#1 story Fox Chicago: Aurora Planned Parenthood
Look quick. The Aurora Planned Parenthood saga is the lead story on the Fox News Chicago site right now. Eric Scheidler has something important to say. Go watch the news clip.
You’ll see in that clip PP CEO Steve Trombley has found another straw to grasp. Even though Gemini and PP deceived the City of Aurora about the intended occupant of its building, Steve says the City should have known by the looks of the plans.
FNC is also asking this poll question: “Would you want a Planned Parenthood clinic in your neighborhood?” Go vote. On right side of home page.
UPDATE, 9/18, 7:23a: Well, I told you to look quick. The Aurora PP saga is now rotating as top story (which is still good). It can be viewed here, where you can also still vote on the poll, which has been running 70-75% against PP. The story is actually very fair. I even think Trombley weakened PP’s credibility even further via this story.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Trombley has got to be kidding if he thinks that he’s fooling anyone with his answers.
Doug,
Especially considering the fact that nowhere is there a defintion of a difference between human beings and persons.
Posted by: mk at September 14, 2007 8:37 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And nowhere is it said that an embryo is a human being – especially in ‘Joisey:
U.S. & WORLD NEWS: NJ court scraps trial on abortion data
NJBIZ Staff
9/12/2007
A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an “existing human being,” a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins. The decision, citing past rulings, said the court “will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public” on when life begins. The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel. The Associated Press
and
Would you compare liposuction to genocide?
Seriously. Would you compare sucking out a wad of mindless, insensate, unwanted tissue to slaughtering and entire class of loved and loving, valued, thinking, reasoning human beings?
Amazing! The newscaster called them “Prolife protestors”, not “Anti-choice activists” or “Choice opponents”. Perhaps the local sentiment towards PP is turning!
MK: Especially considering the fact that nowhere is there a definition of a difference between human beings and persons.
MK, that’s like asking for the difference between an “adult” or one having achieved the age of legal majority, and a human being. The answer is that while they can be the same thing, they’re not necessarily that way. “Human being” is necessary for personhood, in the main, but not sufficient.
……
…And nowhere is it said that an embryo is a human being – especially in ‘Joisey:
A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an “existing human being,” a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins. The decision, citing past rulings, said the court “will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public” on when life begins. The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel.
Again we come to the difference in definitions and the various implications of different usages. The unborn aren’t legal human beings as are the born, but obviously “human” does apply and the unborn do indeed have existence. I don’t know exactly what the court’s feeling was – perhaps it was felt that any such requirement would be an attempt to coerce pregnant women.
That “life,” per se, is there, isn’t really the issue. When we get to the different meanings of “a human life,” then there may be the usage of it as more of a separate existence than what the unborn have. It gets philosophical and I don’t worry too much about this one.
That said, I have no problem with doctors explaining the physical reality of the unborn. I think the court case comes down to an argument over terminology – one side wanting something and the other side thinking that it’s an attempt at putting a “spin” on it.
Myself, I’d tell anybody that the unborn in this argument are alive, human, will usually keep developing if left alive, that they are organisms, etc.
……
Would you compare liposuction to genocide?
If you really wanted me to. Some similarities and obviously some differences.
……
Seriously. Would you compare sucking out a wad of mindless, insensate, unwanted tissue to slaughtering an entire class of loved and loving, valued, thinking, reasoning human beings?
I don’t see abortion as either one of those, as stated. The unborn are not really “wads,” so to speak, for much of gestation, unless we think of us all as wads (and we are indeed all basically a mass of cells). If anything, I think there is at least a bit of attempted button-pushing in the usage of “wad.”
Abortion isn’t “genocide,” either, by definition. If all or most of the unborn were being killed, I wouldn’t argue, but most pregnancies, by far, are still continued.
Doug (back in the land of the living)
I just loved how that PP spokesman was already whining about installing bullet proof glass, and so on. Can you think of any other doctor’s office where bullet proof glass is needed. Truth is, if abortion weren’t such a sleazy industry, it wouldn’t need protesters. I can’t think of any other type of doctor who would be protested.
it’s also nice to see pro deathers not getting their way for a change.
Actually, PP clinics need bulletproof glass because of a small number of violent “pro-life” nutcases. Funny how you can be so sanguine about this, Heather. Or do you believe that violence is all right?
Heather:
“Can you think of any other doctor’s office where bullet proof glass is needed.”
Animal Hospitals.
“Special K” aka Ketamine is HUGE in Chicago. And this drug is almost always found in an Animal Hospital as it is used as a pre-anethesthetic. The animal hospital I worked in (right across the street from the human society which had to do this too) had to put in bullet proof windows and doors etc because it was quicker to shoot out a window, get into the clinic, get the medicine “lock box” off the wall or break into the safe and get out with the drugs before the cops got there. With the alarm system in place you couldn’t play with the doors and try to open them. We even had a person hide in our clinic (this was discovered later to be an inside job) and get the controled drugs and shot the window out so he could get out long before the police were notified.
Many doctors that keep controled substances in the office have resorted to bullet proof glass and doors to prevent theft. So, I’m not sure why Trombley thinks that should have been the “tip off” to the city.
Last I read, 1 vile of Ketamine was selling on the black market for about $2,000.
stu, first of all, you need to educate yourself on abortion, before you go and state something like this. Abortion is a violent business. Welcome to the front ally days. Have any of the rtl protesters become violent? I doubt it.
There has been a lot of talk about the great video’s done on the Jericho March on September 15th. If you have not seen them yet I will give you the link to watch the two videos. One was done by Jill Stanek and the other by FightingIrishThomas.net.
On Fighting Irish Thomas video there had been especially some talk about a shadow that you see about 2:33 to 2:40 into the video.
The concensus seems to be the shadow looks like a baby soldier (as in Jericho) fighting the walls of planned parenthood with his pointed weapon pointing to the “l” in planned parenthood.
Check out the video and see what you think…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aV_4J7njZY
Mike
Here’s the link to Jill Stanek’s video of the Jericho March…
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/09/protest_of_auro.html
Mike
valerie, Good morning.You got me there. I wasn’t thinking about that.
Stu –
Check out the National Abortion Federation website. You will see that there is no proof nor any convictions of abortion clinic violence since 1999.
Heather –
Not many people do. That is why I posted it.
And Good Morning!
I moved this one forward in the threads because John really came up with a good one.
John M: A few years back I had the privilege of listening to a practicing Hindu from India. When the subject swung to prayer and suffering, he said. ‘In the West you pray NOT to have suffering at all, while, we in the East pray that we will not be overcome by the suffering that eventually comes.’ None have understood the ‘why’s’ of suffering and it remains a huge puzzle for everyone.
Some people just-pass-the hurt on down the line: a frustrated boss will yell at an employee >> a husband will find a way to hurt his wife >> in-turn she will smack her kid >> the child will be cruel to the dog >> the dog will fight with the cat >> the cat will piss on the couch. Pain does not end, but it is disguised differently. Pain in Mary’s generation was often what OTHER people lived … like famine, but was rarely what you personally experienced in North America. We may have had no clothes but hand-me-downs as a child, but we never came close to thinking ourselves as poor. [I personally know several families where the biggest hurt was: (1) not getting-to-choose what tv program to watch or, (2) ‘having-to-wash’ the supper dishes.] These difficulties are not made by you nor your generation and are much more difficult to handle because they are not overt, life-threatening.
Your threat is ‘boredom’. The solution is to visit a kid dying of leukemia (you even have experience) at a local hospital … good ‘hot’ date, eh?
Then perhaps you will learn that suffering can be transformed into …. let you discover!
John, what a great post!
I think the “why” of suffering is that it’s human nature that our systems cannot rule it out. I also think that to an extent it’s good to “suffer” – much advancement for our race as well as much personal accomplishment and pride has come from struggling against that which made one sad. Maybe I should just say that it’s good to have to struggle, at least once in a while. My opinion.
“Hurt” can certainly be relative, as is the case with many things.
I have to laugh about the not getting to choose the TV program and washing dishes.
Doug
stu, the people who commit violence against abortion clinics aren’t pro life anyway.
MK, that’s like asking for the difference between an “adult” or one having achieved the age of legal majority, and a human being. The answer is that while they can be the same thing, they’re not necessarily that way. “Human being” is necessary for personhood, in the main, but not sufficient.
That doesn’t make sense.
Bethany, no, it doesn’t.
Abortion isn’t “genocide,” either, by definition. If all or most of the unborn were being killed, I wouldn’t argue, but most pregnancies, by far, are still continued.
So you WOULD consider it genocide if the majority of pregnancies were ended this way? That makes no sense, Doug.
Why isn’t 1 million deaths a year enough to consider it genocide, but 4 million a year would?
Stu,
Actually, PP clinics need bulletproof glass because of a small number of violent “pro-life” nutcases. Funny how you can be so sanguine about this, Heather. Or do you believe that violence is all right?
7-11’s and convenience stores have much more violence associated with them than the rare and few attacks (requiring bulletproof glass) on Planned Parenthoods.
I don’t see them surrounding their stores in bullet proof glass.
Heck, maybe high schools should have bullet proof glass installed. Lot more people killed there from gunfire than at abortion clinics.
Good morning Heather!
MK, awesome point and good morning!
Doug,
Again, you twist what was said. I claimed that Laura doesn’t believe that the unborn are humans.
You doubted my assertion…
MK: While we all know that you are willing to call the fetus a baby, there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human”…
MK, I think you’re just makin’ that up. If somebody says “not human” then they are wrong, and that’s not any significant part of the pro-life argument in the first place.
I backed up my statement. Really don’t want to debate whether she’s right or wrong. She said it. She believes it. You claimed she didn’t. I quoted her. My statement stands. There are those on this site that do not even acknowledge that the unborn are human. End of story.
Good Morning Bethany,
Heather, Doug and all…
Good morning everyone!!
The poll is now running 3:1 in favor of Banned Parenthood. Evidently racism and hatred for children and the disabled are very popular among Fox viewers.
Funny that abortion facilities find money for security guards and bullet proof glass to protect the staff, but will do things like re-use single-use instruments because they’re too cheap to protect the patients.
Bethany: Doug, it’s ridiculous, and here’s why. You say that you believe society decides what happens, and in this case you are in agreement with society when it comes to not giving a fetus personhood, even after viability. At least not “absolute” personhood, whatever that means.
Society DOES define personhood, Bethany, whether a given individual agrees with society’s position on it or not.
……
You then tell us that it’s about sentience, whether the baby can be aware of his or her surroundings, and that if they are not aware, they are not persons.
NO – I’ve said that I place positive value on sentience myself, and that it makes a difference to many other people too. But that is not saying what society’s position is. There is a difference.
…….
Then you contradict yourself and say that personhood isn’t an issue if the baby is “out.” That the baby is a person at birth, even if it’s early as 13 weeks! Even if that baby is born BEFORE viability. Don’t you think this contradicts your idea that sentience is even an issue?
Heck no – society isn’t saying that sentience makes a difference, though I do care about it as do many other people. I think that being born means personhood is then present, according to society’s current position, and is that not so? That’s the way it’s been for most every society on earth, for all time.
……
Then you say, that it isn’t your opinion, it’s societies. Then you say, it’s not the way it is in society, it is just your opinion. And you wonder why MK and I see it as a circular argument…why can’t you see why you are so confusing?
Good grief, Bethany, it’s not me that is “confusing,” it’s just that you are confused.
Society has its position.
I place positive value on sentience, as well as on other things.
Nothing is “circular” here.
Doug
Stu:
I must back up Heather and Valerie here. The people who bomb abortion clinics or attack them in a violent way are not your typical pro lifer.
They have been brain washed by the Army Of God. If you’ve never heard the crazy ranting of one of “their people” consdier yourself lucky. If you want further information on how crazy they are look at these sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God
http://www.armyofgod.com/
^^Warning: Graphic Pictures.
