Pro life advocates claim that conception is the beginning of human life, making it the point at which human’s become morally relevant. Birth is just some event that happens later and has no bearing on things like rights. Thus, blastocysts deserve full legal protection that adult humans get and the death of a zygote ought to be weighed equally as the death of people outside the womb. It’s been repeatedly pointed out why this is either incorrect or irrelevant but this has failed to sway most pro lifers. So today I shall explore the implications of pro life reasoning were it actually sound.
What happens if we up the accuracy a bit and apply pro life reasoning? And by ‘up the accuracy’ I mean that we look at the actual beginning of a human’s life cycle. Pro lifers claim that its conception. But any high school biology student could tell you that there is a lot that has to happen before that. An egg has to be released by the female, which must then float down a long tube. During the brief period when this is happening, a sperm cell must travel from the male, through the birth canal, and meet up with the ovum. Only then can conception begin to take place. Thus, human life has an earlier chapter that pro lifers currently ignore.
Now you could point out that each of the gametes only have half the required chromosomes that ‘actual’ people have, but the response is the same as when its pointed out that blastocysts have no brain. According to Pro lifers such things are purely developmental issues, that have no bearing on person-hood. Physiology is nothing to base moral worth on, after all.
In fact any argument you could possibly come up with to say that the gamete is NOT a person, but a zygote is, there is a synonymous argument saying that the zygote is not a person, but a birthed human is. And since, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I’m granting the pro life position that the latter wouldn’t work, then I must also grant that the former wouldn’t work either.
Gametes fulfill the pro life criterion for human life and therefore moral worth. They are 100% human cells and their sole purpose is to develop into a separate human being, they are merely people one step back from zygotes. Conception is just some event that happens later and has no bearing on things like rights.
Can we go a step further? Well, I suppose we could look at oogonia in females and spermatagonia in males (the gametogonium that develop into their respective gametes) , but my grasp of biology starts getting hazy about that point, and so gametes are as far back as I can go right now. No matter, it is sufficient to reveal the absurdity of pro-life arguments.
So spermatogenesis and oogenisis (the procedures in which humans create gametes) are the actual beginnings of life, NOT conception, and the gamete (the spermazoa or the ovum) are therefore the initial receivers of human rights, protection, moral worth, etc. NOT zygotes. What would this mean?
Well, according to Pro life arguments, abortion is murder, as it is the knowing destruction of human life. Apply this to our current example and every single time a woman has a period, she is committing murder. Further, every time a male ejaculates, he is committing the mass genocide of approximately 80 million poor defenseless humans. Even if he were to impregnate someone with that ejaculation, that is still 79,999,999 deaths for one life. This is unacceptable. If Hitler somehow managed to increase the death toll of his holocaust tenfold (to approximate the deaths caused by a single male orgasm) but saved one single life in doing so, would that make everything alright? Not a chance.
By applying your arguments to a more accurate view of the life cycle, we see that after a lifetime of menstrual activity, each and every woman is responsible for more murders than our most notorious serial killers and that each time a male orgasms, he commits an atrocity ten times worse than the holocaust.
Is this sane? Is this rational? Is this something we should base legislation and governing policies on? Certainly not.
There is obviously a problem with the initial premise that humans obtain moral worth the instant their life cycle begins. I mentioned earlier that any reason one could come up with as to why a gamete is not a person, pro-lifers already have a synonimous argument to refute it (they just currently use it to claim person-hood for zygotes). But pro choice has an additional argument that a Pro lifer cannot use against the gamete activist. A birthed baby is a seperate, self-sustaining entity, who’s existence is not dependant on anyone elses. Birth is the true creation of the individual.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
107 comments
January 4, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Neil
“I did identify that your liberal take on “what the embryological textbooks say” is a particularly zealous interpretation of that particular fact”
Yeah, I get called liberal a lot ;-) . Perhaps you could take one of the quotes I referenced and point out why I’m being “particularly zealous” about claiming that abortions kill human beings. How about this one?
“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
Here’s another pro-choicer who concedes the point:
“David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission:
In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.”
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Neil
“The truth of the matter it would seem is that you have not, and are not being consistent or honest when you go on your tirades about when life begins.”
If you are after truth, then perhaps you could offer some evidence instead of more ad hominem fallacies.
“I’m thinking that if you cannot accept evolution as fact, then why should we give your pronouncements about science and what science says seriously.”
LOL. Let’s try this in reverse (I encourage you all to do this with all your comments. You’ll look less foolish that way if you realize how self-refuting so many of them are. How about if I say that if you can’t see the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings that I should take you seriously on evolution?
BTW, I believe in micro-evolution, but being the evidence based guy I am, I mock materialistic naturalism. Go read Stephen Meyers’ “Signature in the Cell” then come back and tell me how anti-science I am for believing that the vast amount of highly ordered information in cells could not possibly have been created via the Neo-Darwinian mechanism. Until then, I’ll just dismiss your evolution comments as pathetic red herrings.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Neil
“Hey, great that some embryology text books say “x”, depending on how you interpret the facts a case could be made for either side”
Here’s another one. Does this seem vague to you?
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Neil
“That having been said, I am fairly sure it you will not find it convincing as contravening facts and the faithful do not mix particularly well.”
Yep, the pro-choice “Christians” (and there are many) ignore the scientific facts as well, just like you.
Oh, wait, you were trying to dismiss my views on abortion because I’m a Christian? Predictable. Can’t win on science so you have to resort to more fallacies. You’re the gift that keeps on giving.
Again, your point about conception is laughable — unless you are claiming that once conception is “officially” over that you are in favor of protecting the unborn.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Neil
“So, what it seems like to me is that your position is faith based rather than being grounded in any particularly scientific mode, therefore, thank you for your opinion about abortion as it does confirm your fetus fetish and commitment to stripping women of their bodily autonomy.”
