Pro-life vid of day: Pro-lifers confront Ohio pro-abortion groups
by Kelli
Stand True’s Bryan Kemper recently confronted pro-abortion groups in his neck of the woods – Dayton, Ohio. He writes on his YouTube page:
Stand True Pro-life Outreach joined local pro-life organizations and individuals in Dayton, OH[,] to confront NARAL and Planned Parenthood’s meeting to celebrate abortion (child killing). They wanted to discuss how horrible it is that new legislation is closing down abortion mills across Ohio.
With over 20 pro-lifers in a crowd of 50 people they tried to ignore our questions until the end. I finally had enough of their lies and promotion of child killing.
According to Kemper, misinformation about pro-life community pregnancy resource centers and abortion statistics was part of the discussion:
I sat, squirming in my seat, as I listened to lie after lie. The head of NARAL Ohio claimed that crisis pregnancy centers tell women, “if they have an abortion, the procedure will suck out their appendix.” Another person claimed that before Roe vs Wade, “5,000 women a year died from illegal abortions and that number is on the rise again due to pro-life legislation.”
Read Bryan’s full account here and watch how the confrontation unfolded:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/P2ePjFYNuoY[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
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.
The crowd turned on him the moment that he mentioned Jesus. I have mixed feelings about bringing religion into the human rights debate.
Women and children deserve protection of their human rights from those who push abortion — just as society protects them from drug pushers, rapists, sexual predators, etc. Abortion violates human rights, just as slavery does.
– American Women and children need Americans to protect them from coercion and murder, from abusers and the abortion lobby.
Those who push abortion are sinners who need the salvation of Jesus the Christ, just as all of us do.
– Abusers and abortionistas need Christ to protect them from eternal misery.
While both messages are true, it is easy for the world to get them confused. There are many pro-aborts who insist that our defense for human rights is based on our religious beliefs. This is not true, as the members of Secular Pro-Life clearly demonstrate. But we have let the pro-borts confuse our messages.
We should be loud and assertive with our message about protecting human rights.
We should be gentle and inviting with Christ’s message of forgiveness.
Good job Bryan!
Keep fighting the good fight!
Interesting reaction when Bryan said they should just say they’re “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice” and the speaker said, “I AM (pro-abortion)!” (She also seems to have claimed she has given her life to Jesus, if you listen closely.)
It sounds as if about four people clapped in that room when she said she was pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion. Four, out of – according to what Bryan said – about thirty supporters of Planned Parenthood/NARAL.
There is discomfort among them when we use the term pro-abortion. Because so many people, while they would claim Planned Parenthood is a good organization, like to gloss over what PP does. “Oh, they do health screenings and mammograms [not true]. They do breast exams and pap smears and give out birth control! They HELP women!”
They will shout until they’re blue in the face that PP’s abortion numbers are 3% of what they do.
Why the ambivalence? Most of the PP supporters in that room did not clap in agreement. Because being put into a position where you must admit you are FOR the killing of preborn children instead of for “choice” makes most people uncomfortable. Somewhere, deep down, they are unsettled. Somewhere, in the dark recesses of their minds, there is a niggling doubt.
And that can’t be allowed to stay. That’s why they have to shout us down. That’s why the chanting of mantras about “Pro-life it’s a lie; you don’t care if women die!” are so popular. Because the shouting (and other post-abortive behavior) shuts out that small voice of doubt.
First you say religion should not be in the debate Del. Then you serve up a double dose of it. How does that work?
What about the fact that many who do believe in a god are also pro-choice. That kinda muddies the waters a bit doesn’t it.
Abortion is murder.
Abortion is not murder. Obviously.
@ Reality:
A lot of people who “believe in God” are still serious sinners in need of repentance and salvation.
That means they need to quit the wrong and addiction that enslaves them, and give their lives to Jesus.
An abortion supporter supports killing innocent children. Such a person has not given up the grave sin that holds her in its grip. Such a person has not given her life to Jesus, even though she “believes” in Him.
Hell is full of Christian souls of that sort.
=============================
Whether we believe in the Christian God or not, we can still know by Reason alone that innocent human life has a dignity which deserves to be defended. Thomas Jefferson said as much in the Declaration of Independence, and he was not a Christian.
Our duty to defend life does not depend on Christian faith…. Pagans and Atheists can be just as noble in human virtues. However Christians take this duty seriously, because we will face an eternal judgment for failing to love our fellow humankind.
A lot of people who “believe in God” are still serious sinners in need of repentance and salvation. – are they? Says who? I’m sure many of them would disagree with you.
That means they need to quit the wrong and addiction that enslaves them, and give their lives to jesus. – my observation is that many of them have ‘given their lives to Jesus’ but don’t see that they are committing any wrong or suffering any addiction. What says your right and they wrong or vice versa?
An abortion supporter supports killing innocent children. Such a person has not given up the grave sin that holds her in its grip. Such a person has not given her life to Jesus, even though she “believes” in Him. – what specifically and exactly says it is a grave sin?