One of their followers is Eric Rudolph and he gets a WHOLE page to fill with his crazy propoganda.
Doug, why do you place positive value on a non-sentient child, simply because it is out of the womb?
wouldn’t that mean that you have to place a positive value on every single aborted child, as soon as it is pulled, jerked, or sucked out of the womb?
If non-sentience means that there is no “person” in there, and yet ,you believe they should be entitled to “personhood” if they are born at 13 weeks, then that means, dead or alive, you should believe that every single aborted child achieves personhood at the moment they are pulled out of the womb.
midnite –
Thank you.
Since we are agreeing more and more lately, I think it would be wise to start looking out for the flying pigs.
;-)
“MK, that’s like asking for the difference between an “adult” or one having achieved the age of legal majority, and a human being. The answer is that while they can be the same thing, they’re not necessarily that way. “Human being” is necessary for personhood, in the main, but not sufficient.”
That doesn’t make sense.
Bethany and Heather, yes it does make sense.
There is the concept of “necessary but not sufficient.” In this case, is an adult going to be a human being? Yes. Does that mean that all human beings are adults? No. Just basic logic – the members of a smaller set can all be within a larger set, but in no way does that necessarily mean that all members of the larger set are in the smaller.
Likewise, while I agree with you that the unborn, here, are “human beings,” based on physical reality, the fact remains that personhood is not attributed to the unborn at the present time. It is a status conferred by society.
Doug
Midnite, thank you!
Likewise, while I agree with you that the unborn, here, are “human beings,” based on physical reality, the fact remains that personhood is not attributed to the unborn at the present time. It is a status conferred by society.
Then can we please agree to disagree and then when society changes it’s stance, you can just go with the flow like you are accustomed to doing? I’m so tired of arguing this same point over and over. It’s like I’m in the movie Groundhog day.
Downtown…..
“Abortion isn’t “genocide,” either, by definition. If all or most of the unborn were being killed, I wouldn’t argue, but most pregnancies, by far, are still continued.”
Bethany: So you WOULD consider it genocide if the majority of pregnancies were ended this way? That makes no sense, Doug.
Of course it makes sense. If the extermanation of the group was really going on, then per the meaning of the word I would agree. The fact is that most pregnancies are not aborted, by far, no?
…….
Why isn’t 1 million deaths a year enough to consider it genocide, but 4 million a year would?
Because of the total number in the group, and right from the definition of the word. If all or most of the unborn were being killed, or, IMO, if it was public policy to have all or most pregnancies be aborted, then I wouldn’t argue.
Doug
Doug, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific group 85-90% of babies with Down’s Syndrome are aborted every year. That sounds like genocide to me. (Hope you guys don’t mind that I jumped in on this.)
Carrie, jump in ANYTIME. :)
Many ER’s in large cities have bulletproof glass. In fact, PATIENTS at Denver General Hospital have to pass through a metal detector before they hit the waiting room (unless they are brought in by ambulance). There is an armed security guard manning the entrance.
Wasn’t the “reason” they built this in Aurora because the area didn’t have enough abortion mills and was “underserved”? How would Aurora city officials just know that bulletproof glass = Planned Parenthood, if there aren’t any PP abortion mills in Aurora to begin with?
And, if they knew that they would need bulletproof glass, why did they *not* know that PP was going to be the tenant?
Doug, genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific group 85-90% of babies with Down’s Syndrome are aborted every year. That sounds like genocide to me. (Hope you guys don’t mind that I jumped in on this.)
Carrie, then per the definition of the word, and if you are right about the 85-90%, then for Down’s unborn, I agree with you to some extent. Of course, that doesn’t mean that “abortion is genocide.”
Moreover, “genocide” is really about “national, racial, political, or cultural” groups, and the unborn and Down’s unborn really don’t fit there, very well.
Doug
“Likewise, while I agree with you that the unborn, here, are “human beings,” based on physical reality, the fact remains that personhood is not attributed to the unborn at the present time. It is a status conferred by society.”
Then can we please agree to disagree and then when society changes it’s stance, you can just go with the flow like you are accustomed to doing? I’m so tired of arguing this same point over and over. It’s like I’m in the movie Groundhog day.
Downtown….
The answer is no, Bethany. That is because you are mischaracterizing what was said. I didn’t say I would just “go with the flow.” You don’t do it, now, as you are against society’s position on it. If that position changed, I might well be against it.
Downtown Dougy Brown
Doug, why do you place positive value on a non-sentient child, simply because it is out of the womb?
I don’t, Bethany. It is still two different things. Society says “person” at birth. My feeling with our hypothetical 13 week “baby” inside the womb is that it should be up to the woman or couple to decide. If that 13 weeker is out of the womb, then it’s going to die. At that point what does the valuation of “positive” really matter?
If not, as in some possible future time where it would be viable, then if somebody wants to support it that’s fine with me too.
……
wouldn’t that mean that you have to place a positive value on every single aborted child, as soon as it is pulled, jerked, or sucked out of the womb?
Not me – I don’t have to do anything. As far as society and the Birth Standard, is it not a given that being “born alive” has to take place, before the attribution of personhood would occur in any way that really matters?
If I, personally, said that birth made all the difference for me, then yes – I could only logically say that positive value was there after birth, no matter what, but I haven’t said that.
……
If non-sentience means that there is no “person” in there, and yet, you believe they should be entitled to “personhood” if they are born at 13 weeks, then that means, dead or alive, you should believe that every single aborted child achieves personhood at the moment they are pulled out of the womb.
Again, that’s mixing up two different things. Sentience or not is my deal there, not society’s. I think that society says “person” at birth, even with that 13 weeker, though it’s almost entirely a moot point since it’s not going to live, and it’s an exceedingly unusual example in the first place.
Personally, sentience does make a difference to me, but I’m not saying that birth at 13 weeks means anything special to me – only that society treats birth as the change.
Doug
Valerie:
As my mother told me so wisely many years ago. Pigs did fly. Everything did in the 60’s…
Doug, Again, you twist what was said. I claimed that Laura doesn’t believe that the unborn are humans. You doubted my assertion…
Wrong. First of all, right there you are confusing “human” as a noun with “human” as an adjective, and that’s how you used it the first time.
……
MK: While we all know that you are willing to call the fetus a baby, there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human”…
“MK, I think you’re just makin’ that up. If somebody says “not human” then they are wrong, and that’s not any significant part of the pro-life argument in the first place.”
I backed up my statement. Really don’t want to debate whether she’s right or wrong. She said it. She believes it. You claimed she didn’t. I quoted her. My statement stands. There are those on this site that do not even acknowledge that the unborn are human. End of story.
No, you did not back up your statement. No, I did not see Laura say that. No, you did not quote her saying the unborn are not human, nor did you quote her failing to acknowlege that the unborn are human. Your statement does not stand.
It was in the “News coverage of September 15 protest” thread that you first said it, and I think you are incorrect. Laura has not said the unborn are not human, as far as I know, and I certainly haven’t seen any proof of it from you today.
Doug
midnite, thank you for seeing that RTL fers don’t condone violence. Actually we would like to stop violence. Abortion is violent. It always kills a child, and sometimes it even kills the child’s mother. It covers the tracks of rapists and pedopliles. It give abortionists a free pass to sexually abuse their patients. Besides, there are a few pro choicers here who make the PC side look bad. Somg and his death threats, Laura and her ANTI CHOICE views. This is extreme, and it is not the norm.
Heather et al,
Please note that in my post, I didn’t SAY that most pro-lifers are clinic-bombers. But given the rhetoric that’s out there, from the nutcases you yourself pointed out, why should anyone engaged in a LEGAL activity want to take chances?
Geno-cide is the extermination of a geno-type, which Downs Syndrome most certainly is.
1.609344 kilometer Hi Mama, yeah – I guess you could say that.
: )
Doug
Doug,
It looks like we share the same sense of humor :)
I prefer to call it “Shakespearean” – he did love the wordplay.
My husband and extended family prefer to groan.
LOL
Doug, “Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing.”(Gendercide.org) “1999 International Planned Parenthood Federation website states between 500,000 and 750,000 girls in China are aborted each year after sex screening.”(NewMax.com 2/14/01) I consider abortion based on the sex of the baby gendercide. In my opinion, abortion is genocide and gendercide.
stu, welcome. Glad you have joined us!
Trombley sure keeps changing the story…….
“we knew what we went to the city to get approval for, they knew it”
“we didn’t know exactly what we were going to put in the building”
“we did supply plans including bullet proof windows and partitions”
“I can’t believe we hid it for this long”
It must be a prerequisite to be a big fat liar liar pants on fire to get hired at PP.
The lies just continue on and on and on and on and on.
Doug, “Gendercide is gender-selective mass killing.”(Gendercide.org) “1999 International Planned Parenthood Federation website states between 500,000 and 750,000 girls in China are aborted each year after sex screening.”(NewMax.com 2/14/01) I consider abortion based on the sex of the baby gendercide. In my opinion, abortion is genocide and gendercide.
Okay, Carrie, but “gendercide” is a much more recently made-up word that misses the spirit of the original “wipe out the tribe” meaning of genocide.
It’s a neologism, which is like “viricide” for killing males or “femicide” or even “feminicide” for females.
Doug
P.S. “Cenosilicaphobia” is my current cool word.
Doug, all words started as new words. As society changes, new words are created to address those changes. Because of our culture’s current devaluation of life, I’m sure there will be many more new terms to address the lack of respect for life. P.S. I like your current cool word(fear of an empty glass).
True, Carrie, and with enough usage the new words even make it into the dictionary.
Then it’s party time.
Laura and her ANTI CHOICE views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Care to back that up, or is it like your Bill Clinton quote – pure BS.
Ha ha!
There’s optimists, pessimists, and cenosilicaphobites.
Then there’s the realist, who knows that she’ll either have to clean it when it spills or refill it when it’s empty.
No, you did not back up your statement. No, I did not see Laura say that. No, you did not quote her saying the unborn are not human, nor did you quote her failing to acknowlege that the unborn are human
Okay Doug. You win. Whatever.
“No, you did not back up your statement. No, I did not see Laura say that. No, you did not quote her saying the unborn are not human, nor did you quote her failing to acknowlege that the unborn are human”
Okay Doug. You win. Whatever.
MK, I see the “whatever” as being the difference between “human” as a noun and as an adjective, and between them and “baby” which is vastly more subjective.
Milehimama: Ha ha! There’s optimists, pessimists, and cenosilicaphobites.
Then there’s the realist, who knows that she’ll either have to clean it when it spills or refill it when it’s empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
A scientist says there is such-and-such quantity of a clear liquid in the glass.
An engineer says the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
High-mileage Doug
Doug,
You can see it as whatever you want. You will anyway. I’m not going argue semantics with you. I’m not going to try to figure out when you feel that way vs when society feels that way.
You want to know what Laura thinks, ask her yourself.
She won’t answer you though. You don’t think she said that the unborn aren’t human beings. fine. You want to fight about persons and humans and human beings and personhood and legal terms and whatnot, find someone else.
I know what I mean. If you don’t then I can’t help you.
I have a clear definition of what I mean by human, person, alive etc. I’m not on this site to argue with what the law says. I don’t care what the law says. I thought I was arguing with Doug, but apparently Doug changes what I’m arguing against to suit his needs. You want to tell me what YOU believe fine. But quite honestly, I’m not interested in what society says. I know what they say and they’re full of s***. So you’ll just have to take your nitpicking, and relativism, and anti-God, condescending attitude somewhere else.
If you ever want to discuss this from Dougs stand point, let me know.
It is not “semantics” nor is it “condescending” to point out the difference between the noun and the adjective, and between them and “baby.”
