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   601 – 800 of 846   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

No, you don't have a 'right' to take anything that belongs to anyone else, against their will, because you have a 'need' for the 'basic necessities of life'. Freedom includes the freedom to starve to death. Deal with it.

secularprolife.org said...

And a man has neither the right to know that a woman is pregnant, nor the right to require her to remain pregnant, nor the right to force her to get an abortion, nor the obligation to be enslaved to the resultant child.

secularprolife.org said...

No one's talking about killing newborn babies, Myintx: do try to keep up.

That babies are far more popular with couples looking for children does not mean prolifers should force women to produce babies for adoption. Adoption's meant to be a benefit to children who need families, not a resource for parents who want babies.

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


As you've already demonstrated yourself, Myintx, this is a lie. Wherever there are specific examples of a woman who needed an abortion to save her life, prolifers never support the woman needing the abortion. See our previous discussion on Savita Halappanavar, who needed an abortion to save her life, was denied it by prolifers because all abortion was then illegal in Ireland - and you entirely failed to support the principle that Savita should have had a life-saving abortion, and the change in the law that ensured life-saving abortions could be performed.


Prolifers do not, in fact, support life-saving abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

So, what happens in your little UN communist paradise when people stop producing excess wealth, products, and food to be seized to supply the magical 'right to the basic necessities of life' of those who choose not to work? Do pastries fall from the sky for the UN to hand out, lest people's 'rights' be violated.


Oh, and suggest you read the fine print on your precious Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn't grant anyone jack or shit. The moment their supposed 'rights' are in contradiction to the goals of the UN, whatever those might be, they're gone.

secularprolife.org said...

Let me get something clarified here before we get sidetracked into the wrong discussion. Are you against taxes in general or just the specific uses of taxpayer money that I advocate?
====

So, what happens in your little UN communist paradise when people stop producing excess wealth, products, and food to be seized to supply the magical 'right to the basic necessities of life' of those who choose not to work? Do pastries fall from the sky for the UN to hand out, lest people's 'rights' be violated.
----
Then we make do as best as we can.
====

Oh, and suggest you read the fine print on your precious Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It doesn't grant anyone jack or shit. The moment their supposed 'rights' are in contradiction to the goals of the UN, whatever those might be, they're gone.
----
If the UN thinks an exercise of a right is contrary to it "principles and purposes," then it will have to prove it. Much like laws in the United States are required to pass strict scrutiny when they infringe on people's rights.

secularprolife.org said...

nor the right to require her to remain pregnant, nor the right to force
her to get an abortion, nor the obligation to be enslaved to the
resultant child.
----
I agree with you here, wholeheartedly, 100%. I thought I had made that clear, but apparently I did not make it clear enough.
====

And a man has neither the right to know that a woman is pregnant
----
This is, as I said, a discussion that I am "open" to. It does not mean I am positively saying the man does have such a right. It simply means that I am evaluating a proposition. If you are not willing to discuss the topic, fine and well. All you have to do is say so. That is why I asked the question.

secularprolife.org said...

So, what exactly are you trying to say here? That pro-choicers = nazis? Would you mind elaborating? Is talking to us like talking to the folks on Stormfront?



Or are you thinking of the movie - are we like the Nazis in the movie, obsessed with torturing and dehumanizing other humans for fun and profit?

secularprolife.org said...

Hey, didn't you once say that this organization: http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/ is not a legitimate human rights organization?


Why? Are the ONLY legit human rights organizations those that seek to force and coerce women into giving birth, and that jailing pregnant women for miscarriages is totes human rights?

secularprolife.org said...

You would be wrong. An unborn child IS a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

You're the one not too bright if you believe Russell's excuses to kill unborn children

secularprolife.org said...

I, I, I, I... The definition of selfish.... sad

secularprolife.org said...

It's not a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Never said I wanted to kill innocent human beings. YOU do apparently.

secularprolife.org said...

Most adoptions are of minority children.

http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/chartbook.cfm?id=15

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, there are times where a person has to be RESPONSIBLE. If they wake up one morning and decide they don't want their newborn they at least have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to call 911 or CPS to have someone come and get the child. In some states a woman at least has to be RESPONSIBLE enough not to do meth or she could be charged with harming her unborn child. Post viability abortion laws say a woman cannot kill her unborn child after viability.


We need more laws to protect unborn children.

secularprolife.org said...

"You want to give it special exemptions to the rules everyone else." - Just for the sake of argument, suppose that you really believed that there actually are two individuals both of whom had moral status and rights. Your complaint is that infringing on the right to bodily autonomy for the first individual is an exemption to the rules. If all we were dealing with was a simple question of the form: 'Can a bodily autonomy right be infringed?' (Y/N) then that would be a decent criticism. However, in this situation, the only way to NOT infringe on bodily autonomy would be to violate the right of the second individual not to be killed. Certainly, granting a right to kill would constitute a special exemption! So, if there's no way to avoid violating at least one right, you just have to weigh them against each other and choose. Under those circumstances, your criticism that there's an exception being made to a rule just amounts to, 'you ought to have done the impossible.' That's not a reasonable complaint.

"The fact is that you pro-criminalizers want the prenate to be a person." - That's not entirely accurate. There's legal personhood (P:L) and personhood as a concept in ethics (P:E). The former is arbitrary because it's entirely a function of what legislators or judges declare it to be. Hence Wal-Mart has P:L but not P:E and if I'm driving in a car with a pregnant woman, in terms of P:L, I have one person as a passenger here, but two when I cross the Mexican border, and one again when I enter the capital. P:E is what you and I have but what a bird or a cat, despite being a fellow living and thinking creature, lacks such that we have rights and they don't. Prochoicers tend to assume that personhood is present at birth, but that's based on the fact that P:L is generally granted at birth (excluding countries where it occurs at conception). P:E is most definitely NOT present at birth.

P:E in the modern sense began with Locke. In the middle ages it was a theological concept of the fundamental nature of beings capable of reasoning. During the enlightenment Locke secularized what had previously been an aspect either of the soul or of the divine, and said that a level of rational capacity is what establishes our having natural rights. This is not something anyone has ever thought that babies have. The current consensus view is that the earliest we could plausibly set the limit for P:E would be around 18 months old, and yet it's not controversial to argue that neonates have human rights. Obviously, that means that while P:E may be sufficient for P:L, it's not necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

It's not that we 'want the prenate to be a person.' It's that there are principles that which dictate that, despite their lack of P:E, newborns have human rights and P:L, and we believe that any consistent application of those principles will grant that prenates have human rights and P:L (not P:E) as well.

secularprolife.org said...

Me: "a violation of the right not to be killed would require valuing the prenate less."
You: "No more so than refusing to donate blood, tissue or organs requires valuing the patient who needs it less."
That wrongly equates refusing to save a life with choosing to take a life.

"The prenate is not unjustly killed because it had no right to the mother's body to begin with. "
So, you seem to be saying that the lack of consent on behalf of the gravida for the presence of the prenate makes this a case where killing is permissible even if the prenate has rights because it would qualify as justified homicide. That argument only works if the prenate attacked or invaded the gravida, and while I grant that a frightened young women might feel as if that's what has happened, it's perfectly clear that that isn't what really happened. You can't cause someone to be trapped in a place -whether intentionally or not- and then argue that deadly force is justified because the place was broken into.

"No, bodily autonomy rights are not allowed to be violated routinely. Strict scrutiny and due process still apply." - You're thinking of the right to bodily integrity, not autonomy. One is a defensive right to prevent people from attacking or violating your body and the other is the freedom to do whatever you please to and/or with your body. Getting an abortion is either going to a doctor and getting minor surgery or it's getting a regimen of pills to take. It's the latter not the former. Due process and strict scrutiny don't apply. The government can regulate or prohibit the exercise of bodily autonomy just because there's a judgement that it's in the public interest to do so.