Hmmmm . . . let’s see, I’ve offered many scientific explanations and you’ve offered zero. I’ve offered zero religious arguments, and now you are making religious arguments (and bad, self-refuting ones at that — unless you are consistent in your behavior and dismiss the support of pro-choice “Christian” groups).
Ah, you are back to the fetus fetish pejorative. Charming. Would that mean you have an abortion fetish? Would it make me more persuasive if I stooped to your level and used that? Don’t worry, it isn’t my style — I stick to science, facts and logic when debating non-believers. Using petty personal attacks is not only unkind but it harms your cause by making your side seem shrill and lacking in confidence.
Oh, and back to the “stripping women of bodily autonomy” self-refuting argument as well (for the 20th time, what about the autonomy of the unborn?).
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Neil
Correction — you did offer one scientific argument, it was just irrelevant.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 8:06 pm
The Arbourist
Oh, wait, you were trying to dismiss my views on abortion because I’m a Christian?
That usually is enough. But no, in your case, it is your lack of intellectual honesty, your lack of charity and lack of comprehension of the structures of basic argumentation. I have not committed, nor has Mystro committed an Ad Hominem attack. I may have strayed close but it was in the for the greater picture of illustrating that using concepts from biology that are based on evolution – macro, micro, etc but not subscribing the overall theory that is all of evolutionary theory is correct to the best of our knowledge, is dishonest.
Again, your point about conception is laughable
And apparently not refutable either.
Can’t win on science so you have to resort to more fallacies.
I do not think I would like to win, given your conception of science.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Neil
“But no, in your case, it is your lack of intellectual honesty, your lack of charity and lack of comprehension of the structures of basic argumentation. ”
Evidence = zero. Dishonesty? Heh. Lack of charity? Uh, sure Mr. “You have a fetish fetish!” Argumentation? You can’t go 3 sentences without a fallacy.
“Again, your point about conception is laughable
And apparently not refutable either.”
Read again — in two comments. Your position is that because conception is a very brief but not infinitesimal process that it somehow undermines my argument. But the embyrology textbooks don’t seem to be such literalists.
And more importantly, if you really held that as your objection then you’d oppose abortions after the “lengthy” conception process. But I couldn’t even get you to disavow Peter Singer’s philosophy.
“I do not think I would like to win, given your conception of science.”
Yes, my conception of science is to trust things like this:
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.
Yep, some specific condition like having her skull crushed and limbs ripped off.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Neil
“”Oh, wait, you were trying to dismiss my views on abortion because I’m a Christian?”
That usually is enough.”
Thanks for conceding your bigotry. I’m open minded enough to discuss issues with people of different religious (or non-religious) views, provided they have the intellectual honesty to follow the facts where they lead (or if they are such fallacious pro-abort poster children that it makes for a model dialog for the middle ground folks to observe).
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:24 am
jesurgislac
Neil: If you re-read it carefully you’ll note that you’ve considered everyone’s rights except those of the unborn, who is a unique human being. That is the primary question: What is the unborn?
No, the primary question is: what is a woman? If a woman is a human being, it breaks a dozen or so basic human rights to argue that her body can be used against her will for any reason – even to keep another human alive.
Human rights for women means each pregnant woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy whenever she chooses.
Whether you choose to think of the fetus as a human, as a potential human, or even with the faux-sentimentality of the prolifer as an “unborn child”, it’s irrelevant in considering whether a woman is human.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:49 am
The Arbourist
Uh, sure Mr. “You have a fetish fetish!” Argumentation?
You focus on the fetus rather than the woman in the equation. You believe that the fetus has rights that would supersede the rights of women to say what goes on in their bodies, this is wrong and thankfully legislation also backs this particular view of things. This focus on one party rather than other, especially at the cost of the other, can be considered a fetish as it is the attribution of inherent value to a particular object, and in this case it would be the fetus. Plus it has a nice alliterative feel to it.
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
“It is not a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. The truth is that human life, in the sense of a person like you or I, emerges slowly from the genetic information and molecules that made up the sperm and eggs in your parents body, from the processes of controlled growth of the resulting embryo and foetus, using nutrients that nourished you in the womb. Science informs us that it is a continuous process. Those looking for a nice distinct point in time that can be used as the starting point of each person’s existence will be sorely disappointed if they look at the science.”
And there you have it. Your claim is a oversimplification and conflation of biological fact into anti-choice rhetoric. The connection you make between textbook and reality is tenuous at best and does not reflect a realistic picture of when (if) we should be assigning personhood to a fetus, which I believe we definitely should not.
Yep, some specific condition like having her skull crushed and limbs ripped off.
Or dying in childbirth or enduring life altering complications due to pregnancy or any number of things that can negatively effect the Mother in question. As these factors effect her and her body it is her choice alone.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 9:01 am
The Arbourist
Arb: “That usually is enough.” – N: Thanks for conceding your bigotry.
Generalizing, is not bigotry. As most of the religiously addled I have encountered are usually quite unreasonable once pressed on their irrational beliefs in magic and superstition. It is a statement of my experiences with the irrational, and please note “usually” does not mean all.
I’m open minded enough to discuss issues with people of different religious (or non-religious) views, provided they have the intellectual honesty to follow the facts where they lead
I highly doubt this as an one of the qualities of having an openmind is willingness to change it. And that particular quality you have not exhibited at all during your time here, including an unwillingness to read other authors posts, nor take their words or arguments charitably. So, openmindedness is not a particular quality I would ascribe to your position. As to the moderates watching the debate, I would welcome their input as the case you have put forth is not particularly strong nor cogent except perhaps in its repetition of quote mined scientific facts grafted into your questionable rhetorical position.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Neil
“No, the primary question is: what is a woman? If a woman is a human being, it breaks a dozen or so basic human rights to argue that her body can be used against her will for any reason – even to keep another human alive.”