MK, I fully believe you have your own clear definitions, but it’s not nitpicking to keep things straight and true, nor is it to point out straw men arguments. I haven’t changed what you argue against, it’s just that there has been confusion about people’s personal feeling versus society’s position.
I’ve never made a secret of what my standopoint is.
We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Doug, come on. You never seem to want to give a straightforward answer.
For instance. I’ll say, Doug, why should your ‘valuation’ that women should be able to abort their children, be more important than my ‘valuation’ that the children should have the basic right to life from the womb?
You answer, paraphrased:
“Because society makes the rules and right now,and I agree, society says that a woman has the right to abortion.
My reply:
I’m not asking you about what Society says. I already know that “society” has decided this. (actually it is not really society that ruled it, it was a few men in the supreme court), I am asking you why your valuation should be weighed as more important than mine?
Your reply:
Well the majority agrees with me, and therefore that is what stands today. It could change anytime.
My reply:
So the majority is what you base your stance on? So if the majority agreed with me, then you’d be okay with it?
Your reply: No I wouldn’t necessarily be okay with it.
My reply: would you do anything to fight it?
Your answer: I don’t know
Your answer, a week later: I might well fight against it, if it abortion were to become illegal. But I still don’t know.
My answer: On what basis? what would you do to say that your valuation is more important than mine? Remember, I’m talking about YOU and ME, not society.
Your answer: Well, I’m using facts to debate, and you’re talking about OPINIONS and pretense.
My answer: What do you base your opinion that the unborn isn’t human on?
Your answer: Their lack of sentience, of course.
My answer: What do you base your idea that sentience has anything to do with personhood?
Your answer: Society deems personhood at birth, and I agree with that.
My answer: What does society have to do with your stance if you don’t rely on society to tell you what’s right and wrong?
Doug, do you not see how you go from your opinion, to society, to yourself again, as you please? I don’t care about you telling me stuff I already know, that abortion is legal, that society has decided that babies are only persons at birth. Forget Society already. I’m so sick of it, honestly.
And then you go and wonder why we’re irritated with you, and act as though you’ve been perfectly upfront with us. You haven’t. You have simply manipulated words and change the discussion in subtle ways in order to make sure that you “win” every time. That is not an honest or fair way to debate.
It is not “semantics” nor is it “condescending” to point out the difference between the noun and the adjective, and between them and “baby.”
Yes, it is semantics:
The science of describing what words mean, the opposite of syntax.
http://www.lanw.com/books/xmlfdum2/extras/glossary/s-z.htm
…and yes, it is condescending to act as though MK doesn’t know the difference between the noun and adjective of “human”.
She knew what she was talking about when she said Laura didn’t think that unborn babies are human beings.
Have you seen Laura step up and defend herself yet? She could have. Have you seen Laura say, “No, she’s wrong…I do think they’re human, in the NOUN sense.”
No, I don’t think so.
We all have our preferences, but when it comes to taking away the freedom that women have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon, me included.
Well, when it comes to taking away the LIFE (something permanent as opposed to an inconvenience that is temporary) that unborn human beings have in the matter, then I think there really should be something provable as far as reasoning and motivation – something we all or pretty much all can agree upon.
“MK, I think you’re just makin’ that up. If somebody says “not human” then they are wrong, and that’s not any significant part of the pro-life argument in the first place.”
Yes, they are wrong, but that doesn’t stop them from promoting the myth anyway.
…..AND that (whether the fetus is a human being or not) is the argument that makes the difference in MANY, MANY people’s perception of whether it is right or wrong to let women have abortions.
Many, many people convert to pro-life after realizing 1.) that the baby looks human early on, 2.) that they have their own DNA, that they are complete human organisms, 3.) that they are merely at a different stage of development, not that they are “pre” humans.
Many really do not realize this until after they’ve been shown photos, or seeing scientific and biological evidence of the humanity of the unborn.
Maybe it’s difficult for you to believe, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
Oh Bethany,
I could kiss you…! I think I will *SMOOCH*
Back atcha!
Many really do not realize this until after they’ve been shown photos, or seeing scientific and biological evidence of the humanity of the unborn.
Maybe it’s difficult for you to believe, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
Bethany, I imagine that does sometimes happen, and that’s fine with me – if they want the pregnancy, for whatever reason, then so be it.
Likewise, when some women find that what they’ve been told about the unborn is not true, they become more pro-choice, and that’s fine too.
Doug
Well Doug,
As long as it’s fine with you, then I guess it’s fine.
Mind showing me some of these people that are more pro choice now that they know the truth? Unless of course, by truth, you mean that they are now pregnant and trapped and have opted for an abortion.
“It is not “semantics” nor is it “condescending” to point out the difference between the noun and the adjective, and between them and “baby.””
Bethany: Yes, it is semantics:,
Well, MK said she wasn’t going to argue semantics with me – and that is really not what was going on. If we have to say that recognizing the difference in “human” as an adjective and as a noun is mere “semantics,” then good grief…. I do not think we need to argue about the difference, there – I don’t think the argument is semantic.
…….
The science of describing what words mean, the opposite of syntax. http://www.lanw.com/books/xmlfdum2/extras/glossary/s-z.htm
…and yes, it is condescending to act as though MK doesn’t know the difference between the noun and adjective of “human”.
I haven’t said that she does not know that, but there most certainly has been confusion and transposition of the usages.
……
She knew what she was talking about when she said Laura didn’t think that unborn babies are human beings.
Well, Bethany, you’re doing it too – what was said is: there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human.”
“Human being” is a noun. Arguing that is not the same as saying the unborn are not “human.” Two different arguments. The usages of “human being” is one thing. “Human or not” is another – and there it’s very easy to pick out errors.
…….
Have you seen Laura step up and defend herself yet? She could have. Have you seen Laura say, “No, she’s wrong…I do think they’re human, in the NOUN sense.” No, I don’t think so.
:: shaking head :: That would be in the adjectival sense, not the noun sense.
If Laura saying “not human beings” was the issue, then I’d point out that there are different usages – the physical, the legal, etc. That discussion isn ‘t the same as “human or not.”
Doug
Well, Bethany, you’re doing it too – what was said is: there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human.”
“Human being” is a noun. Arguing that is not the same as saying the unborn are not “human.” Two different arguments. The usages of “human being” is one thing. “Human or not” is another – and there it’s very easy to pick out errors.
Nitpicking. You knew exactly what she meant. I suppose from now on, I can just pick particular things out of your posts that weren’t grammatically correct or something similar, and argue that instead of the actual issue, or what you meant, since that’s what you seem to want to do.
Well it is in the real world.
But when arguing with Doug it is best to focus on the meaning of words instead of the horrors of abortion.
Doesn’t matter. Abortion kills. It’s wrong. Use any words you like.
Doug,
Do you have aspergers? If you do, then I can understand this obsession with the english language. Please tell me you do. It would make things so much simpler.
Likewise, when some women find that what they’ve been told about the unborn is not true, they become more pro-choice, and that’s fine too.
Okay, Doug, I’ll bite. What truth could one “find out” about the unborn that they didn’t know before, that would make them think it was okay to kill babies when they previously thought it was not okay?
DON’T DO IT BETHANY!!!! STAY AWAY FROM THE HOOK!!!!
:: shaking head :: That would be in the adjectival sense, not the noun sense.
doug….I’m not trying to be mean, but really…who cares? You understood my point, and it’s silly to divert the subject like this by making it an English lesson instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.
Aww MK, but the bait was so shiny!
If Laura saying “not human beings” was the issue, then I’d point out that there are different usages – the physical, the legal, etc. That discussion isn ‘t the same as “human or not.”
Yes Doug,
We know you would. Which is why you are so frustrating. Because the bottom line is, Laura and others on this site have not once, but many times compared the unborn to a fingernail, menstrual blood, wads, leeches, diseases, cancer…and the list goes on. I don’t need to prove it to you. I’ve been reading it for months now.
There are people that do not believe the fetus is alive, human, a human being or a person. They equate it with a turnip.
Believe it or not, I really don’t care. Them’s just the facts.
Ruuuuuun Fooooorrrreeest Ruuuuuuuun!!!!
Laura and others on this site have not once, but many times compared the unborn to a fingernail, menstrual blood, wads, leeches, diseases, cancer
You forgot crotch goo, and “my dead father’s toenail”.
and lunch. Let’s not forget lunch! Where is that list anyway?
MK: Doug, come on. You never seem to want to give a straightforward answer. For instance. I’ll say, Doug, why should your ‘valuation’ that women should be able to abort their children, be more important than my ‘valuation’ that the children should have the basic right to life from the womb?
You answer, paraphrased: “Because society makes the rules and right now, and I agree, society says that a woman has the right to abortion.
My reply: I’m not asking you about what Society says. I already know that “society” has decided this. (actually it is not really society that ruled it, it was a few men in the supreme court), I am asking you why your valuation should be weighed as more important than mine?
Your reply: Well the majority agrees with me, and therefore that is what stands today. It could change anytime.
My reply: So the majority is what you base your stance on? So if the majority agreed with me, then you’d be okay with it?
MK, I have given the straight answer to this over and over. The “should” you mention – when you ask about why should one valuation be more important – is always in the opinion of some entity or some group. You and I have our opinions. If there is an external “should” at work, one that is provable, then it’s that of society. I’ve said numerous times that on their own, in a vacuum, neither your nor my opinion is more important.
That’s not me basing my stance on society. That’s me being able to point to society being the source of one “should” that agrees with my valuation. The Birth Standard for rights and personhood has been around for thousands and thousands of years. It didn’t come from the Supreme Court.
Doug
MK: Your reply: No I wouldn’t necessarily be okay with it.
My reply: would you do anything to fight it?
Your answer: I don’t know
Your answer, a week later: I might well fight against it, if it abortion were to become illegal. But I still don’t know.
My answer: On what basis? what would you do to say that your valuation is more important than mine? Remember, I’m talking about YOU and ME, not society.
Your answer: Well, I’m using facts to debate, and you’re talking about OPINIONS and pretense.
Nope, there, you’re off the track. In the hypothetical of what I would do “if things were different,” I honestly don’t know about that, many times, and I’m just saying so. In no way is that saying that my opinion is “better” than yours in any external or absolute way. If something is my opinion, I have no problem saying that, either.
If there is an external “should” at work, one that is provable, then it’s that of society. I’ve said numerous times that on their own, in a vacuum, neither your nor my opinion is more important.
If that is true, then why would you possibly fight society if it said that a woman did not have a legal right to abortion?
Nope, there, you’re off the track. In the hypothetical of what I would do “if things were different,” I honestly don’t know about that, many times, and I’m just saying so. In no way is that saying that my opinion is “better” than yours in any external or absolute way. If something is my opinion, I have no problem saying that, either.
Okay, doug…I see what you’re saying there, but what I just don’t get is why you feel so compelled to debate this subject so strongly, if you really have no strong urges one way or the other. Why not just agree to disagree?
And if you DO have strong convictions one way or the other, why not just be bold enough to say, This is right, and that is wrong outright, instead of making that impression by manipulating your words carefully?
You could say “forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want is wrong, because… yada yada yada” … but you don’t.
You say, you don’t agree with it. But then you try to persuade us into seeing your point of view, without even being courageous enough to admit that you really feel strongly about the issue and that you really feel there is a right and wrong there.
I know you believe one is right and the other is wrong, but you won’t admit it. Why?
MK: My answer: What do you base your opinion that the unborn isn’t human on?
GAAACK! There it is again! It is NOT my opinion that the unborn isn’t human. Lord have mercy, as they say…. MK – “human” and “alive” are not in doubt here and I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
……
Your answer: “Their lack of sentience, of course.”
My answer: What do you base your idea that sentience has anything to do with personhood?
Your answer: “Society deems personhood at birth, and I agree with that.”
Oh no – once again, you asked about my personal feeling, and/or what I would do if it were up to me to make the rules. I told you. That has nothing to do with what society’s position is. I see some personhood when sentience is presence, when personality is there. Just the way I see it.
