“Consider the insane fact that we live in a time when thousands of people would actually disagree with me stating that my unborn daughter is a “human girl.”“
I don't think you heard what I said correctly. You hold an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being. But that is an opinion, not a proven fact.
That's the question to be answered.
The main thing to keep in mind is to be able to differentiate between you holding that opinion and you thinking that your opinion is a fact.
As to your quoted comment there in comment 4, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that you are not free to hold that opinion that the fetus in a woman's belly is a human girl. And if you believe your fetus or your wife's fetus is a human girl, then you certainly should not have an abortion and no one should force you to have an abortion. That is your freedom to make that choice.
BUT, if someone else holds the opinion that this 6 week old fetus is not fully human, then that's their choice to make and no one should try to force them against their belief system, either.
Freedom of Choice. You have your right to make your choice other people have the right to make their choice.
You seem to be making some claims in your comments.
Claim #1. A human fetus is not a human being. Claim #2. A human fetus Ted is not “fully human”. Claim #3. Whether of not a human fetus is a human being is a matter of opinion only. Claim #4. The humanity of a fetus is the choice of one parent.
First, science disagrees with you. Second, if your going to make claims you need to prove them. Third, the pre born human child is either objectively human or it’s not. The fact that someone chooses to believe something different doesn’t alter the objective reality.
The fact that you’re seriously arguing that the choice of a parent is what renders a pre born child human is simply laughable.
Where your “logic” fails is that it doesn’t acknowledge that human life is a continuum. The human fetus is a developmental stage that all humans pass through, the human fetus is exactly as developed as it should be for that stage of its life.
Yet, you’re arguing that this “freedom of choice” extends to ending the life of a human being simply because it hasn’t attained an arbitrary developmental stage.
I guess “the least of these” doesn’t apply to those most who are utterly helpless.
If you want to argue “freedom of choice”, at least have the courage to admit that the “choice” is the ending of a human life.
I'll write more slowly and use smaller words, then.
It is an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being.
It is an OPINION that a human fetus is NOT fully a human being.
It is an OPINION that a two week fetus is fully equal to a birthed human being, with all the same rights, etc.
it is an OPINION that a 9 month old fetus is no more than tissue and deserves no human rights considerations.
These are ALL opinions. None of them are proven and so far as I can tell, not provable.
So, first, science does NOT DISAGREE with me. YOU may disagree with me, but science does not have an opinion about the notion that a two day old fetus is fully human deserving of all the rights of a human being.
Do you recognize that reality?
Or, by all means, provide the data where "science" has "proven" that a 2 day old fetus is fully human, deserving of all rights.
I don't care if you hold whatever opinions you hold. BUT, you can not rationally claim that your HUMAN OPINIONS are equal to established facts or science.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you hold the opinion that a one day old fetus is fully human? A one hour old fetus?
Do you think that a mother should be able to legally abort a two month old fetus if it threatens her life?
Do you think that a mother should be able to legally abort a two month old fetus if it is the result of a rape?
Do you make exceptions?
If so, why? If that two minute old fetus from a rape that threatens the life of a mother is okay to abort, even if it's "fully human" (in your opinion, not as a point of fact), then what does that say about you that you think the mom should be allowed to "kill" a "human..."?
Your welcome to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Of what you said, this is the closest to being correct...
"Claim #3. Whether of not a human fetus is a human being is a matter of opinion only."
As a point of reality, we can not prove that a 2 minute old, or a two month old fetus is fully a human being deserving of all the rights of a birthed human. It quite literally is a human fetus. THAT is a fact. Beyond that, we can form opinions but we can't prove those opinions.
So far, I’ve found that the legal system disagrees with your claims.
“Thirty-eight (38) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.”
“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.”
Everything I’ve looked at refers to a fetus as a developmental stage in the life of a human (mammal).
I get that you want to play semantic games, and insist that your opinions on this topic are “reality”. I get that you believe that something magic happens at birth. I get that you are willing to do all of these things to assert that the inherent humanity of human life at its most vulnerable is simply a matter of the opinion of one parent and that one parent should be able to end the life of this fetus based on their opinion.
Your logic sounds eerily similar to that of slave owners and those who engage in genocide.
“Developmentalists break the life span into nine stages as follows:
Prenatal Development Infancy and Toddlerhood Early Childhood Middle Childhood Adolescence Early Adulthood Middle Adulthood Late Adulthood Death and Dying“
Oh, they're "opinions", all right! The opinions that deny the humanity of a person based on that person's size, age, location and/or stafe of development are the opinions of those looking for a loophole that allows them a pretense of moral acceptability when taking the life of another person unable to prevent it. In other words, cheap rationalization. It's the very same rationalization of the Klansman and the nazi...leftists all.
I’ve found that the legal system disagrees with your claims.
Again, no, it doesn't. It just doesn't. You can't support your claim. The legal system does not say that it can authoritatively demonstrate that a human fetus is the same as a full-born human, as a point of fact.
Some states may have created laws based on OPINIONS on the matter, but it's not a point of fact. The "fact" in this case is up for debate, that's the point.
And again, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
First of all when you say some states, what you really mean is a majority of states. Second, I was strangely under the impression that state law actually is authoritative. Apparently you disagree.
Leave it to a lefty to play the moral relativism game here. Trying to pretend that actual Christians praying at an abortion mill, most likely for God to change the hearts and minds of the women and their murderous abortionists in order to defend the innocent is somehow no different than a sexually immoral Democrat harassing them is typical leftist nonsense. Even if defenders of the innocent were acting in an overzealous manner (holding signs, for heaven's sake!!!...warning the women of the sin they are about to commit, golly gee!!), they are still defending innocent life, and the lefty hack is being a typical lefty, pretending he has the moral high ground.
Also, the onus is on the lefty/progressive/fake Christian to prove the fertilized egg in a woman's womb is NOT a human equal to any outside the womb. It is they who pretend there is some difference. Normal, rational, compassionate people of all kinds (not just actual Christians) know there's no difference. DAN must prove HIS evil position on the matter.
You're fighting a lost battle with pro-aborts here, Craig. And it's not just here. When the dean of a seminary can claim that you can't be a Christian if you're white, you have to scratch your head and ask, "What??!!" Because they're not defining "white" as race and they're not defining "human" as anything objectively true. Everything is opinion. Gender, life, race, even science. They are simply fulfilling what Scripture has already claimed: "Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools." You're using logic and reason. They reject that. Even while denying it. Because logic and reason are only right when it's their version.
Stan, of course you’re right. It’s just bizarre watching the contortions they’ll go through in order to dehumanize (literally) those who they feel unworthy.
The vehemence of this dehumanization is surprising. The willingness to simply write off the humanity of those in particular stages of development to the whims of opinion is just amazing.
“...a two day old fetus is fully human, deserving of all rights.”
The above captures the innate fallacy and straw man being argued.
As for the first part. A “two day old fetus” (leaving aside the fact that it’s not a fetus at that developmental stage), is 100% fully human for that stage of its development. The problem with this is that it fails to define “fully” human. To reach the arbitrary “fully human” status one must have been a “two day old fetus” at some point in one’s development. It’s inevitable, it’s reality, it’s basic biology. Of course, this argument also fails when you change the time frame. Anyone who’s seen an ultrasound is an idiot to suggest they a fetus at 36 weeks isn’t “fully human”. This argument from the absurd extreme to try to prove the non extreme is overused and abused. It’s the “rape and incest” argument slightly altered (We much encourage 98+% of all abortions because around 2% evoke more sympathy).
As to the second part of the argument there are multiple ares where it fails.
The most obvious is that it’s an argument that isn’t ever being made. It’s a straw man. It’s stupid.
It also assumes that “fully human” equals deserving of “all rights”. By this argument we should be able to define 17 year olds as not “fully human”.
It also contradicts that language of our founding documents that assert that rights are “inalienable” and “granted by our creator”, nowhere do people talk about rights being “deserved”.
Finally, the argument isn’t for “all rights”, it’s only really for one inalienable right, the foundational right without which all others are meaningless. The right to life.
As to the ridiculous “Do you understand this?” questions. As long as you’re going to assert your claims as “reality” with only one correct understanding of the correct answer, I see no point in answering what amount to unproven/unsupported claims of fact.
Good Lord, have mercy. The hubris and arrogance and ignorance of this sort of comment is why no one likes conservative/fundamentalist types. They make themselves into little gods, THE ANOINTED ONES who have the ability to speak for God and facts.
Listen yet again: That we reject YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS and won't agree with you that YOUR OPINIONS are equal to facts is THE OPPOSITE of rejecting reason and logic. We are rejecting YOUR FALSE OPINIONS that absolutely ARE NOT facts or rational.
There is a huge chasm between reality and your collective understanding of reality. Which is why I continually ask if you recognize that reality?
I'm speaking of observable facts and trying to ascertain if you all are understanding reality.
That answer is clear, by the way you dodge questions and simply are factually wrong in your arrogant human presumptions and guesses.
Dan you can use as many expletives, all caps, and whatever else you feel necessary to make your point. But as long as you keep insisting that your opinions are reality, you saw the branch you are sitting on.
Dan is NOT insisting that his opinions are reality.
Repeat that 1,000 times to yourself. Ponder the deeper implications of what those words mean. Look at my words and SEE that I never insisted that my opinions are reality.
I HAVE pointed to reality and asked you if you recognized the reality, but that is not my opinion.
It is a human opinion to say that a fetus at 2 weeks, 2 months or 6 months old is fully human deserving of all rights a human being enjoys.
It is a human opinion to say that a fetus at 2 weeks, 2 months or 6 months old is NOT fully human deserving of all rights a human being enjoys.
BOTH are human opinions that can not be proven.
Do you recognize that reality?
You merely saying, "But, they are a human fetus, therefore, they are fully human deserving of all rights afforded a human" does not mean that your statement it is a fact. It is a statement of opinion.
Do you recognize the reality?
Again, your silence in the face of reasonable questions always tells us all we need to know.
Again, if you are seriously going to claim that the statements you make our reality, in other words factual, in other words objectively true, then prove them.