"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." - You're accusing us of not avoiding the unavoidable. I address this fully more in the other comment.

Me:"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."
You:""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."
If you mean I have no case for claiming it justifies a rights violation all by itself, then you're right. If you're saying I have no case for considering it as one factor in deciding which right must be violated, then of course I do. Why the heck wouldn't I?

What is at stake here is that either the right to bodily autonomy will be abridged or the right not to get killed will be violated and there's no perfect solution available that would honor both rights. If an option were available where both sets of rights could be honored, then I wouldn't say that this question of accountability for causing an accident is something that would justify going ahead and violating bodily the autonomy rights anyway.

It's because rights must be abridged or violated no matter what we do that we need to make a comparison and determine whether justice demands allowing the gravida to kill the prenate or allowing the gravida's autonomy to be abridged. There are three factors that I think are morally relevant and need to be considered: #1. whether they both have moral status and rights, #2. the relative importance of the rights in conflict (and whether harms could be ameliorated), and #3. whether either party has some accountability for causing the problem.

BTW: If you could change my mind about #1, I'd switch sides and be prochoice. (What about you?) On the other hand, if I changed my mind about #2 and thought that the rights were of comparable importance, then #3 would still tip me over onto the prolife side.

secularprolife.org said...

PCers? No, of course not. There are lots of them who're generally good people. It's just you personally. And actually I do mind elaborating. I shouldn't have answered at all. I find both you and Russell to be unworthy of my time.

secularprolife.org said...

"You want to give it special exemptions to the rules everyone else." -
Just for the sake of argument, suppose that you really believed that
there actually are two individuals both of whom had moral status and
rights. Your complaint is that infringing on the right to bodily
autonomy for the first individual is an exemption to the rules. If all
we were dealing with was a simple question of the form: 'Can a bodily
autonomy right be infringed?' (Y/N) then that would be a decent
criticism. However, in this situation, the only way to NOT infringe on
bodily autonomy would be to violate the right of the second individual
not to be killed. Certainly, granting a right to kill would constitute a
special exemption! So, if there's no way to avoid violating at least
one right, you just have to weigh them against each other and choose.
Under those circumstances, your criticism that there's an exception
being made to a rule just amounts to, 'you ought to have done the
impossible.' That's not a reasonable complaint.
----
My complaint is that you are not treating the prenate according to the same rules that applies to everyone else. And the rule that applies to everyone else is that no one has the right to use another's body without consent. I can refuse to donate an organ someone else alive but you make excuses for the prenate. I can defend myself from someone who would implant themselves into my body; drill into my arteries; steal my nutrients, oxygen, and calcium; dump its piss and shit into my body and inject me with mind-altering and addictive substances before subjecting me to several hours to several days worth of pain sufficient to be called torture under international law. Yet somehow the prenate is supposed to get a pass here. And that is just two things you've talked about on this thread. What more rules do we need to look and what more excuses to we have to put up with?

secularprolife.org said...

You probably find anyone who can stomp your nonsensical anti-abortion arguments into the dust, revealing the fundamental Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy and/or Bad Data upon which they are based, "unworthy of your time".

secularprolife.org said...

It's that there are principles that which dictate that, despite their lack of P:E, newborns have human rights and P:L,
-----
AGREED, especially that that is an arbitrarily-assigned thing.
=====

and we believe that any consistent application of those principles will grant that prenates have human rights and P:L (not P:E) as well.
-----
ONLY BY IGNORING FACTS AND BEING PREJUDICED CAN YOU BELIEVE ANY SUCH THING. The data you are ignoring is the "modus operandi" by which a prenate lives, compared to how a newborn lives. The prenate acts worse than a parasite; the newborn is incapable of doing any such thing.

The Law, in arbitrarily assigning legal-person status to the newborn (even if doing so by coincidence, since the data wasn't known when the Law was written), is in-essence aligned with the major change in the "modus operandi" that occurs at birth when the umbilical cord is cut.

Since you recognize that both the prenate and the newborn lack ethics-defined personhood, and are both equivalent to ordinary animal organisms, it is reasonable to compare the actions of those animals to the actions of other animals. We can begin by noting that the newborn is rather innocent in its actions, especially if wearing diapers.


Meanwhile, and universally among human cultures, the actions of parasites are reviled, and they are killed mercilessly. While a prenate is certainly not an actual parasite, the fact that it acts worse-than-a-parasite can be associated with equivalent reviling. Why not? "Because it is human!", say abortion opponents, exhibiting the essence of Stupid Prejudice!

secularprolife.org said...

No the definition of a strong woman who is not willing to lose everything I have worked for for nothing. Sorry that you view pregnant woman as weak and inferior to the fetus. I think they actually have value.

secularprolife.org said...

A strong woman would TRY her hardest to figure out how to save the life of her unborn child AND keep everything she has worked for. Strong women can do that. Even if that requires getting HELP from friends, family, doctors, pregnancy resource centers, the government, etc.

secularprolife.org said...

Sometimes women don't know all the options they have. Doesn't mean they are stupid, it means they just weren't aware of all the options available. Some women don't know they are available for additional government benefits while pregnant. Some don't know that some adoption agencies will help with finances. Some don't know there are agencies that will work with them and help them with things like diapers and baby food - just the few extra dollars they may need every month to make ends meet.


The fact about the abortion option is that it kills a human being. Pretty sure pregnancy resource centers know that.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child IS a human being.

Only someone woefully ignorant in the realities of both biology and law would say so.

secularprolife.org said...

According to you, it is. After all, it has human DNA. And you claim that's what makes a person.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep, you don't understand Russell's point at all. Just like I said.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. All children, everywhere, have been born. Zygotes/embryos/fetii are *potential* human beings. Anyone with half a brain knows both of these things to be true.

secularprolife.org said...

Like plenty of scientists..

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

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

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

secularprolife.org said...

I never said everything with human DNA was a person. But an unborn child IS a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

No little girl... A strong woman would do what is needed for HER life and the life of the ACTUAL people in her life that need her and love her and count on her. She would not just give up her life for an unwanted pregnancy.
Strong women have abortions, strong women have kids, strong women give the baby up for adoption... Strong women do what they feel is right for their life and their body without allowing anti-choicers to chnage their mind.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is a human being. A trip down the birth canal does not a human being make.

secularprolife.org said...

KB, lets debate as to whether or not there is a zero sum game. So far everyone that has made the claim of a zero sum game has lost. How about it Bub, you up too it?
You have a choice KB, you can choose to save an innocent born baby or you can let the baby die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers choose to kill the baby.

secularprolife.org said...

The unborn fetus is a fetus until it develops into a human baby.

secularprolife.org said...

"But an unborn child IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child IS a human being."

-----

ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

Human life and human personhood are two different things. See the hydatidiform mole, the brain-dead on full life-support, and Abigail and Brittany Hensley for proof.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child is a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn human fetus is a fetus. It is not a child.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"Unborn children are HUMAN BEINGS."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

"He or she IS a human being."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, there's another item on the Mathilde Drinking Game BINGO Card. There goes my bra.

secularprolife.org said...

A newborn is a newborn. An unborn child is an unborn child. They are BOTH human beings. Neither one should be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

Lets look at what I say and see if a reasonable person could disagree.

1) I say that you have a choice myintx, you can save babies, children, adults, wanted fetuses or unwanted fetuses.
And common sense tells us you do have that choice.

2) I say there are more types of life dying than can be saved. There are 1.8 born persons, 10 wanted fetuses and 1.4 unwanted fetuses that die each second. Common sense says no one can save all those that are dying. In fact through out history no one has ever saved all life that is dying.