……
My answer: What does society have to do with your stance if you don’t rely on society to tell you what’s right and wrong?
Oy Vey – for the manyeth time – I’m not relying on society in this case. My answer to your hypothetical was not the same as society’s position. This is why I wish you’d quote me, rather than paraphrase.
……
Doug, do you not see how you go from your opinion, to society, to yourself again, as you please? I don’t care about you telling me stuff I already know, that abortion is legal, that society has decided that babies are only persons at birth. Forget Society already. I’m so sick of it, honestly.
Then quit confusing the two.
And then you go and wonder why we’re irritated with you, and act as though you’ve been perfectly upfront with us. You haven’t. You have simply manipulated words and change the discussion in subtle ways in order to make sure that you “win” every time. That is not an honest or fair way to debate.
Baloney, MK. I’ve given my opinion when asked, and never said it has to be the same as society’s position nor that it necessarily is, case-by-case. When you ask for an external “should,” that is a separate thing from my opinion, and if, as in the case of society, one is there, then of course I mention it.
Doug
“If there is an external “should” at work, one that is provable, then it’s that of society. I’ve said numerous times that on their own, in a vacuum, neither your nor my opinion is more important.”
Bethany: If that is true, then why would you possibly fight society if it said that a woman did not have a legal right to abortion?
Because I might not agree with society, just as you don’t agree with it now.
“:: shaking head :: That would be in the adjectival sense, not the noun sense.”
Bethany: doug….I’m not trying to be mean, but really…who cares? You understood my point, and it’s silly to divert the subject like this by making it an English lesson instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.
I have seen some pro-lifers do this over and over – misstate what pro-choicers say. In this case it is the straw man of “they say the unborn are not human.”
If that is false, and it almost always is, then what sensible person wouldn’t point that out?
I don’t think you’re being mean.
Doug
“Well, Bethany, you’re doing it too – what was said is: there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human.”
“Human being” is a noun. Arguing that is not the same as saying the unborn are not “human.” Two different arguments. The usages of “human being” is one thing. “Human or not” is another – and there it’s very easy to pick out errors.”
Bethany: Nitpicking. You knew exactly what she meant. I suppose from now on, I can just pick particular things out of your posts that weren’t grammatically correct or something similar, and argue that instead of the actual issue, or what you meant, since that’s what you seem to want to do.
Jumpin’ Jehosephat! It’s not “nitpicking.” If one side or one person in the argument is claiming that the other side or another person says the unborn are “not human,” then this is an easy one to settle, and if it’s false, as it surely appears to be in this case, then it’s only sensible to recognize that.
Doug
Doug, Do you have aspergers? If you do, then I can understand this obsession with the english language. Please tell me you do. It would make things so much simpler.
Heh – no, MK, I don’t have it.
As far as I am concerned, and especially without any proof, this claim that people are saying “not human” – presented as a point in debate, is false.
Nothing “Aspergerish” about calling a spade a spade.
Doug
Doug,
define spade.
“Nope, there, you’re off the track. In the hypothetical of what I would do “if things were different,” I honestly don’t know about that, many times, and I’m just saying so. In no way is that saying that my opinion is “better” than yours in any external or absolute way. If something is my opinion, I have no problem saying that, either.”
Bethany: Okay, doug…I see what you’re saying there, but what I just don’t get is why you feel so compelled to debate this subject so strongly, if you really have no strong urges one way or the other. Why not just agree to disagree?
One the one hand, because…. what fun is that?
There is more to it than that, however. Putting myself in the place of a pregnant woman, I can see that being compelled to continue a pregnancy could be a very bad thing. I do feel strongly about that.
I still don’t know what I would do if abortion were made illegal.
Doug
Nice post Doug,
MK: My answer: What do you base your opinion that the unborn isn’t human on?
GAAACK! There it is again! It is NOT my opinion that the unborn isn’t human. Lord have mercy, as they say…. MK – “human” and “alive” are not in doubt here and I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
……
Your answer: “Their lack of sentience, of course.”
My answer: What do you base your idea that sentience has anything to do with personhood?
Your answer: “Society deems personhood at birth, and I agree with that.”
Oh no – once again, you asked about my personal feeling, and/or what I would do if it were up to me to make the rules. I told you. That has nothing to do with what society’s position is. I see some personhood when sentience is presence, when personality is there. Just the way I see it.
……
My answer: What does society have to do with your stance if you don’t rely on society to tell you what’s right and wrong?
Oy Vey – for the manyeth time – I’m not relying on society in this case. My answer to your hypothetical was not the same as society’s position. This is why I wish you’d quote me, rather than paraphrase.
……
Doug, do you not see how you go from your opinion, to society, to yourself again, as you please? I don’t care about you telling me stuff I already know, that abortion is legal, that society has decided that babies are only persons at birth. Forget Society already. I’m so sick of it, honestly.
Then quit confusing the two.
And then you go and wonder why we’re irritated with you, and act as though you’ve been perfectly upfront with us. You haven’t. You have simply manipulated words and change the discussion in subtle ways in order to make sure that you “win” every time. That is not an honest or fair way to debate.
Baloney, MK. I’ve given my opinion when asked, and never said it has to be the same as society’s position nor that it necessarily is, case-by-case. When you ask for an external “should,” that is a separate thing from my opinion, and if, as in the case of society, one is there, then of course I mention it.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at September 18, 2007 9:49 PM
Unfortunately, I didn’t say any of that. Bethany did.
MK: define spade.
Well, it sho’ ’nuff ain’t one of dem dere hearts, diamonds, or clubs.
I am saying that it is false and lame to claim that people are saying the unborn are “not human” if that is not the case.
There are many more “difficult” areas in the argument, but this ain’t one o’ dem.
Doug
As far as I am concerned, and especially without any proof, this claim that people are saying “not human” – presented as a point in debate, is false.
Doug,
I am saying that it is false and lame to claim that people are saying the unborn are “not human” if that is not the case.
I agree. That’s why I didn’t do it.
Especially considering the fact that nowhere is there a defintion of a difference between human beings and persons.
Posted by: mk at September 14, 2007 8:37 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And nowhere is it said that an embryo is a human being – especially in ‘Joisey:
U.S. & WORLD NEWS: NJ court scraps trial on abortion data
NJBIZ Staff
9/12/2007
A doctor has no duty to tell a woman considering an abortion that her embryo is an “existing human being,” a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, averting a trial over when human life begins. The decision, citing past rulings, said the court “will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public” on when life begins. The 5-0 Supreme Court ruling reversed a unanimous ruling by a three-judge appeals panel. The Associated Press
I made it very clear that I was equating human beings with persons.
Laura pointed out that nowhere has it been proven that the unborn are human beings at all.
The work she sited says that it has not been decided that the unborn is even alive as denoted by the words in bold. I take that to mean that not only isn’t the unborn a human being but it is not alive…You can take it for whatever you want.
Val just stuck her two cents in…
Don’t go into the dark path of the Doug. Just let it alone. He is the one who is like Clinton trying to get the attorney to define the word “it”. or was it “if’..anywho……
too funny and too true…
“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”
Bethany: And if you DO have strong convictions one way or the other, why not just be bold enough to say, This is right, and that is wrong outright, instead of making that impression by manipulating your words carefully?
Ay Yi Yi…. I do not think I have tried to make any impression about “right and wrong outright” beyond my opinion or the opinion of some given entity or group. That is because there is no such thing.
It’s not “bold” to claim unprovable things, IMO. It’s just claiming stuff without proof.
I do see a big need to properly qualify many things in this argument.
…..
You could say “forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want is wrong, because… yada yada yada” … but you don’t.
Good Grief with Honey and Chicken on top…. Many is the time I’ve said that I more value the freedom that women have in the matter while you more value the unborn lives. That’s not hard to understand.
This, in large measure, boils down to suffering for me. I’d rather see many abortions, where I don’t think there is any suffering, versus one woman being forced against her will. I’m for the liberty that women have in this matter. There is no guarantee that a given choice will forever be seen to be perfect, or even good, on balance, but I don’t see that as a good enough reason to take away people’s freedom, to prevent a woman from “pursuing her own happiness,” even though you and many other people don’t want her to have an abortion. There, that’s how I feel, pretty much.
…….
You say, you don’t agree with it. But then you try to persuade us into seeing your point of view, without even being courageous enough to admit that you really feel strongly about the issue and that you really feel there is a right and wrong there.
I know you believe one is right and the other is wrong, but you won’t admit it. Why?
Bethany, to the extent that I do think that, I believe I have said as much, and why. I don’t invoke any imaginary absolutes, etc., because there’s no proof of such, and it’s not a matter of just thinking “right” or “wrong” – there are different reasons for it, and things to be weighed, rather than necessarily seeing it in a vacuum. There are also different contexts, and they may make all the difference – and I try to identify them and keep it all straight, though you find it manipulative or obfuscatory, etc.
Doug
“Likewise, when some women find that what they’ve been told about the unborn is not true, they become more pro-choice, and that’s fine too.”
Bethany: Okay, Doug, I’ll bite. What truth could one “find out” about the unborn that they didn’t know before, that would make them think it was okay to kill babies when they previously thought it was not okay?
Stuff like the fakery and misrepresentations of “The Silent Scream” movie, etc. The “brainwaves at six weeks” type of stuff that is either outright false or such a stretch as to be ridiculous.
Doug
MK Nice post Doug,
Unfortunately, I didn’t say any of that. Bethany did.
O o p s – sorry about that.
Doug,
Stuff like the fakery and misrepresentations of “The Silent Scream” movie, etc. The “brainwaves at six weeks” type of stuff that is either outright false or such a stretch as to be ridiculous.
I am saying that it is false and lame to claim that the silent scream is a fake, without proof. And that “brainwaves” is a falsehood unless you have something to show that there are absolutely no brainwaves at 6 weeks.
“If Laura saying “not human beings” was the issue, then I’d point out that there are different usages – the physical, the legal, etc. That discussion isn ‘t the same as “human or not.”
MK: Yes Doug, We know you would. Which is why you are so frustrating. Because the bottom line is, Laura and others on this site have not once, but many times compared the unborn to a fingernail, menstrual blood, wads, leeches, diseases, cancer…and the list goes on. I don’t need to prove it to you. I’ve been reading it for months now.
There are people that do not believe the fetus is alive, human, a human being or a person. They equate it with a turnip.
Holy Crow…. I do not think “equate it with a turnip” is correct. That is the kind of thing that I would disagree with, same as for the “not human” deal.
Can the unborn be compared to a fingernail? yes. And the same for the others. That is not “equating” them, however. That is not saying they are the same in all respects.
I do not think there is any rational argument against what I have said right there. If that is “frustrating” for you, then I say you’re just gonna have that around here.
Doug
“Stuff like the fakery and misrepresentations of “The Silent Scream” movie, etc. The “brainwaves at six weeks” type of stuff that is either outright false or such a stretch as to be ridiculous.”
MK: I am saying that it is false and lame to claim that the silent scream is a fake, without proof. And that “brainwaves” is a falsehood unless you have something to show that there are absolutely no brainwaves at 6 weeks.
Plenty of proof – some of the people involved in the making of it admitted some things were faked. There is also the claim that a 12 week fetus experiences pain – and this is without the necessary nerve connections, brain development, presence of neurotransmitted hormones, etc.
Also – reflexive motion is falsely presented as consciously intentional.
The “brainwaves at six weeks” is such a ridiculous stretch as I mentioned. There is not the organization we commonly call “brainwaves” there. Rudimentary electrical activity – yes, brainwaves – no. There is a “neural tube” early on in gestation, with some electrical activity, but that is a far cry from the alpha, beta, delta, theta, etc., of true brainwaves.
Doug
Doug,
There is no rational argument to what you just said right there because what you just said right there is not rational.