Hell is full of Christian souls of that sort. – I sometimes wonder, if this ‘hell’ place actually existed, would it contain a higher ratio of christians than atheists?
Whether we believe in the Christian God or not, we can still know by Reason alone that innocent human life has a dignity which deserves to be defended. – how do you ‘reason’ that?
Thomas Jefferson said as much in the Declaration of Independence, and he was not a Christian. – so it was just his opinion then?
Our duty to defend life does not depend on Christian faith…. Pagans and Atheists can be just as noble in human virtues. – it’s not hard to opine that in some instances pagans and atheists do the better job.
However Christians take this duty seriously, because we will face an eternal judgment for failing to love our fellow humankind – if that is the case there’s a whole lot of fails going on.
Bear with me, this post is a culmination of several things. NONE of it is meant to make fun or personally attack anyone. I’m completely serious and responding to what I’ve read on this site and thoughts that I’ve had. I am not trying to violate any of the regulations on this site or anything. I just have thought of these things and felt moved to express them.
First off, I’d like to add to what Del said and put a little addendum based on a comment made by another poster: Actually all people who believe in God have to repent sin–not just one side or another. This isn’t opinion, this is the truth. Jesus called those who followed Him to repent. John the Baptist message was “Repent and be baptized.” In both instances, it wasn’t “You repent, but you don’t have to.” It was all people were invited to repent and to have their sins forgiven. Not just certain folks. Everybody. Another instance of Jesus calling someone to repentance is in the case of the adulterous woman He said “Go and sin no more.” Whether pro-life or pro-abortion/pro-choice all believers have sin to repent. It doesn’t matter if the pro-choice/pro-abortion Christians disagree with us, it doesn’t change what’s right and what’s wrong.
In the case of abortion, it is a grave, moral matter–especially if you’re religious. If you’re not religious, it comes down to a grave, legal matter (murder being illegal).
On the Jewish and Christian end, this is not opinion, this goes back to the 10 Commandments (“Thou Shall Not Kill.”)
Objective truth can’t be changed, even with subjective opinion. The objective truth is, a HUMAN egg and a HUMAN sperm can’t come together to conceive anything but a human being. Therefore, to interrupt that process willfully and intentionally by extraordinary means (abortion) is to interfere with the development and life of that newly conceived human being–thus death occurs, thus a violation of the 10 Commandments and a violation of the fact that murder is illegal. On the religious end, that is a grave moral matter and sin. The matter of repentance is between the person and God. All we can do is point out the wrongness of the situation, we cannot force a person to repent. We can only lovingly invite them.
Now, I’d like to move on to something else that occurred to me. AGAIN, not making fun of anyone. No personal attacks meant. Just thoughts that have occurred to me:
People want to say that “It’s not a baby.” Which brings up a very serious question, which I don’t bring up sarcastically or in a snarky way, but seriously:
If human egg and human sperm don’t equal new human being, then what is conceived? You see, in high school biology class I learned that 2 of the same species that reproduce together reproduce a new individual of that same species, and that it starts off in the smallest part of development until it develops into and independent individual. But in every stage, that being that was conceived from the two individuals of the species is a separate, and new individual of that species.
In human sexuality, I learned that when it comes to humans, that a human egg and a human sperm only conceive a newly formed human. If I’ve been misinformed and this newly conceived being is something other than human, I think it’s important that the topic is seriously addressed–especially since years of biology and human sexuality students are being misinformed. Again, I’m NOT being sarcastic. I’m raising some thoughts that have occurred to me over the years and lately in response to what has been said by pro-choicers/pro-abortions on this site and other places.
On the experience front, none of my ultrasounds with any of my pregnancies have turned up any species other than human considering that my husband and I are both humans, and the only sexual relations I’ve had are with him, therefore, only he can be the other half–or father–of the conceived new being inside of me. The evidence I have to go on that nothing I’ve ever experienced in terms of pregnancy and delivery was anything but a human one is my own. So if I wasn’t pregnant with a human, and the being isn’t human until some undetermined time, then what is that being until then–given that it was conceived of a human egg and a human sperm?
And I’m not being sarcastic and I’m not trying to make fun of anyone or be snarky…it’s just that people seem to think it’s okay to get rid of the conceived new being inside of a woman because for some reason that being isn’t human or a perceived parasite rather than another human being. And the fact is, given that the being in question can’t willfully encroach upon the woman’s uterus of its own accord, how guilty is that being of “encroaching on the woman’s rights” and therefore culpable enough for termination (death)? Because from what I’m getting on the pro-choice/pro-abortion side is that somehow the beings inside the woman when she’s pregnant have done something so terrible by existing (despite the fact they made no conscious decision on THEIR part to take up residence in the woman’s uterus) that extermination–or, abortion (which, to abort something means to end it) is a rightful way of exiting them from the uterus. So I think it makes sense that the pro-choicers/pro-abortion side explain to pro-lifers WHAT that being is if said being isn’t human and how they could possibly be guilty of (if they HAVE somehow–and HOW that is possible–that the being in question consciously and willfully made the decision to take up residence of the woman’s uterus, instead of following the natural flow of biology and natural law of human egg and human sperm creating a new human or new being if said being isn’t human) a serious crime that extermination is a viable solution.