Once again you commit the most common pro-choice error: Ignoring the humanity of the unborn (at least half of whom are female). And you act as if we have no idea how that pesky human being got inside her as well.
“Human rights for women means each pregnant woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy whenever she chooses.”
Ignores the human rights of the females (and males) inside her.
“Whether you choose to think of the fetus as a human,”
That’s a scientific fact.
“as a potential human,”
That is unscientific nonsense.
“or even with the faux-sentimentality of the prolifer as an “unborn child””
Even pro-choicers slip with their “faux sentimentality” and concede that abortion kills human beings.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Neil
“You focus on the fetus rather than the woman in the equation.”
False dilemma. I focus on both, but this discussion is on whether one of them can be crushed and dismembered against her (the unborn’s) will.
And I didn’t realize you had access to my calendar and checkbook. Do you know how much time and money I spend to help women in need?
“This focus on one party rather than other, especially at the cost of the other”
Hmmm . . . as if carrying a pregnancy a few more months then giving the child up for adoption is akin to having one’s skull crushed and limbs ripped off.
“It is not a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.”
I’m gonna stick with the mainstream embryology textbooks (as well as common sense that beings reproduce after their own kind) and not the person who can’t grasp simple scientific concepts.
Here’s another fun one from those radical right-wing misogynistic fetish fetish anti-science fucktards at National Geographic:
“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.”
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Neil
“Those looking for a nice distinct point in time that can be used as the starting point of each person’s existence will be sorely disappointed if they look at the science.”
That’s not what those pesky embryology textbooks say.
For at least the 3rd time, where do you draw the line? Partial-birth abortion? Infanticide? The 97th trimester? I realize it is safer for you to opine about blastocysts and the seemingly interminable conception cycle, but in the real world people have to decide when you can and can’t destroy human life with impunity.
I’ve been quite clear and scientific in drawing the line at conception. Your claim is that my line is too wide (as if the debate is over what point within conception cycle it is ok to abort and what part isn’t.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Neil
“does not reflect a realistic picture of when (if) we should be assigning personhood to a fetus”
Personhood is an elusive philosophical concept, which means it is a lousy measure of when you can and can’t kill or steal human beings (see slavery, the Jews, etc.). Really bad things — like abortion — happen when human beings are de-humanized.
“Or dying in childbirth or enduring life altering complications due to pregnancy or any number of things that can negatively effect the Mother in question. As these factors effect her and her body it is her choice alone.”
If the mother’s life is in danger then abortions are permissible (that’s consistent with the pro-life ethic). Re. “life altering complications” — you can’t use that excuse to kill those outside the womb, so you shouldn’t use it to rationalize the destruction of those inside the womb if they are human beings. And they are.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Neil
“I highly doubt this as an one of the qualities of having an openmind is willingness to change it.”
Prove that the unborn aren’t human beings and I’ll change my mind.
I was pro-choice until my late 20’s (basically when I did the research on what abortion really is and all the bad bumper-sticker reasoning used to justify it). So by your definition, I’m open minded. Et toi?
“And that particular quality you have not exhibited at all during your time here”
Once again, please re-read your comments in reverse before posting lest you embarrass yourself. (i.e., have you turned into a pro-lifer on this thread? Guess that’s proof that you are close minded.)
“As to the moderates watching the debate, I would welcome their input as the case you have put forth is not particularly strong nor cogent except perhaps in its repetition of quote mined scientific facts grafted into your questionable rhetorical position.”
If they can demonstrate where the mainstream scientific claim I have presented (i.e., a new human being is created at conception) then I would welcome their criticisms. It would be the first scientific fact-based reply in these threads (other than the pathetically irrelevant implication that the debate is about mid-conception abortions).
How about this: My position is that abortions should not be done once conception begins. But I’m such a flexible, open minded guy that I’ll change my mind and meet you halfway if you’ll agree that they shouldn’t take place once conception ends. After all, that is your major scientific rebuttal to the specific quotes I’ve noted.
Oh, and feel free to “mine” all the contrary quotes from whatever embyrology textbooks you like — keeping in mind that they need to clearly state that a new human being is not created at conception but at another time. I’ll wait here.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Mystro
Neil: “Linking to a pro-life site does not mean the data there is biased. Using your “reasoning” everything you say and everything bit of pro-choice reasoning on this site should be dismissed because of your bias. Your argument is self-refuting…. if you’d read the link you’d see that science backs me up completely: A new human being is created at conception. Before that, do whatever you like with your sperm and eggs. ”
I did go to your link. And it contained nothing but quote mining and a bunch more of your brand of taking something out of its original context and putting it in whatever context you can come up with to make it seem like it supports your position. It is that practice of dishonesty that makes your link biased. Really, you sound like the YECs who say Darwin didn’t believe in evolution.
Neil:”If “it” is a human being — and science is unanimous that she is one — then 99% of the reasons given for abortion do not justify the procedure.”
Oh come now. ‘science is unanimous’? That is either completely incoherent or another blatant lie. If by ‘science’ you meant ‘the best information that science has been able to derive so far’ then unanimous is a quality that can’t apply to it as there are not multiple entities of science. Your claim makes no sense. You need at least two of something for unanimity to come into play.
If, on the other hand, you meant ‘all scientists who make up the scientific community’ then you are flat out lying. Even in the case of evolution, a process for which we have more scientific evidence than gravity, only a mere 99.85% of biologists believe it. What does that mean? It isn’t unanimous and no credible scientist would claim it to be.
As to your 99% of reasons given for abortion they boil down to one: the mother does not want something growing inside her. As jesurgislac correctly points out “If a woman is a human being, it breaks a dozen or so basic human rights to argue that her body can be used against her will for any reason – even to keep another human alive.” Well put, and thanks for posting Jesurgislac.
