Animated pro-life conversation with abortion proponent Kat
Long-time friend of this blog, Lauren, has done something brilliant. She has animated an actual conversation pro-lifers had with pro-abort Kat on the “Stanek weekend question: Have you ever been pro-choice?” post. Brilliant because a cartoon puts the ridiculous conversation in much clearer perspective…
Actual excerpted comments:
Kat: If you are Prolife, fine, don’t have one but the lies and deceit used in your campaign against Women’s Rights are apalling. Everything from fake pictures, unproven medical studies to debunked franken science. Every single situation is different, you cannot judge what you personally are not involved in….
Kat: Samantha, Bethany is full of it. Her stock photos are from the internet and the first picture is a CHICKEN fetus, LOL PROLIFE FAIL with their lies….
Bethany: Kat, a little education for you. This is a chicken fetus:
This is a human embryo (an actual stock image):
Kat: Bethany, Well we’ve already established that you are a fake with your fake CHICKEN embryo picures…. An embryo, which 90% abortions consist of is not a “child”…. The Milachi baby used in many prolife sites and protest signs was a still born baby in a lab. It was originally in a jar of formaldehyde. They took the baby out, let it rot for a few days and took pictures of it. Prolife are disgusting like that….
Lauren: Kat… I know that you would like to think that abortion just “removes” a “clump of cells” but that isn’t the case. Go look at any biology text….
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.
I’ve been following that entire conversation closely. The lack of information and respect from the “pro-choice” side never ceases to baffle and dishearten me.
LOVE!! :)
Everything from fake pictures, unproven medical studies to debunked franken science.
Pro-abortion advocates always make this claim but can never prove it. I once had a debate with someone (on a Catholic forum) who insisted that a 9-week-old fetus was just a clump of cells and did not have a discernible head, arms, legs, or a heartbeat.
When I posted the 9w6d ultrasound image of my oldest daughter, his response was, “Obviously you were much further along that you thought you were.” My response to him was that (a) that’s patently ridiculous as her gestational age is clearly documented on the picture itself, and (b) I use NFP to chart my cycles and knew her exact date of conception, which the ultrasound confirmed. He was at a loss for words at that point and was clearly taken aback by his own ignorance of fetal development.
Too funny!
Animated Kat looks great, I must say. As does the animated Bethany.
The video Lauren made with Elsa was good too!
The Milachi baby used in many prolife sites and protest signs was a still born baby in a lab. It was originally in a jar of formaldehyde. They took the baby out, let it rot for a few days and took pictures of it. Prolife are disgusting like that…
I love how she makes this claim with absolutely no substantiation, as if Kat was there herself watching when the picture was taken. Amazing how she knows all of this stuff. It’s amazing how she “knows” my baby somehow magically was a chicken fetus too, then she just completely ignores the images of real chicken fetuses and keeps pretending she has confirmed that the pictures are fake. It was a really poor effort on her part. I think she may be a teenager, because she is extremely immature yet.
Isn’t it odd that most of these people will buy hook, line, and sinker that our ancestors were once pollywogs climbing out of the ooze, but won’t consider our true growth in our mothers’ wombs?
Hans, lol, that is so true.
Bethany – this was hinted at in the new york times story that came out last year.
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/10/breaking_news_n_4.html
Note, that the reporter is simply speculating that the one month decay process broke the baby, and that it wasn’t broken to begin with, but they don’t know for sure. This is probably where Kat got the information from.
The story of Malachi is found in Norma McCorvey’s book Won by Love.
And here http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/babymalachi.htm
Malachi was found in a jar of other aborted babies in an abortion mill. He was pieced back together by a doctor and photographed.
His short life still speaks.
By the way, Kat, the correct spelling is Malachi, not Milachi. Your credibility is pretty weak if you can’t even properly spell the name of that which you purport to debunk.
Thanks for posting, Jill. :) The conversation yesterday was just too ridiculous to pass up.
Kat – actually – from the moment of conception on – there is a child.
You can argue the semantics of personhood, but you can’t argue with the medical facts – two human beings produce a child – theirs.
Why don’t you spend some time at Endowment for Human Development – or are they all liars too?
http://www.ehd.org
His name is Malachi and this is what we know of his story.
Carla beat me to it! I volunteer with many who also found infant remains thrown outside an abortuary. They gave the children funerals after documenting their murders. I trust their accounts and the pictures more than anyone trying to tell me “they’re fake!” Kat’s repeated attempts to deny facing the truth right in front of her eyes suggests a desperate attempt to not deal with her own truth. Their is forgiveness, Kat. If you’ve lost a child to abortion, that child wants you to know forgiveness, too.
“are they all liars too?”
She told us yesterday that the site was pro-life propaganda full of “tons of inaccuracies”. When pressed, she couldn’t name one.
The chicken-embryo conversation still pales to “Science is not ultimate truth. That’s why it’s science.” at the personhood debate in Colorado.
“I know at least 50 women who have had abortions, they are wonderful Mothers”
Impossible. If you lock one of your kids in a closet and starve them to death while lavishing gifts on another and treating them like royalty, you’re still a horrible mother.
Which embryo is human?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html
Apparently this behavior is the norm for pro-abortionists. I commented on an article written by an abortionist that was full of lies about pro-lifers and our reasons for doing what we do. They picked apart my comment word for word and tried their hardest to discredit every word I said, and I had documented proof. They refused to accept any of it and tried repeatedly to discredit even the documents. They called me a liar, saying that my life story was made up. It was quiet a ridiculous exchange. They fight so hard against reality because if they admit it then they have to do something with that knowledge and that would require them to change and admit what they have done. My blog article for today is my comment to them and a link to the abortion doctor article if anyone wants to see it. You can get there by clicking on my name.
Oh yeah, we had the whole chicken embryo conversation too. It must be a staple. This one guy asked me if I thought an egg was a chicken. My response was something like this ” If you leave it alone and let it grow, the cells will divide and again and again, then it will grow feathers and legs and a beak and eyeballs and if you bite that egg you are going to bite a chicken. It never changed what it was, it just matured.