In the interest of pointing out actual reality, I haven’t been silent on your repeated asking of one particular question. It all comes back to if you’re going to make claims about reality, then you have to prove the claims you may. If you can’t do so, then I’d be insane To agree with something that you can’t approve.
YOU are the one making a positive claim (or are you, it's hard to tell because you NEVER ANSWER direct questions directly and clearly), that you DO "know" that a two day old fetus is a human being, factually deserving of all rights.
You are making the positive claim. YOU have to support it.
Or we will just dismiss you as a grade school crank, not a serious adult conversationalist.
Which people have generally done with conservative fundamentalist types.
I’ve addressed your absurd “all rights” canard, so I’m not going to waste any more time on it until you at least acknowledge that reality and deal with the problems.
I’m not asking you to prove a negative.
I’m asking you to prove that “both are human opinion that can’t be proven.”. That is a positive claim of fact (or reality as you claim). If your claim is true, prove it.
The problem is, I’m not making the claim that you say I am, and I’ve addressed your straw man.
I’ve also provided support for the claim I have made, and will provide more when I’m not limited to my phone.
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to prove your claims.
I just want to point out that for all your pomp and outrage about "conservative/fundamentalist types" and "little gods," you have to know that you come across in the very same manner to those you so vigorously oppose and vilify. I'm just sayin'.
If you could just let us know when a "non-person human" (the court's term for a non-viable child in the womb) becomes a person -- when that wad of cells becomes an actual human being, I'll be glad to hear it. Currently your side is arguing that it's not until after birth sometime. I just want to know what defines "human being" deserving the rights and protection of human beings rather than "mass of human cells."
The entire pro abortion movement is predicated on avoiding any definitive answers to the question you asked. As you’ve seen, they’re dogmatic about what it’s not, but vague about what it is.
The quote that started this thread was quite clear that it’s “not a human being”. But listen to all the different ways folx try to avoid specifics about what it is.
Your initial comment was right in the sense that folx like this won’t admit that that thing inside a human mother’s womb is a human being no matter what evidence they are provided. I do hope that advances in technology will demonstrate to the gen Z young people that their eyes don’t deceive them.
I don't know how to say it any other way. We don't know. We don't have an authoritative definitive answer as to when human life, fully human life, begins.
We all can have opinions, but we don't have a definitive fact-based authoritative answer.
Thus, given that we don't have an authoritative answer, it's not the case that Liberals are saying we know. We're saying we don't know, it's above our pay grade, and so, lacking an authoritative answer, we trust one another to make the best decisions.
We don't trust YOU to make a decision for me. I wouldn't expect you to trust me to make the decision for you.
When the liberal in question makes the statement “it’s not a human being”, they sure appear to be making a definitive statement. She’s clearly saying “I know what it isn’t.”. That’s just the most direct and convenient example. I could provide examples from moderated comments that disprove your claim as well. So your statement about what “liberals” aren’t doing isn’t accurate.
The problem you have is that when you make the claim “We don’t have an answer...”, you are making a claim. You’ve repeatedly made this claim, yet haven’t proven it.
You’ve repeatedly made your straw man claim and demanded that I argue for your straw man. You use terms like “fully human”, but won’t define those terms. (To be fair, you did define that term, but ignored my pointing out the problems with that definition.)
Your comments in this thread can be summarized as (You’re wrong, but I’m going to hide behind I don’t know.”.
I Haven’t pointed out the overwhelming number of references from standard embryology texts that clearly define the beginning of life at conception because I know you’ve read other blogs where they’ve been posted. Like the arguments for the existence of God, you’ve seen them, you reject them, but you haven’t countered them.
As happens frequently, I can choose between believing your opinion, or multiple other (more authoritative) sources. I’ll choose authoritative over “I don’t know” any day.
Personally I don’t find “I don’t know” an acceptable reason for ending the life of a human in any developmental stage.
Since I’ve never suggested that I should make decisions for anyone, your last sentence makes absolutely zero sense. You do understand the difference between persuasion and prayer that others make good decisions and making decisions for them.
IF you are claiming that you know as a fact when human life begins, then you are wrong. No one has established Authoritatively and definitively and objectively when human life begins.
That isn't a matter of opinion.
IF you can prove it, when human life begins, then prove it.
You can't. You never have. No one has.
I don't need to prove observable reality.
If you want to make a claim, then the onus is on you to prove it.
I am saying that I have never seen anyone know of ever heard of anyone else seeing anyone objectively prove when full human life begins.
I don't know how to say it to help you understand. That you don't even understand the point is part of the problem.
No one is disputing that a human life begins at conception. Repeat that again.
No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.
No one.
Human life begins at conception and continues throughout the fetal.. That's not in dispute what is in dispute is the personhood of that fetus
What is in question is when does fully human life begin where humans are afforded all the rights did it come along with being a human? Who has established that? Where is the authoritative objective answer for that? There is none. You cannot point to a place where that exists. Do you understand that reality? Or if you think you can point to that place, point to it. You f****** can't you f****** moron. I don't know how else to say it to help you understand.
Re: I won't Define what I mean by fully human... I've been abundantly clear. I'm talking about fully human in the sense of deserving/having all the rights associated with being fully human. Are you not understanding what I mean by that? Fully human meaning that they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is a human fetus deserving of all those rights? That's the question.
No one has authoritatively answered that. As far as I can tell, no one can authoritatively answer that. I don't know how you find an authoritative answer for that. Do you?
On what basis do you say that the 2-day old fetus is deserving of all the rights associated with being a human? Says who?
If you think, for instance, that a six week old fetus has all the rights of being fully human, then on what basis do you make an exception for the case of rape or where the life of the mother is threatened?
Your last comment said you didn't want to make that decision for anyone. Then you're not advocating for the laws to change to Outlaw all abortions? If you outlaw it, aren't you making that decision for them?
Here's a line of reasonable questions that you will, no doubt, ignore and not answer. But think it through.
Does a two-year-old child have all the rights of an adult human?
No. They can't buy property. they can't drive a car. They don't have a right of self-determination. They can't choose where they live.
A two year old is fully human, but doesn't have all the rights of an adult human. I don't think this is outrageous or in question, presumably you don't either. You recognize that the age and stage of development of the human in question matters.
Do you agree that a two-year-old does not enjoy all the rights of a human adult?
However, a two-year-old does have a right to life and Liberty. That also is not in question. So some rights apply but not all. This is just reasonable. Stage of Life matters.
Likewise, no one is denying that I human fetus is a human fetus. Is a fully human fetus. But is not fully human. It does not enjoy all the rights that a two-year-old has. Most people recognize that that fetus can be aborted, for instance, if the life of the mother is threatened. Or even if it was a product of rape. Even you probably recognize one or both of those exceptions. Being a human fetus does not mean that they enjoy all the rights of a human adult.
And no one can authoritatively and definitively and objectively say which rights a human fetus has, if any. Do you recognize the reality that there is not one authoritative source that can make that case?
“If you want to make a claim, then the onus is on you to prove it. “
As usual, you demand others do what you won’t. That might work in your safe space, but not here.
“I am saying that I have never seen anyone know of ever heard of anyone else seeing anyone objectively prove when full human life begins.”
I’m saying that virtually all embryology texts, as well as everything I saw researching human development agrees that conception is the beginning of a new, unique human life.
I’m sorry if you are unaware of this. But you seem strangely, dogmatically certain of this “reality”
Of course in your very next comment you contradict yourself by saying that “No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.”.
Please choose one and argue that.
You might have noticed people referring to what you now concede is “human life” as “cancer”, “a clump of cells”, “a parasite” or “not a human being”, maybe you should educate those on your side who seem unaware of your knowledge.
After acknowledging that I’m correct, you then move the goal posts, and re introduce this “fully human”/“all rights” notion.
So, instead of continuing on, I’ll ask you to do what you demand I do, and prove your claim. Please provide proof that you have an objective definition of “fully human” and “all rights”, and that the two concepts are inextricably linked.
I’m working through your comments in order, so I don’t know if the next comments address the flaws in your “all rights”=“fully human” construct. If they don’t, I’d ask that you do so before you move on.
Good Lord! Are you just not able to understand words and meanings and have adult level conversations?
If I say there's no such thing as unicorns and someone else says yes there are. Then the onus is on THEM to prove it.
I'm saying, in the world that I know, there is no such thing as unicorns. The person claiming positively that unicorns do exist can easily show that I'm Wrong by showing that unicorns exist.
YOU are making the positive claim. I'm just making the negative claim that there is no data that unicorns exist. If the data exists that unicorns do exist, then show it.
It's like that.
I'm saying there is no data that says we have an objective authoritative objectively factual way of knowing that a six week old fetus is fully human in the sense that it has rights.
If you have that data that disputes the apparent reality, then the onus is on you to prove it. You are making the positive claim. You have to support it.
You can't support it because there is no objective source that proves it. Do you recognize that reality? Your failure to answer this question shows by your silence that you do not have a way of proving it. It is indeed your opinion and not a fact.
As to your ridiculous claim that I'm moving the goalposts, of course I'm not. It could be the case that you're just not understanding the questions being discussed. Or could be the case that you're just dodging.
In the abortion debate, the primary underlying question is does a fetus have a right to life that outweighs a woman's right to self-determination?
For those who want to say that abortion should be illegal, - or more commonly, illegal except in the cases of rape or a threat to the woman's life - they are suggesting or outright saying that yes, two-day-old fetus has the right to life they fully human being has. Those who support abortion rights being the decision of the mother or family do not believe that a fetus has a right to life that I fully human person has. That is the question that is always being discussed, at the bottom of it all.
For my part I am not claiming that a fetus does have a right to life nor am I claiming that the fetus does not have a right to life. I'm noting the reality that we have no authoritative objective way of proving it one way or the other. Therefore, the decision should rest with a person or people in question. Not the government. Not the church.
So no, I'm not moving any goal post. You're just not understanding the question being discussed, perhaps.
I'm talking about fully human in the sense of deserving/having all the rights associated with being fully human.""
First, this is circular reasoning. Second, it's usually frowned upon to use a word to define the word.
So. "What is in question is when does fully human life begin where humans are afforded all the rights did it come along with being a human?"
No. That is a straw man argument that you've asserted is being made by others. It's certainly not the question that I'm asking, or that I've heard asked by anyone but you.
