different version of a given gene, say v. A, B, C, D.
There is relative A might be the most dominant, and if you have a copy of A, the A phenotype will be expressed. If you have a B and C, B will be the phenotype, but if you have a B and D, the D might be relatively more dominant than version B, but less dominant than version A. I don't think we know the relative dominance of ALL genes in the human genome, but if we knew, and we were given your full chromosomes, I think we in fact could predict what your phenotype would be.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-variety-of-genes-in-the-gene-6526291

secularprolife.org said...

Hello Liam

Thank you for the explanation. Your experience and credentials are really impressive, and thanks for the encouragement.

I am aware of the term "Natural Science" being used. In fact, your writing has a feel of classical works like Newton's Principia, Natural Philosophy from the Enlightenment. My impression is that these classical scientists were also philosophers, and often extended their ideas from Natural Science into the realm of everyday life and argued for principles behind proper social interactions. It's in this sort of translation that I feel uncomfortable. Natural Order and orderly rules may exist for interactions between point masses, but for social rules and moral questions, "Natural Order" and "Natural Law" has been used to justify things like discrimination against LGBT - because they can't reproduce, they cannot form "Natural" families, and therefore are endangering children and should be denied legal rights, because they go against "Natural Law".

Interesting about your science not taking a lifetime to prove false. In what I do, we are trying to understand an extremely complicated machine - the brain. Data is extremely sparse, sampling anywhere from 1~100 neurons out of billions that are interacting in a complex web. We are trying to characterize computation even though we are severely undersampled, and the current approach is to build statistical models. These models replace what might be known and nearly deterministic dynamics of neurons with noise. By studying the statistical properties of noise that gives models that at least are able to explain our undersampled data, we can put constraints on what kind of structures and connectivity the underlying brain has. In this sense, really "all our models are wrong, but some are useful." The useful ones give us a bootstrap for further investigation, and in this sense I believe it will take years until it can be fully determined whether neuroscientists have been going down the correct path.

Getting back to abortion, the problem with "Natural Order" kinds of things is that its plain to see that humans are not always rational, and that society is not always fair. This is why I say that the case against abortion would be a lot more convincing if we lived in a perfect world. The fact is that we don't, and outlawing abortion has been shown to lead to a host of other undesirable things - things like infanticide. Also, when social conditions improve, even with legal abortions, abortion rates drop. Which shows that women will not have abortions for trivial reasons. In this way, I think it is better to leave this decision up to the person who must give birth and actually deal with raising a child in difficult circumstances. I don't think a one-size-fits-all solution of saying "its evil" is too useful or realistic.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no such thing as a 'healthy' pregnancy, as pregnancy is not a state of wellness, and pregnancy is not the default state of women.


Indeed, many things in life do have risks, only we do not FORCE people to undergo those risks, even if it is to save someone's life. You can't even be forced to give a drop of blood to save a dying person.

secularprolife.org said...

Marriage has a lot to do with it. When the married couple brings home the child, that indicates that BOTH parents have voluntarily undertaken the obligations of parenting. That's an obligation that the non-custodial parent can be held to should the couple divorce. In the case of Ann's one night stand, there is no indication the football player has voluntarily undertaken the obligations of parenting. Thus, making him pay child support based on her unilateral decision is unjust, at least if we are agreed that parenthood is something that can only be undertaken voluntarily. To say otherwise undercuts one of the main arguments for abortion rights. See, for example, how Beckwith uses child support in his argument at http://www.uffl.org/vol16/beckwith06.pdf.

What you are in effect doing, is using the same responsibility argument against men that abortion opponents use against pregnant women. One doesn't need to be an MRA to notice and comment on such a double standard.

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.



Or not develop.

secularprolife.org said...

True, but when you consider many abortion opponents call the Pill or IUDs and abortifacient because they (supposedly) keep the blastocyst from implanting, a reminder that this is something nature itself does all the time is worth pointing out.

secularprolife.org said...

I remember a similar case. Did the case you're referring to involve a married couple with the man having his vasectomy reversed in order to make it possible to conceive?

secularprolife.org said...

I see that you have ignored the reality of pregnancy for men and for women. You have also assumed that married men cannot be unhappy about a wife's pregnancy. Guess what? Married or not, he can't refuse to pay support, As for the football player, I'm sorry. Some people are evil. Any man who takes a woman at her word that she can't get pregnant is an idiot. So is any woman who takes a man's word that he's sterile. They are BOTH responsible for preventing pregnancy. There are great reasons why men don't get the final say in a pregnancy, They don't get pregnant! They aren't subjected to it's side effects.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't know about a vasectomy. But the couple conceived a child for the sole purpose of being an unconsenting tissue donor. That opens too many ugly ethical doors.

secularprolife.org said...

Certainly. And in all cases, a menstrual period is the result.

secularprolife.org said...

Why should that matter? After all, as we point out to abortion opponents, birth control sometimes fails.

secularprolife.org said...

I think Purple, based on many of the comments on this very board, it's safe to say there is a lot of scientific ignorance on both sides. Go through this thread and count every time a pro-choicer here says the unborn is not a human being. The conflation of personhood with human being might be part of it, but it also reeks of a scientific ignorance.

Now, you bring up a good point about pro-life politicians. I have to say, that very trend is the reason why I don't think i have EVER voted for a pro-life politician. It's not that I don't believe in the cause - I do - I think the world and our country would be more just, happy and equitable if abortion were reduced and in most cases, unavailable. It's just that I see the potential harm they have through their environmental, social and economic policies over the entire population as more detrimental than the potential benefit of this one issue of abortion.

I believe for the most part is specifically because this IS a wedge issue. I think the worst mistake the pro-life movement ever did was in marrying the question on abortion to one of far right, socially conservative, anti-intellectual religious political ideologies. It wasn't always like this of course; feminist foremothers were largely pro-life. But somewhere after RvW political strategists decided to co-opt two large bodies of the populace between themselves. This is why I like SPL. It's trying to divorce the idea that the pro-choice/pro-life question has to fall along traditional political cults. It doesn't. It shouldn't.

What I am saying, and I think it is obvious by this very thread, is that the two sides have become, by and large, tribalistic, rather than intellectually honest.

I don't think the pro-lifers you find at least on SPL deny there is a huge social element to the debate. And most of us here are very educated (I do have my masters, not that it matters, as it is in Environmental science). I think many of us see the question of the rights of the unborn as intrinsically important to the larger social dialogue, in the sense that a society that is so willing to discard the unborn fuels a general antipathy to those who are disabled or too young to interact with society. There is also the larger debate of how much should "societal goods" trample on the rights of the individual. I'm far from a libertarian, but even I rarely say death is an appropriate response to an individual's negative impact on society. Sure, Hitler and whatnot, but those are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule.

secularprolife.org said...

Do moles go through a lifecycle that leads to having a heartbeat, a brain and causing it's mother to go into labor? no.

secularprolife.org said...

Women can GET HELP if they are feeling 'miserable'. Doctors can help. That is if the woman is willing to put in the effort. What kind of woman wouldn't TRY HER HARDEST to do that for her own unborn son or daughter - What kind of woman?

secularprolife.org said...

Doctors don't remove healthy uteri for contraceptive purposes. Why would they, when a tubal slash & burn will readily suffice?

secularprolife.org said...