3) I say you have a duty to save babies, because you claim to save babies. And common sense says you should save babies if that is what you claim to save.

4) I say that a fetus is different from a born baby. And common sense says that even if they will one day all be born human beings, they are in different stages and are not the same.

5) I say you are a murderer under the common law concept of "Murder by Omission" because you claim to save babies, but instead you attempt to save fetuses.
Common sense tells us that you are in fact a murderer for not saving real babies while claiming to save babies.

6) I claim to save babies that you attempt to kill. Common sense tells us that if I convince you to stop murdering babies, then I have saved life.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree, you should not be allowed to murder innocent babies to save a fetus.
Before Roe there was a decrease in born babies and after Roe there was an increase in born babies. So experience shows that abortion leads to more life rather than less life. Therefore abortion should not be curtailed.

secularprolife.org said...

You're an embarrassement to men-kind. Every new thing you say makes you look more and more like a bigoted, bitter, insecure man with a huge chip on his shoulder. What did the big mean female say or do to you that's made you this way? And if you think a court mandated child support payment is parenting, it is obvious you've never parented a day in your life.

secularprolife.org said...

"An unborn child is ... [a] human being...."
-----
ONLY IN THE MINDS OF STUPIDLY PREJUDICED, HYPOCRTICICAL, PROPAGANDA-SPOUTING FACT-DENIERS. As I've explained to you in detail elsewhere on this page (and pointed you toward other relevant data, too --did you ever bother to read that "You, Baby/Child" article at the fightforsense blog?). Regardless of what a dictionary might allow you to say, that doesn't make it a wise thing to say. Yet you seem to be bound and determined to exhibit Stupidity, lack of wisdom in these matters. In NO Objective sense, legal, scientific, or ethical, does an unborn human animal organism qualify as a person (A.K.A. "human being"). And your ridiculous Subjective blatherings to the contrary will never make it qualify.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child is most certainly a human being. There is no way that a newborn preemie on life support is a human being but a full term unborn child is not. That's common sense. With pro-aborts, selfishness clouds any common sense they have.

secularprolife.org said...

That's like saying a newborn is a newborn and a teenager is a teenager. They are both human beings. Just like an unborn child. None of them should be killed just because they are unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

A trip down the birth canal does not a human being make. A newborn is a human being. He or she is a human being right before birth too. Science and logic tells us that an unborn child is a human being from fertilization.

secularprolife.org said...

Someone on your own side disputed your b s on this one.

secularprolife.org said...

Sometimes women don't know all the options they have. Doesn't mean they are stupid, it means they just weren't aware of all the options available.
----
As I said, the basic options have been the same for more than two generations now: parenthood, abortion, and adoption. A woman would have to be profoundly ignorant to live in this culture and not know otherwise.
====

Some women don't know they are available for additional government benefits while pregnant.
----
For as long as that lasts, if your fellow pro-criminalizers have any say about it.
====

Some don't know that some adoption agencies will help with finances.
----
That presumes the woman is interested in pursuing the adoption option.
====

Some don't know there are agencies that will work with them and help them with things like diapers and baby food - just the few extra dollars they may need every month to make ends meet.
----
It costs something in the order of $200,000 dollars to raise a child. What happens when the child outgrows diapers and baby food?

secularprolife.org said...

"There is no way that a newborn preemie on life support is a human being but a full term unborn child is not."

-----

THERE ABSOLUTELY IS A WAY, but since you Stupidly Deny Facts, you refuse to see it. (And I know you are Denying Facts, because I explained the relevant facts already in other messages here, and yet you persist in making your nonsensical claims.)

The phrases "a human" and "a human being" refer to different things, exactly like the phrases "a toad" differs from "a toad being" --the word "being" is synonymous with "person"; no toad is a person, and some humans are not persons (like hydatidiform moles and the brain-dead on life-support).

SO: in terms of Measurable Scientific Data about the differences between persons and ordinary animals, neither the unborn human nor the newborn (regardless of how premature) qualifies as a "being", a person-class entity. Just imagine yourself on a starship exploring alien worlds, and you have the job of identifying alien persons from alien animals. What Science criteria would you use to make that determination, when NONE of those alien life-forms are remotely human?

WELL, why shouldn't those Science criteria be applied to humans? Only Stupid Prejudice/Hypocrisy can cause you to think that if some human happens to fail to meet the personhood criteria you apply to alien life-forms (and, guaranteed, all humans younger than 18-months-after-conception will certainly fail), it must be a person anyway! NOPE, both the unborn and the infant human are mere animals!

MEANWHILE, there is the Law. The newborn/preemie only qualifies as a person in terms of Arbitrary Legal Definition --it is assigned legal personhood at birth, while so far the Law refuses to make that Arbitrary assignment for any human prior to birth.


ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT ARBITRARY ASSIGNMENT, plus the synonymity between "person" and "being", can we conclude the newborn is, Arbitrarily, declared to be "a human being". The unborn human remains only "a human", not-a-person. That's the Law.


I fully understand that you want the Law to be changed, but what you are asking for is, in essence, to make the Law Deny Facts --the Science-- and a great many Laws these days are paying quite a lot of attention to the relevant Science. The net result is, if the Law becomes changed, it might get changed in favor of allowing infanticide, since human infants also are, In Measurable Fact, mere animals, not person-class beings. Why do you want to risk that, instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, and keeping the Arbitrary Legal Assignment Of Personhood right where it is?

secularprolife.org said...

AS EXPLAINED ELSEWHERE on this page, in the eyes of the Law, that trip down the birth canal DOES convert "a human" into "a human being".

There is another factor, only coincidentally related to the Law's Arbitrary Assignment of Legal Personhood at birth. You have claimed more than once on this page that the unborn human has done "nothing wrong", but you are totally wrong about that. The unborn human ACTS worse than a parasite, in spite of not itself qualifying as a parasite.

The action of stealing biological nutrients from another body is not required to be tolerated when a parasite does it; why should it be required to be tolerated if an unborn human does it? The action of dumping toxic biowastes into another body is not required to be tolerated when a parasite does it; why should it be required to be tolerated if an unborn human does it? The action of forcibly infusing addictive substances into another body is not required to be tolerated if some human adult did it to another (and no parasite does any such thing); why should it be required to be tolerated if an unborn human does it? The action of forcibly infusing mind-altering substances into another body is not required to be tolerated if some human adult did it to another (and no parasite does any such thing); why should it be required to be tolerated if an unborn human does it?



MEANWHILE, A NEWBORN HUMAN DOES NONE OF THOSE THINGS. Those horrible actions stop at birth when the umbilical cord is cut. Just imagine some human adult coming along and giving you some flesh wounds, and then excreting body wastes into those wounds --you might expect that that adult deserves to be locked away forever in an insane asylum, stripped of most rights of persons. Yet you want to assign personhood to unborn humans, meaning you want to grant most rights of persons to a mere animal that acts much worse than the just-imagined adult. It would be Pure Stupid Hypocrisy to hold both opinions at the same time!

secularprolife.org said...

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.


This is an outright lie. Planned Parenthood, for example, provides information on *all* alternatives, and also provides pre-natal care. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what

However, CPCs (such as the White Rose Women's Center in Dallas :;ahem::) absolutely fight laws that require them to reveal that they are NOT clinics and have no medical personnel on staff. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/01/anti-abortion_crisis_pregnancy_center_lawsuit_chris_slattery_evergreen_association_new_york.php

secularprolife.org said...

Seeing the aftermath of a D&Eophthalmic surgery will make most people feel that abortion PRK is wrong and immoral."

See how that works? Aside from the fact that most abortions are indistinguishable from menses, the "yucky" factor is not a determiner of medical necessity.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no such thing as a life saving abortion.

Tell that to Savita Halapannavar.