"Who has established that?"
Since I'm not arguing for the straw man that you've presented I'm not sure why I'd defend your position. Why don"t you define and defend your position?
"Where is the authoritative objective answer for that?"
Do you realize that asking the same question multiple times in the same comment isn't helpful?
"There is none."
Please prove the above claim of fact.
"You cannot point to a place where that exists. Do you understand that reality?"
I've never argued that it exists at all, why should I prove something that I haven't argued or asserted?
"Or if you think you can point to that place, point to it. You f****** can't you f****** moron. I don't know how else to say it to help you understand."
Clearly insults, vitriol, and expletives are a great, mature, and Christlike option. Especially when it's your undefined, undefended straw man.
Let's try this.
What are "all the rights associated with being fully human"? Are you suggesting that the definition of "fully human" is to have "all the rights..."?
FYI, I've heard all the bad pro abortion arguments, and this argument and terminology is completely new to me. So, it would be really helpful if you were more transparent rather than less transparent.
No one has authoritatively answered that. As far as I can tell, no one can authoritatively answer that. I don't know how you find an authoritative answer for that. Do you?
"On what basis do you say that the 2-day old fetus is deserving of all the rights associated with being a human? Says who?"
I've never, ever, not even one time said that.
"If you think, for instance, that a six week old fetus has all the rights of being fully human, then on what basis do you make an exception for the case of rape or where the life of the mother is threatened?"
Again, I've never said that.
As far as your exception issue. There are two sides of that question. There is the moral and the legal.
On the legal side, I would accept an exception for rape, incest, or the risk of imminent death to the mother. I'd make that compromise because it would stop about 98% of abortions. Just like other things that are legal that I might morally object to, I could live with this from a legal standpoint.
On the moral side, I'd argue that abortion in the cases of rape and incest is punishing an innocent victim and as such would argue that it's wrong to end the life of a human being because of the actions of a third party.
In the case of the imminent threat to the life of the mother,I'd argue that it's the same predicament that you'd find any time you have to save one of two people. It's a hard decision, and I'm not going to second guess what a family decides. I know that I would sacrifice my life for my children if the situation called for it.
In any case, we're talking about a microscopic minority of cases and I see no point in trying to draw broad conclusions from exceptional and rare circumstances.
"Your last comment said you didn't want to make that decision for anyone."
Your reading comprehension isn't totally gone.
"Then you're not advocating for the laws to change to Outlaw all abortions?"
As I said earlier. I can live with the three exceptions from a legal standard. Obviously, the best option would be to persuade, but the reality is that legislation is the only realistic option. If it comes to legislation, I'd prefer to start by making adoption a more attractive option. Streamline the process, use taxpayer money to fund it. Then adopt a multi pronged approach that would lead to the eliminations of the vast majority of abortions. So, the answer to your question is No I'm not.
"If you outlaw it, aren't you making that decision for them?"
Since I'm not, nor should I be, in possession of the power to govern by fiat, the answer to this would be no as well.
"Here's a line of reasonable questions that you will, no doubt, ignore and not answer. But think it through."
Then you'd be wrong.
"Does a two-year-old child have all the rights of an adult human?"
No, I've never suggested that they do.
"Do you agree that a two-year-old does not enjoy all the rights of a human adult?"
Do you understand how stupid it makes you look to ask a question, answer the question, then ask the same question again? All before I've had the opportunity to answer the first time.
"Likewise, no one is denying that I human fetus is a human fetus. Is a fully human fetus."
Except people are denying this very thing. See the quote in my original post.
"But is not fully human."
Prove this claim. I mean actual proof, not just saying that it's reality.
"It does not enjoy all the rights that a two-year-old has."
I've never claimed that it does.
"However, a two-year-old does have a right to life and Liberty."
Please prove that claim of fact.
"Being a human fetus does not mean that they enjoy all the rights of a human adult."
I've never claimed otherwise. However, the question that must be asked is. "Does that mean that a pre born human has zero rights?"
Earlier, I asked you if health care was a right. As usual, you chose not to answer.
However, it's trendy and chic to claim that "Health care is a right.". If that is true, then should a pre born human be denied intra-uterine medical care that might save it's life or correct a serious health problem?
"And no one can authoritatively and definitively and objectively say which rights a human fetus has, if any."
If the right to life is, as our founders claimed, "inalienable" that it's granted from our "creator", then what gives you the ability to alienate the inalienable?
"Do you recognize the reality that there is not one authoritative source that can make that case?"
Again, If you're going to ask the same question over and over, (and bitch that I don't answer) you're going to have to put up with a lot of repetition.
I think that problem is that you really, honestly believe that this nonsense "fully human is defined by all rights" straw man is actually an argument I've made. But I haven't. In fact, I pointed out the flaws in it quite a while ago. Why would I point out flaws in an argument I was making?
Please take you time, answer the questions asked and prove that your claims are accurate. I'll wait.
"IF you are claiming that you know as a fact when human life begins, then you are wrong. No one has established Authoritatively and definitively and objectively when human life begins."
Quote from Dan
"No one is disputing that a human life begins at conception. Repeat that again.
No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.
No one.
Human life begins at conception and continues throughout the fetal."
You've laid out a comparison of a two day old fetus (again at two days it's not a fetus but why be accurate) with a two year old infant/toddler. That is one of your usual comparison of two extremes. Valid, but not necessarily useful.
But, let's look at something a bit different.
The average gestation period for humans is 280 days. (If your interested there are plenty of places where you can see what the pre born child looks like and can experience at each stage)
Hypothetically lets say that a woman delivers her baby at 12:00 noon of day number 280 of her pregnancy.
According to your straw man.
The (hereafter) baby has somewhere between zero and three of the enumerated "inalienable rights" that our founders recognized at 11:58 AM on day number 280.
The baby has at somewhere between zero and three of the enumerated "inalienable rights" that our founders recognized at 12:02 PM on day number 280?
The primary question that must be answered is why would the number if "inalienable" rights change in a period of 4 minutes?
It's clearly the same human at both ends of the birth canal.
Who or what confers the "inalienable rights" in the baby and when or where does that happen?
If you've commented since the last time I checked, I'm going to put a hold on them unless they address the questions/provide proof of the claims you've made. That will allow you to take care of business without adding needless confusion to the thread.
I've pretty much addressed everything in your first comment, and I apologize because I accidentally deleted it. I was going to publish it because there were a couple of additional misconceptions that I wanted to address.
As to your idiotic unicorn comment, It will have to wait. I'm not sure I want people to see that level of foolish argument.
You did say in the comment that got deleted that you haven't moved the goal posts. You then said something like "The bedrock question to be answered is whether the right to life of the pre born child trumps the right of the mother to control her body.".
Again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your comment, but I think I got the basic idea.
I'll point out a few things you've said earlier in the thread.
"I don't think you heard what I said correctly. You hold an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being. But that is an opinion, not a proven fact.
That's the question to be answered." 6:38 May 7
"Is a human fetus deserving of all those rights? That's the question."
I'm going to suggest that having three different question that you refer to as "the" (singular)"question", is an excellent example of moving the goal posts.
As is your introduction of the "all rights" absurdity and pretending like I've actually argued that.
"YOU are the one making a positive claim (or are you, it's hard to tell because you NEVER ANSWER direct questions directly and clearly), that you DO "know" that a two day old fetus is a human being, factually deserving of all rights."
If you are serious about claims needing to be proven, then please prove the above claim. Please show with a linked specific quotation where I've ever said what you just claimed I said.
I've had to post a lot to catch up with you, but I have and I'm done until you do what you demand of others.
By all means, clarify. I thought the point of your position on being opposed to abortion is that you were against it. Is that right?
I thought the point was you're against it because you believe a fetus is fully human and should not be killed in the same manner that a born baby shouldn't be killed. Is that right?
The Presumption is that you don't think newborn babies or fetuses should be killed because they're both equally human deserving of the right to life. Is that right?
Rather than play around, by all means directly clarify your positions.
It is possible I do not know your position, precisely.
I do know the position of many right to life people and they believe that a fetus is equal to a birthed baby in the sense they are deserving of a right to life.
My point has always been that the presumption of a natural right to life for a fetus is an opinion not an established fact. Do you understand that?
Your initial post asked the question, Then what is it?
I answered factually and clearly and directly: A human fetus.
That is a fact and no one disagrees (no one serious, anyway).
The question at the root of ALL discussions on this matter comes down to "Is a fetus 'fully human,' meaning, does it have a right to life?" Most right to lifers (see that in the name there) that I have heard and read say Yes, a fetus DOES have a right to life.
Do YOU believe that? I don't know. I gathered that much, given your inane set of questions and vague claims, but I can't speak as to what you specifically believe, at least not without going back to read what you've written and quite frankly, your words don't merit that effort. I could be mistaken in my assumption that you believe in a "right to life" for fetuses. The ONLY WAY I can know is if you answer that question directly.
That ball is in your court.
If I mistakenly assumed that you held a "right to life" position, given your many comments opposing abortion and ones that compare an abortion to killing a baby or murdering a baby (as I recall you've said, but maybe I'm mistaking your words for someone else), I hope you can see why I'd make that assumption.
DO YOU BELIEVE that aborting a fetus is the same as killing a baby? If so, why, if not because you believe a fetus has a right to life?
That is on you to answer, I can't answer for you. I believe you've affirmed this. If I'm wrong, tell me and I can apologize and set the record straight.
What YOU need to understand is that a person might use many words and phrases to describe or get at the same thing. Saying "He believes a fetus is fully human" or that "he thinks a fetus is deserving of all the rights of a human" IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion on abortion, I think most rational people can figure out that what the person is saying is that "He believes a fetus has a right to life, just like a birthed human..."
Now, I could explain your mistakes and misunderstandings and stupidly false claims 1,000 times, but I can never understand it for you.
"For my part I am not claiming that a fetus does have a right to life nor am I claiming that the fetus does not have a right to life. I'm noting the reality that we have no authoritative objective way of proving it one way or the other."
The reality is that we have no "authoritative objective way" of proving YOU have a right to life. The founders simply acknowledged that such a right exists. To this day, there are still those in the world that would dispute this contention in a very final, irreversible way.