Neil:”Simple, really. Stop taking away the self-ownership of the unborn, who are fellow humans, and I’ll stop calling the pro-choicers out on their bullshit.”
Self-ownership of the unborn? Really? Your desperate attempts at wit are painfully ignorant. Even the most novice of amateur developmental psychologists know that self-awareness doesn’t develop in a person until well after they are born. It is impossible exercise ownership over something if you have no concept of its existence. Even with self-awareness, we do not immediately bestow self ownership to our children. Parents decide what is best for their children and we don’t let them eat ice cream 3 meals a day and do nothing but watch cartoons.
Same thing to your ‘what about the unborn’s autonomy’ bit. The unborn simply doesn’t have any. It involuntarily ingests only what the mother makes available, it involuntarily goes wherever the mother goes. Once born, it can go left when the mother goes right. Why? because it is a seperate entity, an individual, whereas before, it was not.
Neil:”Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. ”
You got my hopes up. This almost sounded like you were going to make an actual point. But all it is is a incoherent sentence fragment. When you start a sentence with ‘whether x’ you must follow it with something. eg. ‘whether x or y, z is the case’ or ‘whether x or y depends on z’. But then you just go back to your usual ‘I’m right because I say so’, routine.
I’ve tried so many ways to get you to actually say something, other than empty assertions, but you don’t seem to get it. So let me simplify how I see our discussion
you:Science says I’m right.
me:explain
you: I’m right, science says so
me: you’re not actually saying why you are right. and if science backed you up, you would do so.
you: you are against science. Science says I’m right. Here’s a link.
your site: Science says we’re right.
you: See? Science says I’m right
me: At no point do you say WHY YOU’RE RIGHT which is essential to any kind of scientific inquiry. Evidence, data, etc. You can’t just say you are right. That isn’t science.
you: You’re anti science. Science says I’m right.
me: sigh…
The reason you do this is because you don’t actually have anything that directly supports your position. Case in point:
Neil:”“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.”
Congratulations! You’ve stepped up from just saying ‘I’m right’ to quote mining and then saying ‘I’m right’. That’s the next tier in con-artistry.
This particular example is known as equivocation. The text books here are talking about going from millions of potential humans to one potential human. As far as this text is concerned, there is nothing else that can be added to the definition of ‘individual’. But then you jump in with your definition of ‘full human being (in the moral sense) therefore abortions are murder’. Nothing in these texts support your version. Please note your quote says ‘beginning of a new human’ not ‘is a new human’. Don’t worry. You’ll get better at quote mining as your bullshitting techniques improve.
Neil:”If you are after truth, then perhaps you could offer some evidence instead of more ad hominem fallacies.”
Sigh, I went over ad hominems and how you are using the term incorrectly. I believe it was in the post you admitted ignoring. You should stop this ‘If I ignore you then I’m still right’ tactic. It’s dishonest, rude, and unscientific.
Neil:”let’s see, I’ve offered many scientific explanations and you’ve offered zero”
No you haven’t. see discussion synopsis above.
““Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.”
More quote mining. sigh. If you say this supports your claim that zygotes are full human beings, then I can say
“Every time a sperm cell is created in the testes a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
which is just as true. Not making it to an egg is one such specific condition. Science says.
The whole point of this post is that “pro-lifers” take whatever bits of scientific info they can twist to support their claim and dump a whole bunch of extra meaning on them that the evidence does not actually support.
By using the same evidence twisting that you do, I can apply your ludicrous criteria for what makes something a human being to sperm. Instead of pointing out why this doesn’t work (because you can’t) you go on with your twisting of facts. Not one of your twists wouldn’t also work for my reductio ad absurdum.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Neil
“I did go to your link. And it contained nothing but quote mining and a bunch more of your brand of taking something out of its original context and putting it in whatever context you can come up with to make it seem like it supports your position. ”
How about providing an example? Show me how this came out of context, for example:
“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”
“The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.
“It is that practice of dishonesty that makes your link biased. Really, you sound like the YECs who say Darwin didn’t believe in evolution.”
Non sequitur, anyone? I know Darwin believed in evolution. His lie was his faux Christianity.
“As to your 99% of reasons given for abortion they boil down to one: the mother does not want something growing inside her”
What is that “something?” If it isn’t a human being, then do whatever you like. If it is a human being, we should kill her.
“Parents decide what is best for their children and we don’t let them eat ice cream 3 meals a day and do nothing but watch cartoons.”
Good point. Only using your reasoning, the parents can kill those kids because they aren’t self-aware enough. Wow, you’re beyond infanticide and way into justifying toddler-cide. (That’s what happens with bad philosophy.)
“The text books here are talking about going from millions of potential humans to one potential human.”
Prove it. Go find the embyrology textbooks that refer to “potential humans” in that context. Things are human or they are not human.
“More quote mining”
Gee, if you say my quotes from mainstream embryology textbooks are quote mining, I guess you don’t have to respond to them . . . unless you want to be intellectually honest.
You sure have to work hard to avoid scientific facts.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Neil
Oops — this should have said “If it is a human being, we should NOT kill her.”
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Neil
“Oh come now. ‘science is unanimous’? That is either completely incoherent or another blatant lie.”
I’m sure you apply that charitable reasoning to those who don’t buy into the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.
And even IF the science wasn’t so clear (and again, not to mention the common sense that two humans would reproduce a human), shouldn’t we err on the side of caution? If you are 99% sure a human being is being killed — or even 50% or less — wouldn’t that be reason to wait until you are sure?
More on the consensus:
The official Senate report reached this conclusion:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance…that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Neil said, “Be careful implying that the father has a right to decide. The pro-choicers will go nuts on you. The father currently has a “right” to agree with whatever decision the woman makes and the “right” to be ignored if he disagrees.”