I don’t think I’m asking anything outrageous and I’m certainly not trying to make fun of anyone. It’s just that it seems that the question of being pro-life or pro-choice/pro-abortion can come down to these questions of culpability of a crime (apparently taking up residence in a uterus is a crime somehow, and I would say the guilt of the being in question is directly associated with how much the being can actually comprehend such guilt, and if it can’t, then why is it being given the death penalty and if the being inside the human female uterus IS actually capable of discerning serious guilt, then HOW given that the being in question emerges from the uterus unable to even talk or make its needs known except through crying or noises? If someone has such a superior understanding of culpability, wouldn’t that introduce the possibility of far more advanced development than medical science has presented to us?) and if the being in question somehow escapes biological lessons that say two of the same species who conceive an individual conceive an individual of that same species (which in this case, would be the human species), then what type of species is that being?
I realize this post might be a little convoluted, and for that I apologize. But I think these are serious questions that require serious answers and I think they HAVE been asked on other occasions, but I don’t recall what the answers were and oftentimes, I’ve noticed different people answer them differently, which just serves to confuse the matter further from what I can tell.
And, isn’t that part of the heart of the matter? That nobody can agree on any of the answers to these questions, which begs a further question, then how does the pro-choice/pro-abortion side proceed and does that necessarily really make the pro-life side wrong?
Everything I’ve studied and read and learned says that the being conceived from a human sperm and human egg inside the female human uterus is human. To end a human life willfully especially at such early stages through extraordinary means is murder and morally and legally wrong (based on the Judeo-Christian Moral code and 10 Commandments, and laws passed in the USA and other countries declaring murder illegal). I regard the human being inside the human female uterus as innocent based on the knowledge I have that this being does not have the capacity to take up residence in the woman’s uterus (which is there precisely for that purpose, biologically speaking) with ill intent worthy of being eradicated/exterminated/killed through abortion. These are the answers and conclusions that I, personally, have come down to the questions I posed above.
So to summarize everything I said above, what’s the verdict? If said being isn’t human, what is the being? And if somehow this being has the capacity of being guilty of a crime worthy of extermination through abortion, then what is that capacity it has and on what level can anyone provide evidence that the being inside the uterus is there with the intention of causing harm to the woman, thus making it guilty of a crime worthy of its extermination (abortion)?
If this is completely off-topic, I apologize to the moderators and they are free to delete it. Otherwise, everyone please understand this is a completely serious post, not a joke, and not written to make fun or call out any particular poster (it also is based off a comment I made in another thread a few days ago).
Magnificent piece MIT and appreciated. You have said so much yet done so concisely. Thank you.
Since I do not wish to approach anything like your word count, I’d like to just address a few points as succinctly as I can.
You say all believers have sins to repent. What if they don’t have any sins to repent? What if you consider something a sin but other believers don’t?
Abortion isn’t murder. The legal system says so.
Yes, the ten commandments state “Thou shall not kill” yet there are those who support the death penalty and the bible lists numerous instances where killing others is encouraged.
Yes a human egg and a human sperm create a human. But abortion isn’t murder. And non-believers don’t need to deal with the ‘grave moral matter and sin’ part.
Again yes, egg, sperm, human. The correct terms are embryo and fetus. ‘Baby’ is a subjective colloquialism.
Abortion is not murder, it is only morally wrong to some and certainly isn’t illegal.
I’ve not seen a fixed, singular Judeo-Christian moral code.
A human fetus is human. It is not a person. If it shouldn’t be faced with the possibility of abortion because it is incapable of guilt when do we stop killing animals?
I disagree with much of what you say but I do feel enriched for having read it.
I suppose I should’ve added:
So how is abortion not murder since it ends the existence of a human being? (I never brought up the term “person” so I’m at a loss as to what it has to do with what I said).
All Jews Christians believe in the 10 Commandments (if this isn’t so, please point out the particular Christian and Jewish sects that do NOT), which is precisely what I cited. I didn’t cite any other doctrine, aside from what Jesus said. And, according to the New Testament (which, from what I know, all Christian denominations believe in) Jesus said to the adulterous woman “Go and sin no more.” In fact, He went about telling people to repent of their sins, which is where I get the whole concept of believers being called to repent of sin.
All Christians sin, that is what they repent. The only ones I’ve found exempt from this is Jesus’s mother Mary (which, the topic of Jesus’s mother, Mary is a belief not necessarily held by all Christians, but definitely by me as a Catholic Christian, which is the reason I mention it, NOT to start a debate on whether that is so, I have my doubts that pre-born human beings are guilty of much sin given their developmental stage and understanding of what sin is).