Doug, is being human about what you look like on the outside? I know of born people who might not necessarily look like your average person. Does that make them non-human?
What exactly do you think that link proves? If those embryos are all left to live, it will quickly become apparent which one is human. None of the embryos belonging to animals has the ability to grow and develop as a human being with reasoning, intellect, conscience, etc. There is more to being human than what we look like on the outside.
An unfertilized egg isn’t a chicken. It must be fertilized. Then it’s a chicken.
Eggs or sperm alone are not human beings. A united egg and sperm at amphimixis do, however, create a new, unique human life.
This is factual, scientific information. It’s not religious. I don’t understand what’s so difficult about this.
Which embryo is human?
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html
You’ve heard of DNA, right?
Also, Doug – Kat made the claim that the picture of the human fetus was a chicken. When presented w/ a picture of a chicken fetus, she ignored the evidence. Who cares that early embryos look similar? One is still a chicken and one is still a human and to call the chicken a human or vice versa would be incorrect. Kat was incorrect, but she refuses to admit it.
I always say – if the pictures are fake, pro-choicers could certainly rebut w/ their own “accurate” pictures of what a “real” human fetus looks like as it develops.
I was holding my breath a couple years ago to see the “authentic” abortion pictures furnished by the abortion fans themselves. Still waiting…
Also, Doug, the picture that Bethany originally showed (of her baby, Blessing) was around 6 weeks post conception. At that point, it is very clearly human.
Kat said that the picture was a chicken fetus, so Bethany found that great picture of chicken development and also posted another picture of a human fetus.
Kat again claimed that Bethany was “Lying! OMG! LOL! ” despite seeing very clear photographic evidence to the contrary. When asked what possible motivation Bethany might have for this deception, Kat refused to respond.
When Kat was given a link to the specifically non-political EHD, she claimed that the site was “biased and inaccurate.” Again, she never gave any proof for these claims.
In the end, she behaved just like the “Kat” in the movie. She ran away.
Kel, “An unfertilized egg isn’t a chicken. It must be fertilized. Then it’s a chicken.”
I am aware of that and we spoke about that fact in our conversation. I made a point of saying, “if the egg was fertilized” . It was still a strange conversation as he was equating a chicken egg with a human embryo as if they are the same.
Doug, is being human about what you look like on the outside? I know of born people who might not necessarily look like your average person. Does that make them non-human?
Bethany, no, outward looks are of course not the deal, although I do know some people who look exactly like chickens.
I do think the chicken fetus looks different, and that it’s distinguishable from a human one, especially as time goes on. With the embryos, it’s harder to tell them apart, and I think many people wouldn’t be able to differentiate between them. I just think the comparison is interesting – wasn’t commenting on the abortion debate with it – it’s just the similarity between vertebrate embryos that caught my eye, originally.
Kel – indeed, DNA is the real deal.
CT and Lauren, okay – sounds like Kat was wrong.
P.S. Just kidding about the “chicken people.”
P.s. Just kidding about the chicken people.
LOL
Doug, since you’re here, there is an article I wanted to show you a while back but never had a chance to do it before…so here it is…it really has nothing to do with this topic but I didn’t know where else to post it. Let me know your thoughts. There is still SO much we humans do not understand about how the brain works.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/chase-britton-boy-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors/
P.S. Just kidding about the “chicken people.”
Well, you’re lucky, because I was about to demand photographic evidence of such a bold claim. :P
Bethany, some of the comments in that article are simply astounding. God help us all.
every pregnant mother who has other children should get the book Angel in the Waters. Its a good book to explain fetal growth and development.
Also,when embryoscopy has been done, it clearly shows a tiny human in the videos.
Fetal Development should be apart of ALL health classes by the 5th grade. There’s nothing religious about it. Its PURE science!
Hans: those same people also believe humans are related to Apes!
Doug, embryology is interesting, to be sure. And, to date, what’s more pertinent to the humanity of the human embryo is that only human embryos grow inside women and are aborted.
In other words, what’s the point of comparing human embryos to chicken embryos? We’re discussing the rights of human beings, not chickens.
Part of what made me reflect about my need to move from a prochoice to prolife position is that as a prochoicer I always had to think about, ‘ok, when does this become murder, how early or late can the abortion happen before we bring about the murder of another human being’? I think there’s something really wrong with that starting point.
I was once a zygote, and an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, etc.
How can I deny they are human when I was also in that stage? It’s more compelling, peaceful, and joyful to love human beings at every stage of development than try to stop loving some groups of humans.
MaryAnn, I think that the point of the comparison is to try to make us say that there is no difference. You throw eggs away so why not a human embryo? It is meant to de-humanize the human and rob it of it’s value.
I know someone who just did an embryo adoption (for those who may not know, this is a relatively new, somewhat controversial, pro-life movement where previously harvested embryos are adopted so that they will not be destroyed. BTW, Georgia was the first state in the nation to make embryo adoption an official adoption). I saw the pics of the tiny embryos just before they were inserted. Amazing! She is now six months pregnant with a baby girl. That baby girl is the same “person” that is was when it was still an embryo. It had the same DNA, the same everything. All it had to do was mature. The baby is named, has a nursery, and parents that cannot wait for her to arrive. It is ridiculous for pro-abortionists to say that it is not valuable. In Georgia even the law says they are valuable enough to legally be adopted, complete with an adoption decree.
My kids raised a chicken this past winter named Lady Gaga, I kid you not.
We managed to hatch ten eggs. Sorry to report that none of them resembled us.
The embryology textbooks used by mainstream high schools and colleges deal with the clinical implications of the embryo. They don’t get into the question of whether the fetus is a person which is worthy of legal protections. Are you folks lobbying to change textbooks to reflect the “personhood” of a fetus so that med students who are learning how to perform an abortion will realize the error of their ways?
CC,
“The embryology textbooks used by mainstream high schools and colleges deal with the clinical implications of the embryo.”