Oh, wait ...

secularprolife.org said...

You guys and your fake fetus porn are becoming something of a joke. The majority of abortions? Look just like that petri dish photo.

Anyone with a modicum of education could tell that the photos to which you all fap are fake. http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is natural however. If one is having a healthy pregnancy , they are indeed in a state of health. A good one.

Nope. Pregnancy is far from being a state of wellness. All pregnancies are risky, and whether or not a given risk will manifest cannot be predicted.

I almost died from hyperemesis gravidarum during a wanted pregnancy. I will not gestate another one, period.

secularprolife.org said...

No, the human fetus has different organs and with different functions, the new born and the teenager have the same organs with the same functions.

secularprolife.org said...

They were not on my side then, right?

secularprolife.org said...

And if a woman wants parenthood but doesn't think she can afford a child she might be desperate enough to have an abortion - even though it's not what she really wants. If she gets help it might put her on the right path to get a job and be able support her child without help after a while.

secularprolife.org said...

The 'law' doesn't determine if an unborn child is a human being. SCIENCE does.

secularprolife.org said...

Unborn children and newborns have the SAME organs. They are both human beings. They shouldn't be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

Then why does the fetal heart have a hole in it?

And why should the innocent mind-controlled rapist be killed simply because having your vagina used against your will is inconvenient and unwanted?

secularprolife.org said...

So, you're saying that the term 'human being' doesn't exist at all? WRONG.


An unborn child and a newborn child are both human beings.


I don't care how the law defines a 'person'. At one point in our history slaves weren't full people in the eyes of the law. Guess what happened? Laws were CHANGED!


Science says an unborn child is a human being. Logic tells us that killing an unborn child and killing a newborn have the same result - i.e. a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. Killing a child - born or unborn - is WRONG.

secularprolife.org said...

When one takes into consideration the laws that control the impact of abortion, there is no rational secular reason to support any pro life theory. None of them work.

secularprolife.org said...

Hole or not it's still a heart. A newborn's skull isn't fully developed. Doesn't mean a newborn should be killed.

secularprolife.org said...

No, if it cannot sustain life independently it doesn't qualify as a heart other than in name, because it cannot function like one.

secularprolife.org said...

Your side fights ALL laws that require information to be given to women on alternatives to killing.

secularprolife.org said...

Common sense tells us that your post is a bunch of b s.


NO ONE is killing babies.


Abortion, however, kills about 1 million unborn children A YEAR in this country. YOU support that killing.

secularprolife.org said...

So, it's oK to kill someone on life-support - they cannot 'sustain life independently'.

secularprolife.org said...

No, the fetus has fetal organs and the baby has human baby organs. They are strikingly different. For example the fetal heart at its earliest stage is nothing but a tube. The tube does not circulate human baby blood enriched by the baby but fetal blood that is enriched by the oxygen and nutrients of the mother. They are a completely different systems with different purposes.
I agree with you that pro lifers should not kill innocent babies, children and adults simply because it is inconvenient and they are unwanted. In fact no pro lifer should be allowed to kill even the wanted fetuses that they choose to murder.

secularprolife.org said...

You are so incredibly naive. Having a baby before they are ready for it is a one-way ticket to poverty for most women. And did you my statement about how your pro-criminalizer buddies in the state legislatures and Congress are hard at work making sure she doesn't get the help she needs? Do you think some diapers, a bit of baby food, and a few dollars here and there is going to help the woman facing that situation?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope
Completely different situation.

secularprolife.org said...

So, you're saying that the term 'human being' doesn't exist at all? WRONG.

-----
I SAID NO SUCH THING, and therefore you are WRONG


ONLY THE DICTIONARY, Subjective Usage, not Objective Science Data, specifies that "a human" is automatically also "a human being", as I've explained in detail elsewhere.


AND ONLY THE DICTIONARY, Subjective Usage, not Objective Science Data, specifies that the word "child" is an appropriate label for an unborn human animal organism, as explained in that "You, Baby/Child" article.


There is NO Objective Science Data that supports any hint of the notion that an unborn human animal organism is anything more than just a mere animal organism --while persons have significant differences from mere animal organisms. Focusing on its human-ness is Sheer Stupid Prejudice, and nothing else. (I'm reminded of the first "Men in Black" movie, where the alien bug-being --and it most certainly qualified MORE as an "intelligent being" than any unborn human!-- gets upset when Will Smith stomps a few cockroaches; obviously the alien had its own Stupid Prejudices.)


Next, I SEE YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO EQUATE THE POTENTIAL WITH THE ACTUAL. Only idiotic abortion opponents seem to think that "potential must be fulfilled!" So imagine yourself at the top of a long stairway, contemplating your potential to fall down it and break your neck. There is no such thing as a potential that must be fulfilled!


Also, since you are a potential corpse (just wait enough centuries, and see!), why shouldn't we treat you right-now like an actual corpse, and bury you six feet under? It is exactly because an unborn human is not a person, a "human person" (A.K.A "human being"), that it can be treated differently from an actual human person --and the difference between the potential and the actual is why you shouldn't be buried right now. Lucky you!

secularprolife.org said...

The Law most certainly does determine what or what does not receive "legal person" status. Therefore, so long as the word "being" is a synonym for "person", It Logically Follows that a "corporate person" like, say, the Sears Company, is a "corporate being". And any human granted person status would be a "human being".


MEANWHILE, Science Has A Different Conclusion. So long as "human being" equals "human person", it is Scientifically Impossible for an unborn human to qualify. Only if you use a different meaning for the word "being", such as "exists", can an unborn human qualify --but then you would have to agree that rocks deserve to be called "rock beings", simply because rocks exist, too. If you aren't willing to do that, then, as stated above, it is Scientifically Impossible for an unborn human to qualify as a "being", a "person", and therefore it is not a "human person" or "human being". The Logic Is Very Simple!

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can let those babies die. Common sense would dictate that you save born babies. Your choice is to let the innocent babies die.

You also make the choice to let 10 wanted fetuses die each second. You could save them, but to you wanted life is unwanted. Life only is important to you if it boosts your self aggrandizement.

You are proved scientifically to be a murderer. You need to re-evaluate your actions.

secularprolife.org said...

I fully agree, you should not kill human beings to save human fetuses. But you and all pro lifers do in fact murder born life and wanted fetuses.

secularprolife.org said...

Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype at birth, there is no human life.

secularprolife.org said...

For some it might:
"
"Two years ago, Ashia Matthews found herself in that situation. At the time, it was news she wasn't prepared to hear.

"I wasn't ready, I cried for like a week straight," said Matthews. "But I said, 'I'm not going to get rid of him.'"

While it's not an easy road as a single mom, Ashia has had guidance through the Mobile ACCESS Unit. The mobile clinic goes into neighborhoods offering women free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and educational resources to help them navigate this new journey.

"It's information on pregnancy adoption and abortion, those are the three choices," said Elaine Parra with the Mobile ACCESS Unit. "You have three, and with each comes a big responsibility."

Parra said the goal of the bus isn't to sway a woman's decision. They provide information on the various options available and give referrals for pregnancy-related services based on what the woman decides to do.

"You want to see the best for these people, the best for these babies. Help in every kind of way," said Linda D'Aquila with Catholic Charities.

That's why ACCESS also helps women enroll in Medicaid, with trained staff on site that can help women prepare and submit Medicaid applications.
Once the baby is born, they still offer assistance, giving mom like Matthews free diapers and wipes.

"It's just something you can be grateful for," said Matthews. "The diapers that they give you, you can use them for a week or two and hopefully by that time you, can same up some money and get your own diapers."

"

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

secularprolife.org said...

Not from the wording of your post. Your claim was that it was OK to kill if a human being cannot sustain life independently... that would include someone using oxygen or on life support.

secularprolife.org said...