As you may see from my other posts, I’m rarely “careful” of what I say. :) At any rate, here’s my whole take on this subject:
I’m personally hoping that science one day can allow for gestation to occur completely outside of the womb. Then it should be a win for everybody. Until then, while I’m appreciative and admire the passion of those who are anti-abortion, me and whoever I’m with will still make a decision either way on our own, should an accidental pregnancy occur. In the meantime, I feel sympathy for anyone – pro-life or pro-choice – who is faced with such a difficult decision having tried to avoid the situation in the first place, and I’ll continue to loathe anyone who is promiscuous and not doing everything they can to prevent a decision like that from having to be made. At the end of the day I firmly believe there are people on this planet who have a lower life worth than tree moss and waste our oxygen. :)
Mystro – re: “circular arguments”, I was referring to whose rights should outweigh whose on this issue. Someone can always argue another point of view on whose rights should weigh on more, then it goes back to “what is life”, and then “does God exist”, etc. Technically those may not be circular arguments, but I do know that they make my head spin in a circle all the way around a la Linda Blair.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Neil
“In the meantime, I feel sympathy for anyone – pro-life or pro-choice – who is faced with such a difficult decision having tried to avoid the situation in the first place, and I’ll continue to loathe anyone who is promiscuous and not doing everything they can to prevent a decision like that from having to be made.”
Well said, Vern. If you’ve never visited a crisis pregnancy center I encourage you to call one and ask for a tour. If they are anything like the one I support (a Care Net pregnancy center), they’ll be doing all sorts of things to help women and families in need — and all for free.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm
jesurgislac
Neil, the anti-choice troll, wrote: Once again you commit the most common pro-choice error: Ignoring the humanity of the unborn. … Ignores the human rights of the females (and males) inside her.
Once again you commit the most common prolife error: the presumption that if the fetus is human, that means it must have the right to make use of another human body against her will in order to stay alive. Go look this up on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – try to find the right of a human being to stay alive by using another human being nonconsensually. Not only will you not find this “right” that prolifers think fetuses have by virtue of being human, you will find a dozen basic human rights which are violated by promoting the use of other humans against their will.
And you act as if we have no idea how that pesky human being got inside her as well.
Ah, so you’re one of those kids who’s been taught to believe that pregnancy and childbirth is a punishment inflicted on women for having sex. I bet you think your parents stopped having sex after their last child was born. You know, son, someday you have to grow up and accept that although sex looks scary, when you’re old enough, you too will want to have sex for fun, and there’s nothing wrong with that so long as your partners are all enthusiastically consenting. I know the sex education textbooks they gave you to read didn’t mention that sex is fun. but really, boy: someday you’ll understand and feel very foolish that you thought it was just for “making babies”.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Neil
“Once again you commit the most common prolife error: the presumption that if the fetus is human”
The gift that keeps on giving. Science 1, pro-aborts 0. http://tinyurl.com/yfje9lq
“Ah, so you’re one of those kids who’s been taught to believe that pregnancy and childbirth is a punishment inflicted on women for having sex. ”
Pregnancy is a rather logical possibility with sex. Adults learn that actions have consequences. Killing human beings to try to make those consequences disappear is immoral.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Neil
“I feel sympathy for anyone – pro-life or pro-choice – who is faced with such a difficult decision having tried to avoid the situation in the first place, and I’ll continue to loathe anyone who is promiscuous and not doing everything they can to prevent a decision like that from having to be made.”
Good point, Vern. If you haven’t toured a crisis pregnancy center I encourage you to try it someday. They provide an amazing amount of help to women and families in need — http://tinyurl.com/2bv5k4m .
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Neil
“Neil, the anti-choice troll”
If you would like to be intellectually honest, please say “anti-choice to crush and dismember innocent human beings.” http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv
If you want to concede that you have no scientific arguments to counter mind, then feel free to dismiss me with the “troll” pejorative. It helps my case. I’m not trying to win you guys over, I’m aiming at those who are open minded.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Neil
Re. the “anti-women” meme, virtually all gender selection abortions destroy females for the sole reason that they are female. The imbalances in India and China are in the tens of millions. It is the ultimate misogyny, and it happens with your blessing.
Also, look into the stats for coerced abortions. I’ve met many guys coming into the crisis pregnancy center who were pushing their girlfriends to have abortions.
Look into how Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, hides statutory rape. Is it good for women if you hide statutory rape so you can make money off abortions? http://tinyurl.com/ybp5ocm
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Jesurgislac,
You said: “if the fetus is human, that means it must have the right to make use of another human body against her will in order to stay alive.”
The “that child has no right to depend on its mother” argument seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it? It appears that’s what you’re trying to say, that because a child depends on its mother, it therefore can’t be human if it negates her rights? Makes it sound like some sort of alien or parasite, not a baby.
Note that I’m not arguing pro-choice/pro-life here, just questioning the use of the analogy. It seems a bit far off to me, so I thought either that is in fact your belief (no problem if it is), or I’m missing something here in trying to understand it.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:10 pm
jesurgislac
The “that child has no right to depend on its mother” argument seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it?
We’re not talking about children, we’re talking about fetuses: pay attention.
Biologically speaking a fetus is in fact a parasite: that’s how mammalian pregnancy works. But if that makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s OK: the key point is, if you know anything about pregnancy, you know that the fetus is not (though prolife sites tend to avoid this key point) floating in mid-air suspended in a beam of golden light. If a woman chooses to do so, she can use her body – her uterus, her blood, in fact every organ of her body – to nurture a fertilized egg from conceptus to childbirth. This is nine months of hard labor, potentially life-threatening, certainly a risk to her health. The notion which prolifers uphold that it’s perfectly okay to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will because the fetus is human and so has a right to make use of another human body to stay alive, completely dehumanizes and disregards the pregnant woman, abrogating about a dozen of her basic human rights.