We’re talking about teh fact that many pro-choicers, like Kat, don’t even recognize what you just mentioned above; namely, that the embryo is biologically human being. This doesn’t even touch on the question of personhood yet. We’re just trying to get certain pro-choicers past biology 101, which is a necessary condition for even beginning the conversation about personhood.
What are you talking about, CC?
This video is about someone who is so ignorant about human development that she believes that abortion just removes a “clump of cells.” No doctor is that misinformed. Biology teaches us that a new, unique human life is formed at conception. Any doctor who has this information, yet decides to kill that human life, needs a lot more than a text book.
That’s exactly what I said to Kat over on the other thread Bethany, that from her post she sounds really young.
Deanna, I have a friend that did an EA, too. She posts pictures of the baby on her blog. The baby is due in August. They’ve decided against knowing the sex before he/she’s born, but the pics she posted (4-D ultrasound) are so cute! :)
Why do you guys continually delete comments that disagree with you?
You really are all so deluded that it’s pointless to argue. All of your “facts” and “science” come from clearly biased sources – try letting in a different viewpoint or perspective and then see how the argument goes.
Derrr, what post was deleted? Do you not see how many posts are here, which are clearly in disagreement with the pro-life view? If we deleted things solely on disagreement, you wouldn’t see all of those. Sorry to burst your bubble. Try again.
Ok, derrr. Prove me wrong.
Please show me a picture of a 5 week old embryo from a medical site.
Liz – You think fetal development should be taught in schools in the fifth grade but you guys are against sex education that young and at all for some anti-choicers? Isn’t that putting the horse before the cart?
This cartoon is lame! It looks and sounds like it took about 20 seconds to make and eat a sandwich… It doesn’t even make sense.
I cannot believe that in this day and age of ipods and gene codes there are still people in this country who deny evolution… Wow. Doug shows you pics of all those different embryos and you still can’t believe we have a common ancestor? read a book that was written in this century…. It has been proven that all life on this planet, ALL LIFE has the same genes in our individual DNA. Heck a man is just a mutated woman biologically speaking. That’s why we have nipples guys… A chicken embryo has all the necessary genes to make a human baby. It is the activation of certain genes at certain times that make it a chicken embryo.
You guys need to understand that biology isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be. You should also realize that if doctors stayed with only the biology that you guys use we would not have half the medicines we have now and many more people would be dead. God does not heal people. Jesus does not heal people. Allah does not heal people. Yahweh does not heal people. People heal people. Science heals people.
Derr – My posts get deleted all the time…..
Derr,
I suggest you go to the post about conversions and read about how many of us had the different viewpoint and different perspective called PROCHOICE and now we are prolife!
Amazing right?
Liars, deluded, stupid………the name calling begins when you can’t counter the message. Must be rule number 1 in the rule book! :)
Wow. Doug shows you pics of all those different embryos and you still can’t believe we have a common ancestor?
I think the similarities come from the fact that we are all designed by one intelligent creator. The similarities are His fingerprint on creation.
Biggz, if your comments ever got deleted, you clearly broke the blog rules. Not because you simply disagreed. Good try, though.
Biggz, you’re as delusional as poor Kat.
I just checked Biggz. Last time a post of yours was deleted was on April 6th.
You were saying?
Derrr, can you give an example of facts that have come from biased sources?
This seems to be a common tactic among those who are pro-abortion — throw out accusations without any demonstrable evidence to support your assertions. If you are going to accuse, at least have the courtesy to say, “For example, X posted Y on date/time, and this data is clearly inaccurate/biased because of Z.”
Really, is that too much to ask?
Bethany, Kat is immature? Well she is clearly not human then! Being mature = personhood as we all know. Thank you abortion advocates for teaching us that valuable lesson.
Biggz… you’re right. The video made no sense. But that is really what one of your co-conspirators said on a thread here at Jill’s. NOTHING SHE SAID MADE SENSE. You got it!
Lauren. You did a great job. I love these types of videos because the detached British accent makes it all the more crazy!
Let’s think about this logically for a second. If we were really in the business of deleting posts because they had things in them that we thought were a threat to the pro-life cause, why would we leave up posts that claim that we take down posts as evidence that we are taking down posts? We would be deleting them as well. So there is no conspiracy to silence you, Biggz. Quite honestly, if I was going to try and silence anyone, it would be Doug. He has been posting here for years, and I am quit certain that he has never once had a post of his deleted.
“Let’s think about this logically for a second.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Bobby. These are pro-choicers we’re talking about.
@Derr ,Bigzz you and Doug. and anyone else can chime in too. It’s time to fess up! I have been around for a long time and a pro-life activist for a long time. I have repeatedly gotten into conversations with pro-abortionists, the latest just today, about fetal development and abortion techniques. There is a definite pattern. It goes something like this: Anytime a pro-lifer comes around talking that pro-life stuff follow these steps:
1) Whatever they say immediately ask for documentation
2) Question the validity of such documentation for trivial reasons
3) When they produce new documentation question it and try to invalidate it
4) Repeat steps 1-3 until well into the night.
5) When they catch onto your game change tactics and attack their religion
6) Do step 4 until they loose said religion out of anger at your ridiculous accusations
7) When they refuse to argue that point anymore attack their character calling them a liar and a fraud
8) Repeat step 7 with absolutely no foundation whatsoever until you bore of it
9) Mix in random accusations and arguments about fake photos, chicken embryos, Christians having abortions, pro-lifers wanting to take over wombs and control women. etc
10) Repeat steps 1-9 knowing full well that it’s a load of hooey but it must be done to discredit them because they are a threat to our lifestyles, and our “choices”
11) Spread the word to all the other pro-aborts around. It will take an army to overcome them and their “babies deserve to live talk”
Ok so seriously, do you guys have some sort of underground school that teaches you how to ignore reason and just talk the same old pro-choice ya ya over and over? I mean it’s just weird that you guys all say the same things.