And what happens when the assistance dries up--as it inevitably will?

secularprolife.org said...

No, I did not.

secularprolife.org said...

The skull is one of the changes at birth.

Thanks for confirming my proof.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, you're backpedalling and denying. You specifically stated that you would accept a kidney from a brain dead motorcycle accident victim. If you do that, you will KILL, you will DISMEMBER an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING. Why do you want to KILL INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS, myintx?


You also stated that you would KILL a man who was raping you, despite knowing that his brain was being controlled by a computer, and he has no intentional control over his own actions. So, apparently when a pwecious widdle zygote does things that violate the mother's body and cause her injury and health problems, it gets a pass from you - so you claim - because it 'can't help it'.


But what you really mean, of course, is that you have sad feelies about it because its widdle and vulnerable and cute and you don't really give a shit whether it can 'help it' or not, since a man with his brain being controlled by a computer 'can't help it' either, any more than an embryo can, but according to you, he is EVIL and should be killed.


If the embryo is 'innocent' on the grounds of 'can't help it', someone whose brain is being controlled by a computer is ALSO innocent, as they 'can't help it'. Why do you want to kill INNOCENT human beings, myintx? Because they're not cute?

secularprolife.org said...

**. Are you against taxes in general or just the specific uses of taxpayer money that I advocate?**

I'm against all taxes.

**If the UN thinks an exercise of a right is contrary to it "principles and purposes," then it will have to prove it.**



Uh huh. Actually, no, it doesn't have to 'prove' it. And since they want to disarm everyone except themselves, they won't really need to 'prove' it before deciding that your right to the 'necessities of life' or even your right to keep breathing, are contrary to their purposes and goals.

secularprolife.org said...

Timothy: pregnancy is a condition that exists inside a woman's body. Given that it's her nutrients that go to creating the 5 lb baby, unless there is a marriage or some other sort of pre-existing agreement with the man, the pregnancy is nobody's business but hers, unless she wants it to be, the decision as to whether to allow the pregnancy to continue is hers, and the embryo, fetus, and child are both her property and her responsibility. If you want the weight of a single sperm back from the baby, we'll send you a skin flake in the mail or something.


Otherwise, the woman's pregnancy is no more the business or responsibility of a man she had a one night stand with, than his enlarged prostate is her business or responsibility.

secularprolife.org said...

**Yes, there are times where a person has to be RESPONSIBLE.**


Yet you have abrogated every 'responsibility' on your own part, and claimed the right to KILL innocent human beings, because they are inconvenient to you.


Sorry, but you don't get to declare what 'responsibilities' people supposedly have to a mindless blob of tissue. Especially since you've yet to explain why any humans should have ANY rights. The fact that they are 'humans' simply states what they are. So what? Maybe I'm from the Andromeda Galaxy. For all I know, 'humans' are some local variety of cockroach on this planet. Certainly, you haven't mentioned any qualities whatsoever that distinguish human beings from cockroaches in any meaningful way.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are claiming that the embryo is the same thing as a 'child' because the all-sacred dictionary says so, can I roast an 8 year old for dinner, since the 8 year old is the same thing as a young goat? They are both 'kids'. It's a valid term! The all-sacred dictionary says so?


Or are you the only one who gets to decide which ambiguities in the dictionary alter biological reality to suit yourself?

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks. You've given me a key piece that will greatly help my thinking. You mention "some other sort of pre-existing agreement with the man." In your opinion, are we dealing with explicit agreements, or are there things that could be considered "enforceable" (note the quotes here; I'm not sure this is the word I mean) implicit agreements (besides marriage)?

secularprolife.org said...

So, why isn't the zef selfish for the I,I,I that you attribute to it. Why isn't the ZEF selfish for stealing the mother's nutrients, shitting in her bloodstream, injecting mind altering chemicals into her. Why doesn't the ZEF have to be 'unselfish' and let the mother get an abortion to make it stop doing all those selfish things. Why is the zef the only I,I,I that gets to do what it wants, and everyone else has to bow to it?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm against all taxes.

----

Okay. I am thinking at this point that our worldviews are so far apart that we don't share much common ground on this topic. Pursuing that discussion will be pointless. Better to concentrate on cases we agree (for whatever reason we agree on them) than to get into a bickering match.

secularprolife.org said...

According to you, there are no specific qualities necessary to be a 'human being'. So, why SHOULDN'T a mole be a 'human being'? If there's a reason why it's not, there must be qualities necessary to be a 'human being'. Which you claim isn't the case. Make up your mind. Do you need certain qualities to be a human being, or don't you?


And maybe while you're at it, you'd like to explain either why victims of accidents and evil science experiments aren't human beings, or alternately, why you like to KILL innocent human beings for your own selfish convenience.

secularprolife.org said...

If it's not a human being, what is it? A dog or a pig? Explain what it is.

secularprolife.org said...

Apparently if it's doing something you don't like, because someone put a computer chip in it's head, it must not be a human being. Either that, or you like killing innocent human beings. Why do you want to kill innocent human beings, myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

No, they stopped being persons if myintx wanted to SELFISHLY DISMEMBER them and steal their kidneys for her own SELFISH CONVENIENCE.

secularprolife.org said...

And yet you would kill INNOCENT victims of accidents and science experiments, because they are inconvenient or unwanted.


Why do you get to kill innocent human beings, myintx?

secularprolife.org said...

Try answering the second question, myintx. Why should the innocent mind controlled rapist be killed, just because having your vagina used against your will is inconvenient and unwanted. Why can't you simply co-exist for '9 short minutes'? All the man wants is a 'chance for a productive and fulfilling life' once the mind controlling computer chip has been removed from him.


Is your vagina a holy relic, myintx, while everyone else's organs are up for grabs? You've already admitted that you would kill innocent human beings, just for your own selfish convenience, to steal their kidneys.

secularprolife.org said...

People have the right to make any sort of contracts they like, so far as I am concerned. If a man wants to make a written contract with a woman that he will be financially responsible for however much money a month for any children he fathers, or any children he doesn't father, or for her pet cockatoo, so far as I'm concerned, providing he's sane, he has the right to do just that.


Non-written contracts of this sort probably aren't really enforceable, unless they are recorded in some other way (tape recordings in front of a lawyer or something).


Regarding the so-called UN Bill of Rights, all actual rights are both negative in nature, and reciprocal. That is to say, all real rights are not 'goodies' like food, education, housing, whatever, that you have a right TO, but rather, they are things that other people are not permitted to do TO you.


You cannot have a 'right' to goodies like food, regardless of how badly you need it for your 'very life', partly because taking the food away from someone else violates their rights to property (there cannot be such a thing as a right to violate rights), and partly because there is no way to make it reciprocal, unless you want to do something out of the 3 Stooges, where you have a right to a bushel of wheat from me, but I also have a right to a bushel of wheat from YOU, so we swap the same bushel back and forth like Larry, Curly, and Moe, in which case, what is the point?


The only 'right' regarding food, for instance, is that you have the right to try to grow, buy, or trade for it legally, with those willing to do so, and without outside parties attempting to prevent it or to take what you have grown, bought, or traded for. You have the right to ask for free food, but not the right to automatically get it, if others don't want to give it to you.

secularprolife.org said...

You're making a big mistaken assumption here, which is that the child has a 'right' to be taken care of, and that therefore SOMEONE must be on the hook for it. I disagree with that.

secularprolife.org said...

Non-written contracts of this sort probably aren't really enforceable,
unless they are recorded in some other way (tape recordings in front of a
lawyer or something).
----
Thanks, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I meant. Non-written contracts, whether recorded in some other way or not, are still explicit. What I'm asking is whether you think a pre-existing agreement can exist implicitly. And if so, whether such an agreement is "enforceable" (and again, note the quotes).