The "question(s)" Dan tries to propose as burning aren't really questions at all, so much as the attempts of those like himself who find the reality of the unborn's humanity inconvenient. No one else even thinks to ask such obviously self-serving questions. Then to further muddy the issue with nonsensical examples of what rights a 2 yr old has compared to an adult is insulting to rational people and an indication of either abject stupidity or willful deviousness on Dan's part (and on the part of any others who would suggest such a thing). The issue isn't whether or not the unborn can vote or carry a concealed Glock. The issue is whether or not the unborn has the right to life. It's the only right on the table as it IS the issue.
The unborn, at every stage, is a human being. There is no "fully human", but only "human". A person is a human being. It is nothing else. Thus, a human being is a person. The unborn within a human female is a human being. It is "fully human" throughout it's entire existence, from conception to death and as such is fully entitled to expect that its right to life be protected just as the lives of all other human beings are.
With that said, the onus is on the Dan's of the world to provide evidence that all of the above is not true and that there is some distinct dividing line that legitimately denies another person of the right to life. Thus far, the Dan's of the world play in the muck of arbitrary subjectivity in order to provide them the liberty to dispense with the inconvenience of personal responsibility.
Again, I apologize for not being clear enough. I’ve responded to your straw man, answered your questions, pointed out your goal post moving, and all you do is demand that I answer more of your repetitive questions. Until you do what you demand of others, I’m not feeding your ego any more.
I pulled this quote out of the moderated comment to point out that this is the fourth different question that Dan has identified as “THE” singular question. The goal posts keep moving.
“The question at the root of ALL discussions on this matter comes down to “Is a fetus fully human” meaning, does it have a right to life.”
As for the rest of your comment, I’ve already addressed the issue and asked you multiple questions, which are shockingly unanswered.
I've finally gotten finished my answer to his "enemy of the people" demands. It won't be enough, but it's on my blog and then that post is linked at his at the post where the demand was made. I expect it to be deleted without response other than to simply dismiss it in its entirety, because actual discourse is not of any interest to him anymore.
His troll continues to try to post to my blog. I see his attempts in my spam folder, where I check in to see if non-spam ended up there...which happens quite a bit for some reason. I don't read his stuff, so if he's tried to present his "plan", I wouldn't know. He'll have to forewarn me at Dan's that it's coming. That's the only place I'd ever see it, as I don't waste time going to his blog at all.
A brilliant idea from the geniuses on the left. Women should practice abstinence until they get their “bodily autonomy” back.
I’d say that that’s a great idea, it would actually go a long way toward ending abortion.
However, I’d suggest that women using their bodily autonomy to choose not to have sex when they aren’t prepared to accept all the potential results of that sex would be a good plan no matter what.
I’d be remiss not to mention that “bodily autonomy”, is a myth.
I saw someone post a pre natal development chart and ask the pro abortion folx to point out the exact point where the “clump of cells” becomes a baby.
Dan, has confounded this by simply saying that “it’s a fact that no one knows what that point is”, and “it’s the parent’s opinion when it becomes a baby”.
Besides the obvious desire to avoid being held to anything special, which Dan has done in the past, this is a disturbing philosophy.
It downplays the fact that there is a singular point, it implicitly acknowledges it, but ignores it.
The result is essentially to accept those children killed after that point as “collateral damage”. To say that as long as we “don’t know”, it’s ok to indiscriminately abort children without regard to what that specific point is.
It’s a cowardly stance, but at least it dodges the question.
Even in Dan’s unproven claim ,“we don’t know”, is true. Why wouldn’t we choose to err on the side of protecting “the least of these”? Wouldn’t we err on the side of those who are most vulnerable and defenseless?
Overall, the pro-abortion argument is simply a means by which sexual self-gratification can be protected. The exploitation of those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk (somehow, they know that with absolute certainty, but not when one is "fully human"), in order to protect the ability to gratify one's self is only accepted as an honest and legitimate argument by what one troll would describe as "brutalizers".
They won't err on the side of life because they simply don't care about the unborn, as proven by their refusal to accept the humanity of the unborn. I continue to wonder about the "struggle" to decide when one doesn't. Perhaps the struggle is "can I get away with pretending...convince myself the life isn't a person?" Either it is, or it isn't. There is no struggle either way.
"That's murder, young lady!" etc. More of the ugly signs and words from right wing zealots.
Will you both condemn them strongly, soundly? Will you tell your churches and friends to stop doing this sort of thing?
Just looking at videos here in Kentucky, there is no end to the vile attacks on women seeking to make their own medical decisions.
Will you both soundly condemn the language of "murder" and "killing babies"? Will you say it has no place in a rational response to a woman's decision to do something you don't personally agree with for her to do?
No, because you're hypocrites and supporters/promoters of evil.
Again, We DON'T know that it's "murder" or "killing babies..." We don't know that we "know" when a clump of cells moves from being a medical decision to being wrong, not authoritatively. That you two can't admit that says everything.
That you believe it's murder suggests you agree with places like Georgia and Alabama, where they may decide to place in jail pregnant women and doctors. Will you also suggest capitol punishment?
Since I don’t want to question your reading comprehension, I’m left to conclude that you just choose obstinacy to be difficult.
If you won’t do what you demand others do, I’m just not sure what you’re trying to prove.
Since I’ve already condemned protesters who harass, I see no reason to do so again just to further your attempts to dodge and stall. If you can’t specifically call out the two liberals I’ve referenced, why would I play your silly games?
I’ll clarify that I agree that passing out flyers with peoples name and home address, is definitely crossing a line. (I have to point out that this is a lower tech version of what Sims tried to do to three teenaged girls, which hasn’t been specifically addressed by you.)
However, I fail to see how showing pictures of the actual medical procedure people are there to undergo us such a problem. If these pictures and videos are so horrific, maybe the subject matter is the problem. Maybe you aren’t aware that there are numerous TV shows that shoe many actual surgeries in great detail. If this is just a routine medical procedure, with no moral component, why are you so scared of people seeing it?
I think we can guess the answer, it’s hard to convince a 16 year old girl who is having an abortion without her parents involvement that what she’s seeing on video is just a “clump of cells”, or that the fetus doesn’t feel anything. Who are you going to believe, someone with a financial interest in getting you on the operating table, or your lying eyes.
For something that’s just routine medical care, y’all sure try to shroud it in as much secrecy as possible.
I know I’m just adding questions, but I’m confident you can catch up if you try.
I'm telling you this goes on all the time, on a near daily basis somewhere, to varying degrees. It happens nearly daily here in my hometown, right down the street from where I used to work. It's not old news and to try to dismiss it as such is part of the problem, making you part of the problem of the oppression and harassment of struggling women.
You can begin by repenting for your part in the harassment of women and then we might begin to take people like you seriously.
As it is, you are an awful, oppressive joke.
Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
1. The link you provided was from 2017, hence old news. 1a, You've chosen to ignore the reality of pro and anti abortion protests within the least week in favor of old news.
2. I know that you’re trying to drive the thread as far away from you dealing with the large amount of stuff you’re trying to pretend doesn’t exist. So, do what you demand from others. Prove your claims, answer the questions you’ve been asked.
I figure if the carnage in KY is as bad as Dan makes it out to be, it’ll be pretty easy to verify. So far, I’ve found a pro life protester who claims she was thrown down and had her leg broken by pro abortion fold. I’ll keep looking, but so far it looks like the talked of carnage are exaggerated.
“I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want, and wasn’t ready for, emotionally, psychologically and financially.”
Please note that at no point in this explanation does any reference to the life, or health of the mother or the baby is mentioned. This doesn’t sound like women’s health.
It’s interesting that the pro abortion folx can threaten Matt Walsh and his family with rape and death and no one on twitter does a thing. Just silence from the tolerant left.
1. The list of folx willing to threaten the wives and children with rape and murder is surprisingly long.
2. Apparently there’s a woman who wants to assign all responsibility to all pregnancies to men.
3. Despite the fact that Alabama’s law will save more black children than white, it’s still racist.
4. The US birthdate apparently has dropped below the replacement rate. We know that Social Security and Medicare are already insolvent and getting worse. So let’s all join hands and lower the birth rate even lower. That’s a great plan. Now the pro abortion millennials really won’t have Social Security.
Good lord the world of Social Media is filled with idiots.
“Pro aborts focus intently on the tiny minority of cases involving rape because they know they sound like heartless lunatics when they defend a woman killing her consensually conceived child because the child is inconvenient. But that is why the vast majority of abortions happen.”
It’s a strange world where dismembering a pre born human in the womb and sucking out the body parts with a vacuum is not brutal, but trying to stop it is.
It’s also interesting that in a world where virtually everything is racialized, that the fact the the vast majority of aborted babies are black doesn’t get more play.
Let’s be honest, A relatively few black men are killed by police (virtually all in liberal strongholds) and it’s painted as genocide, but tens of thousands of aborted black babies don’t register on the BLM radar.
77 comments:
Well, to point out the obvious, quite literally it is a human fetus. But you knew that didn't you?
I did know that a human fetus is a human being, it’s Christine Quinn you have the problem with.
Anonymous, if you want your comments to post, you’ll need to identify yourself.
“Consider the insane fact that we live in a time when thousands of people would actually disagree with me stating that my unborn daughter is a “human girl.”“
I don't think you heard what I said correctly. You hold an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being. But that is an opinion, not a proven fact.
That's the question to be answered.
The main thing to keep in mind is to be able to differentiate between you holding that opinion and you thinking that your opinion is a fact.
As to your quoted comment there in comment 4, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that you are not free to hold that opinion that the fetus in a woman's belly is a human girl. And if you believe your fetus or your wife's fetus is a human girl, then you certainly should not have an abortion and no one should force you to have an abortion. That is your freedom to make that choice.
BUT, if someone else holds the opinion that this 6 week old fetus is not fully human, then that's their choice to make and no one should try to force them against their belief system, either.
Freedom of Choice. You have your right to make your choice other people have the right to make their choice.
Dan,
You seem to be making some claims in your comments.
Claim #1. A human fetus is not a human being.
Claim #2. A human fetus Ted is not “fully human”.