Yes, Deanna, you hit the nail on the head. I would only add the introduction of a red herring (war in Iraq, born children starving/in poverty/abused, etc.) to be inserted in the phrase What are you doing about X, Y, Z? And, of course, the illogic of, “Are you going to adopt every baby these women want to abort?” Maybe they are sub-categories of the above, or for use in drive-by scenarios.
a dog’s dna can’t make a cat, a cat’s dna can’t make a whale and a dolphin’s dna can’t make a human. Try again, Biggz. My ancestors weren’t bits of ooze, they were human.
I said every health class. If a class is going to teach “Safe sex” and condoms then why can’t they also talk about development of a baby before birth? BTW, Babies don’t magically become babies when born (what about babies born via c-section? they aren’t able to go through the magical birth canal to go from “clumps of cells” to a newborn!)
@Klynn73, yeah, I was told yesterday that we only wanted to save babies so that we could grow them up and send them to war.
and Why wasn’t I adopting all those kids. When I said I had adopted four of them they started attacking my Christianity.
And that I had no medical degree therefore anything I said was invalid.
That the fact that I am an abortion survivor was a lie. Even after I pointed out my mother’s testimony.
One even had the nerve to ask me why I was on the internet and not taking care of my kids. What? You kill your kids and your going to tell me how to parent? No thanks!
It just went on and on and on. It seriously sounds like they take classes. This happened twice in the last three days on two different blogs with them using the same exact wording. Do they have some sort of manual?
@ Liz(what about babies born via c-section? they aren’t able to go through the magical birth canal to go from “clumps of cells” to a newborn!)
Good point Liz. it must be the air that does it. It’s magic I guess. When they hit the air they are suddenly changed like a butterfly from a fetus to a human or a fetus to a baby or a fetus to a person. I don’t know, there are so many things it can change into, how do we know what to call it?
There certainly are visual similarities between a chicken embryo and a human embryo. I think Kat is unintentionally getting at something that intuitively comes to the normal observer when looking at a picture of a human embryo or fetus: namely, that there are important qualitative differences between the “unborn” and the “born” that cannot be reckoned in terms of genetic content. Being biologically “human” is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a “person” as understood in virtually all societies, past or present. There is, in my opinion, something defective and reductionist about an ideology that would claim that human value is exclusively the function of human DNA, because it necessarily ignores other candidates for that criteria by reducing human worth to the lowest common denominator possible.
On an unrelated note, I hasten to point out that producing cartoons in order to mock someone is not an effective way to make friends or influence people.
The real question we should be asking: “Which comes first, the chicken embryo or the human embryo?”
LOL, thats great Lauren…
“Isn’t it odd that most of these people will buy hook, line, and sinker that our ancestors were once pollywogs climbing out of the ooze, but won’t consider our true growth in our mothers’ wombs?”
from Hans, should be QoTD..
joan said
The defectiveness of “All men created equal”?
“Reducing human worth to the lowest common denominator possible” – as in “it’s just a bunch of cells…”?
So how many slaves do you plan to own joan?
Or do you want to go the full SS route?
Go look up the word “intrinsic” joan – it might do you some good.
By the way – you’re mischaracterizing the argument we actually make regarding human worth, making your own straw-man. We don’t reduce human worth to only flesh and blood, but without life in that flesh in blood – you’re not a living human being.
On an unrelated note, I hasten to point out that producing cartoons in order to mock someone is not an effective way to make friends or influence people.
Interesting, Joan, on two points. (1) I find it surprising that you don’t see a difference between “mocking” and “illustrating absurdity.” (2) What have YOU done on this site to “make friends and influence people”? 9 times out of 10 your comments here are intended to mock the views of pro-lifers. As I told Biggz earlier, there’s a proverb about glass houses…
Lauren,
Animate Joan!! Animate Joan next!!
I second Carla’s comment! :)
@ JOAN, “Being biologically “human” is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a “person” as understood in virtually all societies, past or present.”
That doesn’t make any sense. The “being biologically human” is what makes it a person. I don’t know any people that are not biologically human. do you? If it is living and it has the DNA of a human and all it has to do is be left alone so that it can grow it’s arms and legs etc, then it is a person. The true question is not and never has been “Is it a person?” The true question is and always has been “Is it wanted?” If a baby is wanted, even as an embryo it is extremely valuable (even adoptable). When a woman who wants a baby finds out she is pregnant it immediately becomes a person. They tell everyone,”I’m going to have a baby”, they paint the nursery, buy a bed, etc. They do not say, nor does it ever cross their minds, “I have an embryo in me that someday will be a person” No, it is immediately given person hood. But, if the baby is unwanted then the tale is different, then it’s just a blob of tissue or products of conception or just a “pregnancy”. Personhood is not arbitrary. It does not happen just because someone deems it so.. or doesn’t happen just because someone doesn’t want to admit it. Personhood is a state of being as a result of being human. As I said there are no persons that are not human so therefore there are no humans that are not persons.
“That doesn’t make any sense. The “being biologically human” is what makes it a person. I don’t know any people that are not biologically human.”
Of course not. That’s the whole point of a necessary but insufficient condition. All people are biologically human, but not all things that, in the strictest of scientific terms are biologically human, are people.
“As I said there are no persons that are not human so therefore there are no humans that are not persons.”
This is a logical fallacy. If all people are human, it does not necessarily follow that all humans are people.
Joan, all dogs are canine…therefore all canines are dogs. Do you agree?
Can you please define “person”?
Joan have you looked up the words “human” and “people” in any dictionary lately? If not, I did it for you:
Oxford Online Dictionary “human”: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1256192#m_en_us1256192
The Oxford Online Dictionary defines “people” as a group of humans or “person” as an individual human…or when you’re talking about trials, “The state prosecution in a trial” Either way, they’re all humans: http://oxforddictionaries.com/search?searchType=dictionary&isWritersAndEditors=true&searchUri=All&q=people&contentVersion=US
Joan,
And this is what the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says:
“Human”: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human
“People”: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people
Basically both definitions say humans being the homosapiens and that people are a group of humans or persons
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of “person”: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
Oxford Online Dictionary definition of “person”: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1277141#m_en_us1277141
Bethany says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:39 am
Joan, all dogs are canine…therefore all canines are dogs. Do you agree?
Can you please define “person”?
