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!

500 replies
  1. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  2. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  3. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  4. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  5. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  6. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  7. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  8. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  9. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  10. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  11. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    As for dehumanization, think of it from this angle…

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

    Reply
  12. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  13. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  14. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  15. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  16. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  17. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  18. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  19. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  20. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  21. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  22. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Which is interesting.

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

    Reply
  23. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  24. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  25. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Hi,

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

    Reply
  26. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  27. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Worth noting, too:

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

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

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

    Reply
  28. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    You've got several topics swirling around:

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

    Reply
  29. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  30. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  31. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  32. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  33. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  34. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ….Okay, then.

    Reply
  35. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Hi Stormii

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

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

    Reply
  36. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    I just did.

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

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

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

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

    ….Okay, then.

    Well, do you seek to criminalize abortion?

    Reply
  37. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  38. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Purple Slurpy,

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

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

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

    Reply
  39. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    DNA is DNA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "Well, do you seek to criminalize abortion?"

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

    Reply
  40. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    OK. How does one go about dehumanizing human DNA?

    Reply
  41. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  42. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  43. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  44. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  45. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  46. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  47. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  48. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  49. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    "Different cells coming together to make us organisms"

    – I made sure to add the word "organisms" so I would avoid this…

    Reply
  50. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Whatever.

    What makes a human organism special vs a cow organism?

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

    Reply
  51. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  52. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Hi Stormii

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  53. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  54. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  55. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Purple Slurpy,

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

    Reply
  56. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  57. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  58. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  59. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  60. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  61. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Tell me more.

    Reply
  62. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  63. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  64. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  65. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    A woman is an adult human being.

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

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

    Reply
  66. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  67. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  68. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  69. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  70. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  71. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  72. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  73. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  74. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  75. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  76. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  77. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  78. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  79. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  80. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  81. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  82. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Continuum fallacy.

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

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

    Reply
  83. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  84. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  85. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  86. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  87. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  88. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  89. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  90. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  91. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    high school degree 20%
    postgraduate degree 80%

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

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

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

    Reply
  92. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  93. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  94. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  95. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  96. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  97. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  98. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  99. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  100. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  101. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  102. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Nope…. never said that.

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

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

    Reply
  103. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  104. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    O rlly?

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

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

    Reply
  105. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  106. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  107. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  108. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  109. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  110. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  111. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  112. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  113. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  114. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  115. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  116. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  117. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  118. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  119. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  120. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  121. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  122. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  123. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  124. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  125. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  126. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  127. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  128. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  129. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  130. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  131. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  132. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  133. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  134. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  135. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  136. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  137. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  138. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  139. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  140. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  141. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Not on intention.

    Not on brain function.

    Not on 'very life'.

    Not on rights of any sort.

    On cuteness.

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  142. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  143. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  144. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  145. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  146. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  147. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  148. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  149. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  150. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  151. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  152. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  153. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  154. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  155. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  156. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  157. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  158. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  159. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    prolifers buwould not condemn anyone who made such a hard choice

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

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

    Reply
  160. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Savita died of Sepsis and malpractice.

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

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

    Reply
  161. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  162. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  163. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    "human being" – check
    "innocent" – check

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

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

    Reply
  164. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Her entire morality is based on how cute something is.

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

    Cuteness.

    Reply
  165. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  166. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  167. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  168. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  169. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    ** Equally, it says that the conception is fully constituted from the get-go.The difference between you, the reader, and the unborn child is time allowed for your growth, and food.**

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

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

    Or are you babbling like myintx?

    Reply
  170. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  171. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  172. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  173. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  174. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  175. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  176. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  177. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  178. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  179. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  180. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  181. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  182. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  183. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  184. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  185. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  186. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  187. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  188. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  189. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  190. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    2. No, he or she is not.

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

    Reply
  191. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    An unborn child IS a human being.

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

    Reply
  192. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  193. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  194. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  195. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  196. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  197. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  198. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  199. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  200. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  201. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  202. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  203. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  204. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  205. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  206. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  207. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  208. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  209. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  210. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  211. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  212. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  213. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  214. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  215. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  216. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  217. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  218. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  219. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  220. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  221. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  222. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    for the killing of unborn children?

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

    Reply
  223. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  224. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  225. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  226. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  227. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  228. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  229. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  230. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  231. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  232. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  233. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  234. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  235. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  236. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    (woman here btw)

    Reply
  237. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  238. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  239. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  240. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  241. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  242. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  243. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Do you consider a blastocyst to be a person?

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

    Reply
  244. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  245. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  246. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  247. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  248. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  249. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  250. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  251. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  252. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  253. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  254. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  255. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  256. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  257. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  258. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  259. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  260. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    "As a scientist of considerable experience, I may speak with some authority. Science says that the embryo/foetus is an entity separate from the mother. "

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

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

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

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

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

    "For those who would enter the field of science with me, rather than speak about it, I should be very glad to let you have an article which sets out these and allied matters (with reference to recent developments). "

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

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

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

    "Individualists and Secularists often (happily) take a lead from Science and the Natural Order. I like to argue, please, from the secularist side – as sight of the 'induction and deduction' required, for this subject, can be lost when the religious element is introduced"

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

    Reply
  261. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  262. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    I stated a fact and posted my source.

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  263. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  264. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  265. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  266. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  267. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  268. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  269. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  270. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  271. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  272. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  273. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  274. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  275. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  276. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  277. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  278. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  279. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  280. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  281. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  282. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    Never say never. 🙂

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

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

    Reply
  283. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  284. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  285. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  286. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  287. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  288. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  289. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    All because prolifers do not support life-saving abortions.

    Reply
  290. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  291. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  292. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  293. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  294. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You cannot prove that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Your characterization of them is not definitive.

    Reply
  295. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  296. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  297. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  298. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  299. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  300. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  301. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  302. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  303. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  304. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

    Reply
  305. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  306. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  307. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  308. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    **. Because we are human beings **

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  309. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  310. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  311. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  312. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  313. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  314. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    AN unborn human is a human
    —–
    TRUE.
    =====

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

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

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

    and should have basic rights.

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

    OR to any unborn human.
    =====

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply
  315. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

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

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

    Reply
  316. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  317. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  318. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  319. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  320. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  321. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  322. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  323. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply
  324. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

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

    Reply