Claim #3. Whether of not a human fetus is a human being is a matter of opinion only.
Claim #4. The humanity of a fetus is the choice of one parent.
First, science disagrees with you.
Second, if your going to make claims you need to prove them.
Third, the pre born human child is either objectively human or it’s not. The fact that someone chooses to believe something different doesn’t alter the objective reality.
The fact that you’re seriously arguing that the choice of a parent is what renders a pre born child human is simply laughable.
Where your “logic” fails is that it doesn’t acknowledge that human life is a continuum. The human fetus is a developmental stage that all humans pass through, the human fetus is exactly as developed as it should be for that stage of its life.
Yet, you’re arguing that this “freedom of choice” extends to ending the life of a human being simply because it hasn’t attained an arbitrary developmental stage.
I guess “the least of these” doesn’t apply to those most who are utterly helpless.
If you want to argue “freedom of choice”, at least have the courage to admit that the “choice” is the ending of a human life.
I'll write more slowly and use smaller words, then.
It is an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being.
It is an OPINION that a human fetus is NOT fully a human being.
It is an OPINION that a two week fetus is fully equal to a birthed human being, with all the same rights, etc.
it is an OPINION that a 9 month old fetus is no more than tissue and deserves no human rights considerations.
These are ALL opinions. None of them are proven and so far as I can tell, not provable.
So, first, science does NOT DISAGREE with me. YOU may disagree with me, but science does not have an opinion about the notion that a two day old fetus is fully human deserving of all the rights of a human being.
Do you recognize that reality?
Or, by all means, provide the data where "science" has "proven" that a 2 day old fetus is fully human, deserving of all rights.
I don't care if you hold whatever opinions you hold. BUT, you can not rationally claim that your HUMAN OPINIONS are equal to established facts or science.
Do you recognize that reality?
Do you hold the opinion that a one day old fetus is fully human? A one hour old fetus?
Do you think that a mother should be able to legally abort a two month old fetus if it threatens her life?
Do you think that a mother should be able to legally abort a two month old fetus if it is the result of a rape?
Do you make exceptions?
If so, why? If that two minute old fetus from a rape that threatens the life of a mother is okay to abort, even if it's "fully human" (in your opinion, not as a point of fact), then what does that say about you that you think the mom should be allowed to "kill" a "human..."?
Your welcome to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Of what you said, this is the closest to being correct...
"Claim #3. Whether of not a human fetus is a human being is a matter of opinion only."
As a point of reality, we can not prove that a 2 minute old, or a two month old fetus is fully a human being deserving of all the rights of a birthed human. It quite literally is a human fetus. THAT is a fact. Beyond that, we can form opinions but we can't prove those opinions.
So far, I’ve found that the legal system disagrees with your claims.
“Thirty-eight (38) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.”
“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.”
Everything I’ve looked at refers to a fetus as a developmental stage in the life of a human (mammal).
I get that you want to play semantic games, and insist that your opinions on this topic are “reality”. I get that you believe that something magic happens at birth. I get that you are willing to do all of these things to assert that the inherent humanity of human life at its most vulnerable is simply a matter of the opinion of one parent and that one parent should be able to end the life of this fetus based on their opinion.
Your logic sounds eerily similar to that of slave owners and those who engage in genocide.
“Developmentalists break the life span into nine stages as follows:
Prenatal Development
Infancy and Toddlerhood
Early Childhood
Middle Childhood
Adolescence
Early Adulthood
Middle Adulthood
Late Adulthood
Death and Dying“
Oh, they're "opinions", all right! The opinions that deny the humanity of a person based on that person's size, age, location and/or stafe of development are the opinions of those looking for a loophole that allows them a pretense of moral acceptability when taking the life of another person unable to prevent it. In other words, cheap rationalization. It's the very same rationalization of the Klansman and the nazi...leftists all.
I’ve found that the legal system disagrees with your claims.
Again, no, it doesn't. It just doesn't. You can't support your claim. The legal system does not say that it can authoritatively demonstrate that a human fetus is the same as a full-born human, as a point of fact.
Some states may have created laws based on OPINIONS on the matter, but it's not a point of fact. The "fact" in this case is up for debate, that's the point.
And again, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Good luck.
Is healthcare a right?
First of all when you say some states, what you really mean is a majority of states. Second, I was strangely under the impression that state law actually is authoritative. Apparently you disagree.
Leave it to a lefty to play the moral relativism game here. Trying to pretend that actual Christians praying at an abortion mill, most likely for God to change the hearts and minds of the women and their murderous abortionists in order to defend the innocent is somehow no different than a sexually immoral Democrat harassing them is typical leftist nonsense. Even if defenders of the innocent were acting in an overzealous manner (holding signs, for heaven's sake!!!...warning the women of the sin they are about to commit, golly gee!!), they are still defending innocent life, and the lefty hack is being a typical lefty, pretending he has the moral high ground.
Also, the onus is on the lefty/progressive/fake Christian to prove the fertilized egg in a woman's womb is NOT a human equal to any outside the womb. It is they who pretend there is some difference. Normal, rational, compassionate people of all kinds (not just actual Christians) know there's no difference. DAN must prove HIS evil position on the matter.
You're fighting a lost battle with pro-aborts here, Craig. And it's not just here. When the dean of a seminary can claim that you can't be a Christian if you're white, you have to scratch your head and ask, "What??!!" Because they're not defining "white" as race and they're not defining "human" as anything objectively true. Everything is opinion. Gender, life, race, even science. They are simply fulfilling what Scripture has already claimed: "Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools." You're using logic and reason. They reject that. Even while denying it. Because logic and reason are only right when it's their version.
Stan, of course you’re right. It’s just bizarre watching the contortions they’ll go through in order to dehumanize (literally) those who they feel unworthy.
The vehemence of this dehumanization is surprising. The willingness to simply write off the humanity of those in particular stages of development to the whims of opinion is just amazing.
“...a two day old fetus is fully human, deserving of all rights.”
The above captures the innate fallacy and straw man being argued.
As for the first part. A “two day old fetus” (leaving aside the fact that it’s not a fetus at that developmental stage), is 100% fully human for that stage of its development. The problem with this is that it fails to define “fully” human. To reach the arbitrary “fully human” status one must have been a “two day old fetus” at some point in one’s development. It’s inevitable, it’s reality, it’s basic biology. Of course, this argument also fails when you change the time frame. Anyone who’s seen an ultrasound is an idiot to suggest they a fetus at 36 weeks isn’t “fully human”. This argument from the absurd extreme to try to prove the non extreme is overused and abused. It’s the “rape and incest” argument slightly altered (We much encourage 98+% of all abortions because around 2% evoke more sympathy).
As to the second part of the argument there are multiple ares where it fails.
The most obvious is that it’s an argument that isn’t ever being made. It’s a straw man. It’s stupid.
It also assumes that “fully human” equals deserving of “all rights”. By this argument we should be able to define 17 year olds as not “fully human”.
It also contradicts that language of our founding documents that assert that rights are “inalienable” and “granted by our creator”, nowhere do people talk about rights being “deserved”.
Finally, the argument isn’t for “all rights”, it’s only really for one inalienable right, the foundational right without which all others are meaningless. The right to life.
As to the ridiculous “Do you understand this?” questions. As long as you’re going to assert your claims as “reality” with only one correct understanding of the correct answer, I see no point in answering what amount to unproven/unsupported claims of fact.
Stan...
You're using logic and reason. They reject that.
Good Lord, have mercy. The hubris and arrogance and ignorance of this sort of comment is why no one likes conservative/fundamentalist types. They make themselves into little gods, THE ANOINTED ONES who have the ability to speak for God and facts.
Listen yet again: That we reject YOUR HUMAN OPINIONS and won't agree with you that YOUR OPINIONS are equal to facts is THE OPPOSITE of rejecting reason and logic. We are rejecting YOUR FALSE OPINIONS that absolutely ARE NOT facts or rational.
There is a huge chasm between reality and your collective understanding of reality. Which is why I continually ask if you recognize that reality?
I'm speaking of observable facts and trying to ascertain if you all are understanding reality.
That answer is clear, by the way you dodge questions and simply are factually wrong in your arrogant human presumptions and guesses.
Dan you can use as many expletives, all caps, and whatever else you feel necessary to make your point. But as long as you keep insisting that your opinions are reality, you saw the branch you are sitting on.
I am not insisting that my opinions are reality.
I am not insisting that my opinions are reality.
I am not insisting that my opinions are reality.
Dan is NOT insisting that his opinions are reality.
Repeat that 1,000 times to yourself. Ponder the deeper implications of what those words mean. Look at my words and SEE that I never insisted that my opinions are reality.
I HAVE pointed to reality and asked you if you recognized the reality, but that is not my opinion.
It is a human opinion to say that a fetus at 2 weeks, 2 months or 6 months old is fully human deserving of all rights a human being enjoys.
It is a human opinion to say that a fetus at 2 weeks, 2 months or 6 months old is NOT fully human deserving of all rights a human being enjoys.
BOTH are human opinions that can not be proven.
Do you recognize that reality?
You merely saying, "But, they are a human fetus, therefore, they are fully human deserving of all rights afforded a human" does not mean that your statement it is a fact. It is a statement of opinion.
Do you recognize the reality?
Again, your silence in the face of reasonable questions always tells us all we need to know.
Again, if you are seriously going to claim that the statements you make our reality, in other words factual, in other words objectively true, then prove them.
In the interest of pointing out actual reality, I haven’t been silent on your repeated asking of one particular question. It all comes back to if you’re going to make claims about reality, then you have to prove the claims you may. If you can’t do so, then I’d be insane To agree with something that you can’t approve.
Prove, not approve.
BOTH are human opinions that can not be proven.
You want me to prove a negative? Can't be done.
YOU are the one making a positive claim (or are you, it's hard to tell because you NEVER ANSWER direct questions directly and clearly), that you DO "know" that a two day old fetus is a human being, factually deserving of all rights.
You are making the positive claim. YOU have to support it.
Or we will just dismiss you as a grade school crank, not a serious adult conversationalist.
Which people have generally done with conservative fundamentalist types.