Bethany,
I just posted links to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and the Oxford Online Dictionary of the definitions of “human”, “people” and “person”. Joan’s “logic” in light of the definitions doesn’t make sense, therefore, she must have a different definition.
Ok Joan I have a question. If what is in the womb is not a person then what is it? and at what point does it become a person?
Joan and CC,
I think I’m gonna save this response on my computer somewhere so I can keep using it every time u both keep using the “a fetus is not a person” argument. This is the second time in the past few days that u have argued this. I RESPONDED THE LAST TIME AND U DID NOT ADDRESS IT (suprise suprise), so I will repeat what I said a few days ago:
Person is NOT A MEDICAL TERM. It is a LEGAL term. AT ONE POINT BLACK HUMAN BEINGS WERE NOT PEOPLE BECAUSE THE LAW SAID SO. They had no rights even though no one denied that they were living human beings. THey had no rights because pro-choice people (pro-choice about slavery) changed the law to say that black human beings were not people.
As I said a few days ago A BUILDING CAN BE TERMED A PERSON UNDER OUR LAW. So your argument that an unborn baby is a human being but not a person is a non point to say the least. What is your response? Will u just keep bringing up that an unborn baby is not a person over and over again as if u were never corrected?
Joan, what must happen, in your eyes, in order for a human being to be considered a “person”?
@kris, you are exactly right. In georgia and embryo is a person defined by the law that can be adopted with a legal adopted decree. So if it is a person for that purpose then it is a person for all purposes.
Another question for the pro-choicers:
It is easy to talk about an unborn person in terms of personhood and lack thereof or humanness, etc. The reason that this is easy is because somehow in your minds because you can’t see the “fetus” it is less than real. It’s a now you see it now you don’t thing.
Close your eyes for a moment (really, close them) and imagine that you are walking downtown to shop and you accidentally walk through the wrong door. You enter the building and you are horrified to see hundreds of dead babies strewn about all over the floor, little tiny ones, big 26 week ones, mid size ones, decapitated ones, down syndrome ones, some are intact, most have been dismembered, some have been burnt, two thirds of them are black, some are Hispanic, some Caucasian, a small portion are other races. As you are looking over these hundreds of babies lying on the floor you try to wrap your mind around what is happening, a sound awakens you out of your confused thoughts. You look around to see where the sound is coming from and a man is in the back of the room chopping some live babies up and putting them down a garbage disposal, he stabs one in the back of the head with scissors, the smaller ones he is crushing and then piecing them back together like a puzzle and then placing them in small jars. You scream at the sight of what he is doing and try to get out of the room but you are trapped having to watch that day after day and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it because as you find out later, it is legal.
Did you close your eyes and imagine that? Sound like a nightmare? Well it isn’t! It is for real, only instead of a hundred of them there are 53 million. The difference in pro-lifers and pro-abortionists is that we can see them and you can’t. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t real and they aren’t there. And you guys can’t figure out why we are so passionate about the subject! What if you went into that room and some person was standing there telling you that it was ok that these babies died because they were not persons yet? And besides the mothers gave this guy in the back that was butchering them permission to do it. Or they started yacking about chicken eggs being the same thing. Or demanded that you prove by science that they mattered. You would think they had lost their minds. This exact thing happens everyday it just happens in back rooms instead of out front where you can see. You guys should think about the REALITY of what it is you advocate for. I dare you to sit down and have a daydream about it.
“Joan, all dogs are canine…therefore all canines are dogs. Do you agree?”
“Canine” is a term used to describe animals belonging to the genus that includes dogs, wolves, jackals, and coyotes. So, no.
“Can you please define “person”?”
There is no easy or exact definition, which is my entire point. The “pro-life” position, however, ignores a number of sensible requirements for being a “person” and reduces it to a meaning that is so broad as to be useless.
“Joan have you looked up the words “human” and “people” in any dictionary lately? If not, I did it for you:”
A philosophical discussion has little use for dictionary definitions of words. You’re going to need to bring more to the table than that.
There is no easy or exact definition, which is my entire point.
Interesting, Joan. So how does one determine who is and who is not a person? What is the criteria? Who has the authority to make that determination? Is personhood subjective or objective?
Could I decide that you were not a person? If I did so, would I then have the right to kill you based on my own determination of your status as a person?
I encourage you to read this blog post, which delves into the subject further.
“The “pro-life” position, however, ignores a number of sensible requirements for being a “person” and reduces it to a meaning that is so broad as to be useless.”
So Joan, what are a few sensible requirements that make a human being a human person? I assume by requirements, you mean necessary conditions. So what would you say are some necessary conditions (or just 1 condition is fine) for a human being to be a human person?
And if fact, it is not too broad as to be useless. On the contrary, it makes no distinction between human beings and human persons. All human beings are persons. Thus I cannot see how this definition is useless, as it affords all human beings a right to life.
“reduces it to a meaning that is so broad as to be useless.”
How so?
Kris Miller: Person is NOT A MEDICAL TERM. It is a LEGAL term. AT ONE POINT BLACK HUMAN BEINGS WERE NOT PEOPLE BECAUSE THE LAW SAID SO. They had no rights even though no one denied that they were living human beings. THey had no rights because pro-choice people (pro-choice about slavery) changed the law to say that black human beings were not people.
True, a legal term, and it’s the legal sense of meaning that applies in the abortion debate. It wasn’t that the law was “changed to say that blacks were not people,” it was that they weren’t treated as people all along, slavery having been in place in the Colonies before the founding of the US, other than and including the relatively odd “3/5 person” for the purposes of the Census.
As I said a few days ago A BUILDING CAN BE TERMED A PERSON UNDER OUR LAW. So your argument that an unborn baby is a human being but not a person is a non point to say the least. What is your response? Will u just keep bringing up that an unborn baby is not a person over and over again as if u were never corrected?
Usually it’s a corporation that is said to be a “person” that way, in that it’s a legal entity that can be sued, give employment to others, buy and sell property, etc. Sounds kind of funny, huh? It was an odd chain of events that led to that being established as a legal precedent. But what does this have to do with the abortion argument?