For example, carrying a pregnancy, giving birth, and taking the baby home are actions that implicitly state one is voluntarily undertaking the duties of parenting. Even in the absence of an explicit statement, verbal or written, the obligations of parenting are now enforceable.

secularprolife.org said...

There is another way of looking at a pregnancy that sheds more light on the male contribution. The ovum outweighs the sperm by 90,000 times or more; all the sperm contains is DNA, instructions for constructing a human body. The ovum contains a roughly equal amount of instructions (more if you compare X and Y chromosomes), but it also contains mitochondria (subcellular energy-production plants), all the machinery for reading DNA instructions, plus a lot of initial raw materials (food for the first 5 sets of cell-divisions).


Now imagine building a boat, where the blueprints cost $2. A man and a woman each spend $1 on those blueprints, but then the woman buys the workshop, the tools, and the raw materials for starting its construction, plus she pays for the labor costs and other costs, like the electric power bill (another $90,000+).


As construction proceeds, and the boat becomes too big to fit in the initial workshop (think of sailboat mast, but the analogy here relates to the "zona pallucida" cracking open so the blastocyst can come out and grow elsewhere), the woman provides a new and more roomy construction site (womb-equivalent) --plus she continues to provide construction materials and labor and so on.


If the man went to court claiming he had half-ownership of the boat, he would be laughed out of that court!

secularprolife.org said...

FALSE! The unborn human animal organism includes the placenta as a major organ, as important as the heart or liver, while a typical newborn doesn't need it any longer (and so we cut the umbilical cord, allowing the placenta to become discard-able). AND I TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE in another message on this page, that unborn and newborn humans are different from each other --why are you Stupidly Denying Fact, and repeating nonsense?

secularprolife.org said...

Those are what I call the moral rights of man. However, frequently, mankind enter pacts whereby they agree to take from others to distribute to themselves and their followers. Of course this is accomplished via force of arms, economic force and force of law. The great unbalancing feature of mankind is that there is no natural repercussion to the unjust winner in a battle of arms, money and law. The mentally, economically and physically strong generally win against the weak. When that occurs one cannot depend on the moral laws, one must depend on their ability to force justice.

In the United States and the world we are at a point where there is no justice.

The ideals you espouse cannot exist in a world with no justice.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree with most of what you say.

secularprolife.org said...

Who said I get to kill innocent human beings. You're sounding as whacko as Crazy Crawford.


I'm fighting against the killing of innocent human beings. You're fighting to be able to kill them. That's sick.

secularprolife.org said...

Citation needed.

secularprolife.org said...

You are the same human being you were before you were born - just at a different stage of development. You are the same human being you were the day you were born - just at a different stage of development. Had you been killed before you were born or after - you wouldn't be here spewing lies. Abortion has the same result as killing a newborn - i.e. a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. Abortion and infanticide are both wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

Pretty sure he meant that most abortions are done well past the blastocyst stage....


Miscarriage NEVER justifies abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

What is an unborn child one second before birth then? a 'dog' or a 'cat'? NO - he or she is a human life - a human being. One that should not be killed because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

"being" is also a synonym for 'life form' , 'living entitiy ' or 'creature', not just 'person'.


Personhood is a legal term. Human being is a scientific term.

Science says that an unborn child is a human being. Your 'logic' makes no sense.

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

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

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

secularprolife.org said...

A mole is not a member of the species homo sapiens. A mole will NEVER grow a heart and a brain AND cause a woman go go into labor - ever.


I never said anything about killing innocent human beings. It's your side that supports the killing of about 1 million innocent human beings a year in this country alone.

secularprolife.org said...

Hopefully, by then the parents have found ways to better themselves so they can provide for their families.


It happens in reverse too. Couples have children thinking they can afford them, they lose their jobs and find themselves with no money - is that an excuse to kill a baby? NO.

secularprolife.org said...

The skull changes from very early on in the pregnancy until well after birth. It's a continual process of development.

secularprolife.org said...

A brain dead motorcycle accident victim will NEVER have a functioning brain. An unborn child, if not miscarried, most likely will have a functioning brain. He or she is a growing, developing human being that should not be killed. You're beyond hope if you cannot see the difference between the two.

secularprolife.org said...

That 'logic' makes no sense...


A newborn isn't the same thing as an adult... by your logic you can roast an 8 year old kid for dinner? What kind of drugs are you on?

secularprolife.org said...

You are truly ill Ann. Comparing an unborn child to a rapist.

secularprolife.org said...

Pretty sure that he can speak for himself.

Pretty sure that other people's reproductive decisions need not be justified to you.

secularprolife.org said...

Species-membership is defined by DNA, not by what the DNA instructs an organism to become. Therefore, as usual, you are WRONG, because all the DNA in human hydatidiform moles comes from members of the species homo sapiens.

secularprolife.org said...

A mole is not a member of the species Homo Sapiens. An unborn child IS.

secularprolife.org said...

Laws restrict abortions after viability in most states... We should be able to restrict them before viability also.

secularprolife.org said...

FALSE, AGAIN. A human being has a person-class mind, and and an unborn human animal organism doesn't. They are different, not the same. NOR is the development of a person-class mind purely associated with biological growth --and I told you about that, too, but you continue to Stupidly Deny Facts (this time about Nurture and feral children), and repetitively spout nonsense.


And you Stupidly continue to assume that Potential Must Be Fulfilled. Are you ready to fall down that staircase yet, and break your neck (or fulfill any other equivalent potential, like have a fatal car accident, or get run over by a train, or ....endless possibilities!)?


Your mere claim that abortion is wrong is worthless without evidence, and so far you have presented Zero Objective Evidence supporting your therefore-still-worthless claim. All through Nature, the deaths of offspring, one way or another (look up "fetal resorption" for a Natural Equivalent to abortion!), is common. For many species, other species EAT their offspring, so they have a great many offspring just for species-survival.


Humans have relatively few offspring, and climbed to the top of the food chain, eating just about everything else, but that doesn't make humans any "better" than, say, a Tyrannosaurous Rex (was also at the top of its food chain). We could still be wiped out by a giant meteor impact. The Universe doesn't care one whit what we Stupidly, Egotistically, and Prejudicially think about ourselves.


A while back I asked to you imagine yourself on a star-ship investigating alien lifeforms for personhood. On Earth one of the smartest animals is the octopus, which has 20,000-100,000 offspring at at time (most get eaten by other species). It would not be a huge stretch of the possibilities (search for the exact phrase "six thousand little griglets") for there to exist a fully-intelligent alien species with each breeding pair having thousands of offspring at a time --and most of them must die, or that species will have an overpopulation problem that makes Earth's problem trivial.


So, if you want to claim that abortion is wrong, you need to prove it. Otherwise you are spouting worthless blather.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, there it is. The last one of your stupid mantras on the Mathilde Y. Drinking Game Strip BINGO card. I hope you're satisfied.

secularprolife.org said...