Dan,
I’ve addressed your absurd “all rights” canard, so I’m not going to waste any more time on it until you at least acknowledge that reality and deal with the problems.
I’m not asking you to prove a negative.
I’m asking you to prove that “both are human opinion that can’t be proven.”. That is a positive claim of fact (or reality as you claim). If your claim is true, prove it.
The problem is, I’m not making the claim that you say I am, and I’ve addressed your straw man.
I’ve also provided support for the claim I have made, and will provide more when I’m not limited to my phone.
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to prove your claims.
Stan,
Clearly you’re right.
Dan,
I just want to point out that for all your pomp and outrage about "conservative/fundamentalist types" and "little gods," you have to know that you come across in the very same manner to those you so vigorously oppose and vilify. I'm just sayin'.
If you could just let us know when a "non-person human" (the court's term for a non-viable child in the womb) becomes a person -- when that wad of cells becomes an actual human being, I'll be glad to hear it. Currently your side is arguing that it's not until after birth sometime. I just want to know what defines "human being" deserving the rights and protection of human beings rather than "mass of human cells."
The entire pro abortion movement is predicated on avoiding any definitive answers to the question you asked. As you’ve seen, they’re dogmatic about what it’s not, but vague about what it is.
The quote that started this thread was quite clear that it’s “not a human being”. But listen to all the different ways folx try to avoid specifics about what it is.
Your initial comment was right in the sense that folx like this won’t admit that that thing inside a human mother’s womb is a human being no matter what evidence they are provided. I do hope that advances in technology will demonstrate to the gen Z young people that their eyes don’t deceive them.
I don't know how to say it any other way. We don't know. We don't have an authoritative definitive answer as to when human life, fully human life, begins.
We all can have opinions, but we don't have a definitive fact-based authoritative answer.
Thus, given that we don't have an authoritative answer, it's not the case that Liberals are saying we know. We're saying we don't know, it's above our pay grade, and so, lacking an authoritative answer, we trust one another to make the best decisions.
We don't trust YOU to make a decision for me. I wouldn't expect you to trust me to make the decision for you.
When the liberal in question makes the statement “it’s not a human being”, they sure appear to be making a definitive statement. She’s clearly saying “I know what it isn’t.”. That’s just the most direct and convenient example. I could provide examples from moderated comments that disprove your claim as well. So your statement about what “liberals” aren’t doing isn’t accurate.
The problem you have is that when you make the claim “We don’t have an answer...”, you are making a claim. You’ve repeatedly made this claim, yet haven’t proven it.
You’ve repeatedly made your straw man claim and demanded that I argue for your straw man. You use terms like “fully human”, but won’t define those terms. (To be fair, you did define that term, but ignored my pointing out the problems with that definition.)
Your comments in this thread can be summarized as (You’re wrong, but I’m going to hide behind I don’t know.”.
I Haven’t pointed out the overwhelming number of references from standard embryology texts that clearly define the beginning of life at conception because I know you’ve read other blogs where they’ve been posted. Like the arguments for the existence of God, you’ve seen them, you reject them, but you haven’t countered them.
As happens frequently, I can choose between believing your opinion, or multiple other (more authoritative) sources. I’ll choose authoritative over “I don’t know” any day.
Personally I don’t find “I don’t know” an acceptable reason for ending the life of a human in any developmental stage.
Since I’ve never suggested that I should make decisions for anyone, your last sentence makes absolutely zero sense. You do understand the difference between persuasion and prayer that others make good decisions and making decisions for them.
IF you are claiming that you know as a fact when human life begins, then you are wrong. No one has established Authoritatively and definitively and objectively when human life begins.
That isn't a matter of opinion.
IF you can prove it, when human life begins, then prove it.
You can't. You never have. No one has.
I don't need to prove observable reality.
If you want to make a claim, then the onus is on you to prove it.
I am saying that I have never seen anyone know of ever heard of anyone else seeing anyone objectively prove when full human life begins.
I don't know how to say it to help you understand. That you don't even understand the point is part of the problem.
No one is disputing that a human life begins at conception. Repeat that again.
No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.
No one.
Human life begins at conception and continues throughout the fetal.. That's not in dispute what is in dispute is the personhood of that fetus
What is in question is when does fully human life begin where humans are afforded all the rights did it come along with being a human? Who has established that? Where is the authoritative objective answer for that? There is none. You cannot point to a place where that exists. Do you understand that reality? Or if you think you can point to that place, point to it. You f****** can't you f****** moron. I don't know how else to say it to help you understand.
Re: I won't Define what I mean by fully human... I've been abundantly clear. I'm talking about fully human in the sense of deserving/having all the rights associated with being fully human. Are you not understanding what I mean by that? Fully human meaning that they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is a human fetus deserving of all those rights? That's the question.
No one has authoritatively answered that. As far as I can tell, no one can authoritatively answer that. I don't know how you find an authoritative answer for that. Do you?
On what basis do you say that the 2-day old fetus is deserving of all the rights associated with being a human? Says who?
If you think, for instance, that a six week old fetus has all the rights of being fully human, then on what basis do you make an exception for the case of rape or where the life of the mother is threatened?
Your last comment said you didn't want to make that decision for anyone. Then you're not advocating for the laws to change to Outlaw all abortions? If you outlaw it, aren't you making that decision for them?
Here's a line of reasonable questions that you will, no doubt, ignore and not answer. But think it through.
Does a two-year-old child have all the rights of an adult human?
No. They can't buy property. they can't drive a car. They don't have a right of self-determination. They can't choose where they live.
A two year old is fully human, but doesn't have all the rights of an adult human. I don't think this is outrageous or in question, presumably you don't either. You recognize that the age and stage of development of the human in question matters.
Do you agree that a two-year-old does not enjoy all the rights of a human adult?
However, a two-year-old does have a right to life and Liberty. That also is not in question. So some rights apply but not all. This is just reasonable. Stage of Life matters.
Likewise, no one is denying that I human fetus is a human fetus. Is a fully human fetus. But is not fully human. It does not enjoy all the rights that a two-year-old has. Most people recognize that that fetus can be aborted, for instance, if the life of the mother is threatened. Or even if it was a product of rape. Even you probably recognize one or both of those exceptions. Being a human fetus does not mean that they enjoy all the rights of a human adult.
And no one can authoritatively and definitively and objectively say which rights a human fetus has, if any. Do you recognize the reality that there is not one authoritative source that can make that case?
“If you want to make a claim, then the onus is on you to prove it. “
As usual, you demand others do what you won’t. That might work in your safe space, but not here.
“I am saying that I have never seen anyone know of ever heard of anyone else seeing anyone objectively prove when full human life begins.”
I’m saying that virtually all embryology texts, as well as everything I saw researching human development agrees that conception is the beginning of a new, unique human life.
I’m sorry if you are unaware of this. But you seem strangely, dogmatically certain of this “reality”
Of course in your very next comment you contradict yourself by saying that “No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.”.
Please choose one and argue that.
You might have noticed people referring to what you now concede is “human life” as “cancer”, “a clump of cells”, “a parasite” or “not a human being”, maybe you should educate those on your side who seem unaware of your knowledge.
After acknowledging that I’m correct, you then move the goal posts, and re introduce this “fully human”/“all rights” notion.
So, instead of continuing on, I’ll ask you to do what you demand I do, and prove your claim. Please provide proof that you have an objective definition of “fully human” and “all rights”, and that the two concepts are inextricably linked.
I’m working through your comments in order, so I don’t know if the next comments address the flaws in your “all rights”=“fully human” construct. If they don’t, I’d ask that you do so before you move on.
Good Lord! Are you just not able to understand words and meanings and have adult level conversations?
If I say there's no such thing as unicorns and someone else says yes there are. Then the onus is on THEM to prove it.
I'm saying, in the world that I know, there is no such thing as unicorns. The person claiming positively that unicorns do exist can easily show that I'm Wrong by showing that unicorns exist.
YOU are making the positive claim. I'm just making the negative claim that there is no data that unicorns exist. If the data exists that unicorns do exist, then show it.
It's like that.
I'm saying there is no data that says we have an objective authoritative objectively factual way of knowing that a six week old fetus is fully human in the sense that it has rights.
If you have that data that disputes the apparent reality, then the onus is on you to prove it. You are making the positive claim. You have to support it.
You can't support it because there is no objective source that proves it. Do you recognize that reality? Your failure to answer this question shows by your silence that you do not have a way of proving it. It is indeed your opinion and not a fact.
As to your ridiculous claim that I'm moving the goalposts, of course I'm not. It could be the case that you're just not understanding the questions being discussed. Or could be the case that you're just dodging.
In the abortion debate, the primary underlying question is does a fetus have a right to life that outweighs a woman's right to self-determination?
For those who want to say that abortion should be illegal, - or more commonly, illegal except in the cases of rape or a threat to the woman's life - they are suggesting or outright saying that yes, two-day-old fetus has the right to life they fully human being has. Those who support abortion rights being the decision of the mother or family do not believe that a fetus has a right to life that I fully human person has. That is the question that is always being discussed, at the bottom of it all.
For my part I am not claiming that a fetus does have a right to life nor am I claiming that the fetus does not have a right to life. I'm noting the reality that we have no authoritative objective way of proving it one way or the other. Therefore, the decision should rest with a person or people in question. Not the government. Not the church.
So no, I'm not moving any goal post. You're just not understanding the question being discussed, perhaps.
I'm talking about fully human in the sense of deserving/having all the rights associated with being fully human.""
First, this is circular reasoning.
Second, it's usually frowned upon to use a word to define the word.
So.
"What is in question is when does fully human life begin where humans are afforded all the rights did it come along with being a human?"
No. That is a straw man argument that you've asserted is being made by others. It's certainly not the question that I'm asking, or that I've heard asked by anyone but you.
"Who has established that?"
Since I'm not arguing for the straw man that you've presented I'm not sure why I'd defend your position. Why don"t you define and defend your position?
"Where is the authoritative objective answer for that?"
Do you realize that asking the same question multiple times in the same comment isn't helpful?
"There is none."
Please prove the above claim of fact.
"You cannot point to a place where that exists. Do you understand that reality?"
I've never argued that it exists at all, why should I prove something that I haven't argued or asserted?