It’s a fact that we don’t attribute full rights and personhood before birth. That is what you’d like to be changed. It’s hardly a “non-point.”
Joan.
http://goanimate.com/movie/0JunWbG6utdc?utm_source=linkshare&uid=0SNUBjQYPq_Y
Lauren, you should create a website for all of these videos, to point out the different types of illogical pro-abortion arguments for others to see.
“Interesting, Joan. So how does one determine who is and who is not a person? What is the criteria? Who has the authority to make that determination? Is personhood subjective or objective?”
Whatever the criteria, it should ideally be so self-evident as to be objective.
“So Joan, what are a few sensible requirements that make a human being a human person? I assume by requirements, you mean necessary conditions. So what would you say are some necessary conditions (or just 1 condition is fine) for a human being to be a human person?”
I think biological autonomy would be the most logical place to start, though the exact requirement or requirements are not really crucial to my argument.
“How so?”
What’s the point of even having some conception of “personhood” if it’s indistinct from humanity, defined in the absolute loosest of terms possible? Is the value and definition of a person exclusively dependent on their DNA? And in practice, do we value others solely for their genetic properties or is there something else? Without being able to pinpoint exactly what that “else” is, I submit that there is.
Whatever the criteria, it should ideally be so self-evident as to be objective.
Such as? If biological autonomy (by which I assume you mean viability) is a logical place to start, are you then opposed to all abortion after 21 weeks?
If by biological autonomy you mean ability to live independently out of the mother’s womb, it would mean that any infant that needs medical assistance to live is not a person. Is that your assertion? My new nephew was born 3 weeks early, so technically full-term, but was in the NICU for 10 days as he required oxygen and a CPAP to help with respiratory issues. Do you think he was not a person for the 10 days he was in the NICU, since he needed respiratory assistance to survive outside of his mother’s womb?
” Is the value and definition of a person exclusively dependent on their DNA?”
Yes. The “else” that you can’t grasp is the simple fact that they are a member of the human species. Humans as a species are exceptional and thus all individual human beings are exceptional by the nature of being human.
You’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better than some vague notion of “something that I can’t describe, but I swear totally exists!” You’re saying that humans that lack this “else” should be killed. Back it up.
Yes. The “else” that you can’t grasp is the simple fact that they are a member of the human species. Humans as a species are exceptional and thus all individual human beings are exceptional by the nature of being human.
You’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better than some vague notion of “something that I can’t describe, but I swear totally exists!” You’re saying that humans that lack this “else” should be killed. Back it up.
*like*
I’d be more than happy to shelve the “person” debate until after all the abortion fans get on board with the facts of life.
The zygote, embryo, and fetus are all the same thing, described at different stages of development. Each stage/name of the entity satisfies the scientific definition of what is alive. Biology textbooks all concur. The facts of the human lifecycle are this: we don’t pop out of pods, we don’t hatch from eggs. We are placental mammals. Come on, abortion fans, man-up or woman-up and admit that abortion kills a unique human creature. Now, say it or type it.
After that, you can argue about killing a person.
“Whatever the criteria, it should ideally be so self-evident as to be objective.”
Yes, a human being. The organism that is the result of proper fertilization is a human person. I submit that this is much more simple, objective, and self-evident than any personhood theory concerning desires, consciousness, sentience, etc.
“I think biological autonomy would be the most logical place to start”
What is meant by “biological autonomy”? We value each other because we have biological autonomy? I can’t kill you because you’re biologically autonomous, but I can kill Joe Schmo who is not biologically autonomous?
“What’s the point of even having some conception of “personhood” if it’s indistinct from humanity, defined in the absolute loosest of terms possible?”
YES! NONE. Other than the fact that we may want to include things like intelligent aliens, angels, demons, God, etc. in teh category of persons, there is no reason to make the distinction between human being and human persons. The reason such a distinction “needed” to be made as far as humanity goes is precisely so that we can kill some humans and not others by claiming that tehy are only biologically human, but not worthy of life.
“Is the value and definition of a person exclusively dependent on their DNA? do we value others solely for their genetic properties or is there something else?”
No, it is defined in terms of the kind of thing they are which is a rational animal. Ultimately this is a metaphysical understanding. They are valuable because they have the a priroi potential for rational and moral thought. It is not in the genetics; rather, it is in their essence or nature. I would suggest that their nature is teh “else” that you seek.
What’s the point of even having some conception of “personhood” if it’s indistinct from humanity, defined in the absolute loosest of terms possible?
BINGO!! You finally got it joan! Societies have defined human beings as “not persons” whenever they want to treat them in a way not fitting for human beings. So they make an artifical distinction between “human being” and “person” so they can beat, starve abuse or kill actual human beings while hiding from themselves the fact that they are doing so.
Let’s see if you can name me one society that has made a distinction between “human being” and “human person” for any reason OTHER than the above. I bet you anything you won’t be able to do it.
By the way, if the unborn aren’t persons, can you tell me why the state of California charged and convicted Scott Peterson on TWO counts of murder – one for his wife Laci and one for their unborn son Connor? Seems to me like the law regarded Connor as a person and the jury felt the same. And other states have similar laws. And yet abortion is legal in CA. How can an unborn child be a person if the father wants to kill it, but not if the mother wants to kill it? Answer: “Person” in this artificial sense is not a real concept – just an excuse for treating humans as no-humans when we feel like it.
“What’s the point of even having some conception of “personhood” if it’s indistinct from humanity”
As Doug mentioned, corporations and other entities are treated as “persons” under some of our laws. However, beyond these legal fictions that expand the concept of personhood to be more inclusive as needed, I don’t think there is a point or purpose to having a concept of personhood that is distinct from ones humanity and used in a way to exclude certain human beings from the concept. Certainly whenever such a divorced concept has been employed to date it has been to further the purposes of great evil, oppression, and genocide. What good could ever come from such a distinction.
To that end, since you said that humanity is necessary but not sufficient, I wonder if you can point to any other “thing” that is human but not a person besides the fetus.