A fingernail is from a human. But is not a human. I could compare a human to a symphony too, but we both know that women are not going to deliver a symphony OR a fingernail in 9 months. The fact that you feel you need to clarify this is what drives us mad…Laura was making a snide remark indicating that she doesn’t even think of the unborn as human, human beings, a human, a human being, a person, a baby or anything else that is ALIVE!
Now I know this doesn’t sit well with you, but you should really be asking her what she meant. Not me. I don’t know what Laura means half the time she speaks.
Val just stuck her two cents in…
“Don’t go into the dark path of the Doug. Just let it alone. He is the one who is like Clinton trying to get the attorney to define the word “it”. or was it “if’..anywho……”
too funny and too true…
Heh heh – baloney is baloney, no matter how you slice it.
If somebody says that pro-choicers are saying that the unborn are “not human,” and it’s false, then that’s one thing that’s easy to shoot down.
The old straw man strikes again.
Doug
“I am saying that it is false and lame to claim that people are saying the unborn are “not human” if that is not the case.”
MK: I agree. That’s why I didn’t do it.
Yeah ya did:
While we all know that you are willing to call the fetus a baby, there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human”
There is no rational argument to what you just said right there because what you just said right there is not rational.
A fingernail is from a human. But is not a human. I could compare a human to a symphony too, but we both know that women are not going to deliver a symphony OR a fingernail in 9 months. The fact that you feel you need to clarify this is what drives us mad…Laura was making a snide remark indicating that she doesn’t even think of the unborn as human, human beings, a human, a human being, a person, a baby or anything else that is ALIVE!
Now I know this doesn’t sit well with you, but you should really be asking her what she meant. Not me. I don’t know what Laura means half the time she speaks.
2nd try:
MK: There is no rational argument to what you just said right there because what you just said right there is not rational.
Wrong.
……
A fingernail is from a human. But is not a human.
I did not say that it was “a human.” That is the same old confusion of adjective with noun.
……
I could compare a human to a symphony too, but we both know that women are not going to deliver a symphony OR a fingernail in 9 months.
So what? That some things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are similar in other ways, necessarily.
……
The fact that you feel you need to clarify this is what drives us mad…Laura was making a snide remark indicating that she doesn’t even think of the unborn as human, human beings, a human, a human being, a person, a baby or anything else that is ALIVE!
There has been much confusion, and in lieu of any proof to the contrary – quite a bit of falsehood presented as far as what pro-choicers say or claim. I believe you get mad – I would too if I was hanging my argument on such.
……
Now I know this doesn’t sit well with you, but you should really be asking her what she meant. Not me. I don’t know what Laura means half the time she speaks.
Okay, there are things you don’t know. I still don’t think you need pretend what others say.
And – okay again – Laura, do you think the unborn in this argument are not human?
Doug
So what? That some things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are similar in other ways, necessarily.
Exactly, but you are the only one that didn’t understand what I meant. That post was days ago, and here you are, still harping on nouns and adjectives…it doesn’t matter. I made a point. Everyone except you got it. Move on.
MK: I made it very clear that I was equating human beings with persons.
Fine, and that doesn’t mean that anybody said the unborn are not “human.”
……
Laura pointed out that nowhere has it been proven that the unborn are human beings at all.
Still not the same as saying the unborn are not “human.”
……
The work she sited says that it has not been decided that the unborn is even alive as denoted by the words in bold. I take that to mean that not only isn’t the unborn a human being but it is not alive…You can take it for whatever you want.
Then there is a problem there with defining “life” or “a life,” in that case. That is still not saying the unborn are not “human.”
Doug
I’m not hanging my argument on anything. You are the one that’s confused. EVERYONE else knew what I meant…No one else had a problem with it. No one else is going on and on and on and on and on about it. Laura is a cold, mean spirited person. She says things to get a rise out of us. I reacted by using a post to you to give a dig to her. If it makes you happier then fine…
There are people on here that don’t even think the unborn are “human beings”…
Now can we please move on?
“So what? That some things are analogous in some ways does not mean they are similar in other ways, necessarily.”
MK: Exactly, but you are the only one that didn’t understand what I meant. That post was days ago, and here you are, still harping on nouns and adjectives…it doesn’t matter. I made a point. Everyone except you got it. Move on.
Your point that Laura (or anyone else, from what I have seen) refuses to acknowledge that the unborn in this argument are human, is false.
I understand what you mean, but that was not true. That is what I am saying.
Doug
There has been much confusion, and in lieu of any proof to the contrary – quite a bit of falsehood presented as far as what pro-choicers say or claim. I believe you get mad – I would too if I was hanging my argument on such.
There is only one person here that is confused. And that would be, mmmmmmmm, you.
And now you know what I meant by,
Whatever.
MK: I’m not hanging my argument on anything. You are the one that’s confused.
Nope. You made a false statement. You got called on it.
……
EVERYONE else knew what I meant…No one else had a problem with it.
That may be. That does not change the fact that what you said was false.
……
No one else is going on and on and on and on and on about it.
You could have just admitted you misspoke.
…….
Laura is a cold, mean spirited person. She says things to get a rise out of us. I reacted by using a post to you to give a dig to her. If it makes you happier then fine…
Your opinion. Doesn’t change the fact of what she said.
……
There are people on here that don’t even think the unborn are “human beings”…
Now that I do not disagree with.
……
Now can we please move on?
Up to you, MK.
“There has been much confusion, and in lieu of any proof to the contrary – quite a bit of falsehood presented as far as what pro-choicers say or claim. I believe you get mad – I would too if I was hanging my argument on such.”
MK: There is only one person here that is confused. And that would be, mmmmmmmm, you.
Nope. You said something that wasn’t true; you got called on it.
Doug
Plenty of proof – some of the people involved in the making of it admitted some things were faked. There is also the claim that a 12 week fetus experiences pain – and this is without the necessary nerve connections, brain development, presence of neurotransmitted hormones, etc.
Sorry, Babe, you claiming that people involved…is not proof. Any more than my saying Laura claims all the time that the unborn are not humans was proof.
Also – reflexive motion is falsely presented as consciously intentional.
Never said a word about consiously intentional. Said brain waves.
The “brainwaves at six weeks” is such a ridiculous stretch as I mentioned. There is not the organization we commonly call “brainwaves” there. Rudimentary electrical activity – yes, brainwaves – no. There is a “neural tube” early on in gestation, with some electrical activity, but that is a far cry from the alpha, beta, delta, theta, etc., of true brainwaves.
Never said consciousness, never said sentience, never said intelligence. Just brain waves. And you haven’t proven that there aren’t detectable brain waves.
No Doug,
Nope. You said something that wasn’t true; you got called on it.
Nope. I said something that you don’t believe.
I said that I don’t believe that Laura thinks the unborn are human. I still don’t. But to end this endless merry go round that we are on, I’m willing to “pretend” that I agree with you.
Only Laura can prove it one way or the other.
Doug,
Going to bed now. The bottom line is that you are the only one that cares about human vs a human. At least that I know of. And I don’t want to argue semantics anymore…actually I didn’t want to argue it to begin with.
Talk to Laura. For the record, I use human, a human, person, baby, fetus, unborn and child interchangeably, much like you do with “your views and societies views”…
I’m not going to change that. If you have different definitions for each of those, that’s cool, but you’ll have to do all the dance steps.
As for me, I’ll continue to use them all as if they were one, and you can just figure out what I’m talkin’ about. I’m not going to sweat over societies definition vs Dougs definition, especially when there is no acceptable definition used by all. You’ll just have to deal with it…or not. There is absolutely no difference between person, human, human being, a human being, the unborn, baby or fetus as far as I am concerned. And that is what this fight is all about after all. You want to differenctiate them, and I don’t. And from now on, I will only debate with you if you are coming from Dougs point of veiw and not societies. So if you say something to me, I will assume that you mean “In your opinion” because I already have a war going on with society. This is entres nous…you and me. One on one…I have no interest in riding this particular ride any longer. I get motion sickness going around and around. Tell me what Doug thinks or don’t tell me anything at all…peace, and good night.
Okay – I know I’m coming in at the last minute,
But this might be relevant:
H. Hamlan, “Life or Death by EEG” JAMA Oct 12, 1964 Pg. 120
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG)
J. Goldenring “Development of the fetal brain” New England Journal of Medicine Oct 26, 1982 Pg. 564
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, “appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation,” or six weeks after conception.”
F. Cunningham “Pancreas” Williams Obstet 19th addition 1993 Pg. 183-184
Glucagon, a blood sugar hormone, has been demonstrated in the fetal pancreas 6 weeks after fertilization, and insulin by 7 to 8
W. Liley, The Fetus As Personality, Fetal Therapy, 1986, p. 8-17
Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization
L. B. Arey, Developmental Anatomy (6th ed.), Philadelphia: W. B. Sanders Co., 1954
“In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a
“Also – reflexive motion is falsely presented as consciously intentional.”
MK: Never said a word about consciously intentional. Said brain waves.
“The Silent Scream” did, and that is just one more thing that is false. It is pretending that mental cognition is there.
……
The “brainwaves at six weeks” is such a ridiculous stretch as I mentioned. There is not the organization we commonly call “brainwaves” there. Rudimentary electrical activity – yes, brainwaves – no. There is a “neural tube” early on in gestation, with some electrical activity, but that is a far cry from the alpha, beta, delta, theta, etc., of true brainwaves.”
Never said consciousness, never said sentience, never said intelligence. Just brain waves. And you haven’t proven that there aren’t detectable brain waves.
The movie is pretending that mere electrical impulses are genuine brainwaves, and that is what is not true. Heck, a one-celled amoeba has electrical impulses in it. An anencephalic fetus or infant has them too. To reduce “brainwaves” to such is a crazy stretch. Nobody said there is zero electrical activity, but true brainwaves don’t start until quite a bit later in gestation.
Doug
“Nope. You said something that wasn’t true; you got called on it.”
MK: Nope. I said something that you don’t believe.
Right – I don’t believe it. You asserted it without proof. It’s a straw man argument. If I made a similarly untrue claim about pro-lifers, you would contest it, and nobody expects you not to.
……
I said that I don’t believe that Laura thinks the unborn are human. I still don’t. But to end this endless merry go round that we are on, I’m willing to “pretend” that I agree with you.
It was not only Laura – you said, there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human”
That’s where you’re wrong. We both like to argue, but if you think this is a merry-go-round you could have just admitted that you misspoke.
Doug
Going to bed now. The bottom line is that you are the only one that cares about human vs a human. At least that I know of. And I don’t want to argue semantics anymore…actually I didn’t want to argue it to begin with.
I was tired too, MK.
For the record, I use human, a human, person, baby, fetus, unborn and child interchangeably, much like you do with “your views and societies views”…
It’s not your usage that is in question, and those are not all the same. I don’t interchange my views and society’s – I’m quite diligent about pointing out the differences.
Valerie: Just thought I would pass this along. My question is this – We judge human death by lack of brain waves right? We cannot use heartbeat because a heart stops during a heartattack and there are different operations where a heart will be stopped and restarted several times. So, why then, is the baby not considered a person with rights when brain waves are detected at 40 days gestation? And Brain function is detected by 8 weeks gestation?
It’s two different things. Yes, there is electrical activity at 40 days and 8 weeks, but that is not the patterns and organization of impulses we see with true brainwaves. Is there life there? Yes. Personhood and the attribution of rights is a separate question.
If you see somebody saying, “the unborn are dead” or “the unborn are not alive” then they’re wrong.
…..
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG)
Val, that’s a commonly-see citation, but it’s been well-debunked:
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
……
Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, “appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation,” or six weeks after conception.”
“Brain function” could be just electrical activity, any electrical activity. By that, an amoeba has brain function.
……
Thumbsucking has been photographed at 7 weeks after fertilization
Reflexive motion.