RU-486 is used for abortion. The morning after pill is Plan B, which prohibits ovulation. If you're already pregnant when you take Plan B, you're going to stay pregnant as, obviously, you've 'already' ovulated.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Russell

Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid I still don't really understand or agree with your understanding of DNA replication or gene expression. I guess what I am trying to say is that have you read papers written by scientists in the field? Have you ever come across usage like "DNA of the genotype" or "correct phenotype" in describing what you're trying to say?

>> I have defined the terms "correct phenotype" several times to mean any life that can exist as a human after birth.

"correct" has a rather strong connotation (as in "right" or "wrong" in some moral or logical sense), and is not really descriptive of what you mean to say. There are already words like "viable" that are accepted jargon in biology.



Also, "DNA of genotype" - have you ever run this by any biologist - I'm assuming you are not a professional scientist.


Practicing scientists are VERY careful with the kinds of words they use, and usually use words that have a very limited scope in meaning - specifically so people do not misunderstand you. I really think you should carefully consider this if you intend to write about science at all.

secularprolife.org said...

And some women get help by having an abortion. You do not get to decide how she gets help.
A woman who does not want to be pregnant would not give up her life for the ZEF. I know I sure wouldn't. I deserve better than that kind of misery and suffering.

secularprolife.org said...

Once AGAIN, myintx, you're backpedaling so fast I'm surprised you haven't traveled back in time. YOU SAID "a parent" should be responsible *from conception.* So I guess you don't really believe that after all. I have seen photos of aborted molar pregnancies that contained what is clearly identifiable as a fetus. And from the level of development I could see, there would have to be a heartbeat. The fetus may or may not be deformed, but probably would be in most cases. This happens when the cells that were supposed to form the placenta instead develop into a molar mass. This is known as a 'partial mole' and it's invasive and life-threatening, regardless of the fact that there is a fetus present. The fetus has no chance. The only treatment is abortion. And the doctor must use extra care to make sure all pregnancy tissue is removed. Any bit left behind is potentially cancerous.

secularprolife.org said...

It matters.

secularprolife.org said...

Yours is a welcome and rational comment - for which I thank you. Some people abuse religion and concepts like Natural Law, in a wrongful way, to pursue an agenda inimical to the LGBT community. If we be honest, Gays, Lesbians and Transexuals as well as Asexuals (and others) all come about from the operation of Nature - not in its most usual way but, nonetheless, in a Natural way. It is a challenge to us all to see Nature as underlying moral or ethical principles and try to embrace all our brothers and sisters. There are those whose sexuality is damaging to their victims and unacceptable to our society at large and this poses a more serious challenge - perhaps to be seen in the fact that sexuality, in every case, needs to be reined in - reins held more tightly in some cases than in others, for the common good - with compassion needing very tough love at times.
Far be it from me to say that any woman, who has had an abortion, has done evil. We ought not judge each other, in a moral or ethical sense. Some women will truly believe that the early child is part of her and some are said to take abortion pills anyway, with gay abandon. There are also the 'women hurt by abortion' to whom our hearts go out. There is nowadays the possibility of transferring a conception from one woman to another, who wants this. I should very much like to see registers of aspirant mothers drawn up, so they may benefit from such transfers and save the the woman in crisis prenancy from misery. However, as you say, people are not always rational and you and I can only try our best to make things better, as we see fit. Thanks again for your kind and understanding comment, which I value..

secularprolife.org said...

Hi KB

I always appreciate your input. Your contribution to SPL was the reason I began following SPL. I'm glad to hear that you are not a single issue voter, but I've learned that the other pro-life organizations referred to in another SPL entry are advocating supporting pro-life candidates whatever their other positions may be, and I don't think I have to tell you that there are almost NO pro-life candidates that can be considered to be remotely progressive.

And I agree, I cringe at some of the science I've seen pro-choicers use, and I have on some occasions tried to correct erroneous things I've seen. I have seen some falsehoods used by SPL in pamphlets, specifically brain waves at 6 wks, which I'm pretty damn certain is impossible from a data collection point of view and from physiological reasons as well. Probably citing an old paper, which I'm sure in hindsight is erroneous.

I agree the world would be a better place if abortions were rarer, but I think the causal link is in reverse. I don't think the unavailability of abortion makes society a better place. I think a better society will naturally see a decrease in abortions because such a society can offer women better choices. I think this is born out by sociological data. Japan and the US have seen a decrease in abortion even though it is legal (or practically), and at least for Japan, infanticide was common pre-abortion.

As for feminist foremothers, I'd say that is a good point. However, you must also admit that their access to data about abortions and its effects on society, was far more limited than what we now have access to. Whether you agree with my assessment of how abortion affects society, we now have the means to actually study its effects, something which our feminist foremothers (I said our, and I'm a guy!) really couldn't do. If the world were perfect, the case against abortion would be much stronger, because hey, it IS killing. We might also look only at this aspect if we did not have the analytical tools to look at sociological data on the effects of abortion - we'd be constrained to see only one side of abortion. But modern sociologists HAVE looked at abortion, and many, including my favorite, Steven Levitt, have made cases for abortion availability having positive social effects.

I agree that the pro-life cause is a separate issue from the package deal presented by the Religious Right, and I do think its a shame. I think it is actually an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly. Whatever the case, you can't deny there is a strong correlation with anti-LGBT, anti-science and misogynistic views with many pro-lifers. Even though many pro-lifers on SPL are reasonable, there are quite a few pro-lifers commenting here who don't believe in science, who believe that women are privileged and spoiled (I'm talking to one right now on "Living Life as a Pro-lifer right now") etc. I've yet to meet a pro-choicers espousing such garbage on these boards. Why won't the pro-lifers who are sick of their cause being lumped together with such reprehensible views say something to these people? Its only hurting your cause in the eyes of pro-choicers when we see supposedly progressive pro-lifers not call out such views in their ranks.

secularprolife.org said...

Ladyblack, what marriage has to do with it is that I consider marriage on the part of a man to be a contract to take care of any resultant children from that marriage.

As for the rest of what you said:

**A man CAN use his own contraception and should do so whenever he's not interested in procreating**

**He has to take responsibility for his own actions**

**Therefore his choice is not to ejaculate inside a woman.**



No, no, sorry, no. You are trying to hold a man to the same standard of artificially imposed 'responsibility' to which myintx wants to hold women, to justify banning abortion. Other than changing the gender, what you just said is exactly the same sorts of things that myintx likes to say:


"A woman can use contraception, and should do so whenever she's not interested in getting pregnant."


"She has to take responsibility for her own actions."


"Therefore her choice is not to let a man ejaculate inside her."


I don't believe in a legal double standard where one gender is required to be 'responsible' but the other is not. Since I don't believe women should be prohibitted from getting abortions, my proposal is about the best way I can make things equal for the man.

secularprolife.org said...

**Just like they cannot kill their newborn - even if he or she survives an abortion, they should not be able to kill their unborn child - at any stage of development.**


But this gets handwaved away when you need a kidney. Why do you get to KILL innocent HUMAN BEINGS just because you don't want to co-exist with a dialysis machine? Why do you get to decide that innocent human beings should be killed, but nobody else does? Why are you so special?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, and I notice you've deliberately avoided answering my question as to why doctors and hospital staff are to be enslaved and held 'responsible' for keeping preemies alive, if the parents run out, but myintx is somehow a special snowflake who can't be enslaved and held 'responsible' for keeping a frozen embryo alive, for a 'few short months'.