"Or if you think you can point to that place, point to it. You f****** can't you f****** moron. I don't know how else to say it to help you understand."
Clearly insults, vitriol, and expletives are a great, mature, and Christlike option. Especially when it's your undefined, undefended straw man.
Let's try this.
What are "all the rights associated with being fully human"?
Are you suggesting that the definition of "fully human" is to have "all the rights..."?
FYI, I've heard all the bad pro abortion arguments, and this argument and terminology is completely new to me. So, it would be really helpful if you were more transparent rather than less transparent.
No one has authoritatively answered that. As far as I can tell, no one can authoritatively answer that. I don't know how you find an authoritative answer for that. Do you?
"On what basis do you say that the 2-day old fetus is deserving of all the rights associated with being a human? Says who?"
I've never, ever, not even one time said that.
"If you think, for instance, that a six week old fetus has all the rights of being fully human, then on what basis do you make an exception for the case of rape or where the life of the mother is threatened?"
Again, I've never said that.
As far as your exception issue. There are two sides of that question. There is the moral and the legal.
On the legal side, I would accept an exception for rape, incest, or the risk of imminent death to the mother. I'd make that compromise because it would stop about 98% of abortions. Just like other things that are legal that I might morally object to, I could live with this from a legal standpoint.
On the moral side, I'd argue that abortion in the cases of rape and incest is punishing an innocent victim and as such would argue that it's wrong to end the life of a human being because of the actions of a third party.
In the case of the imminent threat to the life of the mother,I'd argue that it's the same predicament that you'd find any time you have to save one of two people. It's a hard decision, and I'm not going to second guess what a family decides. I know that I would sacrifice my life for my children if the situation called for it.
In any case, we're talking about a microscopic minority of cases and I see no point in trying to draw broad conclusions from exceptional and rare circumstances.
"Your last comment said you didn't want to make that decision for anyone."
Your reading comprehension isn't totally gone.
"Then you're not advocating for the laws to change to Outlaw all abortions?"
As I said earlier. I can live with the three exceptions from a legal standard. Obviously, the best option would be to persuade, but the reality is that legislation is the only realistic option. If it comes to legislation, I'd prefer to start by making adoption a more attractive option. Streamline the process, use taxpayer money to fund it. Then adopt a multi pronged approach that would lead to the eliminations of the vast majority of abortions. So, the answer to your question is No I'm not.
"If you outlaw it, aren't you making that decision for them?"
Since I'm not, nor should I be, in possession of the power to govern by fiat, the answer to this would be no as well.
"Here's a line of reasonable questions that you will, no doubt, ignore and not answer. But think it through."
Then you'd be wrong.
"Does a two-year-old child have all the rights of an adult human?"
No, I've never suggested that they do.
"Do you agree that a two-year-old does not enjoy all the rights of a human adult?"
Do you understand how stupid it makes you look to ask a question, answer the question, then ask the same question again? All before I've had the opportunity to answer the first time.
"Likewise, no one is denying that I human fetus is a human fetus. Is a fully human fetus."
Except people are denying this very thing. See the quote in my original post.
"But is not fully human."
Prove this claim. I mean actual proof, not just saying that it's reality.
"It does not enjoy all the rights that a two-year-old has."
I've never claimed that it does.
"However, a two-year-old does have a right to life and Liberty."
Please prove that claim of fact.
"Being a human fetus does not mean that they enjoy all the rights of a human adult."
I've never claimed otherwise. However, the question that must be asked is. "Does that mean that a pre born human has zero rights?"
Earlier, I asked you if health care was a right. As usual, you chose not to answer.
However, it's trendy and chic to claim that "Health care is a right.". If that is true, then should a pre born human be denied intra-uterine medical care that might save it's life or correct a serious health problem?
"And no one can authoritatively and definitively and objectively say which rights a human fetus has, if any."
If the right to life is, as our founders claimed, "inalienable" that it's granted from our "creator", then what gives you the ability to alienate the inalienable?
"Do you recognize the reality that there is not one authoritative source that can make that case?"
Again, If you're going to ask the same question over and over, (and bitch that I don't answer) you're going to have to put up with a lot of repetition.
I think that problem is that you really, honestly believe that this nonsense "fully human is defined by all rights" straw man is actually an argument I've made. But I haven't. In fact, I pointed out the flaws in it quite a while ago. Why would I point out flaws in an argument I was making?
Please take you time, answer the questions asked and prove that your claims are accurate. I'll wait.
"IF you are claiming that you know as a fact when human life begins, then you are wrong. No one has established Authoritatively and definitively and objectively when human life begins."
Quote from Dan
"No one is disputing that a human life begins at conception. Repeat that again.
No one disputes that a human life begins at conception.
No one.
Human life begins at conception and continues throughout the fetal."
Also a quote from Dan in the very next comment.
You've laid out a comparison of a two day old fetus (again at two days it's not a fetus but why be accurate) with a two year old infant/toddler. That is one of your usual comparison of two extremes. Valid, but not necessarily useful.
But, let's look at something a bit different.
The average gestation period for humans is 280 days. (If your interested there are plenty of places where you can see what the pre born child looks like and can experience at each stage)
Hypothetically lets say that a woman delivers her baby at 12:00 noon of day number 280 of her pregnancy.
According to your straw man.
The (hereafter) baby has somewhere between zero and three of the enumerated "inalienable rights" that our founders recognized at 11:58 AM on day number 280.
The baby has at somewhere between zero and three of the enumerated "inalienable rights" that our founders recognized at 12:02 PM on day number 280?
The primary question that must be answered is why would the number if "inalienable" rights change in a period of 4 minutes?
It's clearly the same human at both ends of the birth canal.
Who or what confers the "inalienable rights" in the baby and when or where does that happen?
If you've commented since the last time I checked, I'm going to put a hold on them unless they address the questions/provide proof of the claims you've made. That will allow you to take care of business without adding needless confusion to the thread.
Dan,
I've pretty much addressed everything in your first comment, and I apologize because I accidentally deleted it. I was going to publish it because there were a couple of additional misconceptions that I wanted to address.
As to your idiotic unicorn comment, It will have to wait. I'm not sure I want people to see that level of foolish argument.
You did say in the comment that got deleted that you haven't moved the goal posts. You then said something like "The bedrock question to be answered is whether the right to life of the pre born child trumps the right of the mother to control her body.".
Again, I apologize for accidentally deleting your comment, but I think I got the basic idea.
I'll point out a few things you've said earlier in the thread.
"I don't think you heard what I said correctly. You hold an OPINION that a human fetus is equal to a human being. But that is an opinion, not a proven fact.
That's the question to be answered." 6:38 May 7
"Is a human fetus deserving of all those rights? That's the question."
I'm going to suggest that having three different question that you refer to as "the" (singular)"question", is an excellent example of moving the goal posts.
As is your introduction of the "all rights" absurdity and pretending like I've actually argued that.
"YOU are the one making a positive claim (or are you, it's hard to tell because you NEVER ANSWER direct questions directly and clearly), that you DO "know" that a two day old fetus is a human being, factually deserving of all rights."
If you are serious about claims needing to be proven, then please prove the above claim. Please show with a linked specific quotation where I've ever said what you just claimed I said.
I've had to post a lot to catch up with you, but I have and I'm done until you do what you demand of others.
By all means, clarify. I thought the point of your position on being opposed to abortion is that you were against it. Is that right?
I thought the point was you're against it because you believe a fetus is fully human and should not be killed in the same manner that a born baby shouldn't be killed. Is that right?
The Presumption is that you don't think newborn babies or fetuses should be killed because they're both equally human deserving of the right to life. Is that right?
Rather than play around, by all means directly clarify your positions.
It is possible I do not know your position, precisely.
I do know the position of many right to life people and they believe that a fetus is equal to a birthed baby in the sense they are deserving of a right to life.
My point has always been that the presumption of a natural right to life for a fetus is an opinion not an established fact. Do you understand that?
Dan,
Perhaps I was unclear or ambiguous earlier. Please let me try this again.
Until you do what you demand I do, your comments will remain in moderation.
Your initial post asked the question, Then what is it?
I answered factually and clearly and directly: A human fetus.
That is a fact and no one disagrees (no one serious, anyway).
The question at the root of ALL discussions on this matter comes down to "Is a fetus 'fully human,' meaning, does it have a right to life?" Most right to lifers (see that in the name there) that I have heard and read say Yes, a fetus DOES have a right to life.
Do YOU believe that? I don't know. I gathered that much, given your inane set of questions and vague claims, but I can't speak as to what you specifically believe, at least not without going back to read what you've written and quite frankly, your words don't merit that effort. I could be mistaken in my assumption that you believe in a "right to life" for fetuses. The ONLY WAY I can know is if you answer that question directly.
That ball is in your court.
If I mistakenly assumed that you held a "right to life" position, given your many comments opposing abortion and ones that compare an abortion to killing a baby or murdering a baby (as I recall you've said, but maybe I'm mistaking your words for someone else), I hope you can see why I'd make that assumption.
DO YOU BELIEVE that aborting a fetus is the same as killing a baby? If so, why, if not because you believe a fetus has a right to life?
That is on you to answer, I can't answer for you. I believe you've affirmed this. If I'm wrong, tell me and I can apologize and set the record straight.
What YOU need to understand is that a person might use many words and phrases to describe or get at the same thing. Saying "He believes a fetus is fully human" or that "he thinks a fetus is deserving of all the rights of a human" IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion on abortion, I think most rational people can figure out that what the person is saying is that "He believes a fetus has a right to life, just like a birthed human..."
Now, I could explain your mistakes and misunderstandings and stupidly false claims 1,000 times, but I can never understand it for you.
I'm done here, I've tried.
"For my part I am not claiming that a fetus does have a right to life nor am I claiming that the fetus does not have a right to life. I'm noting the reality that we have no authoritative objective way of proving it one way or the other."
The reality is that we have no "authoritative objective way" of proving YOU have a right to life. The founders simply acknowledged that such a right exists. To this day, there are still those in the world that would dispute this contention in a very final, irreversible way.