If prolifers sincerely felt that an fetus were identical to a baby, then they’d as helpfully support a woman having an 8-week fetus removed from her body as they helpfully encourage a woman having an 8-day baby removed from her care if she’s low income and the baby is healthy and white enough to be profitably adoptable.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:13 pm
jesurgislac
Look into how Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, hides statutory rape.
Aw, you’re so gullible.
Look at how prolifers tried and tried and tried to get a Planned Parenthood employee to offer discretion to a prolifer posing as a teenage girl who had been raped. When they finally entrapped a PP employee into saying so on camera, she was sacked of course, but prolifers went on a mindless jubilee about the success of their entrapment.
Look at how prolifers routinely support denying abortions even to raped children, Neil. Do you like the idea that a little girl who’s been raped and abused should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth because no one is there for her?
…well, perhaps you do, with all your good buddies who like to coerce women.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Neil
“We’re not talking about children, we’re talking about fetuses: pay attention.”
We’re talking about human beings at particular stages of development: Human fetus, human newborn, human toddler, etc.
“Biologically speaking a fetus is in fact a parasite:”
I love when pro-aborts refer to the unborn as parasites. That really wins over the middle ground.
“she’s low income and the baby is healthy and white enough to be profitably adoptable.”
I have a black niece and a black nephew who were adopted. Thanks for reminding me of the predominately white pro-aborts who help ensure the disproportionate amount of blacks destroyed by abortion.
“Aw, you’re so gullible.”
Watch the videos. Listen to the audio — http://www.childpredators.com/Tapes.cfm . That happened over and over. PP tried to act like it was a rogue employee but that was a big lie and the media was too happy to help cover it up. Saying I’m gullible isn’t a rebuttal, it is a concession speech.
“Look at how prolifers routinely support denying abortions even to raped children, Neil.”
Why kill the child for the father’s crime? Wow, you must be super-duper pro-capital punishment. I mean, I’d entertain the death penalty for the rapist, but I oppose killing the child.
You pro-aborts act like abortion un-does the rape, when it often compounds the trauma.
“Do you like the idea that a little girl who’s been raped and abused should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth because no one is there for her?”
Do you like the idea that in addition to the trauma of rape that the girl also gets to look in the mirror every day the rest of her life knowing that her child was destroyed?
How about if you are there for her? What do you do with your time and money to help those who choose life?
“…well, perhaps you do, with all your good buddies who like to coerce women.”
Yeah, all those at the pregnancy center who coerce women . . . oops, wait, they are female employees and volunteers . . .
I’ve met many men who coerced women to have abortions. Why don’t you protect their choice?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“The notion which prolifers uphold that it’s perfectly okay to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will because the fetus is human and so has a right to make use of another human body to stay alive, completely dehumanizes and disregards the pregnant woman, abrogating about a dozen of her basic human rights.”
Even as a fetus, we’ll have to disagree on just how bad a woman’s rights have been “violated” by the fact that she – with the help of a man – got pregnant via at least SOME action on her own. It’s not like a fetus magically appeared without her having any idea or part in how it got there. I don’t think either parent is without any responsibility in the situation, no matter how accidental the pregnancy may have been, but that’s just me. Regardless, thanks for clarifying your opinion.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Neil,
This is the last I’ll interject in this conversation, but I see a point that’s repeatedly skipped over that I wanted to acknowledge, which is the fact that you’re actually in the centers working with people on both sides of this issue – acting, instead of just talking, which I always like to acknowledge. If anyone else does, they get my admiration, too (for what it’s worth?) Regardless of where I stand on the issue personally, I wanted to say that I admire the fact that you actually do something in support of your beliefs and your regard for the greater good. I respect that.
I haven’t spent any time in a pregnancy center, or volunteered where I would be dealing with that situation directly. I have not come close to that situation/decision in my personal life, either. It would be tough for someone to deal with it personally even once in their lives. I can imagine it’s very trying engaging dozens (hundreds?) of people who are dealing with it on a daily basis. I am reviewing my volunteer activities for 2011, and in light of this debate and the points that have been brought up, I may take you up on your invitation.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 4:51 am
jesurgislac
Vern: we’ll have to disagree on just how bad a woman’s rights have been “violated” by the fact that she – with the help of a man – got pregnant via at least SOME action on her own.
Ah, you’re another of those men who thinks women who consent to sex are bad and need to be punished with pregnancy and childbirth. The idea that a woman loses her basic human rights when she has sex is one of those completely silly ideas that only a celibate (or a teenager, to be fair, like Neil) would come up with.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 4:54 am
jesurgislac
I have a black niece and a black nephew who were adopted.
So your sister lost both her kids to adoption? That’s really very sad, I’m sorry.
Or did you mean that one of your siblings got to take babies away from a low-income mother? Then I’m sorry for her – it’s tragic when a woman loses her children. Especially when they’re adopted into a family with a nasty racist prolife uncle like you.
I’ll skip over all the nonsense you’re talking about how raped little girls need to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth, because it’s really too disgusting.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 10:06 am
Vern R. Kaine
“Ah, you’re another of those men who thinks women who consent to sex are bad and need to be punished with pregnancy and childbirth. The idea that a woman loses her basic human rights when she has sex is one of those completely silly ideas that only a celibate (or a teenager, to be fair, like Neil) would come up with.”
Glad to know you’re the authority on everything, Regurgawhateveryournameis.
Btw, are you sure you can be talking about this subject? Do you even know what sex is? Have you ever had it? More importantly, would you even allow yourself to enjoy it? I’m sure whatever “parasite producer” that was drunk or desperate enough to take the plunge would enjoy the “Acknowledgment of my Human Rights” affidavit you’d make them sign before they did it, and they must love the textbook, legal, over-analyzed play-by-play you’d start spouting off once initiated. Tell me you’d finish with a cigarette so that there’d at least be something satisfying for YOU.