Because to be honest this all just seems like a lot of tortured run around logic to deny the fetus’s human rights by exclusive virtue of it being a a human in the early stages of development.
Oops – Bobby beat me to it. :-)
Bobby — you are the man!
You put it so succintky and clearly I don’t think even
joan can fail to get it.
There has indeed long been a distinction between “person” and “being”. A being has life, but only rational beings are “persons”. All human beings have rational natures, so they are by definition persons – even when they do not yet have the capacity to reason.
Unborn children were never denied their personhood by thinking people until abortion came along, then it became convenient to do so.
Wow, I’m flattered Lori. That means a lot, especially coming from you.
Really though, it’s just a function of all the Ed Feser I’ve been reading recently…
Me? I spell “succintly” as “succintky” (see above). I’m no one of importance!
A philosophical discussion has little use for dictionary definitions of words. You’re going to need to bring more to the table than that.
Joan,
Based on what I’ve seen here, those definitions from those two dictionaries are, at least in part, what many pro-lifers are using to define “human”, “person” and “people” and to help form their philosophy on those words. I guess you didn’t even read the definitions, if you had, you would’ve figured that part out.
Deanna – You really have no understanding of how DNA and genes work do you? It is entirely possible to take DNA from a chicken and a horse and engineer them into a human embryo. Like I said every living thing on this planet is made from the very same DNA components. It is which genes become active and at what stage of development as well as how long they become active that determines what form that embryo will take. Your understanding of biology seems to stop at conception just like most Anti-choicers.
How can life and conception be sacred when we can make designer children in a lab now? If you want a baby boy who is blue eyed and blond haired all you have to do is ask. Better yet you can get them without any congenital birth defects or even allergies…
Life is not an individual thing. You cannot look at a puppy and say that’s life, no that is a puppy. You cannot look at a rain forest and say that life, nope it’s still a rain forest. Life is what we are all a part of because it is a system. To be alive is to be a part of that system but no one part of that system is any more important than any other part. My daughter life is no more important than my dog’s life to the system of life, however to me personally there is a huge difference. It is the inability to look past your own feelings about life that prevents you from seeming the forest through the trees.
Biggz, wow, where are all of these people created with horse and chicken DNA? LOL
Or wait…on second thought, maybe that’s how pro-abortionists are created! That would explain the lack of ability to reason.
Lauren, really…this has to go into one of your videos. lol I mean, just when I thought I’d heard it all.
Biggz- why, in your own personal sphere is your daughter’s life more important to you that of your dog? I’m asking since in your own definition – all life is equal and the dog and human life and plant life are all equal. Not trying to be snarky – just trying to understand the rational.
And if your daughter is more important because of a reason, why are not human children – all human children more important than abortion (a thing)? Just looking for consistency here. Thanks.
oh – and regarding DNA – just because we /life/etc are made of base components of matter that is in common does not reduce us to commonality of species/ etc. We are similar in base-material make-up. However that does not make us the same – either functionally, pragmatically or species-wise.
And thank you for making the argument regarding the sacredness of life: that some people choosing different characteristics to create designer babies cheapens and denigrates the sacredness of life. That manipulation certainly denies the intrinsic value of human life, the innate dignity with which every human needs to be dealt with.
So if thats possible Biggz then why don’t infertile couples just harvest horse ova and chicken sperm and create their precious babies? Why do they PAY college girls for their eggs and pre-med students for their sperm?
You are right that all DNA has same basic building blocks. A,G,C,T and these are arranged in long lines of code. But the code that makes us human is not the same that makes a cow or a pig or a donkey. We share very similar genetic information with animals but yet our human DNA is different. In fact most humans on the earth have almost exactly the same DNA! Its just those few strands that are coded differently that produces one person with dark, ebony skin and another with skin as white as can be and flaming red hair. All the awesome, different human traits are caused by just a few genetic variations. But to say that cow DNA= human…
And pro-aborts accuse US of not understanding science? I will readily admit Gerard can swim circles around me in intellect but I understand the basics. Biggz here seems a little confused.
and missing the point for the forest and the trees. How about humans and the trees? Humans and all life on earth? How about the humans, period. Missing the forest for the trees, indeed.
Can I ask how many actual philosophy courses have you actually taken? Just wondering.
Oh shoot. I stand corrected. I never thought this would happen, but I am going to have to concede that Biggz is right. I am sorry Biggz…I owe you a HUGE apology.
I googled engineering horse and chicken DNA into humans and found this….
Biggz is confused. Horse and chicken DNA can’t be used to create a human. Human DNA is 100% DIFFERENT BIOLOGICALLY and NOT the same as ANIMALS!
I took a class called Child Development in High school. I learned about the differences between identical twins and fraternal twins among other things.
Thanks a lot Bethany. I just did my makeup and now I’m crying!!!
I don’t see how this argument that all life is equal justifies abortion, without justifying murder altogether,if anything this belief conflicts with abortion. If all life is equal and part of a system as Biggz would say, that would mean no life is more special than another, so how can the unborn be considered less valuable than the born? If you are going to compare the unborn to any other kind of life you would also have to consider born humans in this regard. If abortion is okay by this reason then logically it would be okay to kill those who are born too, if all life is equal.
My daughter life is no more important than my dog’s life to the system of life, however to me personally there is a huge difference.
Biggz, why does it matter how important things are relative to the system of life?
Are you saying your daugther’s life is only important because you care about her?
Praxedes, sorry about that. :D lol
Bethany, I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time! I was gasping for breath. But I shouldn’t be laughing. It was very “biggz” of you to admit you were wrong!
People often make jokes about things they don’t understand…
You are missing the point, my daughter’s life is important to me and my feelings. However what I feel is important is just that my personal feelings. What you are lacking here is the ability to step outside the world of your own personal feelings about life and look at life as a whole.
As for DNA yes it is possible to make human DNA from any other type of DNA with gene manipulation. No there is not anyone pursuing this line of science but it is possible. Horse DNA has all the components necessary to create human DNA. You need to read up on the latest findings from the Human Genome Project. It has now gone far beyond just human DNA and in fact they have found the very first type living organism that every bit of life on this planet came from and it is still living today. They just recently discovered how closely related we all really are.