What exactly makes you so special, myintx? Why are you the ONLY person on the planet, who gets to KILL innocent human beings, and who is exempt from being enslaved and held 'responsible' for keeping the precious embryo and fetus alive, if the parents won't?

secularprolife.org said...

**They believe all innocent human beings have the SAME value.**


Except of course, for you, as you would KILL an innocent man who was the victim of an evil science experiment, because he was violating the sanctity of your genitals, rather than coexist for '9 short minutes'. Not to mention, that you would ALSO kill an 'innocent human being' by dismemberment, because you wanted to steal their kidney.


Are you a fetus, myintx? Is that why you have a sacred right to other people's organs, like their kidneys, so that you can KILL them to get it? Is that what makes you special?

secularprolife.org said...

**A dying 5yo does NOT apparently have the right to "a future like ours" if it even involves forcibly taking a drop of blood from a forced birther.**


Except of course if the 5 year old is named 'myintx' as she admits that she would KILL an 'innocent human being who has done nothing wrong' so that she could have their kidney for herself.

secularprolife.org said...

She also admitted she would kill an innocent human being so she could have it's kidney, if she needed one.

secularprolife.org said...

But apparently they should be killed if they are inconvenient, since if you need a kidney, it's inconvenient to let an innocent human being live and keep it's kidney, rather than you getting it.

secularprolife.org said...

** No one is killed. Isn't that what you want?**


Except, apparently, for innocent victims of evil scientific experiments, if they violate the sanctity of your precious genitals, or innocent victims of motorcycle accidents, if you want to DISMEMBER them, to steal their organs for yourself.


Why do you want to KILL innocent human beings, myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

Women can GET HELP if they are feeling 'miserable' about being on a dialysis machine. Psychiatrists can help. That is, if the woman is willing to put in the effort. What kind of woman wouldn't TRY HER HARDEST to do that for an innocent victim of a motorcycle accident - What kind of woman?

secularprolife.org said...

changing the goalpost. You said that all that was necessary for rights was to be a 'human being' and NO OTHER QUALITIES. Now you're claiming that OTHER QUALITIES are necessary.


Which is it? Do human beings have rights because they are human beings, or are other qualities necessary? Why should a heartbeat or a brain be necessary if just being a 'human being' makes rights fall out of the sky?

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, no, no, no. You specifically said that being a 'human being' was all that was necessary for rights, and no other qualities. That means a heart and brain aren't necessary for rights, and neither is the potential for a heart or brain.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you saying that an accident victim isn't a human being?

secularprolife.org said...

So, you're claiming that Turdus Migratorius and Erithacus Rubela can validly be considered the same species, because the all-sacred dictionary says they are both a 'robin'?

secularprolife.org said...

Okay... it's widely recognized that a child up to about 12 years of age is defined in the all-sacred dictionary (which everyone accepts and recognizes) as a 'kid'. A young goat is ALSO defined by the same all-sacred dictionary as a 'kid'.


So... since it's perfectly acceptable for me to buy a young goat, have it slaughtered, roast it for dinner, and the law is just fine with that, since you claim that the all-sacred dictionary defines reality, then can we assume that a human child up to 12 years of age is the same thing as a young goat, and that I should legally be able to slaughter a human child, roast it, and have it for supper? Because the dictionary says a human child is a 'kid' and so is a young goat! It's a valid term, so they're the same thing! Right?

secularprolife.org said...

Men do not get the say in pregnancy, true enough. He doesn't own the woman's body. He has no say in whether she gets an abortion or not. But he does own his own money. A need does not create a right. The 'need' of the unborn child does not create a right to the womb of the mother, and the 'need' of either a born or unborn child does not create a right to the time, money or anything else of EITHER parent.

secularprolife.org said...

Yet you would KILL and DISMEMBER human beings who have done nothing wrong, to steal their kidneys, just for your own convenience.

secularprolife.org said...

No, sorry, a 'right to life' is a right not to be unjustly killed. It does not give you a right to anything belonging to anyone else, simply because you 'need' it for your 'very life'.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx, go away and stop killing innocent victims of evil science experiments and motorcycle accidents.

secularprolife.org said...

Purple, somehow I get the impression that you are being extremely sarcastic with Liam...

secularprolife.org said...

DOESN'T MATTER, whenever abortion opponents focus on the phrase "human life" --a hydatidiform mole may not be an organism, but it is certainly both human and alive. So, any idiot who claims that "every human life deserves rights" is including hydatidiform moles, plus the brain-dead on life-support, and even cuticle clippings at a manicure parlor.

secularprolife.org said...

I SORT-OF SAID THAT. RU-486 acts to abort a blastocyst, and it does so by either preventing womb-implantation, or by making it detach from the womb. It only depends on how many "mornings after" went by before the pill is taken.

secularprolife.org said...

Does this mean you'd let him off the hook if he used contraception and it failed?

secularprolife.org said...

This was when? Late nineties? Early oughts? In the case I'm thinking of, the couple went through the trouble hoping that the cord blood (Is this the right term?) could be used to save the child they had. It still raises ethical issues, but there may be a distinction that makes a difference in the case I read of.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I don't ignore the reality of pregnancy for men and women, and in fact, you should know better than that by now. I've said dozens of times in these forums that the risks associated with pregnancy make it solely the woman's decision whether to gestate. Nothing--I repeat, nothing--I've said about child support changes that. And I'm also quite happy to point out the differences between abortion and child support to those who seriously want to contend they are the same thing. I am not drawing any false equivalencies here.

Yes, the football player is an idiot for accepting the woman's word--especially given we are talking about a one-night stand. And yes, both are responsible for preventing an unwanted pregnancy. Neither of these things changes the fact that she has an out he does not, though.

secularprolife.org said...

"Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid I still don't really understand or agree with your understanding of DNA replication or gene expression."

I can see you don't understand. Whether you agree or not depends on whether you understand. If you understood, you would agree.


"I guess what I am trying to say is that have you read papers written by scientists in the field?"

Yes, I have read hundreds of papers and taken courses in microbiology, embryology and zoology. I also hold three U.S. Patents and have run a successful business for over 30 years.



" Have you ever come across usage like "DNA of the genotype" or "correct phenotype" in describing what you're trying to say?"

No, and when I describe a new invention I must also use new and different language. The very nature of new ideas and discovery is that they must be described in unique ways. Some people can't handle that and I do not depend on them for support. I depend on people that are willing to take the time to understand new ideas. Those people are few and far between when an idea is first developed. Over time those that lag behind catch up.

{>> I have defined the terms "correct phenotype" several times to mean any life that can exist as a human after birth.

"correct" has a rather strong connotation (as in "right" or "wrong" in some moral or logical sense), and is not really descriptive of what you mean to say. There are already words like "viable" that are accepted jargon in biology.}

You really need to get over my word usage and focus on the laws that are revealed. The word "viable" is not the correct word to describe the laws that control when life is first proved to be human. Viability is commonly used in relation to a number of weeks gestation when it is "assumed" that the fetus can live. Having the "correct DNA expression" does depend on an arbitrary time scale, it depends on the correct "expression" of the DNA , which is a process, not a time dependent guess of when life can be possible.