The "question(s)" Dan tries to propose as burning aren't really questions at all, so much as the attempts of those like himself who find the reality of the unborn's humanity inconvenient. No one else even thinks to ask such obviously self-serving questions. Then to further muddy the issue with nonsensical examples of what rights a 2 yr old has compared to an adult is insulting to rational people and an indication of either abject stupidity or willful deviousness on Dan's part (and on the part of any others who would suggest such a thing). The issue isn't whether or not the unborn can vote or carry a concealed Glock. The issue is whether or not the unborn has the right to life. It's the only right on the table as it IS the issue.
The unborn, at every stage, is a human being. There is no "fully human", but only "human". A person is a human being. It is nothing else. Thus, a human being is a person. The unborn within a human female is a human being. It is "fully human" throughout it's entire existence, from conception to death and as such is fully entitled to expect that its right to life be protected just as the lives of all other human beings are.
With that said, the onus is on the Dan's of the world to provide evidence that all of the above is not true and that there is some distinct dividing line that legitimately denies another person of the right to life. Thus far, the Dan's of the world play in the muck of arbitrary subjectivity in order to provide them the liberty to dispense with the inconvenience of personal responsibility.
Again, I apologize for not being clear enough. I’ve responded to your straw man, answered your questions, pointed out your goal post moving, and all you do is demand that I answer more of your repetitive questions. Until you do what you demand of others, I’m not feeding your ego any more.
I pulled this quote out of the moderated comment to point out that this is the fourth different question that Dan has identified as “THE” singular question. The goal posts keep moving.
“The question at the root of ALL discussions on this matter comes down to “Is a fetus fully human” meaning, does it have a right to life.”
As for the rest of your comment, I’ve already addressed the issue and asked you multiple questions, which are shockingly unanswered.
Art, this thread has been a tour de force of Dan’s greatest hits.
Another question that could be asked is, “Is someone born missing an arm ever fully human?”.
The entire concept of fully human is absurd. Is an 80 year old more fully human than a 30 year old?
If, as Dan’s straw man proposes that full humanity is defined by having “all rights” then no one under 21 is fully human.
None of it makes no sense. His refusal to answer questions just makes it worse,
I've finally gotten finished my answer to his "enemy of the people" demands. It won't be enough, but it's on my blog and then that post is linked at his at the post where the demand was made. I expect it to be deleted without response other than to simply dismiss it in its entirety, because actual discourse is not of any interest to him anymore.
His troll continues to try to post to my blog. I see his attempts in my spam folder, where I check in to see if non-spam ended up there...which happens quite a bit for some reason. I don't read his stuff, so if he's tried to present his "plan", I wouldn't know. He'll have to forewarn me at Dan's that it's coming. That's the only place I'd ever see it, as I don't waste time going to his blog at all.
A brilliant idea from the geniuses on the left. Women should practice abstinence until they get their “bodily autonomy” back.
I’d say that that’s a great idea, it would actually go a long way toward ending abortion.
However, I’d suggest that women using their bodily autonomy to choose not to have sex when they aren’t prepared to accept all the potential results of that sex would be a good plan no matter what.
I’d be remiss not to mention that “bodily autonomy”, is a myth.
I saw someone post a pre natal development chart and ask the pro abortion folx to point out the exact point where the “clump of cells” becomes a baby.
Dan, has confounded this by simply saying that “it’s a fact that no one knows what that point is”, and “it’s the parent’s opinion when it becomes a baby”.
Besides the obvious desire to avoid being held to anything special, which Dan has done in the past, this is a disturbing philosophy.
It downplays the fact that there is a singular point, it implicitly acknowledges it, but ignores it.
The result is essentially to accept those children killed after that point as “collateral damage”. To say that as long as we “don’t know”, it’s ok to indiscriminately abort children without regard to what that specific point is.
It’s a cowardly stance, but at least it dodges the question.
Even in Dan’s unproven claim ,“we don’t know”, is true. Why wouldn’t we choose to err on the side of protecting “the least of these”? Wouldn’t we err on the side of those who are most vulnerable and defenseless?
Overall, the pro-abortion argument is simply a means by which sexual self-gratification can be protected. The exploitation of those rare instances where the life of the mother might be at risk (somehow, they know that with absolute certainty, but not when one is "fully human"), in order to protect the ability to gratify one's self is only accepted as an honest and legitimate argument by what one troll would describe as "brutalizers".
They won't err on the side of life because they simply don't care about the unborn, as proven by their refusal to accept the humanity of the unborn. I continue to wonder about the "struggle" to decide when one doesn't. Perhaps the struggle is "can I get away with pretending...convince myself the life isn't a person?" Either it is, or it isn't. There is no struggle either way.
https://www.wdrb.com/archive/video/emw-clinic-workers-disturbed-by-recent-anti-abortion-protest-tactics/video_5752c099-48fa-52c2-81fb-04fec46873ff.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JQpLEO3Fk0
"That's murder, young lady!" etc. More of the ugly signs and words from right wing zealots.
Will you both condemn them strongly, soundly? Will you tell your churches and friends to stop doing this sort of thing?
Just looking at videos here in Kentucky, there is no end to the vile attacks on women seeking to make their own medical decisions.
Will you both soundly condemn the language of "murder" and "killing babies"? Will you say it has no place in a rational response to a woman's decision to do something you don't personally agree with for her to do?
No, because you're hypocrites and supporters/promoters of evil.
Again, We DON'T know that it's "murder" or "killing babies..." We don't know that we "know" when a clump of cells moves from being a medical decision to being wrong, not authoritatively. That you two can't admit that says everything.
That you believe it's murder suggests you agree with places like Georgia and Alabama, where they may decide to place in jail pregnant women and doctors. Will you also suggest capitol punishment?
There's no end to your hypocrisy and evil.
Dan,
Since I don’t want to question your reading comprehension, I’m left to conclude that you just choose obstinacy to be difficult.
If you won’t do what you demand others do, I’m just not sure what you’re trying to prove.
Since I’ve already condemned protesters who harass, I see no reason to do so again just to further your attempts to dodge and stall. If you can’t specifically call out the two liberals I’ve referenced, why would I play your silly games?
Your 2 year old video is quite helpful in discussing current events.
Dan,
I’ll clarify that I agree that passing out flyers with peoples name and home address, is definitely crossing a line. (I have to point out that this is a lower tech version of what Sims tried to do to three teenaged girls, which hasn’t been specifically addressed by you.)
However, I fail to see how showing pictures of the actual medical procedure people are there to undergo us such a problem. If these pictures and videos are so horrific, maybe the subject matter is the problem. Maybe you aren’t aware that there are numerous TV shows that shoe many actual surgeries in great detail. If this is just a routine medical procedure, with no moral component, why are you so scared of people seeing it?
I think we can guess the answer, it’s hard to convince a 16 year old girl who is having an abortion without her parents involvement that what she’s seeing on video is just a “clump of cells”, or that the fetus doesn’t feel anything. Who are you going to believe, someone with a financial interest in getting you on the operating table, or your lying eyes.
For something that’s just routine medical care, y’all sure try to shroud it in as much secrecy as possible.
I know I’m just adding questions, but I’m confident you can catch up if you try.
I guess pointing out the March for Life in the UK and the pro life “flash mob” in PA just aren’t recent or relevant enough.
I'm telling you this goes on all the time, on a near daily basis somewhere, to varying degrees. It happens nearly daily here in my hometown, right down the street from where I used to work. It's not old news and to try to dismiss it as such is part of the problem, making you part of the problem of the oppression and harassment of struggling women.
You can begin by repenting for your part in the harassment of women and then we might begin to take people like you seriously.
As it is, you are an awful, oppressive joke.
Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
We all see which side you're on.
Repent.
Dan,
I’m telling you two things.
1. The link you provided was from 2017, hence old news.
1a, You've chosen to ignore the reality of pro and anti abortion protests within the least week in favor of old news.
2. I know that you’re trying to drive the thread as far away from you dealing with the large amount of stuff you’re trying to pretend doesn’t exist. So, do what you demand from others. Prove your claims, answer the questions you’ve been asked.
It’s almost like your afraid or something.
I figure if the carnage in KY is as bad as Dan makes it out to be, it’ll be pretty easy to verify. So far, I’ve found a pro life protester who claims she was thrown down and had her leg broken by pro abortion fold. I’ll keep looking, but so far it looks like the talked of carnage are exaggerated.
“I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want, and wasn’t ready for, emotionally, psychologically and financially.”
Please note that at no point in this explanation does any reference to the life, or health of the mother or the baby is mentioned. This doesn’t sound like women’s health.
That's because it's not about women's health, but about protecting the ability to gratify one's self sexually.
It’s interesting that the pro abortion folx can threaten Matt Walsh and his family with rape and death and no one on twitter does a thing. Just silence from the tolerant left.
1. The list of folx willing to threaten the wives and children with rape and murder is surprisingly long.
2. Apparently there’s a woman who wants to assign all responsibility to all pregnancies to men.
3. Despite the fact that Alabama’s law will save more black children than white, it’s still racist.
4. The US birthdate apparently has dropped below the replacement rate. We know that Social Security and Medicare are already insolvent and getting worse. So let’s all join hands and lower the birth rate even lower. That’s a great plan. Now the pro abortion millennials really won’t have Social Security.
Good lord the world of Social Media is filled with idiots.
“Pro aborts focus intently on the tiny minority of cases involving rape because they know they sound like heartless lunatics when they defend a woman killing her consensually conceived child because the child is inconvenient. But that is why the vast majority of abortions happen.”
A Chicago woman is clearly unaware that the thing she ripped from the womb of the woman she’d just killed wasn’t actually a human baby.
Maybe she was trying to perform an abortion and killed the wrong one.
Maybe we should make this kind of thing illegal, it would surely put a stop to it, right?
It’s a strange world where dismembering a pre born human in the womb and sucking out the body parts with a vacuum is not brutal, but trying to stop it is.
It’s also interesting that in a world where virtually everything is racialized, that the fact the the vast majority of aborted babies are black doesn’t get more play.
Let’s be honest, A relatively few black men are killed by police (virtually all in liberal strongholds) and it’s painted as genocide, but tens of thousands of aborted black babies don’t register on the BLM radar.
Post a Comment