I never used the word “baby” in my post, I said human being and human species. Please point out in my post where I said “baby”. I was addressing the issue of exterminating of a human being. I never said baby, I never said embryo or person, I said HUMAN. If I said something other than human, please cite where.
Bringing up other terminology besides “human being” begs the question: What is the difference between human and person?
If the conceived, in-uteral human being, is also of the same human matter as its parents (the ones who supplied the human egg and human sperm) then what makes the in-uterual human being more guilty of a crime than it’s more advanced developmentally human parents? How does that justify its termination?
Abortion isn’t illegal, but there have been instances of laws being changed. However, since abortion DOES mean “to end” and it ends the existence of a human being, in what sense is there justification and evidence that the human being that would be exterminated through abortion deserves such extermination and is guilty of what crime that justifies it?
Since we’re talking human beings, not other species, so I think for argument and clarity sake (and to keep it a little more simple than it actually is, and also because I’m very pregnant and tired) let’s just stick to the human species and not go running into other species. And, on another note, given that this site deals primarily with HUMAN species, I think it only makes sense to stick to that.
I should’ve added that Jesus was sinless, too, I apologize, the time ran out on the edit feature. Again, I believe all Christian denominations/sects believe this, but if I’m wrong about that, please tell me which ones don’t.
It is helpful that Reality finally reveals, in a clear statement, the mental gymnastics he or she uses to declare that abortion is not the killing of a genuine, bona fide, living human being:
“A human fetus is human. It is not a person.”
“Abortion isn’t murder. The legal system says so.”
The second statement is easily dismissed. It is lousy logic. In some jurisdictions, abortion is murder. This argument says that in some jurisdictions where abortion is murder, that those babies are human, while in the current U.S. law, they are not. This is not logical.
The first view declares that, with Marxist policies advancing into the United States of America, a new phase of life has been added to the biology texts: the blob-of-human-but-not-alive-potential-life stage of life.
This hypothesis is not presented in any biology or embryology text anywhere.
What is in the biology and embryology texts, and what is the scientific view, is that life begins at conception.
Beginning strongly in 1959, the abortion advocates began making pleasant-sounding rhetoric to skirt the issue. The rhetoric is very shallow, however. The rhetoric is to change the topic to “we don’t really know,” or “the woman’s rights,” or “religious fundamentalism,” etc.
– Anything but directly addressing the obvious matter that this new rhetoric calls for a new phase of life to be added to the textbooks, and any direct answers there lead to the inevitable question:
If life does not begin at conception, then when does it begin?
This is where you get the bizarre answers such as “when the baby is taken home,” “when delivered,” and other ridiculous answers.
Other pro-choice advocates have simply avoided this obviously dumb line of argument. They simply acknowledge that the not-yet-born baby IS a live human being, but they just present the Owen Meany argument that the pregnant woman’s plight overrides the concern for the human who is to be killed without due process.
MIT sez:
“So how is abortion not murder since it ends the existence of a human being? (I never brought up the term “person” so I’m at a loss as to what it has to do with what I said).”
-Exactly. It is a rhetorical game.
It is a fool’s endeavor to go down this rabbit hole of discussion. It is a nonsensical endeavor.
It has been fairly routine for commenters to point out the obfuscatory, disingenuous rhetoric “Reality” uses here.
The old saying: “don’t argue with idiots; they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
The Last Democrat,
But if you look at my post, I did not strictly direct my comments to Reality or any particular pro-choicer/pro-abortion supporter. In my response, I answered Reality, but I never strictly addressed him (Or is Reality a her? I always figured based on what was said Reality was a he). My comments are directed at ALL pro-choicers/pro-abortion side. Not just one or two, but any of them who happen to see my post.
The reason to go “down the rabbit hole” so to speak is for a variety of reasons:
The question has been, on occasion, mentioned in a variety of ways, but never (as far as I know) straight forwardly directed the way I did it in my posts (not to sound arrogant at all, I’m just saying as far as I know it’s never been worded that way ON HERE) and I was completely serious in my posts. I’m still serious about them. I think that it’s time these things were answered for the sake of pregnant women such as myself, and pro-lifers who have always asserted that the in-uteral human being was innocent of any crime or wrongdoing, therefore did NOT deserve extermination through abortion and that the law ought to be changed in part for that reason, and some pro-lifers who have also religious reasons contend it is a grave, moral wrong (not all pro-lifers are religious and not all religious are pro-lifers) but for the sake of the myraid of pro-lifers from different walks of life, I figured it made sense that we knew these answers and that for the sake of the pro-choicers/pro-abortions being able to defend their stance, they needed to know the answers for their own selves so they could defend their stance. It’s not a joke, it’s not sarcasm or snark, I”m being completely serious:
Establish a crime that the human being inside the female human being’s uterus was guilty of that merited the human being’s extermination (abortion)–also, to establish that there is evidence of ill-intent, thus also meriting said extermination/abortion. The position I presented was that human being criminals get a trial establishing guilt and ill-intent, thus why not the in-uteral human being since somehow said human has been sentenced to extermination through abortion, which ends the human’s existence on Earth, and since other humans who are so exterminated under the law IN GENERAL are found guilty of a crime, I wanted to know what the in-uteral human being’s crime was.