"Also, "DNA of genotype" - have you ever run this by any biologist - I'm assuming you are not a professional scientist."

I have debated PHD's with regard to the facts I reveal. And none would ever use the words "DNA of the genotype" because it defines a new invention/discovery in science of which they are unaware. You may never get used to reading that combination and that is "OK."


"kinds of words they use, and usually use words that have a very limited scope in meaning - specifically so people do not misunderstand you. I really think you should carefully consider this if you intend to write about science at all."

When an inventor uses words of art they cannot help but be misunderstood. That is part of the business of inventing or discovery. If the words and ideas were known, there would be no invention or discovery. I don't expect you to fall all over yourself in agreement with me. I could care less. I am a 65 year old white male with a desire to give you a gift. If you don't accept the gift then someone else will.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is not a disease.


Once AGAIN, organ or blood donation is NOT comparable to pregnancy and abortion because not donating your blood is NOT the same as intentionally poisoning, dismembering or killing a human being. NOT. AT. ALL. Yet, pro-aborts still keep trolling that lame comparison out there...


Post viability abortion laws tell a woman she has to remain pregnant, unless her health is TRULY at risk (no matter what sad feelies of 'forcing' she has). The state is protecting the unborn child. The state should have the right to protect the unborn child before viabiity too.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, we get it, you are selfish.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope.

secularprolife.org said...

Donate a kidney and prove us wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

My tax dollars go to health organizations that hand out contraception.. I've never heard of them running out.

secularprolife.org said...

Your unborn child deserved better - he or she deserved someone who would TRY.

secularprolife.org said...

Comparing an unborn child that has done NOTHING wrong to a rape? really? how low can you sink to try to justify killing?


No one should have a 'right' to kill another human being that has done nothing wrong simply because he or she is unwanted or inconvenient. It's selfish and wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not killing anyone if I don't donate a kidney. Poisoning someone to death and stabbing someone in the neck is killing.... Two things that sometimes happen during an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Huh? what kinds of meds are you on?


You're the one who supports killing unborn children that have done nothing wrong. Have you done your daily mantra yet? Looked at a 4D ultrasound of an unborn child at 16 weeks and said "I support someone killing that tiny human being for any reason" - did you say it loud and proud?

secularprolife.org said...

A mole is not a HUMAN BEING.


The lengths and verbal manipulations pro-aborts go to in order to justify selfishly killing an unborn child is truly sickening.

secularprolife.org said...

NOR IS AN UNBORN HUMAN ANIMAL ORGANISM A "BEING", EITHER, any more than a rabbit is a "being". The lengths to which abortion opponents go to Deny Facts and Promote Stupid Prejudice and Hypocrisy is truly sickening.

secularprolife.org said...

That is b s. Many pro-lifers DO CARE about born children. They donate time and money to places that help families, not just pregnant women.


If you would vote for the government to spend more money to save whales does that mean you have to be out on the beach trying to save the whales yourself before you can have an opinion on saving the whales? There is no law saying you have to be actively involved to have an opinion on an issue.


If someone is focusing on child brides in India, are you going to say - what about gendercide, dowry murders, abortion, etc? Not everyone can focus on every issue. I'm betting abortion kills many more human beings than dowry murders - that may be whey it has more focus placed on it by many. Plus, in the US, we tend to focus on issues relevant in this country.

secularprolife.org said...

SO a newborn isn't a human being either?

secularprolife.org said...

Not donating a kidney it NOT the same thing as intentionally killing another human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Lame excuse to hide your selfishness

secularprolife.org said...

OK, I understand. So if I understand you right, your ideas are not necessarily accepted by the current scientific establishment because they are new ideas. You are using "correct phenotype" because this is a concept that is new and unique and is not encompassed by the concept of viable, and you have discovered something new about DNA and genetics of conception that warrants "DNA of genotype". Now that I know where you are coming from, I think I understand how your words should be interpreted. Thanks, appreciate it the explanation!

secularprolife.org said...

No the ZEF did not deserve anything at all. It had no right to life and no right to my body.

secularprolife.org said...

That is b s. Many pro-lifers DO CARE about born children. They donate
time and money to places that help families, not just pregnant women.


There are over a hundred thousand children in the fostering system in the US who need new families.

How many prolifers out there striving to have those born children adopted, rather than pushing to have more unwanted babies born as more attractive options for adoption?

If you would vote for the government to spend more money to save whales
does that mean you have to be out on the beach trying to save the whales
yourself before you can have an opinion on saving the whales?


If you claim you want the government to save the whales, yet every chance you get you vote for politicians who have a track record of whale-killing, doesn't that strongly imply you really don't care about saving the whales? Prolife politicians are reliably anti-family and anti-welfare...

If someone is focusing on child brides in India, are you going to say - what about gendercide, dowry murders, abortion, etc?

Prolifers don't just focus on sex-selective abortion. They pretend all of the other ways in which girls and women are killed in India don't exist. When did you ever hear a prolifer arguing that child brides should have free access to safe legal abortion to save their lives?

secularprolife.org said...

That's biology. His out is not to ejaculate inside a vagina.

secularprolife.org said...

There's no "out" for anyone once a child is born.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, it does create a right to the money of BOTH parents. Unless they decide to relinquish the child for adoption.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I'm NOT trying to argue the same thing as myintx. Biology is not equal for the man. Myintx wants to make women responsible for embryos. I don't want to make anyone responsible for embryos. Both parents are responsible for a born child. Otherwise the taxpayers end up being responsible for the born child. Birth really does make a difference.

secularprolife.org said...

I would rather my taxes go for that than contributing to spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined.

secularprolife.org said...

Then I repeat, why should it matter whether he used contraception?

secularprolife.org said...

And an abortion opponent would say her out is the same.

secularprolife.org said...

All innocent human beings deserve a right to life. You and your partner created that new human being that was inside of you - you had a responsibility to CARE for your unborn son or daughter. You had a responsibility do everything you could to take care of him or her. NO one should have the right to kill their own unborn son or daughter.

secularprolife.org said...

nope... It's a lame attempt at a comparison by the pro-abort community to justify killing innocent human beings though.


p.s. thanks for clicking on Secular Pro Life links.... I'm sure increasing hits to their web site is a good thing... RHRC must be getting less hits on their site cause you spend more time over here now. lol

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion =/= child support.

secularprolife.org said...

Never said it did.

secularprolife.org said...

The ZEF does not have a right to anything. It is not even self aware or conscious of anything yet.



I have no responsibility to care for the unwanted ZEF. I did not have any responsibility toward the unwanted ZEF that was there when I had an abortion. The only responsibility I had was to make sure I had it early enough in the pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Look Timothy, I see what you're trying to say. But a woman has several options that don't involve collecting child support, and you're only talking about one. What's to keep a man from arguing that she could have relinquished the child for adoption, or dropped it off at the hospital anonymously, that he doesn't want to be a father, never wanted to be a father, and shouldn't have to pay support? The truth is you want to give him an "out" because she didn't get an abortion, while ignoring the other "outs" available to both of them. Because it's not in the best interest of tax payers OR children, I would rather we didn't open any of those doors. They're all equally valid, but would you want to pressure anyone to do any of those things, including abortion? Life is sometimes unfair. But if you act smart, it's unfair much less of the time. The football player wasn't smart. I have been not so smart earlier in life, either. There's a heavy price to pay when you aren't smart ;)

secularprolife.org said...