"being" is also a synonym for 'life form' , 'living entitiy ' or 'creature', not just 'person'.
-----
AGREED. So why don't you commonly use phrases such as "radish being", "oyster being", "dog being", and so on? --instead of almost exclusively associating the word "being" with "human"? I TOLD YOU THE ANSWER BEFORE: You are not using any definition of "being" besides "person" when you do that.
=====

Personhood is a legal term.
-----
KEEP THAT IN MIND. The U.S. Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once. A good thing! The USA is ready to allow immigration of extraterrestrial persons. Any idiot who wants to define "person" in terms of "human" will be promoting Stupid Prejudice against all the other intelligent species in the Universe!
=====

Human being is a scientific term.
-----
PROVE IT!!! It is actually a common phrase, used by lots of people unthinkingly/habitually, including scientists.
=====

Science says that an unborn child
-----
"child" is another word that is used by lots of people unthinkingly/habitually, including scientists. Have you read that "You, Baby/Child" article yet? How many real scientists do you think would continue to call an unborn human a "child" after reading that article?
=====

is a human
-----
ABSOLUTELY. Unborn humans are humans. Duh....
=====


being.
-----
NOT IN TERMS OF THE "PERSON" DEFINITION. In terms of other definitions, AGREED. But totally worthless to your argument --see about about the Law and personhood.
=====

Your 'logic' makes no sense.
-----
ONLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO KNOW HOW TO KEEP DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER.
=====

In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held

hearings where they discussed when human life begins. (snipped)
-----
TOTALLY AGREED. Each individual human life begins at conception. That has absolutely nothing to do with personhood, however!

secularprolife.org said...

Species-membership is defined by DNA, not by what the DNA instructs an organism to become. Therefore, as usual, you are WRONG, because all the DNA in human hydatidiform moles comes from members of the species homo sapiens.



USE YOUR BRAIN: Both a normal unborn human animal organism and a human hydatidiform mole originate as a zygote. No casual inspection can tell the difference between the two zygotes --yet abortion opponents insist that zygotes must be given rights.


Next, both a normal unborn human animal organism and a human hydatidiform mole develop in the same way for the first few days after conception: the zygote becomes a morula, which cracks open the "zona pallucida" and escapes to become a blastocyst, which in turn seeks to implant into a womb. Yet abortion opponents insist that morulas and blastocysts must be given rights.


Only when one blastocyst fails to develop through the next stage normally, becomeng a hydatidiform mole instead of a typical embro, NOW you want to deny rights to that human life-form. Tsk, tsk!!! Your Stupid Prejudice and Hypocrisy is so obvious it is puke-worthy!

secularprolife.org said...

The whole body does. The changes at birth deal with the segmental movement of the skull.

secularprolife.org said...

It is a human fetus that can rightly be killed to save a human being. You are so accustomed to murdering human beings that you discount their lives. You are a cold blooded murderer that has lost tack of your human spirit.

secularprolife.org said...

That's an opinion piece written by a pro-life doctor who wishes to re-define abortion by dubbing it "pre-term parturition." That doesn't change reality when we choose to call it something else. The forced "separation" of a pre-viable fetus is an abortion. That's the very definition of abortion, medically speaking. It doesn't matter if the force involved comes from the woman's own body or is induced by medical means. It's still an abortion, It doesn't matter if the fetus is alive or dead prior to the process. The result of every abortion is a dead fetus, including those of a spontaneous nature. If you're kidding anyone, it's only yourself.

secularprolife.org said...

Accepting of risks is not the same thing as an agreement to live with the results.

secularprolife.org said...

The whole body changes from fertilization until well after the baby is born... is a continual process of development.

secularprolife.org said...

If the woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should be allowed to have an abortion to save her life.

secularprolife.org said...

No, there is a change in organs that occurs before birth. The fetus has one set of "fetal organs" and a human baby has human organs. The function of the fetal human is different from the human baby. The fetus required different organs because it is not a human baby and cannot live as a human baby lives.
For example a human fetal heart or brain will not work in a human baby.

secularprolife.org said...

A human being has human organs. They grow and develop - even a newborns brain isn't done developing. That's no excuse to kill him or her (though some extreme pro-aborts would use that excuse - are you one of them?)

secularprolife.org said...

""A human being has human organs."

And a fetus has fetal organs. Those organs are different in purpose and structure than human baby organs. The heart of an early fetus is simply a tube.


"They grow and develop - even a newborns brain isn't done developing. "


The fetal brain is asleep and has an altered blood brain barrier.



'That's no excuse to kill him or her (though some extreme pro-aborts would use that excuse - are you one of them?)"

You murder innocent born babies and I save them. So what is your point?

secularprolife.org said...

Hopefully, by then the parents have found ways to better themselves so they can provide for their families.
----
Hopefully. But the odds are against it. Badly against it. And what will the CPC do when the mother shows up again five years later needing assistance with groceries?
====

It happens in reverse too. Couples have children thinking they can afford them, they lose their jobs and find themselves with no money - is that an excuse to kill a baby? NO.
----
Children don't exactly drill into their parents' bodies, sucking nutrients and oxygen through their blood; using their bodies as a human toilet; pumping them full of addictive drugs; and inherently increasing their odds of death and disability, do they?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh please. People who kill their unborn children without even TRYING to find a way to make the pregnancy work are heartless and evil. People who support those who would kill their unborn children without even trying to bring their unborn child to term are also heartless and evil.

secularprolife.org said...

A strong women would do what was best for HER AND HER UNBORN CHILD. Even if that meant making a few sacrifices so that her unborn child has a chance to be born.

secularprolife.org said...

Per science, a feral child is a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Children cause their parents stress all the time - that affects the parent's bodies. And if the thought of putting an unwanted child in the system causes even more stress to a woman is it OK for her to kill? Cause apparently in your world,, it's all about the women, not the children or the unborn children.


Most abortions have NOTHING to do with a woman's health. NOTHING. They are for reasons like not being able to afford a child or simply it not being the right time for a child - those are great reasons to put the baby up for adoption or great reasons to get help. They are horrible reasons to kill.

secularprolife.org said...

You are scientifically proved to murder babies, do what's your point.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope a strong woman knows the unwanted ZEF is not more important than her life and she should not have her life ruined for it.

secularprolife.org said...

Nothing you do has anything to do with saving life and has everything to do with murdering born babies .
You castigate others and call them names while you are the real murderer.

secularprolife.org said...

The point is you cannot tell which are defective until they express the correct phenotype at birth. So no I am not contradicting myself.

secularprolife.org said...

The scientific proof is that you are murdering innocent babies, you cannot even refute your murders with any evidence.

secularprolife.org said...

"Scientifically proved"... what kind of 'scientist' are you Russell? lol

secularprolife.org said...

DO I NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC??? Per the Science, a feral child is not a person-type of "human being" --it is just a clever animal in Measurable Fact. It may qualify as some other type of "human being" (depending on chosen non-person definition of "being"), but that doesn't make the feral child any more significant than, say, a "salamander being" (using same non-person definition of "being"), or an "anteater being".

secularprolife.org said...

You have a choice to save babies or let them die and your choice is to let babies die. You are a pro life murderer.

secularprolife.org said...

If you cannot tell which ones are defective you shouldn't be able to kill any of them.

secularprolife.org said...

A strong woman would CARE and do the RIGHT THING for her unborn child. She wouldn't kill. She would GET HELP

secularprolife.org said...

An elderly person is DIFFERENT from a newborn. But they are both human beings - just in different stages of development. An unborn child is DIFFERENT from a newborn. But they are both human beings - just in different stages of development.


Unborn child, newborn and elderly person are 3 of the stages in the life cycle of a human being. No human being should be killed just because his or her parent deems them to be inconvenient or unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not murdering anyone. You, however, support the killing of about 1 million unborn children a year in this country.

secularprolife.org said...

DEFLECTION. Answer the question... what kind of 'scientist' are you Russell?

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't mean that a feral child should be killed.

secularprolife.org said...

No deflection here, you already know the answer. Like Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Albert Einstein when he first made his discoveries, I do not have an advanced degree. But I am a scientist and a past member of the American Physical Society. I have also taken numerous courses in microbiology, embryology and studied DNA.

secularprolife.org said...

Where is the proof that I support killing anyone. I have presented the scientific evidence that you are murdering children. You intentionally cause their death. I save children. You are a murderer, understand.

secularprolife.org said...