……
“In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a
Hi Doug. Is your position that a fetus is a human but not a person? Person as defined by Randonm House College Dictionary:1. a human being 2.the actual self or individual personality 3. the body of a living being 4.the body in its external aspect . I believe we should always give life the benefit of the doubt. That’s one of the reasons I am against the death penalty. I wouldn’t want to see an innocent man or woman executed(it is not the only reason I’m against it).
Doug, come on. We had previously already told you, “You know what we MEANT”, and then we clarified that we MEANT “human BEING”. Sorry we didn’t know the exact wording you needed to understand what we meant. I would have assumed this sentence, among many others:
A fingernail is from a human. But is not a human. I could compare a human to a symphony too, but we both know that women are not going to deliver a symphony OR a fingernail in 9 months. The fact that you feel you need to clarify this is what drives us mad…Laura was making a snide remark indicating that she doesn’t even think of the unborn as human, human beings, a human, a human being, a person, a baby or anything else that is ALIVE!
Would have clarified what MK meant PLENTY.
Just admit it. You were just trying to nitpick, and argue semantics instead of addressing what you knew we actually meant, because that’s fun for you.
And why do you disagree that Laura doesn’t consider the unborn babies to be human beings?
On what do you base that? Her loud and adamant objections to this unbelievable claim?
Hi Doug. Is your position that a fetus is a human but not a person? Person as defined by Randonm House College Dictionary:1. a human being 2.the actual self or individual personality 3. the body of a living being 4.the body in its external aspect . I believe we should always give life the benefit of the doubt. That’s one of the reasons I am against the death penalty. I wouldn’t want to see an innocent man or woman executed(it is not the only reason I’m against it).
Mornin’ Carrie. Yes, the fetus here is human but personhood isn’t attributed until birth. If that was not the case, then pro-lifers would not be nearly so unhappy with how things are.
Doug
Hey, Carrie, we posted simultaneously.
Doug, she has a point. It’s funny how you have to make sure we have the exact definition of words just right, but you misuse the word “person” all the time.
Bethany: Just admit it. You were just trying to nitpick, and argue semantics instead of addressing what you knew we actually meant, because that’s fun for you.
Wrong – it’s not “nitpicking” to identify such a straw man argument. It was falsely presented as a point in debate.
If I stated something wrong about pro-lifers, you would very likely take issue with it, and I would expect that.
Saying that the adjective “human” is the same as the noun “human being” is untrue. MK’s statement was wrong, and that’s all I’ve been saying.
……
A fingernail is from a human. But is not a human. I could compare a human to a symphony too, but we both know that women are not going to deliver a symphony OR a fingernail in 9 months. The fact that you feel you need to clarify this is what drives us mad…Laura was making a snide remark indicating that she doesn’t even think of the unborn as human, human beings, a human, a human being, a person, a baby or anything else that is ALIVE!
Again, it is false to pretend that those are all the same.
Doug
Mornin’ Carrie. Yes, the fetus here is human but personhood isn’t attributed until birth. If that was not the case, then pro-lifers would not be nearly so unhappy with how things are.
Don’t you mean, the fetus here is a human being, but hasn’t had personhood attributed?
Wrong – it’s not “nitpicking” to identify such a straw man argument. It was falsely presented as a point in debate.
No, it wasn’t falsely presented. She accidentally left out the word “a”. Wow.
Bethany: And why do you disagree that Laura doesn’t consider the unborn babies to be human beings?
Did I say that? No. There are usages of “human being” where the unborn are not like the born, legal and otherwise. I have indeed seen people say that “human being” includes more than what the unborn have, or at least until a point in gestation. There may be different senses of “being” implied.
To say, “there are many here who don’t acknowledge that the unborn are human beings” isn’t going to get argument from me – I believe it. It’s not the same as claiming some people don’t think the unborn are human.
…….
On what do you base that? Her loud and adamant objections to this unbelievable claim?
I don’t “base it” on anything, Bethany. Didn’t say it in the first place.
Doug
Saying that the adjective “human” is the same as the noun “human being” is untrue. MK’s statement was wrong, and that’s all I’ve been saying.
Well, saying that “person” is any different than “human being” is wrong. How is that any different? I suppose that would be a straw man too, and instead of actually debating that as an issue with you, we should stick to arguing the dictionary definitions and grammatical usage of the word for hours upon hours every day.
“Wrong – it’s not “nitpicking” to identify such a straw man argument. It was falsely presented as a point in debate.”
Bethany: No, it wasn’t falsely presented. She accidentally left out the word “a”. Wow.
If that is true, then she could have said, “I left out the word “a.”
As before, she could have easily said she misspoke.
Doug
Did I say that? No. There are usages of “human being” where the unborn are not like the born, legal and otherwise. I have indeed seen people say that “human being” includes more than what the unborn have, or at least until a point in gestation. There may be different senses of “being” implied.
To say, “there are many here who don’t acknowledge that the unborn are human beings” isn’t going to get argument from me – I believe it. It’s not the same as claiming some people don’t think the unborn are human.
Darn it, Doug. You KNOW when we say it that we mean a human being in the fullest sense of the word. We have repeated this ad nauseum!
Stop pretending you don’t understand that unless we clarify it every time we leave out the “a” or don’t make sure to let You know that we mean it in the “fullest sense”. ARG!
“Wrong – it’s not “nitpicking” to identify such a straw man argument. It was falsely presented as a point in debate.”
Bethany: No, it wasn’t falsely presented. She accidentally left out the word “a”. Wow.
If that is true, then she could have said, “I left out the word “a.”
As before, she could have easily said she misspoke.
She did clarify it for you, Doug. She told you EXACTLY what she meant.
Doug –
You are trying to argue testimony from a Anesthesiologist by linking to a biased source? You are trying to debunk professionals in the field with that? That webpage was wrote by Margaret Sykes who used to write “Pro-Choice Guides” for about.com. She is also a Volunteer Counselor for Planned Parenthood and when she worked at about.com her e-mail address was pro-choice.guide@about.com.
some info from her bio:
“Experience : Margaret spends most of her time reading medical and social journals , searching the Web , and digging into other sources of information on pregnancy , abortion , contraception , and reproductive rights. She has contributed to and published numerous articles and is a volunteer pregnancy counselor at Planned Parenthood in her spare time.
From Margaret : According to the medical literature , laws have no influence on the rate of abortion but illegal abortion is associated with a much greater risk of complications and death. That’s why I believe it’s important to keep abortion legal , accessible , and safe for all women. I welcome you here for the latest news and in-depth information on abortion and related issues from a pro-choice point of view..
____
sorry Doug. I’ll believe medical professionals before I believe someone like this.
Also, the whole personhood issue is debated on that website too…. Two articles are “debunking” people who disagreed with them on when personhood starts.
hmmmmm……..
Also – If you are basing the personhood concept on conciousness, self-awareness and stronger brain wave activities then the infant would be subject to legalized murder as they do not fit that criteria either.
“Saying that the adjective “human” is the same as the noun “human being” is untrue. MK’s statement was wrong, and that’s all I’ve been saying.”
Bethany: Well, saying that “person” is any different than “human being” is wrong. How is that any different? I suppose that would be a straw man too, and instead of actually debating that as an issue with you, we should stick to arguing the dictionary definitions and grammatical usage of the word for hours upon hours every day.
No, it’s not wrong. It most certainly is different. Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status. There is physical reality, and then there is the status of the unborn, which is what you are unhappy with in the first place.
If you say that there are many people here who don’t think the unborn are human, then you are wrong.
If I say there are many people here who think the unborn write poetry while in the womb, then I am wrong.
Bethany,
I didn’t leave out the word “a” accidentally. I still hold that Laura and other pro choicers do not believe the fetus to be human. I only conceded to get Doug to drop it. As I have said. I can’t prove what Laura or other mean. Only they can. Until they weigh in, I stand by the wording I chose.
We constantly show Doug that the dictionary does not make a distinction between humans human beings and persons, because no definition of the unborn being human, a human being or a person has been definitively made.
He seems to think he knows the answer. I don’t. I use them all interchangeably and until I’m given proof that I shouldn’t be, I will continue to do so.
Again…Human, A human, Personhood, Person, people, human being, fetus, baby, unborn, child all mean the same thing to me. All human beings are persons. All humans are persons. All fetuses are human beings and persons. All fetuses are babies. All babies are persons, humans and human beings. All unborn homo sapiens are human beings with full dignity and should be afforded the same rights as all other human beings. Why? Because all unborn are persons. All unborn are human beings. All unborn are humans. All unborn are babies.
But Doug desparately needs me to “admit” to being incorrect in my assertions about Laura, and I won’t do it. Actually, I did pretend to do it, but that wasn’t enough for him.
I still hold that Laura and others do not view the unborn as humans in the sense that I meant the word. Not the sense that Doug percieved the word, but in the sense that I used the word. Which is, that it is synonomous with human being, unborn, fetus, baby, person, and human.
You know, Doug. I think your goal here is to prevent us from actually discussing abortion. You want us to continue to debate semantics and forget what we actually came here to discuss.
It’s not going to work.
Abortion is murder, it kills the life of a living, existing, developing human being, and that’s wrong, and that’s all there is to it. I don’t care to discuss what you feel “murder” means. I don’t care to discuss the many ways you can interpret “being” or “living”. I don’t care to discuss the semantics of the word “human”, and I don’t care to discuss what society thinks or what society does.
I already know that society has decided that personhood starts at birth. I don’t need you to explain this to me again for the gazillionth time.
My goal is to change that, as you already know. What else is there to discuss?
You believe we both have equally valid opinions, without society, so I am going to say we just agree to disagree, and society will make the change when it does.
No, it’s not wrong. It most certainly is different. Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status.
It’s a BOGUS status.
Valerie: You are trying to argue testimony from a Anesthesiologist by linking to a biased source? You are trying to debunk professionals in the field with that?
Val, it was in 1964, and no matter who said it, while there may be electrical activity present, it is not the same as the alpha/beta/delta/theta of true brainwaves. If we say that the 40 day embryo has “brainwaves,” then so do one-celled animals and anencephalic babies.
Any number of doctors will say “no brainwaves until much later in gestation.”
….
Also – If you are basing the personhood concept on conciousness, self-awareness and stronger brain wave activities then the infant would be subject to legalized murder as they do not fit that criteria either.
Wrong – even before birth, most fetuses have true brainwaves, the patterns are there, the organization, frequencies, etc., are there. I am saying there is a huge difference between mere voltage differences being present – as with the 40 weeker and the amoeba – and genuine brainwaves.
Doug
hu
“No, it’s not wrong. It most certainly is different. Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status.”
Bethany: It’s a BOGUS status.
I know you think that, B.
If we say that the 40 day embryo has “brainwaves,” then so do one-celled animals and anencephalic babies.
Anencephalic babies DO have some brainwaves, and unlike you we do consider them human beings AND persons.
hu
I know you think that, B.
Good, and I know you don’t.
Any number of doctors will say “no brainwaves until much later in gestation.”
Any number of doctors will say it doesn’t deserver to live also. But they are wrong.
f we say that the 40 day embryo has “brainwaves,” then so do one-celled animals and anencephalic babies.
Okay, so do one celled animals and anencephalic babies. What’s you’re point. Lots of things have brain waves.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he’s only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.
Besides the VERY LAST definition, which of these adjective definitions can describe a toenail? I think our definition of human supersedes yours.
Bethany: You know, Doug. I think your goal here is to prevent us from actually discussing abortion. You want us to continue to debate semantics and forget what we actually came here to discuss. It’s not going to work.
Oh for Pete’s sake…. MK’s claim was false. She could have said that she didn’t actually mean “human.” Not that big a deal, but it’s still a straw man, and people are going to get called on it.
Had I said a similarly false thing about pro-lifers, there would have been no shortage of argument with me, and that is as it should be.