As I pointed out to another poster, 'life saving' or 'medically necessary abortion is a misconception. Abortions by intent are only meant to produce dead offspring. If a woman is having a problem pregnancy or delivery, doctors may need to separate the fetus/child/offspring earlier than expected but the intent is not to kill either, but to use every effort to save both their lives. This is a specific procedure know as "preterm parturition".

Obvious there are situations where the outcome will result in the death of one, the other, or both but unfortunately that is just how the world works. Perhaps with more medical advances this won't ever happen someday.

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

secularprolife.org said...

It's' your side that comes up with lame excuses to kill unborn children.

secularprolife.org said...

No, life isn't fair--but the law should be. Now, mind you, there may well be good reasons the biological father should be strictly liable for child support for a kid he never wanted. This is why I make the distinction between a married couple and a one-night stand. A different principle applies, and this is why I have no patience for MRAs who are trying to claim special rights for themselves. In the case of the one-night stand, however stupid the man may have been, it is hard to conceive of him as anything other than a mere sperm donor.

In any case, using the *same* arguments we wouldn't put up with when used by abortion opponents isn't going to cut it. Again, one does not need to be an MRA or an abortion opponent to see the double standard at play when those arguments are made.

secularprolife.org said...

To that, I would say... one-night stands are stupidity. There's a stiff price to be paid for stupidity. And not everyone wants to get married to have a child.

secularprolife.org said...

As I pointed out to another poster, 'life saving' or 'medically necessary abortion is a misconception.


You can point out whatever ignorant nonsense you like: but that won't make it true.


It should be clear to anyone who has bothered to learn anything about fetal development that when a pregnancy must be terminated in the period prior to 24 weeks, there is no point trying to preserve the life of the fetus. There is a window between 24-28 weeks when it is arguable that the fetus has an even chance of surviving, and after 28 weeks, it is reasonable for all involved to discuss whether it would be sensible to terminate the pregnancy by early delivery rather than by abortion.


But prolifers like to live in a little rainbow-decorated universe where nothing goes wrong ever.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, and "Preterm Parturition" is a medical term for when a premature baby is born before 37 weeks gestation. It is not a recommended procedure: it's a health hazard to be prevented.

secularprolife.org said...

I would agree that having a one-night stand without using a barrier method of protection is stupid--not only because of the risk of pregnancy but also because of the risks of STDs. It may be also be stupid for a particular person to have one.

Outside those caveats, whether having a one-night stand is stupid is something I consider not my call.


I also agree with you that not everyone wants to get married to have a child. (I am going with your exact wording here, but did you mean to say that not everyone who gets married wants to have a child?). That is certainly their option. What I'm saying they don't get to do is hold others liable for a unilateral decision they made.

secularprolife.org said...

I never denied abortion was legal. You stating that does not add anything.In fact the whole point of my post was to explain why I feel the laws should be changed to extent equal protection to all human beings. That is the whole point of the pro life movement.

Parents/guardians are legally responsible to care for children in their custody. Otherwise they may be persecuted for child neglect or other legal violations, such as child endangerment.

When you create a child-which you should know can certainly happen when you engage in a procreative act (sorry but that's nature) they are automatically in your custody. Obviously, due to the nature of pregnancy and fetal development you cannot relinquish them maybe when you'd necessarily l like to. But again that's just how nature works, that's how pregnancy and human procreation works. You may still however relinquish them just like anyone else,, just it has to be after they are born.

It seem another big thing pro choice and pro life people are at odds with is the idea of consent. It seem to me, and many others, that if you engage in something knowing the risks upfront you are accepting those risks.

Birth control (I don't agree with all forms but that's a nother discussion) can help to lengthen the time you are not pregant while being sexually active) but it isn't perfect. You use them at your own risk also. Life has risks. We all don't like it but it's the reality.

Human beings are not inanimate objects. They are not sweaters you can return because you realize you didn't like the color, or you accidentally bought the wrong size. If we continue to allow woman to get rid of their children in utero, how can we have laws that protect born children? Born children take time, energy, and resources, to care for also.

My view, and I venture many other pro lifers would agree- is that due to the seriousness of life, how most of us only get one (I'm accounting for people who have been resuscitation ) you should not be allowed to withdraw consent after you have alreay brought a human being into existance.

That said, I knowledge there are situations where consent was not given and that we must look at that situation on it's own merits. The abortion issue is certainly complex and the world isn't perfect.

I would ask then that my posts be taken as my general views and when I mention consent I am referring to situations including exactly that. I have discussed rape situations in other places, I do not shy away from these as they certainly happen and have to be addressed. But I'd prefer to keep any discussions I engage in on this 'page' more focused on consensual sex since rape is almost it's own topic.

I just don't want to get off on a separate discussion that takes focus away from the original discussion Nate posed. I'm human, so it's happened, but I feel it's something I need to personally work on.

secularprolife.org said...

Parents/guardians are legally responsible to care for children in their custody.

............
Incorrect. A newborn or infant does not even have to be taken home from the hospital. It can be abandoned at any police station or fire station with no questions asked.
I stopped reading right there. If you do not know anything about the law, and evidently you know very little, no point in my reading further. You are a poseur and the truth is not in you.

secularprolife.org said...

I never denied abortion was legal. You stating that does not add anything.In fact the whole point of my post was to explain why I feel the laws should be changed to extent equal protection to all human beings. That is the whole point of the pro life movement.
----
I think that between you and me, I have displayed far more interest in changing laws to reflect equal protection to all human beings. Indeed, in one of my previous responses to you, I pointed out a number of ways prohibiting abortion is *inconsistent* with already law. The fact you haven't responded has not gone unnoticed; indeed, the silence speaks volumes.
====

Parents/guardians are legally responsible to care for children in their custody. Otherwise they may be persecuted for child neglect or other legal violations, such as child endangerment.
----
Parents/guardians are not legally required to give up their body parts to the children in their custody. No one has been prosecuted for refusing to give their body parts to their children.
====

When you create a child-which you should know can certainly happen when you engage in a procreative act (sorry but that's nature) they are automatically in your custody. Obviously, due to the nature of pregnancy and fetal development you cannot relinquish them maybe when you'd necessarily l like to. But again that's just how nature works, that's how pregnancy and human procreation works. You may still however relinquish them just like anyone else,, just it has to be after they are born.
----
And why should "nature" dictate how human beings are to act?
====

It seem another big thing pro choice and pro life people are at odds with is the idea of consent.
----
Do you want to talk about consent? Do you *really* want to talk about consent? I'm quite happy to talk about the idea of consent. So, yes, let's talk about consent!
====

It seem to me, and many others, that if you engage in something knowing the risks upfront you are accepting those risks.
----
Accepting a risk is an entirely different thing from consenting to the result. Most of us recognize that distinction. Do you?
====

That said, I knowledge there are situations where consent was not given and that we must look at that situation on it's own merits. The abortion issue is certainly complex and the world isn't perfect.