On personal level, I fail to see how the human being inside the female human uterus is capable of being guilty of anything due to said human’s developmental stage and understanding of guilt and ill-intent, but since abortion is legal, then said human MUST be guilty of SOMETHING to merit extermination through abortion and if so, then what is it?
Also, to establish what type of being is inside a female human’s uterus if such being that was formed from a human egg and a human sperm is not, in fact, a new human being, but something else–therefore, what species/organism is it?
I did, after seeing Reality’s comment look up the words “human”, “human being” and “person” and found nothing to suggest the terms could not be used interchangeably. However, the point of my comments was not to debate/argument/have a conversation about terminology, but rather to discuss the topics I presented. Therefore, I stick with the terms “human” and “human being” and leave the other terms out of it in order to remain on the topics I’ve put forward.
This was never about doing to right thing to alot of them, the reality is to most of them, this was only ever about power. They are the mean girls, telling (other)women that they need abortion. Other women need abortion because they are inferior, so these women are seeing themselves as charitable in providing safe abortion(who cares if it’s really safe or just more available, beacuase let’s face it, “other” women need abortion because they are too selfish and irresponsible to have kids, unlike their superior selves. They have to prove a point, or else, they become the joke and not the “other” women. These, ladies and gents, are called mean girls.
Cecil Richards, Gloria Steinman perfect example. These are the teachers in schools who join in with the cool kids in making fun of the outcasts. These are the moms who make other kids clean up their kids messes(their kids never do anything wrong). These are the elites.
So how is abortion not murder since it ends the existence of a human being? – ending the existence of a human being isn’t always murder.
It’s all very well to state that “all Jews Christians believe in the 10 Commandments”, the question is, to what extent. Jesus may have told people to repent their sins but there’s an awful amount of diversity on what may or may not be a sin and to what extent repentance may be required.
All Christians sin, that is what they repent. – how can you know that? I too doubt that fetuses are capable of sin. Or guilt. Or anything else requiring thought.
Please point out in my post where I said “baby”. – you stated that people say “It’s not a baby” and then went on to explain why you consider them wrong.
Fetuses don’t need to be guilty of anything. They are developing humans who are yet to reach the level of capacity of the post-born. They are reliant on a womans body.
If you are going to claim that a fetuses lack of guilt precludes anyones right to terminate it then the same should apply to animals. They are, after all, more sentient and capable of feeling pain than a fetus is.
It is helpful that Reality finally reveals – and the fact that you have obviously missed or ignored sooo much that I have said on this very point previously, what shall we call that? Helpful? Maybe in demonstrating your failure.
“A human fetus is human. It is not a person.” – that is correct.
“Abortion isn’t murder. The legal system says so.” – and you would dispute this fact how?
The second statement is easily dismissed. It is lousy logic. In some jurisdictions, abortion is murder. – in which case it is murder.
This argument says that in some jurisdictions where abortion is murder, that those babies are human, while in the current U.S. law, they are not. This is not logical. – no it doesn’t. Laws making abortion legal do not state that fetuses aren’t human. Your ‘logic’ is based on a false premise.
The first view declares that, with Marxist policies advancing into the United States of America, – I don’t think we need to take that one any further. LOL.
the blob-of-human-but-not-alive-potential-life stage of life. – I’ve not heard of that. Did you just make it up?
This hypothesis is not presented in any biology or embryology text anywhere. – no it doesn’t. Did you pull it out of a hat?
What is in the biology and embryology texts, and what is the scientific view, is that life begins at conception. – gee, do you want applause for that?
Beginning strongly in 1959, the abortion advocates began making pleasant-sounding rhetoric to skirt the issue. The rhetoric is very shallow, however. The rhetoric is to change the topic to “we don’t really know,” or “the woman’s rights,” or “religious fundamentalism,” etc. – all valid to different folk.
Anything but directly addressing the obvious matter that this new rhetoric calls for a new phase of life to be added to the textbooks, – I’d love to see your scientific evidence for that.
This is where you get the bizarre answers such as “when the baby is taken home,” “when delivered,” and other ridiculous answers. – no different to referring to embryos and fetuses as children and claiming they have attributes those same textbooks tell us they clearly don’t. Someone here recently referred to fetuses as mothers, talk about excessive stretching.
the Owen Meany argument that the pregnant woman’s plight overrides the concern for the human who is to be killed without due process. – as compared to the anti-choice stance that the woman doesn’t matter, its all about the fetus.