…..
Abortion is murder, it kills the life of a living, existing, developing human being, and that’s wrong, and that’s all there is to it. I don’t care to discuss what you feel “murder” means. I don’t care to discuss the many ways you can interpret “being” or “living”. I don’t care to discuss the semantics of the word “human”, and I don’t care to discuss what society thinks or what society does.
It’s not up to you what is “murder” or not. It’s up to the law. It’s not the semantics of “human” that is the discussion. That is not in doubt. It remains false to say that there are many people here who think the unborn in this argument are not human.
….
I already know that society has decided that personhood starts at birth. I don’t need you to explain this to me again for the gazillionth time.
My goal is to change that, as you already know. What else is there to discuss?
You believe we both have equally valid opinions, without society, so I am going to say we just agree to disagree, and society will make the change when it does.
Very reasonable, Bethany. The fact is that there are things to discuss, though, and no rational need to pretend what the “other side” in the argument says.
Doug
Oh for Pete’s sake…. MK’s claim was false. She could have said that she didn’t actually mean “human.” Not that big a deal, but it’s still a straw man, and people are going to get called on it.
Had I said a similarly false thing about pro-lifers, there would have been no shortage of argument with me, and that is as it should be.
Only, it wasn’t a false assertion. Laura really doesn’t consider them to be human or “a human” or “human beings”. Saying that they are “within the human body” isn’t the same as saying they “are human” and you know it.
Very reasonable, Bethany. The fact is that there are things to discuss, though, and no rational need to pretend what the “other side” in the argument says.
Then stop pretending that MK said something to try to deceive you when you know she didn’t.
“If we say that the 40 day embryo has “brainwaves,” then so do one-celled animals and anencephalic babies.”
Anencephalic babies DO have some brainwaves, and unlike you we do consider them human beings AND persons.
Bethany, “some brainwaves” is still mighty relative there. And what of the amoeba?
Okay, so do one celled animals and anencephalic babies. What’s you’re point. Lots of things have brain waves.
Exactly…what exactly WAS his point there?
Bethany, “some brainwaves” is still mighty relative there. And what of the amoeba?
Yes. So what is your point?
“Very reasonable, Bethany. The fact is that there are things to discuss, though, and no rational need to pretend what the “other side” in the argument says.”
Then stop pretending that MK said something to try to deceive you when you know she didn’t.
Oh please. I didn’t say “trying to deceive.” The point is that it was false. I knew it ws false – no decepetion took place. I disagreed with what she said, that’s all.
I didn’t say you SAID “trying to deceive”. I said you were pretending that was the case. It was your implication.
Doug
You’re Irish arent’ you? Your too stubborn to be anything else. I know being Irish/Polish myself.
you said:
“Wrong – even before birth, most fetuses have true brainwaves, the patterns are there, the organization, frequencies, etc., are there. I am saying there is a huge difference between mere voltage differences being present – as with the 40 weeker and the amoeba – and genuine brainwaves.”
That didn’t address my statement at all. Let’s try to stay on subject. I was talking about the “personhood concept” and by your previous statments it seems you base personhood on consciousness, self-awareness and specific brain wave activities. I then made the parallel to an infant and a fetus. An infant is not self-aware and some may not even be conscious for sometime after birth (like my son born prematurely) and the brain waves from a 31 week fetus is the same as the infant born at 31 week gestation. So, how is the personhood concept apply to the born and not the unborn?
Good grief, here’s another definition:
Deceive:
# be false to; be dishonest with
You were implying that she was being dishonest with you, were you not?
Bethany,
Did you read Val’s post up above…?
And he claims I make false accusations?
Doug –
You are trying to argue testimony from a Anesthesiologist by linking to a biased source? You are trying to debunk professionals in the field with that? That webpage was wrote by Margaret Sykes who used to write “Pro-Choice Guides” for about.com. She is also a Volunteer Counselor for Planned Parenthood and when she worked at about.com her e-mail address was pro-choice.guide@about.com.
some info from her bio:
“Experience : Margaret spends most of her time reading medical and social journals , searching the Web , and digging into other sources of information on pregnancy , abortion , contraception , and reproductive rights. She has contributed to and published numerous articles and is a volunteer pregnancy counselor at Planned Parenthood in her spare time.
From Margaret : According to the medical literature , laws have no influence on the rate of abortion but illegal abortion is associated with a much greater risk of complications and death. That’s why I believe it’s important to keep abortion legal , accessible , and safe for all women. I welcome you here for the latest news and in-depth information on abortion and related issues from a pro-choice point of view..
Okay, so do one celled animals and anencephalic babies. What’s you’re point. Lots of things have brain waves.
Exactly…what exactly WAS his point there?
That saying “brainwaves at six weeks” isn’t saying much at all, in that case.
Doug, I’ll admit there are dueling opinions on the issue on personhood. Both sides can quote what they consider evidence. If the issue of personhood is open to debate, then why not give the benefit of the doubt to life? I am asking what you think, not society. I have already acknowledged there are many in society that disagree with me. Shouldn’t we give life the benefit of the doubt?
Um, yes it does, Doug, because we’re not talking about a 1 celled animal, we’re talking about a human being. There’s a big difference there.
That’s like saying that an infant and some other animal might have the same amount of brain waves and therefore are basically the same. It’s silly.
And he claims I make false accusations?
MK, you did make a false accusation.
And if we are to say that an amoeba or 40 week embryo has “true brainwaves” then that has removed much of the meaning and significance of the term.
Like, suppose I said
“Hey Doug, infants have the exact same amount of brainwaves as a ] cat. Therefore, that the human has such and such amount of brainwaves, obviously, it isn’t enough to say that it’s a person, or any more than a cat. ”
I didn’t say you SAID “trying to deceive”. I said you were pretending that was the case. It was your implication.
Well, Bethany, as before, I would expect you to take issue with something similarly false about pro-lifers, if I said it.
Doug
Well, Bethany, as before, I would expect you to take issue with something similarly false about pro-lifers, if I said it.
Only, it wasn’t false, as I already showed you from the dictionary.
Doug,
You claimed that the pro life side makes false claims, and when people find this out, they become pro choice. I asked you for an example. You used brain waves.
Brain waves exist. Nobody made any claims as to the meaning of these brainwaves. Nobody claimed this proved personhood. Nobody claimed anything, except that as early as six weeks, brain waves are present.
They are. It’s true. Rudimentary brain waves to be sure, but brain waves nonetheless. There fore I reject this as proof that we present lies, which would later cause a pro-lifer to change sides.
Now if we claimed that because of these brainswaves a baby at 6 weeks could sing opera, I’d agree with you. But no such claims were made. No claims were made at all. Except that there are a brain waves present in an unborn baby of 6 weeks gestation. And there are.
No Doug,
MK, you did make a false accusation.
That has not been shown as we have not heard from Laura yet.
And I proved up above using the dictionary that my use of the terms human, person, human being, baby and fetus as interchangeable are all acceptable.
But you on the other hand asserted that the pro-life side puts forth false information and have yet to prove that.
So I believe it is you that has made a false accusation…
Yes, MK, yes.
Noun 1. brain wave – (neurophysiology) rapid fluctuations of voltage between parts of the cerebral cortex that are detectable with an electroencephalograph
Again, I rest my case.
From http://www.Abortionfacts.com
By 8 weeks? Show me!
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.
chapter14_1.gif (2798 bytes)
Give an example.
Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.
Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.
A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, “What the Fetus Feels,” British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.
O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence of pain? After all, the fetal baby can
Doug, your arguments are exhausting. They don’t make an ounce of sense to me. They are the same thing over and over again. Abortion is murder. You don’t make up the rules on this one. I don’t think you are convincing anyone that it’s not. This is why I don’t really care to engage in debate with you. You seem to be making it up as you go along. Why? I’m not sure. I really don’t even know why pro choice men bother. I always say who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible men.
“I really don’t even know why pro choice men bother. I always say who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible men.”
How about men who believe in a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy? Why do pro-life men bother? Because they believe they are doing the right thing. Same for pro-choice men. and women.
Hal, of course pro choice men like abortion. Man to Woman………”You’re what?” “We better get you to the abortion clinic.” No child support, no wedding vows, no respect, just get it taken care of. Hal, I realize that you are married to the woman who aborted your kids, but most of these unwanted pregnancies are a result of “fly by night” flings. These men and women don’t care. They just wanted the sexual gratification. They don’t want the responsibility of the consequences that may follow.
pro life men are responsible!
Heather: Doug, your arguments are exhausting.
:: laughing :: To me too, Heather – it’s certainly been a bit over-the-top last night and today. Bottom line – why do we argue? Because we like to.
……
They don’t make an ounce of sense to me. They are the same thing over and over again. Abortion is murder.
Well, I see the same falsehoods presented, over and over. Abortion isn’t murder. That’s a legal term, and not applied to abortion, no matter how much you don’t like abortion.
……
You don’t make up the rules on this one. I don’t think you are convincing anyone that it’s not. This is why I don’t really care to engage in debate with you.
I don’t say I make up the rules, but you act like you do. The law is what determines it, Heather, not you. Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn’t murder. That doesn’t mean they aren’t against it just as much as you.
……
You seem to be making it up as you go along. Why? I’m not sure.
Uh, if anybody is “making it up as you go along,” it’s you.
……
I really don’t even know why pro choice men bother. I always say who loves abortion? Answer: Irresponsible men.
It’s not a matter of “loving abortion.” That’s just one more made-up deal from you.
I do not want the freedom that women have in this matter taken away. I don’t need a woman forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Doug
“Mornin’ Carrie. Yes, the fetus here is human but personhood isn’t attributed until birth. If that was not the case, then pro-lifers would not be nearly so unhappy with how things are.”
Bethany: Don’t you mean, the fetus here is a human being, but hasn’t had personhood attributed?
B, looking back, I think that would have been a better response to Carrie, yes. She asked about “a human” so you’re on the right track.
Doug
MK: Noun 1. brain wave – (neurophysiology) rapid fluctuations of voltage between parts of the cerebral cortex that are detectable with an electroencephalograph
Again, I rest my case.
YEAH, MaryKay!
Exactly – between parts of the cortex. That is where true brainwaves can be. Earlier in gestation, before the cortex is developed, connected, or operational enough, real brainwaves are not there. Mere electrical activity is a different thing, as with our leetle friends the one-celled animals.
Doug
Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn’t murder.
Prove it Doug.
Bethany, that was quite a post by you on pain. Yet, good grief – you got much or all of it from Willke’s site, I think.
By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.
For reflexive motion, not even that much is needed, i.e. no thalamus has to be involved. For autonomic response, then I think the above is a decent description, but it’s not consciousness. The thalamus is like a gateway to the cortex, where information is “read” or mentally perceived. The thalamus lets some information through to the cortex, but it’s the cortex where consciousness resides.
…..
Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.
Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.
The difference between conscious pain perception and reflexive movement. Yes, there are places where the early fetus, even the embryo, will react, but it’s not mental awareness.
……
O.K., that is activity that can be observed, but is there other evidence of pain? After all, the fetal baby can
Bethany, that was quite a post by you on pain. Yet, good grief – you got much or all of it from Willke’s site, I think.
I posted a reference at the top of my post, Doug.
And I’ll move this up to another thread when I get a chance.
“Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn’t murder.”
Prove it Doug.
MK, it’s just realizing that it’s a legal term. No matter how much you or anybody else doesn’t like the idea of abortion, it is still the law that determines murder or not. It’s not your opinion.
Does every pro-lifer here actually think abortion is “murder”? Serious question.
From other boards I’ve seen numerous people who realize it, many of them as opposed to abortion as you are. I don’t have any direct quotes right now, and if I get one I’ll post it.
Another question – going with the idea of the Bible, if God really was against abortion, then how in the heck could there be no rules against it in the Bible, considering all the Mosaic Law and all the other stuff said in the Old Testament?