I would ask then that my posts be taken as my general views and when I mention consent I am referring to situations including exactly that. I have discussed rape situations in other places, I do not shy away from these as they certainly happen and have to be addressed. But I'd prefer to keep any discussions I engage in on this 'page' more focused on consensual sex since rape is almost it's own topic.
----
Yes. Let's definitely talk about consent then. Are you game?

secularprolife.org said...

Per the scientific data relevant to the difference between "a human" and "a human being", the newborn cannot possibly qualify. Do note, however, that the phrase "a human being" is equated with "a person", and the Law has something to say about that!


The Law grants legal-person status to the newborn. Therefore, in terms of definitions, the newborn person would qualify as a human being. But that doesn't make it anything more than, per the scientific data, just another mere-animal organism!

secularprolife.org said...

Condemn a poor man who is having his brain controlled by a computer, because he is violating the sanctity of your precious genitals? Putting a brainless zef before someone who actually has a brain, but is the unfortunate victim of an evil science experiment?Really? How low can YOU sink, myintx?

**No one should have a 'right' to kill another human being that has done nothing wrong simply because he or she is unwanted or inconvenient.**

Well, here's the thing, precious. Both the embryo and the rapist are doing something 'wrong'. Neither of them, however, are doing anything wrong *intentionally*. I've told you a sufficient number of times now that the rapist in my scenario is NOT in control of his own actions, he is having his brain controlled by a computer.

So let's go through your little whiny checklist of what supposedly merits a 'right to life', shall we?

'Human' - check for both.
'Innocent' - in action, no. In intention, yes.

So why does the widdle brainless zef get all these magic rights and a demand for 'a little coexistence for 9 short months', while the unfortunate grown man who had a computer chip put in his head, controlling his actions, is 'evil' and should be 'killed', rather than precious myintx just enduring a 'little coexistence for 9 short minutes'. So that he can have a 'chance' for a productive and fulfilling life, once a surgeon takes the computer chip out of his brain.

What's your standard here, myintx?

1. Your precious cunt is somehow holy and inviolable, while everyone else's body parts are up for grabs.
2. Your morality is based on cuteness, and a widdle thumb sucking embwyo is aww so cuter than a grown man who is being forced against his will to engage in an unpleasant action.

God, you are absolute scum. The moment I think you can't possibly sink any lower, you always prove you can.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, no. The question was not whether YOU would donate a kidney, and you are trying to wiggle out of what you said. What was said was that you admitted that you would accept a kidney from a brain dead motorcycle accident victim. But the accident victim is still alive, and they are a 'human being'. So by taking their kidney, you are KILLING an innocent human being. Dismembering them to take their body apart and get at their kidney. Just for your own convenience.


An innocent human being. You've stated that all that is necessary for a 'right to life' is to be a 'human being'. Why do you want to kill innocent human beings, myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

**All innocent human beings deserve a right to life.**


Unless, apparently, myintx wants to DISMEMBER them because she needs a kidney transplant.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, no, My opinions are not the question here, myintx. I asked YOU why YOU want to kill innocent victims of evil science experiments and motorcycle accidents. Babbling about me and what I may or may not do is not an answer to that question.

secularprolife.org said...

Ladyblack - no, no no. If you don't want to give a man an 'out' once the child is born, and also don't want to give him the legal right to be informed the woman is pregnant and be able to FORCE her to have an abortion, than what you are proposing is that sex is a justification for enslaving men. I think you know that's not right, it is not a justification for enslaving men any more than it is a justification for enslaving women.

secularprolife.org said...

**Both parents are responsible for a born child.**


Unless you want to rewrite the law such that the man has a legal right to be informed of the pregnancy, and to force the women to have an abortion, that's not right. If the woman has all the say in whether or not the child is to be born, and the man has no say, then you can't force the man to be financially responsible.


**Otherwise the taxpayers end up being responsible for the born child.**


I disagree with that, as well. Unless you want to give taxpayers the right to force women to have abortions, then taxpayers should not be required to be responsible for unwanted children. They do not have a right to taxpayers money for their 'very life' any more than the embryo had a right to the mother's womb for it's 'very life'.


The uterus of the woman is not the only thing subject to property rights. The embryo does not have a right to the uterus, but the born child does not have a right to the money of anyone who does not have a say in whether it will be born or not.

secularprolife.org said...

No, it doesn't. Unless you want to give a man the right to force a woman to have an abortion, then you are using sex as a reason to enslave men, which is not any better than using it to enslave women.

secularprolife.org said...

How about we pass laws preventing women from killing their unborn children unless their lives are truly endangered from the pregnancy. Hope more laws are passed. Eventually one will make it to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade.

secularprolife.org said...

If all the kids in foster care do not justify killing newborns that might go into the system, it doesn't justify killing unborn children either.


Most babies put up for adoption as newborns DO get adopted.


This is national adoption month. Pro-lifers are encouraging adoption (and not just in November).


Most pro-lifers do agree that if abortion is the only way to save a woman's life than abortion should be allowed.

secularprolife.org said...

Unless the woman's life is endangered, abortion isn't a 'necessity'. There are places that can help. Part of the problem is that pro-aborts fight laws that require killing clinics to tell women about other options they have so the women don't know there is help out there. We don't hear stories about hundreds of thousands of women being turned away from adoption agencies and pregnancy resource centers - that shows that most aren't going to those places to what they can do to try to make it work and have the baby. Is it because they don't know there is help out there, or they are selfish pro-aborts who don't care? or some other reason.

secularprolife.org said...

It seem to me, and many others, that if you engage in something knowing the risks upfront you are accepting those risks.

Yet you would force a rape victim to give birth...wouldn't you? So clearly, consent is irrelevant as long as the girl or woman has a uterus...

Human beings are not inanimate objects.


Yet that's exactly how you wish to treat women - just like the rapist - an inanimate object that should have ZERO say in how it is used, in this case, as a fetal delivery service.

secularprolife.org said...

**That's biology. His out is not to ejaculate inside a vagina.**


No, no no. Ladyblack, I know you are better than this, you are starting to play word games and pretending to be obtuse like myintx does.


What Timothy meant is that a woman has an 'out' AFTER sex and pregnancy occur, which is that she can get an abortion.


If a woman is legally allowed to have an 'out' after sex and pregnancy occur, then it is only fair that a man be allowed to have an 'out', if he wants it.


If you want to claim that the man's only legal 'out' of being enslaved to a child is to NOT have sex, then on what basis do you reject myintx's contention that a woman's only legal 'out' of being enslaved to an embryo should be to NOT have sex?


It is unfair that a woman should have an 'out' after sex and pregnancy occur, but a man should not. Either both genders should have some sort of 'out' AFTER sex and pregnancy occur, or neither should. In the case of a man, this would mean that either you give him the right to force a woman to have an abortion, which is a bad idea, or you give him X number of months to decide whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the matter.


Regarding marriage, marriage is a contract, which is commonly understood to convey certain rights and responsibilities on the part of both husband and wife, which aren't automatically implied by casual sex, including the husband supporting the children of the wife, and either partner making medical decisions on behalf of the other, if the other is unconscious or otherwise unable to make their own medical decisions.


I could argue that maybe these usual rights and responsibilities in marriage should maybe not automatically be assumed to be the case, and that all married people should be required to fill out a lengthy prenuptial agreement specifying each one on an individual basis, but that's really too long a subject to get into right now.

secularprolife.org said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I've been on the 'net since the days of BBS interface ... and myintx is the most heartless, evil individual I have ever encountered.

secularprolife.org said...