You see there is a big difference between what matters to me personally and what matters to the rest of the world and indeed the universe. My daughter’s existence means very little to the rest of the world no matter how dearly I hold on to her myself. It’s about the big picture that you can’t see while you are wrapped up in your own personal feelings and prejudges.
I am not making the case that designer babies detract from the sanity of life. I am making the assertion that there was nothing sacred about life in the first place. It has always just simply been a system that we do not fully understand yet. I don’t think lack of understanding equates sacredness.
You guys should watch the two part documentary on the BBC “The Gene Code”
Biggz, a challenge for you: You take some horse DNA, with all of the biological information that you have, and you convert it into a human embryo.
Or for goodness sakes, find a scientist anywhere in the world who has successfully done this. If you can’t do this, all you have is a bunch of hooey.
People often make jokes about things they don’t understand…
They also make jokes about things that are completely ridiculous and hilarious.
“People often make jokes about things they don’t understand…”
Biggz,
If you are willing to carefully hash out Kat’s argument, then I am happy to entertain it. But honestly, it is fine if there are some pro-choicers who are completely clueless about what teh issue is about, just like there are some pro-lifers who are clueless about what the issue is about. All pro-choicers do not need to be 100% correct about every argument they make in order for teh pro-choice position to be correct, so I have no idea why you feel the need to try and defend these things that shouldn’t even qualify as arguments.
You are missing the point, my daughter’s life is important to me and my feelings. However what I feel is important is just that my personal feelings. What you are lacking here is the ability to step outside the world of your own personal feelings about life and look at life as a whole.
Well Biggz, I think I got the point but it seems like you are in the same “world of personal feelings” when it comes to your daugther as pro-lifers are to the unborn in general. I mean you care about her a lot so to you it doesn’t matter how important she is in the “system of life”, as you call it, because she is important to you. Right? Even if you do think humans are just as important as dogs, you don’t treat your daughter that way, so why treat unborn children that way?
Well pro-lifers have the same personal feelings to the unborn, we care about these children and we think they should have a right to life. Not to mention, the unborn feel their lives are important.
Seems like THAT is the big picture, the unborn have value because they value their own lives and other people value them, the same way you care about your daughter.
Biggz: “However what I feel is important is just that my personal feelings.”
Who cares about your feelings? I don’t see how that is at all relevant to whether killing a human child out of neglect is moral.
By the way, Biggz, you could make anything out of almost anything else if you had the ability to move around all of the protons and electrons and such. Your point? We’re all connected to each other? Fair enough. Why is this relevant? I may have missed it somewhere in your deluge of words. I read most of them, but couldn’t make sense out of it.
My daughter life is no more important than my dog’s life
Biggz,
I hope that one day you look back on these words and realize what you’ve said.
And I pray your daughter never has to see nor hear them.
MaryRose, don’t you think it would be charming and heartwarming for him to put it on her next birthday card?
“Honey, yer daddy loves you more than a dog. Hope yer birthday is swell!”
LOL!!!!!
:(
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/chase-britton-boy-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors/
Bethany, extraordinary, indeed. Disappearing cerebellums, no pons? Who’d have thunk it? You are so right – there is much we don’t know.
I’ve been having long discussions with MK on Val’s site, and the more I read about the brain and new findings with MRIs that have only recently been able to “see” some things, the more I wonder if we really do have free will, something I’ve always taken for granted.
Ninek: The zygote, embryo, and fetus are all the same thing, described at different stages of development. Each stage/name of the entity satisfies the scientific definition of what is alive. Biology textbooks all concur. The facts of the human lifecycle are this: we don’t pop out of pods, we don’t hatch from eggs. We are placental mammals. Come on, abortion fans, man-up or woman-up and admit that abortion kills a unique human creature. Now, say it or type it.
Well, I agree with this. Despite having some co-workers who are chicken-like, and some that would make you really think that maybe all the above doesn’t apply to them, yes – all the same thing, i.e. a separate, unique living human organism
___
Biggz, wow, where are all of these people created with horse and chicken DNA? LOL
Bethany, I work with over 30% of them.
Yes, a human being. The organism that is the result of proper fertilization is a human person. I submit that this is much more simple, objective, and self-evident than any personhood theory concerning desires, consciousness, sentience, etc.
Bobby, it’s a moot point if that would be the case. Where the term comes into the abortion issue is in the sense of full, legal human being with all the protection of the law. Without our sentience, consciousness, desires, etc., we wouldn’t even consider such things in the first place.
I’m not saying it’s impossible that right-to-life would be attributed to the unborn from conception, but as of now of course that’s not the way things are, and the concept of personhood definitely plays a part in the abortion debate.
___
What is meant by “biological autonomy”? We value each other because we have biological autonomy? I can’t kill you because you’re biologically autonomous, but I can kill Joe Schmo who is not biologically autonomous?
If old Joe was inside you, and not autonomous, yeah, you could kill him, or at least I think you’d be wanting to have a serious talk with him about just what’s gonna happen….
____
Liz: Human DNA is 100% DIFFERENT BIOLOGICALLY and NOT the same as ANIMALS!
Well, chimpanzees are 98.3% the same as humans – only about 10 or 20 times as much variation as humans have within their own race.
A horse would share less of the same DNA with humans, but I bet it’s still 90% or better. Little less for the chicken.
What gives anybody the right to impose their religious beliefs on another? There is no proof that a soul does or doesnt exist. Why cant pro life people just let other people be? Why do they have to force other people to believe what they do? Why cant they simply be proud of their own beliefs and just let others be? My girlfriend had an abortion, and I am really proud of her as she wasnt ready to have a child. Someday we will have children, but not today because we weren’t ready. I said my bit, have a nice day.
Pro-life isn’t a religious belief, it’s a human rights issue. And I’m sorry that your gf wasn’t ready to have a child, but she had one and now he or she is dead. That’s really sad.