Doug
“MK, you did make a false accusation.”
That has not been shown as we have not heard from Laura yet.
So you say unproven things in the hope that one of your opponents will confirm it?
……
And I proved up above using the dictionary that my use of the terms human, person, human being, baby and fetus as interchangeable are all acceptable.
Nope – in no way is the adjective the same as those nouns. “A human” can be a person (though it doesn’t have to be), yes, etc., but something merely “human” in no way is necessarily the same as any of those others.
……
But you on the other hand asserted that the pro-life side puts forth false information and have yet to prove that.
So I believe it is you that has made a false accusation…
Where you said, “there are many here who refuse to even acknowledge that it is “human,” you did just that. Your assertion – the burden of proof is on you.
Doug
“adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he’s only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.”
Bethany: Besides the VERY LAST definition, which of these adjective definitions can describe a toenail? I think our definition of human supersedes yours.
Holy Crow, Bethany, how about the very first one? A toenail can be “of humans.” A human toenail. It can be “characteristic of humans.” It can be “characteristic of the human race.” “Relating to humans,” etc.
If it comes from a human, how in the world would it not be “human”? How is your definition “better” or how does it supersede mine?
Doug
“Oh for Pete’s sake…. MK’s claim was false. She could have said that she didn’t actually mean “human.” Not that big a deal, but it’s still a straw man, and people are going to get called on it.
Had I said a similarly false thing about pro-lifers, there would have been no shortage of argument with me, and that is as it should be.”
Only, it wasn’t a false assertion. Laura really doesn’t consider them to be human or “a human” or “human beings”. Saying that they are “within the human body” isn’t the same as saying they “are human” and you know it.
Bethany, where is the proof that it wasn’t a false assertion? If Laura really does say “not human” then okay, but I have not seen that.
Doug
That has not been shown as we have not heard from Laura yet.
So you say unproven things in the hope that one of your opponents will confirm it?
No Doug, I showed you the post where she said it. I interpreted it one way, you interpreted it another.
And now you are accusing me being false (without proving it) because I accused Laura of not believing the unborn are human (without proving it) A little pot calling the kettle if you ask me.
Doug, You’re Irish arent’ you? Your too stubborn to be anything else. I know being Irish/Polish myself.
Valerie – I have to laugh – I know what you mean, but nope. Mostly English. There was an old boy called “William of Oxhill” – a “nobleman” (but who really knows?) of some property, and he had four sons that came to the new world. That’s the origin of my mom’s side of the family. Her maiden name was Walton, and there are Waltons that can be traced back into the 1600s. Betsy Ross is also some type of relation.
My dad had an ancestor named Hughes, came over on the Mayflower.
I have blond hair and blue eyes and when I had a CB radio my “handle” was “Viking.” Okay, okay, there’s some gray hair now…. me bein’ 48 and all…
……
“Wrong – even before birth, most fetuses have true brainwaves, the patterns are there, the organization, frequencies, etc., are there. I am saying there is a huge difference between mere voltage differences being present – as with the 40 weeker and the amoeba – and genuine brainwaves.”
That didn’t address my statement at all. Let’s try to stay on subject.
I was talking about the “personhood concept” and by your previous statments it seems you base personhood on consciousness, self-awareness and specific brain wave activities. I then made the parallel to an infant and a fetus. An infant is not self-aware and some may not even be conscious for sometime after birth (like my son born prematurely) and the brain waves from a 31 week fetus is the same as the infant born at 31 week gestation. So, how is the personhood concept apply to the born and not the unborn?
I didn’t say “self-aware.” Consciousness, yes – and that is there in most full-term born babies as well as with most late-term fetuses. “Specific brain wave activities” – I guess so, but I think I was really talking about the meaning of brainwaves as opposed to mere electrical activity. My personal opinion is that personhood need not be defined by birth. I realize that birth as the standard is somewhat arbitrary. So – for the 31 week fetus, I’m not saying that personhood cannot be there – IMO of course. Society’s position is different, of course – that’s where the application only to the born lies.
What I took issue with is where you said:
Also – If you are basing the personhood concept on conciousness, self-awareness and stronger brain wave activities then the infant would be subject to legalized murder as they do not fit that criteria either.
I realize that self-awareness is limited early on – and I don’t include that in what I see as necessary to personhood, per se, not more than what most born babies or the late-term unborn have. I’m also not saying that it should be legal to kill born babies or the late-term unborn. Past viability, if the pregnancy has to be ended, I favor inducing delivery.
Doug
Like, suppose I said “Hey Doug, infants have the exact same amount of brainwaves as a ] cat. Therefore, that the human has such and such amount of brainwaves, obviously, it isn’t enough to say that it’s a person, or any more than a cat. “
Bethany, believe it or not, by a roundabout way we have arrived somewhere – I agree with you there.
Mere electrical activity is not what true brainwaves are. There is a pattern of organization, first of all. There are frequencies and amplitudes, etc.
Yes – a cat doesn’t have brainwaves to the extent that it’s a “person.” No argument there.
I am also saying that just because electrical activity is persent early on in gestation, that does not mean that personality, mental awareness, etc., is there – things that are part and parcel of personhood to me. And I know you don’t need to hear about society again. ; )
So, boiling it all down, I’d say that the “brainwaves at six weeks” stuff is either false – if we define brainwaves as more than mere voltage potential or current flow, OR, that it’s not a big deal if we wash out so much of the definition that six-week embryos and amoebas have them.
Doug
I still hold that Laura and others do not view the unborn as humans in the sense that I meant the word. Not the sense that Doug percieved the word, but in the sense that I used the word. Which is, that it is synonomous with human being, unborn, fetus, baby, person, and human.
Well doggone it, MK, you used the word as an adjective and not as a noun, not as “humans” or “a human” etc., and it really does make a difference. It’s not “how Doug perceived the word,” it’s what you said.
Is a toenail clipping a person? No, and no argument there. Can it be human? Yes. There is a big difference.
I’ve seen pro-lifers do it many times – claim that pro-choicers say the unborn are “not human” or “not alive,” etc.
Doug
September 15, 2007
Brain stem may be key to consciousness:
An article in this week’s Science News discusses whether the brain stem may play a more central role in consciousness than it’s usually given credit for.
It focuses on children with hydranencephaly, a where the cortex fails to develop in children and instead, the space is filled with cerebral spinal fluid.
Typically, affected children survive only a few months after birth, but those that do survive seem to remarkably more conscious than you would guess based on theories that suggest the cortex is where all the action happens to support consciousness.
Swedish neuroscientist Bjorn Merker wrote an article [pdf] in February’s Behavioural and Brain Sciences journal arguing that these cases suggest we need to rethink our ideas about how the brain supports conscious thought, and perhaps, even consciousness itself.
Merker argues that the brain stem supports an elementary form of conscious thought in kids with hydranencephaly. It also contains auditory structures capable of preserving hearing in someone without a cortex. In contrast, optic nerve damage in hydranencephaly frequently impairs vision, regardless of what the brain stem does.
Self-awareness and other “higher” forms of thought may require cortical contributions. But Merker posits that “primary consciousness,” which he regards as an ability to integrate sensations from the environment with one’s immediate goals and feelings in order to guide behavior, springs from the brain stem.
If he’s right, virtually all vertebrates
Doug,
I’ve seen pro-lifers do it many times – claim that pro-choicers say the unborn are “not human” or “not alive,” etc
We do that Doug because we don’t see a difference. You do. If it is human it is a human being to us. You can have a different definition, but to me, human eguals human being. I do not believe that a toe nail is human. Sorry.
This topic is very similar to Terri’s post so we can continue it there…
“I’ve seen pro-lifers do it many times – claim that pro-choicers say the unborn are “not human” or “not alive,” etc”
MK: We do that Doug because we don’t see a difference. You do. If it is human it is a human being to us. You can have a different definition, but to me, human eguals human being. I do not believe that a toe nail is human. Sorry.
Whew…. MK, you DO see a difference. Do you seriously think a toenail cannot be human? Your toenails are not human toenails? Something can be human without being a completer organism, etc.
Merker argues that the brain stem supports an elementary form of conscious thought in kids with hydranencephaly. It also contains auditory structures capable of preserving hearing in someone without a cortex. In contrast, optic nerve damage in hydranencephaly frequently impairs vision, regardless of what the brain stem does.
Self-awareness and other “higher” forms of thought may require cortical contributions. But Merker posits that “primary consciousness,” which he regards as an ability to integrate sensations from the environment with one’s immediate goals and feelings in order to guide behavior, springs from the brain stem.
If he’s right, virtually all vertebrates
Doug, for what it’s worth. I’m sorry I’ve been so grouchy with you lately, but I wish for one minute you could see how frustrating your posts can be.
I’m sure if we were talking about ANYTHING other politics, we would all be getting along great. Obviously, you’re a nice guy. I hope you never get the impression that we hate you, because we don’t. But we do get rather frustrated with you. That part probably will never change. lol
Whew…. MK, you DO see a difference. Do you seriously think a toenail cannot be human? Your toenails are not human toenails? Something can be human without being a completer organism, etc.
I understand the difference that you’re describing, however, the word “human” as an adjective, can be used in different ways to mean different things. When MK says it, as I showed you in the definitions above, there are definitions of the adjective that support her view of what it means. I don’t see why it is possibly wrong on her part to use the word in a way it is actually intended to be used.
I’m pretty sure as many times as she explained what she meant to you, that you could have just said, okay, whatever. Your wording was wrong, in my opinion, but I’m just going to ignore it and respond to what you meant, because you made it obvious what it was and there’s no reason to nitpick over what the word can mean in different contexts instead of actually tackling the issue.
Well, maybe you wouldn’t be that long winded but you surely get what I’m saying.
Missquote, misstate bonanza.
MK: “Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder”
Carder: (Now watch, he’s going to post that he was misread, misinterpreted, you were wrong, and now we’ll all be coming ’round the mountain again.)
“Ahem, Carder and MK. “No pro-lifers”? You are right, Carder, that is not what I said.”
She’ll be coming ’round the mountain when she comes…
Carder, you must have been keeping an eye on MK, then. Is that a mountainous straw man argument you see? Here is what was said:
“Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn’t murder.”
MK: Prove it Doug.
(Posted by: mk at September 19, 2007 12:20 PM (#1story thread)
The pro-lifers I have seen who realize that abortion is not murder have been on other message boards. I also went through all the statements here:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library.html
and none of them say that abortion is murder.
Claiming that I said “no pro-lifers” completely changes the meaning, from the truth to what is obviously false, based on nothing more than this board here.
Why the need for straw man arguments?
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.”
Doug
Doug, jumping back on for another second. It took me less than a minute to find one of those people on your list who specifically called abortion “murder”.
“Other syndicated columnists, including Diana Griego Erwin of The Sacramento Bee, have argued that by referring to abortion as “murder,” the Catholic Church and other religious leaders have created a climate in which mentally unstable individuals feel compelled to kill abortionists. If those of us who oppose abortion do so because we believe it to be the taking of human life, then what should we call it? To argue that abortion abolitionists must euphemize and obfuscate our opposition lest we encourage lunatics to kill is to use the horrorific tragedies in Massachusetts and Virginia in an effort to silence one’s political opposition.”
All the rest say “killed an innocent human life” ,and I betcha if I emailed them, each and every one would answer that yes, they believed it was murder.
Bethany – that’s not a person on the list saying that abortion is murder.
It was just an account of one columnist saying the Catholic church was screwing up by doing so.
The guy’s point is that pro-lifers shouldn’t be blamed for inciting the clinic-bombers, etc, even if they do say “murder.
The guy himself evidently does see it as “taking human life,” but that’s not in doubt anyway.
I don’t know what they would say if they were e-mailed. Probably worth it to find out.
Doug