You really aren't bright enough to understand what Russell is saying. Sad.

secularprolife.org said...

Is that your new bumper sticker slogan?

Well, here's mine: What kind of woman wants to FORCE other women to DONATE their ORGANS against their will - What kind of woman?

secularprolife.org said...

You are sick, evil and disgusting. You are, in fact, subhuman.

I know from *experience* what it is like to almost die from a pregnancy. Fuck you and your smarminess about "trying."

secularprolife.org said...

You have no idea what a hydatidiform mole is, do you?

It is indeed a human organism. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000909.htm

secularprolife.org said...

Neither will most zygotes. Do you have a point?

secularprolife.org said...

A mole is not a HUMAN BEING.

Neither is a zygote.

secularprolife.org said...

A trip down the birth canal does not a human being make.

Yeah, actually, it does. Assuming live birth, of course.

secularprolife.org said...

Ask Myintx about that; she seems to be the subject matter on feral children and how total strangers are responsible for them if they break into one's garage near a busy street.

Or some such bullshit.

secularprolife.org said...

Blastocysts are never aborted.

Someone doesn't understand how spontaneous abortions (commonly called miscarriages) occur, I see ...

secularprolife.org said...

At one point in our history salves weren't considered full people.

Dammit; I was doing so well on my Myintx Drinking Game Strip Bingo Card and you came out with that one.

There go my slacks.

secularprolife.org said...

Were the people blown up in the WTC still in utero and connected by a placenta and an umbilical cord?

No? Then they were *persons.*

Jesus wept.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm betting abortion kills many more human beings than dowry murders

And you would be wrong, because an embryo is not a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Most babies put up for adoption as newborns DO get adopted.are sold at a high price by adoption mills.
Fixed it for you.

secularprolife.org said...

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

That lie was bullshit the first time you told it, and it's still bullshit now.

secularprolife.org said...

More proof that you're evil is that you clearly don't think women and girls are human.

I know you're bitter because your little "oopsie" of Baby-Daddy didn't turn out like you wanted it to, but you need to (as you are so fond of saying) get HELP for that instead of trying to punish other women.

secularprolife.org said...

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.


Yep. This guy's wife was getting an abortion due to fetal demise ... and he takes down the two horrid bitches who yelled at her on the street. http://www.upworthy.com/two-abortion-protesters-decided-to-yell-at-this-guys-wife-they-probably-shouldnt

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).


You have no way to know, really, so you need to keep your imaginings to yourself.

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.


If you weren't so stupid, you would understand why hysterectomy is NOT done for purposes of avoiding pregnancy. After all, it's only been explained to you a dozen times so far.

secularprolife.org said...

I've lost track of how many times we have told that idiotic bint the same thing ...

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, it's you again. Changed your name? What happened to your old account.

secularprolife.org said...

99% of abortions are not in jeopardy, but pro choice people have to focus on the 1% that are to justify the procedure. They also have to post pictures of petri dishes to re-affirm (to themselves) that no one ever actually gets surgically dismembered inside their mother's wombs, then pieced back together later on a tray in the name of choice.

secularprolife.org said...

"What makes you think nature intended sex to be for reproduction among humans?"

... WE'RE STILL HERE AREN'T WE? LOL

secularprolife.org said...

And you espouse to let women choose who lives and dies as well. What's your point?

secularprolife.org said...

Innate worth exists because an object is never something that it isn't supposed to be. It is always worth what it is. A rock is only comparable to a diamond in the first place because they both exist in space and time in a measurable state. A fetus becomes a human being because it is a human being. This is the whole reason we're having this discussion. You claim that this state is immeasurable. Nice try, though.

secularprolife.org said...

Then how can you argue that someone should be eliminated because of possible detriment to the other party, when you are advocating detriment?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, let's get one thing straight. I never said he "shouldn't have sex." What I said is "he shouldn't ejaculate in a vagina." There's more than one way to skin a cat, you know? Now this is just my opinion, but I think it's a good one. There should be ZERO one-night stands without protection. EVER. And by protection, I mean a condom. Think of all the diseases out there, and you really can't tell by looking. If a condom is worn, with spermicide, and the guy pulls out at the point of orgasm, there's almost zero chance of becoming a father. Really REALLY low. If they have oral sex, there's ZERO chance of pregnancy. If they have outercourse, same thing. ZERO chance of pregnancy. Men cannot have an "out" before birth because MEN DON'T GET PREGNANT. Period. I'd really love to see how it would work if the shoe were on the other foot, and men got pregnant. 99% of this bullshit would disappear overnight. And unfortunately, I know what happens when men don't pay support. The taxpayer ends up paying in his place. No thanks. I've paid to raise mine. I'd prefer all the little Johnny Appleseeds out there pay for their own spawn. And vasectomy isn't a dirty word, or a bad idea either.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, cry me a river. How about YOU pay their child support for them? I would rather they took care of their own spawn.

secularprolife.org said...

That's right. She's the only one pregnant. And NO you cannot force a woman into an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Innate worth exists because an object is never something that it isn't supposed to be.
-----
NOT APPLICABLE. "Worth" is a very different thing from "substance" or "structure" or "capabilities" or "physical properties" --what is an "idea" made of? "Worth" is a description of a valuation --and a valuation can only exist if something else exists, able to specify a valuation. My example above considered a dung beetle, and its ability to value a diamond differently from a piece of dung. For the purposes of the dung beetle, no human can claim the beetle makes a wrong decision in valuing the dung more than the diamond. All Valuations Are Subjective, Relative, and Arbitrary. Period.
=====

It is always worth what it is.
-----
FALSE. It always is what it is, but its worth can change. After Spain shipped large amounts of gold from the New World, there was an actual drop in the perceived value of gold (ruined Spain's economy). There was a similar drop in the value of silver, in the USA (but not so economically detrimental), when the Comstock Lode was at max production. The Law of Supply and Demand is far more "fixed" than any mere valuation!
=====

A rock is only comparable to a diamond in the first place because they both exist in space and time in a measurable state.
-----
COMPARING REQUIRES A COMPARER. The comparer always Subjectively chooses which properties to compare. Each property might have an Objective magnitude, but the overall valuations of the objects is also, always, Subjective, Relative, and Arbitrary. That's why merchants have been in the business of shipping stuff long distances for thousands of years --things that are common in one place (like silk in China) were rare in others, and valued differently.
=====

A fetus becomes a human being because it is a human being.
-----
UTTERLY FALSE. For one reason (the most obvious), someone might be talking about a dog fetus. Only a human fetus can become a human being. Another reason your statement is Utterly False is, if it is already a human being, it is impossible for it to become one (your statement is logically self-inconsistent). You should search this page for the exact phrase "language consistently" (not including the quotation marks), and see the data explaining how "a human", such as a fetus, is NOT "a human being". Which is why it is possible for it to become one!
=====

This is the whole reason we're having this discussion. You claim that this state is immeasurable. Nice try, though.
-----
YOU HAVE TRIED AND FAILED. Care to try again?

secularprolife.org said...

She doesn't forget. She just really thinks women who don't want to get pregnant every time they have sex should have their uteri removed. So very catholic of her.

secularprolife.org said...