That’s me sinking to your level. As much as I’m sure pigeonholing others is the only way you can keep yourself up on your pedestal and justify your own significance, don’t presume to know me, because you don’t.
In the meantime, please find what it is that actually relaxes you (pills?) and go do it. It’s obviously not sex, and it’s obviously not conversation, so please go do what you do to take it down a notch and do us all a favor in here because you’re acting like an a$$hole.
Also, quit picking on Neil. Consider that if you were deformed, crippled up, and useless, he’d likely be the only one in here that would take care of you out of the goodness of his own heart. He doesn’t need me defending him, but again – you’re being an a$$hole.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 11:58 am
jesurgislac
Consider that if you were deformed, crippled up, and useless, he’d likely be the only one in here that would take care of you out of the goodness of his own heart.
Uh, Neil is by his own admission one of those bullies that works in a “Crisis Pregnancy Center” and has convinced himself that bullying and lying to pregnant women is the way to “help” them. He’s also pretty definitely the kind of guy with a weakness for sexualizing little girls – not to say he’s ever molested one, but given what he’s already said on this thread, he’s certainly not to be trusted with the care of pubescent children. The notion that a boy like that would grow into a man who could be trusted to look after someone whom you so mellowly describe as “deformed, crippled-up, and useless”, is away out of the ball-park: I wouldn’t trust him near anyone vulnerable or helpless. That you think he has “goodness in his heart” speaks well of your willingness to think well of anyone, but I hope you wouldn’t show your trust for humanity by letting anyone like Neil near someone you were responsible for.
Your prurient speculations about my sex life are offensive, but you knew that: men like you always try to silence women by making public, offensive, prurient comments about their sex lives. It’s a form of sexual harassment, resting on the notion that because for you, women having sex is deeply shameful, so you presume that it must be deeply shameful for women, too.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Neil
Vern, I’m encouraged that there are voices of reason like you out there. I scanned your blog and enjoyed it but didn’t have time to comment. I added you to my Google Reader and will stop back soon!
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Your prurient speculations about my sex life are offensive, but you knew that: men like you always try to silence women by making public, offensive, prurient comments about their sex lives. It’s a form of sexual harassment, resting on the notion that because for you, women having sex is deeply shameful, so you presume that it must be deeply shameful for women, too.”
Shameful? Really? I’m not the one calling it a “parasite”, hero, so you’re making it more shameful an act than anybody here. And as for my comments about your sex life (read the WHOLE reply, not just the parts you enjoy getting bent on), you never did say I was wrong.
Nonetheless, pigeonhole away, enjoy your loathing, take a pill, and oh – please BREATHE before your head explodes.
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Hi Neil,
Thank you for the compliment, and also for adding me to your reader. You may want to take back calling me a “voice of reason”, though! Dig a little deeper and I’m sure you’ll find tons that you disagree with me on over there, or things that you think are absolutely nuts. Just ask Arb. :)
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 4:22 am
jesurgislac
And as for my comments about your sex life…. , you never did say I was wrong.
Why would I bother arguing with a little piece of crap like you about your moronic speculations? You sound like a high school bully, coming out with personal insults and then trying to get their intended target to argue back! Well, boy, listen and learn: that kind of slimy bullying works on the other kids you usually target, but it doesn’t work on grown-ups.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 4:26 am
jesurgislac
Isn’t it interesting that the two prolifers who showed up to defend their “cause” both turned out to be mentally high-school boys who like to bully? It’s fairly typical of the prolife movement: they haven’t got facts on their side so they move right on to lies, and when lies don’t work, to insults.
Vern’s far from the first prolifer boy who seems to think that he campaigns best for his side by speculating pruriently about the other side’s sex life.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 11:41 am
Vern R. Kaine
Haha. You’re clearly the one here wanting and trying to argue. I just want you to breathe for one, take your pills for another, and get some sleep.
4:22am? You must be exhausted.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Since when have I been “pro-life”? Yet more proof of your bigotry and ignorance here. You hate men, you hate manhood, penises, and you hate children – your comments and replies have shown nothing but this and pointing that out is hardly out of context, so its quite reasonable to assume that you hate sex, at least with a man.
As for my so-called “insults”, you simply insult yourself and anyone else that can actually articulate your position on this issue with any ounce of civility. Read my first reply – I was simply holding up a mirror in front of you throwing your kind of insults back in a similar context to what you had to anyone who didn’t agree with you, hoping you’d lay off and see it for what it is. You obviously didn’t, but spare us your “boo hoo” about insults. Your comments right from the beginning have been laden with them, and more to the point – they’ve been directed at someone who appears to have far more direct involvement with this topic than you do, and instead of blabbing endlessly about it, actually DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT to try and change things.
He’s arguing where life begins, and saying that he believes a fetus is more “alive” than you or anyone else does. He believes science has proven it, and his faith makes up the difference. BIG DEAL. It’s his OPINION, and his BELIEF – I don’t see him gagging you, chaining you down, or taking your rights away, so why don’t you GET OVER IT AND RELAX?
If you have to adopt never-ending victimhood to make yourself feel significant, and go all anti-male to feel loved or connected to something, go ahead, but I think you’ll see more sympathy here than support.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 12:37 pm
jesurgislac
Since when have I been “pro-life”?
Really? So you support full free access to abortion on demand, for every woman? Interesting that you manage to come across a prolifer in your hatred of sex – and also interesting that you project your own hatred of sex and contempt for women on to me in reverse. A sign of intellectual limitations, an inability to find a solid argument in your own ideas – and as you now claim to be pro-choice, presumably you’re just here to troll.
they’ve been directed at someone who appears to have far more direct involvement with this topic than you do
They’ve been directed at Neil, who has literally no direct involvement with the issue of women who need abortions, aside from the negative involvement of working for “crisis pregnancy centers”, which exist merely to harass, bully, and lie to women.