It is a rhetorical game. – quite obviously not.
It is a fool’s endeavor to go down this rabbit hole of discussion. It is a nonsensical endeavor. – glad to see you recognize the pointlessness of any attempts you may make to refute it.
It has been fairly routine for commenters to point out the obfuscatory, disingenuous rhetoric “Reality” uses here. – examples? Or strawman?
The old saying: “don’t argue with idiots; they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” –
here’s one you might find useful. “Better to say nothing and have people suspect you are a fool than to speak and confirm it.”
Reality,
I stand corrected. What I MEANT to say was I was actually told that it wasn’t a “HUMAN”, which I HAVE been told that. So “baby” was actually a typo on my part. I apologize.
Not just for Reality, but for everybody:
I said for the sake of clarity and the fact that this site deals primarily (from what I have seen) with the HUMAN species we’re to stick with it. I never mentioned animals, Reality did. To me, that’s changing species and going off topic. For the sake of clarity and the fact we are talking about HUMAN species here (NO other species) let’s stick to the topic; unless, of course, there’s viable evidence presented that would say that the result of a human egg and a human sperm conceiving something other than a human can be established, until some other form of species is presented with viable evidence to it being something other than human, I suggest we stick to human species and not go all over the place. (At this point, nobody has presented ANY viable evidence that the species that is conceived from a human sperm and a human egg is anything but a human being–so until that happens, we stick with human).
If ending the existence of a human being is NOT murder (according to pro-choicers/pro-abortions, including, but not limited to Reality this has been stated), then what would you call it? The human being in question is obviously not dead (or, if you prefer the term “cease to exist”) inside the womb (unless in the case of a spontaneous miscarriage, which case, an elected/willfully chosen by the human female parent abortion wouldn’t even be on the table of discussion), then what is the termination of the human’s existence through abortion should be called? After all, to abort means “to end” if you’re not ending the human’s existence, then what are you ending? And that also would beg the question, if the human does not exist and is not human, then why would it be called a “pregnancy”? Wouldn’t this be something other than human, in which case, we have to establish what that is–and so far, we’ve only maintained the being in question IS human.
There still hasn’t been presented any answer on what sort of crime the human being could possibly merit that human’s existence through the extermination through abortion. If we’re going to exterminate another human being, shouldn’t there be a just cause–a crime that makes it necessary for that human being’s existence to be terminated?
Human criminals have trials to determine just cause or crime/guilt. Why not the in-uterual human being? Why not have a trial with someone to speak in the in-uteral human being’s defense and a prosecutor to bring forth viable evidence to the crime–or something of such a serious nature–the human in-uterual committed that justifies that human’s extermination through abortion. I don’t think there’s been such a trial that has established a crime but I would think given that we’re giving such power to people to exterminate another human’s existence through abortion there should be some evidence of guilt on the part of of the in-uterual human being meriting its extermination through abortion.
If not, then perhaps, in the end, the extermination through abortion is not merited?
No need to apologise MIT, that’s cool. People do say “It’s not a baby” too.
I maintain that if you are going to claim that fetuses should not be terminated because they cannot possess guilt then the same criteria should be applied to all life forms.
If ending the existence of a human being is NOT murder (according to pro-choicers/pro-abortions, including, but not limited to Reality this has been stated), then what would you call it? – perhaps you could ask a soldier or a supporter of the death penalty? Didn’t that commandment say “Thou shall not kill” period, end of story?
Wouldn’t this be something other than human, in which case, we have to establish what that is–and so far, we’ve only maintained the being in question IS human. – from those pesky textbooks – “The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature”. If you take that literally, then sterile individuals are not members of the human species. and “Science has determined that development is a process of epigenesis; that is, that it involves a progressive unfolding and emergence of new attributes, not present at conception, that manifest gradually by interactions within the field of developing cells and with the external environment. The conceptus is not equal to the adult. It is not a preformed human requiring only time and growth to adulthood; developmental biologists are entirely aware of the distinction between proliferation and growth, and differentiation.”
There doesn’t need to be a ‘crime’ for there to be a just cause.
The problem with the 10 commandments is that there is a myriad of exceptions, riders and ‘buts…’.
But we’re not talking about the death penalty, we’re talking about abortion. We’re not talking about any other species we’re talking about humans. If you can’t stick to the topic, please don’t bother responding, Reality. You can maintain anything you want about other species, but like I said, for the sake of this site being mainly about humans and my comments being about humans, let’s stick with the human species. Because I’m talking about humans.
And nobody has supplied solid evidence for just cause or occasion of crime–no matter how you cut it. And that’s been one of the main points of my comments.
But we’re not talking about the death penalty, we’re talking about abortion. – you said “If ending the existence of a human being is NOT murder, then what would you call it?” War and executions end the existence of human beings.
You may wish to exclude animals but according to the logic you are applying for humans, we should not be killing animals.