Malignant in word and deed.

secularprolife.org said...

A normal, everyday, woman who has her own reasons that aren't under the purview of anyone else, that's who. You and your fellow travelers don't like it, but it's never going away, especially for women who can afford to or are aided in circumventing the law.

Anti-abortion is one of the class of laws that simply rearrange the undesired behavior, not eradicate it, i.e. drug and prostitution laws. Still happening, but even further out of the law's reach than before. Works out well for women in my demographic, certainly, and no one is the least bit concerned or aware.

secularprolife.org said...

The problem here is, ladyblack, that you are STILL supporting exactly the same sort of reasoning that myintx uses as a justification for enslaving women, and using it to justify enslaving men, instead. You say that if a man doesn't want to be enslaved, he 'shouldn't ejaculate in a vagina'. That's pretty much the same reasoning myintx uses, that if a woman doesn't want to be enslaved, she shouldn't let a man ejaculate into her vagina.

That reasoning isn't valid when myintx uses it as an excuse to enslave woman, and it's not valid when you want to use it as an excuse to enslave men.

Same thing with your statements how a man should use a condom and spermicide. It's the exact same thing I hear from myintx, how a woman should use birth control, if she doesn't want to get pregnant.

**Men cannot have an "out" before birth because MEN DON'T GET PREGNANT**

No, no. Just no. You're handwaving and trying to use sex as an excuse to enslave men. The fact that a man doesn't get pregnant means that he doesn't have a say in whether or not the pregnancy continues. It doesn't mean that consent to sex on a mans part means consent to become a meal ticket any more than consent on a woman's part means consent to become an incubator.

**And unfortunately, I know what happens when men don't pay support. The taxpayer ends up paying in his place.**

As I've told you, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay, either. Arguably, if you want to give women the absolute say over whether or not a pregnancy continues to birth, if anyone should pay, the woman should. But that's irrelevent. It's not Misi's job to feed Tani, if she doesn't want to, and it's not anyone's job to feed the baby, if they don't want to, any more than it's anyone's job to incubate the embryo, if they don't want to.

** And vasectomy isn't a dirty word, or a bad idea either.**



Which is also just what I hear from myintx, that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should have a hysterectomy.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, didn't you know, fiona? It doesn't matter if you almost DIE from a pregnancy, because the embwyo is so widdle and cute and sucks it's thumbs in such an adowable way.


Now, if you put a computer chip inside a man's head, so his actions are being controlled by an evil scientist, that's a different matter. Myintx's precious genitals are a holy relic, and she can't even endure a little co-existence for 9 short minutes, which are no threat to her life or health. The man is EVIL and has to be KILLED, because he's not all cute and adowable and has upset myintx's widdle fairy tale world.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx's definition and assignment of responsibility depends on several things:


1. Cuteness.
2. Whether the sanctity of her precious genitals is being violated.
3. If it is myintx who might conceivably be responsible, or someone else OTHER than myintx.

secularprolife.org said...

No, Just no. Nobody is 'responsible' against their will for using their body, their money, or anything else that belongs to them for 'caring' for the precious zef, the widdle embwyo, or a born child, or a middle aged homeless person in the nearest alley. Not the mother. Not the father. Not the taxpayer. Not people with garages attached to their house. If myintx wants to spend her time adopting snowflake babies and lady_black wants to spend her time caring for born infants, I won't stop either of you from doing that.

secularprolife.org said...

Have been gone quite awhile, but I stopped by for Nate's post & saw this comment of yours. How can you say this? You know that's not true. Seriously, why would you say that?

secularprolife.org said...

Given the views being espoused, Night Porter seems refreshingly appropos to me. Have you seen the film wt Charlotte Rampling & Dirk Bogard? It's a minor classic.

secularprolife.org said...

Oy! Given a situation where one or the other will necessarily occur, a violation of the right not to be killed would require valuing the prenate less.

Violating an autonomy right is less unjust than violating the right not to be killed. Bodily autonomy rights are allowed to be violated routinely; for not being killed it's really only self defense and punishment for ghastly crimes.

Therefore by valuing one right above another you can maintain equal value for the individuals whose rights are in conflict. Not only can you, but It's the only option if you think they're equal.

All that's ignoring that the prenate had no role in creating this situation with an unfortunate but inexorable rights conflict. Accidental or not, the gravida could have prevented it, but opted not to. I'm not claiming that that's a justification for a rights violation generally, but in a situation with a rights conflict, it's a legitimate factor to add into the mix with moral status and the significance of the rights.

secularprolife.org said...

Oy! Given a situation where one or the other will necessarily occur, a violation of the right not to be killed would require valuing the prenate less.
----
No more so than refusing to donate blood, tissue or organs requires valuing the patient who needs it less. The prenate is not unjustly killed because it had no right to the mother's body to begin with.
====

Violating an autonomy right is less unjust than violating the right not to be killed. Bodily autonomy rights are allowed to be violated routinely; for not being killed it's really only self defense and punishment for ghastly crimes.
----
No, bodily autonomy rights are not allowed to be violated routinely. Strict scrutiny and due process still apply.
====

Therefore by valuing one right above another you can maintain equal value for the individuals whose rights are in conflict. Not only can you, but It's the only option if you think they're equal.
----
If you think they are equal, then you apply the same rules that apply to everyone else under similar circumstances. You don't give one party special rights no one else has.
====

All that's ignoring that the prenate had no role in creating this situation with an unfortunate but inexorable rights conflict. Accidental or not, the gravida could have prevented it, but opted not to. I'm not claiming that that's a justification for a rights violation generally, but in a situation with a rights conflict, it's a legitimate factor to add into the mix with moral status and the significance of the rights.
----
If you're not claiming that is a justification for a rights violation generally, then you have no case for claiming it justifies a rights violation in the specific case of abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Because I do *know* that it is true. The fact is that you pro-criminalizers want the prenate to be a person, but don't want it to be treated as a person. You want to give it special exemptions to the rules everyone else.

secularprolife.org said...

And?

secularprolife.org said...

Pro-choicers fight laws requiring clinics to tell women about their options because such laws treat women as if they were stupid. For two generations now, the options a woman has facing an unintended pregnancy have been the same: adoption, abortion, or parenthood.

But I tell you what: we can go ahead and let those laws pass on the condition that CPCs are required to do the same, and be TRUTHFUL about the abortion option. Deal?

secularprolife.org said...

**Otherwise the taxpayers end up being responsible for the born child.**

I disagree with that, as well. Unless you want to give taxpayers the right to force women to have abortions, then taxpayers should not be required to be responsible for unwanted children. They do not have a right to taxpayers money for their 'very life' any more than the embryo had a right to the mother's womb for it's 'very life'.
----
This is where I disagree with both of you. On my reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, everyone has a right to the basic necessities of life. It doesn't matter how one comes to need those basic necessities. While this doesn't mean I, specifically, have to open my home and pantry to anyone (including my biological child if I have any), it does mean I am obligated to pay my taxes to insure those rights are realized.
====


On another note, I am open to a law that gives the man a right to be informed of the pregnancy in typical cases, but not one that gives him a right to force either pregnancy or abortion on her. This may not be the place for it, but are you open for a discussion on the topic?

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 846   Newer› Newest»