He’s arguing where life begins, and saying that he believes a fetus is more “alive” than you or anyone else does.
An entirely pointless argument. I am not arguing with Neil (or with anyone: many people smarter and nicer than Neil have made a similiar argument) that a fetus is “not alive”. I am arguing that women are human, and shall not have their basic human rights abrogated. Neil’s problems are clearly far larger than the basic prolife problem of not seeing women as fully human, but I’ve dealt with this key issue at more length on my blog, and Neil’s problems are beyond any help of mine.
Your capslock key appears to be sticky, by the way.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 12:38 pm
jesurgislac
4:22am? You must be exhausted.
Oh, kid. Listen, the world is larger than the US. Ask your geography teacher to explain timezones to you sometime. Tell them to use little words.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Mystro
Wow, go away for a couple days and look what happens.
Neil in response to me pointing out his quote mining”How about providing an example? Show me how this came out of context”
I did, in the exact same post. You ignored it. Again.
Neil on my point that we don’t give self ownership to children:”Only using your reasoning, the parents can kill those kids because they aren’t self-aware enough.”
No it doesn’t. It just points out that children are not given 100% self-ownership and for good reason. That is all. You are doing that ‘I get to add on any extra meaning I want to a statement’ thing again. See above criticism.
Neil: “if you say my quotes from mainstream embryology textbooks are quote mining…”
You don’t seem to understand what quote mining means. It has nothing to do with the source, thus you repeating that the source is scientific doesn’t absolve you of anything. The point is, you take quotes from credible sources but then use them in a way that they were not originally intended for. It’s dishonest quoting. I explained all this, but you never give up an opportunity to misrepresent, do you?
Neil on me calling him out on his ‘unanimous’ bullshit:”If you are 99% sure a human being is being killed — or even 50% or less — wouldn’t that be reason to wait until you are sure?”
What I said was not a concession that any biologists are backing your position. It was purely to show that your claim of a ‘unanimous science’ was either incredibly stupid or a flat out lie. That is all. There you go, adding on extra meaning again.
Neil “I love when pro-aborts refer to the unborn as parasites…
I’ve met many men who coerced women to have abortions. Why don’t you protect their choice?”
sigh. Been over this, but you ignored, again. I am not ‘pro-abortion’ and I would definitely see a coerced abortion as a horrible injustice done to a woman. I have always advocated the woman’s self ownership, so you trying to make it sound like I’m in favor of coerced abortions is ludicrous.
Indeed, like most social spectra, the two extremes are closer to each other than to the center. In your case, you try to take away the woman’s choice to make her house something in her body she doesn’t want to house. In the case you presented, the men in question are trying to take away the woman’s choice and make her give up something that is inside her body. The only difference is what the man figures the right choice is, once they’ve taken it away from the woman.
And the parasite thing has been explained to you before as well.
“parasite (ˈpærəˌsaɪt)
— n
1. an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it ”
That definition is all that was ever meant by the use of the word parasite, and the extra connotation of something diseased or disgusting etc is never implied. Your continual misrepresentation of what people say, especially after they’ve gone through the trouble of explaining themselves clearly, showcases your dishonesty.
Vern:”…got pregnant via at least SOME action on her own. It’s not like a fetus magically appeared without her having any idea or part in how it got there. I don’t think either parent is without any responsibility”
Vern, I’m disappointed. Having mutually consensual sex is a human right as is deciding what, if anything, gets to live inside your body. Punishing a person by taking away the latter because she is a woman and engaged in the former doesn’t make any kind of moral sense. What that kind of argument sounds like is “That woman was trying to act as if she was a real person again. She doesn’t deserve to have control over her body any more.”
It is different if you accept that abortion is one of the responsible choices available to the consequences of her actions, but if you say that suddenly she has no choice, then it reeks of misogyny, injustice and the violation of human rights.
Vern:”BIG DEAL. It’s his OPINION, and his BELIEF – I don’t see him gagging you, chaining you down, or taking your rights away, so why don’t you GET OVER IT AND RELAX?”
While I admit the civility of the discourse between jesurgislac and yourself has degraded a bit, there is a very good reason to not just ‘get over it’.
There are many people who think like Neil and who do actively try to implement legislation that remove rights from women. So when one of their fan-boy-parrots go spouting nonsense, debunking their claims is one of the few ways those of us without expensive lobby groups can support our fellow humans.
I perceive that, generally, your attitude is: ‘why can’t we all just get along’ and I appreciate it. Peaceful coexistence is a noble goal that I share. But apologizing and being tolerant of those who dogmatically attempt to take away rights only results in more rights being taken away.
jesurgislac, I always appreciate a voice in support of woman’s rights, and I do also appreciate a few well deserved shots here and there (“Your capslock key appears to be sticky, by the way” was very good :)) but things like your row with Vern about each others sexuality has no relevance and just distracts from the issue. Especially when the other side spends most of their time focusing on non-issues, distractions like that just fuel their fire. Keep the good points coming, but try not to get sucked into addling side fights.
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 2:30 pm
jesurgislac
but things like your row with Vern about each others sexuality has no relevance and just distracts from the issue.
Um, I’m not having a row with Vern about his sexuality: he’s trying to have a row with me.
“Your capslock key appears to be sticky, by the way” was very good
*bows*
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Blah, blah, blah…
Does someone pull a string out of your back to make you talk? Because your repetitive blabbing seriously sounds all pre-recorded. Either way, you should save that whole “parasite, rights, penis-be-gone” speech for your next man-hater rally, where I’m sure it will be much more accepted and agreed to. Plus, think of all the nice big hugs and high-fives you’ll get. You could actually feel special and understood for once. Would that make you happy?
Oh that’s right, nothing does, nothing except PILLS! Take yours yet? your reply was a little nicer, so one hopes…
LikeLike