And nobody has supplied solid evidence for just cause or occasion of crime–no matter how you cut it. – there’s no need to.
And that’s been one of the main points of my comments. – and as I said, there doesn’t need to be a ‘crime’ for there to be a just cause.
MIT: you will get frustrated with “Reality” until the point when you realize he or she does no intend to enter into serious discussion, and you realize you are trying to teach a pig to dance.
“Reality” has been trolling here for a long time. Others have learned to ignore “Reality” because: 1 he or she seems as if he or she is engaging in genuine discussion, but this devolves into nonsense and illogic; 2 he or she will not directly answer questions when you figure out his or her specific point of view, figure out the wrong in it, and pose the obvious question to illuminate this.
So, your comments are fine, and coherent, and reasonable. And, do not worry if you get countered by “Reality;” he/she regularly demonstrated he/she cannot participate in regular discourse.
The benefit of “Reality” is that he/she illuminates, for the many people that read these pages, the vapidness and illogic of the pro-choice position. He/she is doing a public service here.
BTW – your points of view seem fine, and well reasoned.
Here is a blatant example of the “Reality” illogic:
“I maintain that if you are going to claim that fetuses should not be terminated because they cannot possess guilt then the same criteria should be applied to all life forms.”
Last night, I was accosted by many mosquitoes while at a social event with many humans.
“Reality” believes either I should not have killed a bunch of the mosquitoes (I did), or that it should be legal to kill a not-yet-born human without due process.
Peter Singer is the well-recognized Marxist who is well-documented as believing the following two things:
abortion should probably be OK up through the first year of life post-delivery (before “sentience” and “personhood” have been achieved by the admitted human);
animals are moral equivalents of humans, and so have the same right to life as humans, and so should not be slaughtered for food.
I think you are the one who is frustrated TLD. Because of your inability to offer any substantial discussion.
1 he or she seems as if he or she there’s that failure to pay basic attention again is engaging in genuine discussion, but this devolves into nonsense and illogic; – only when certain other people make it so TLD.
2 he or she will not directly answer questions well yes I do, sometimes the questions are either very poorly constructed or based on a false premise when you figure out his or her specific point of view, figure out the wrong in it, and pose the obvious question to illuminate this. – how would you know, you’ve never achieved that level of discussion with me.
So, your comments are fine, and coherent, and reasonable. – I thanked MIT for her comments and advised that although I disagreed I was enriched. Is that too complex a sentence for you?
And, do not worry if you get countered by “Reality;” he/she regularly demonstrated he/she cannot participate in regular discourse. – so now you don’t even understand how discourse is conducted. ‘Discourse’ does not mean ‘mindless agreement’.
The benefit of “Reality” is that he/she illuminates, for the many people that read these pages, the vapidness and illogic of the pro-choice position. He/she is doing a public service here. – I see the lights are on but no one appears to be home. I do know I’m doing a public service though, thank you.
BTW – your points of view seem fine, and well reasoned. – certainly more worthy of my making an effort to respond diligently to than some.
Here is a blatant example of the “Reality” illogic:
“I maintain that if you are going to claim…..Last night, I was accosted by many mosquitoes….I should not have killed a bunch of the mosquitoes (I did), or that it should be legal to kill a not-yet-born human without due process…. – do you like being accosted by mosquitoes?
Peter Singer is the well-recognized Marxist who is well-documented as believing the following two things: – do you even know what a Marxist is?
The Last Democrat,
I’m actually well-acquainted with Reality’s posting. I’ve been on here for long enough to have encountered the poster before. I also know how things go in general. I have no expectations of anything in that respect, which is why I have not strictly addressed my posts to Reality. My posts are, in fact, open-ended to any pro-choicer/pro-abortion or pro-lifer who wishes to read them or respond to them. I did that on purpose. I think one of my comments was directed to Reality simply because pointed out something I hadn’t remembered I put there and it was a typo on my part, so I was acknowledging that I saw the place and answering as to why it was there. Other than that, and responding directly to you, I’m leaving the main comments the thoughts I’m posing and the questions I’m raising open-ended on purpose.
P.S. Reality has not currently frustrated me because on a certain level I expected Reality NOT to agree with me. I had no illusions going into this, and I still don’t. However, if Reality or any other pro-choicer/pro-abortion or pro-lifer chooses to answer me I’m open to it, because these questions I’m raising I’m serious about them. If Reality chooses to address them directly instead of dancing around the issue (as it feels like in a sense has been happening, whether intentional on their part or not) then I’m willing to see the response. It would be a change to some of what has happened on here. And that was part of my purpose…was to approach these matters from another angle and to see what came of it. I took what I was doing very seriously for that reason. However, I DO expect to encourage deep thinking over this. Coming up with what I’ve come up with was based off a lot of thought. I’ve also prayed about it. Unless God tells me differently I shall proceed in whatever direction He leads and currently this is how I’ve felt inspired to comment/post. I don’t know what it will lead to, but it certainly has provided a lot of thought for me, and I don’t object to deep thinking. I happen to do a lot of it (which is NOT to say nobody else does a lot of deep thinking, I’m only speaking for myself on that). So don’t worry, I’m okay. If I have to separate myself from the thread if it does get too emotional for me, I will. I’ll have to anyway…I’ve got some family obligations this week, so either way…I’ll be on here when I can and off when I have to be.