You are attempting to use a zygote as an excuse to murder innocent babies. If the zygote is an excuse, then a sperm is also an excuse to murder babies. You have a choice, you can save babies or you can kill them and use the excuse you are saving sperm babies. why not try that on for your next murder.
Hitler raped Jewish women and tracked the sperm and egg, then he murdered the women to prove that a tiny baby existed. He failed and you have failed. Now go away with Hitler and murder some more born people. Leave us alone.

secularprolife.org said...

Did you get kicked out of the American Physical Society for your crazy theories? If your 'theories' had any merit, legislators would be looking at bills to put pro-lifers in jail for killing babies.

secularprolife.org said...

It took a long time to try and convict the Nazi war criminals. It will take a while to get you convicted. But your day is coming, you are intentionally murdering babies and trying to convince others to join you in your killing spree.

secularprolife.org said...

You left out the haploid stage of the life cycle. Sperm and oocyte are human life as well. They are the stage before the zygote stage and become the zygote. They are the first stage of unborn life. If it is right to kill born humans to protect zygotes, embryos and fetuses, then it is right to kill born life to save a sperm.

You murder innocent born life to save zefs, you should also murder life to save sperm. You are just insane enough to do that evil deed along with your other murders.

secularprolife.org said...

You understand that you simply murder born life to save fetuses and that you do not and have never saved a baby. You understand that, right?

secularprolife.org said...

"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,"

The first stage of unborn human life is the haploid stage. Haploid human life is comprised of male and female haploid DNA. The haploid stage is the stage that creates the diploid stage. If one kills the haploid human, then there can be no diploid human, and all born humans are diploid humans. . The haploid humans have unique DNA, different from the mother and father and their DNA is what creates the zygote's unique DNA. Without the unique haploid DNA there would be no zygote.

It is clear that because of the unique human nature of the diploid human, it is also a part of our human family and should have human rights.

If killing a diploid human is murder, then killing a haploid human is just as certainly murder.

secularprolife.org said...

"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."

70 percent of conceptions end in natural abortion. So any consent to sex is consent to abort 70 percent of the human life that is created. For that reason, your concern for the fetus is misplaced, the consent to abort occurred with consent to sex. There is no other result that one can reach.

Any intentional sex is consent to abort. The only way to avoid consent is to avoid sex.

secularprolife.org said...

"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.........

Rape invokes the "Law of Preclusion" that states that an unwanted birth precludes a wanted birth. If one forces the birth of a rapist's baby, then they deny the opportunity of life for a wanted baby. So no life is saved by forcing the rapist's baby to be born because the life of another child is denied.
If follows that because most of those that are pro life are also sexually active, they have all already consented to abortion in their personal lives and have no right to deny abortion to others.

secularprolife.org said...

Any pro lifer that consents to sex has consented to abortion. That is a scientific fact. So their claim that you consented to pregnancy is moot, you consented to abortion, not pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

The right thing for me would be to abort the unwanted ZEF before it ruined my life.

secularprolife.org said...

Look. I get it; you're bitter because you were being all noble and stuff when your oopsie didn't work out and you now have a kid you didn't want. You made your choice; other people have the same right ... including the right not to make the same choice as you.

secularprolife.org said...

Sperm is not a human being. AN unborn child IS.


So, by your logic, we must kill sperm to save unborn children?

secularprolife.org said...

Killing your unborn child because he or she was an 'oopsie' is horrible. A woman who doesn't want her child can give him or her up for adoption when he or she is born. That's a horrible and selfish excuse to kill an unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

Mathilde, bitter party of one? Your table is ready.

secularprolife.org said...

They are responsible to care for children in their custody until those children can be SAFELY handed off.... Key word - SAFELY. Should be the same with an unborn child. A parent should be responsible to care for their unborn child - at least until he or she can be born and SAFELY handed off to someone else.

secularprolife.org said...

NO, the right thing to do would be to show LOVE for your unborn child and CARE for him or her instead of killing him or her.

secularprolife.org said...

Are there ANY politicians that agree with you and want to prosecute pro-lifers for 'murdering babies' by supporting pro-life laws?

secularprolife.org said...

Everyone wants to see murderers prosecuted.

secularprolife.org said...

Then why aren't pro-lifers being prosecuted for murder simply because they are pro-life? Because our current laws don't support it? If so, what politicians are advocating to change the law or add new laws to cover your so-called scenario? Waiting for a list....

secularprolife.org said...

I would feel no love for something that I saw as nothing more than a parasite that was causing me nothing but misery. The thing would be destroying my life and ruining my chance at being happy every day. I would owe it nothing.

secularprolife.org said...

Some selfish people would feel the same way about a newborn... wouldn't even CARE enough to turn the child over to authorities.... You're just as bad as they are.

secularprolife.org said...

You still do not understand the difference between an embryo and a newborn do you?
Have you not had biology yet in your high school?

secularprolife.org said...

There is a difference between an elderly person and a newborn too... but, like an unborn child, they are all human beings and none of them should be killed simply because someone thinks they are unwanted.

secularprolife.org said...

The elderly person and the newborn are different, but they are more alike than a ZEF and a newborn.
Neither an elderly person or a newborn requires the forced use of ONE living person's body to survive.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn child at 23 weeks is just like a newborn born at 23 weeks... way more similarities than a newborn born at 23 weeks and an elderly person.

secularprolife.org said...

Children cause their parents stress all the time - that affects the parent's bodies. And if the thought of putting an unwanted child in the system causes even more stress to a woman is it OK for her to kill? Cause apparently in your world,, it's all about the women, not the children or the unborn children.
----
Children cause their parents stress, but they aren't exactly drilling into their parents' bodies, sucking nutrients and oxygen through their blood; using their bodies as a human toilet; pumping them full of addictive drugs; and inherently increasing their odds of death and disability, do they?
====

Most abortions have NOTHING to do with a woman's health. NOTHING. They are for reasons like not being able to afford a child or simply it not being the right time for a child - those are great reasons to put the baby up for adoption or great reasons to get help. They are horrible reasons to kill.
----
They are drilling into the mother's body, sucking nutrients and oxygen through their blood; using her body as a human toilet; pumping her full of addictive drugs; and inherently increasing her odds of death and disability. If any other being besides the prenate were to do this to a person, it would be clear we could kill the assailant in order to make it stop. Unlike you, I am not giving the prenate special rights.

secularprolife.org said...

Look at reasons for abortion - direct effect on the woman's health has NOTHING to do with most abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh little myintx you and your cute obsession with abortions at 23 weeks...

secularprolife.org said...

So what? I'm not saying health has anything to do with most abortions. I'm saying a pregnant woman does not have to put up with the things the prenate does to her, for whatever reason she does not want to put up with it.

secularprolife.org said...

deflection

secularprolife.org said...

You are the one obsessed with abortion at 23 weeks...

secularprolife.org said...

I was disproving your claim. Ready to admit you were wrong?

secularprolife.org said...

For the same reason Nazis were not punished for killing Jews. Pro lifers, like the Nazis that founded their movement, do not consider murdering born people to save fetuses to be a crime.

secularprolife.org said...

I am not wrong about anything... and you are obsessed with abortions at 23 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

You are wrong. An unborn child at 23 weeks is more similar to a newborn at 23 weeks than a newborn is to an elderly person... Guess that means no one should be able to kill an unborn child then :)

secularprolife.org said...

I just wanted to point out that not ejaculating into to the female is not a reliable way to prevent pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

You're a little late.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, it is. And that should read not ejaculating into a vagina. Nobody has ever been pregnant by having sex other ways. Use your imagination.

secularprolife.org said...

First of all, don't compare pregnancy and birth to writing a check. It's totally NOT the same. Secondly, men can prevent children from being born. They do not own or exercise control over female bodies. But they can prevent children from being born.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 846   Newer› Newest»