Reality,
In general, I will not be directly addressing you, as I told The Last Democrat to leave my comments open to other pro-choicers/pro-abortions and pro-lifers (in short, to anyone), but since you have continued to bring up other situations, I figured I’d address this one particularly to you to clear up any misconception or thoughts you had otherwise:
Just consider for the sake of the comments I’ve been making that when I say “ending the existence of a human being” I’m referring ONLY to abortion unless I SPECIFY otherwise. I might bring up humans that are charged as criminals as an example, but I will be sticking strictly to abortion in terms of my comments and the questions I raise. And sticking strictly to the human species. You want to discuss other species, then that’s another topic because I am only talking about human species.
You started out MIT, making a number of comments regarding sin and the 10 commandments. I responded with honest thoughts and observation. I did not dance around any issues. Your not liking my responses and not wishing to answer return questions isn’t defensible by claiming such. You haven’t really addressed my responses regarding sin etc. to any notable extent. That’s fine, you don’t have to.
As I said at the time, I found your first screed well worth serious attention (unlike the daubings of others). I dealt with what you posited in all seriousness. Pointing out certain realities is not tantamount to frivolity.
In the case of abortion, there does not need to be ‘guilt’ or a ‘crime’ on behalf of the fetus for there to be just cause. Fetuses do not possess the same attributes as the born.
Now, that I’ve answered directly what I felt needed to be answered directly, I’ll go back to my comments the way I intended to do them–open-ended and not directed specifically toward any particular poster/commenter.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that if there IS a just cause or a crime involved that merits the extermination of a human being through abortion, then what is that? There should be one since people say there is one, then what is it?
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for evidence and “due cause” or “justification” or whatever you wish to call it to define the parameters and evidence that extermination of a human being through abortion is justified. But there seems to be no real process to establish such a cause.
Given that IN GENERAL people demand evidence as to why a human being should be exterminated (in whatever capacity that is–whether a crime or punishment or justice) why not supplying such evidence in the case of exterminating a human being’s existence through abortion?
It seems to be this “justification” that keeps being brought up should be defined. If so, then what is the evidence, what is the justification, what is something substantial to justify the extermination of a human being through abortion? Apparently, so far, nobody has established that the in-uteral human being has been guilty of any crime, so then, what justifies the end of said human being’s existence?
We’re not, as far as I know, a cannibalistic society, so I can’t see extermination of the human in question being a source of food. If there’s no guilt or crime, then obviously the in-uterual human being didn’t commit a crime that answers to extermination of its existence through abortion. So that leaves what evidence that says the extermination of the in-uteral human being is justified?
(And yes, I know extermination through abortion is legal in the USA and in some other countries. Whether legal or not, what’s the justification–the evidence that it should be legal and that it is justified? Or even right and just?)
The other thing hasn’t been answered, that I keep asking is:
If said in-uteral being is NOT human (despite being the product of a human egg and a human sperm conceiving a new entity through their joining) then what is it? Another species altogether? And if so, what species? I know what is taught in biology and what I learned in sexuality, but if, some how, that is wrong, then I think it only makes sense that we define what this being is.
As I said, I take what I’m saying very seriously, and I’m not being snarky or sarcastic (despite the fact that it’s April 1st, and in many places considered April Fools’ Day, this is NOT an April Fools’ Day joke or prank).
Reality,
I left the whole question of 10 Commandments alone because I sensed this was a distraction from what I was REALLY trying to say (which, I think I caused such distraction, and that was a faux pas on my part, in which case, I shouldn’t have) and never the main point of my comments (otherwise, I would’ve kept going on the topic and I didn’t). As I went further along, I realized I needed to focus my comments to the things that I really wanted to address for now and consider the others at another time. This is sincerely NOT meant as a cop-out, but rather because of my current situation and the need for me to focus on one subject at a time.
I never said anything about liking or not liking your comments (if I did, I missed it–which given the fact I’m pregnant and usually tired, I would think I could be forgiven of that). How I feel about your comments isn’t the point.
I suspect you liked my original post because it provided a myriad of topics which give you, in terms of responding, the opportunity to pick and choose, without getting to what I was really trying to address. You keep asserting the same thing, yet it doesn’t really answer me, which is why I keep asking the questions. Until there is an adequate answer, the question remains.
Now, I’m willing to give thought to your questions, but right now my focus is on the other subjects and being that I KEEP saying I am a tired, very pregnant woman, I think for the sake of my poor brain I should remain focused on what my current focus is, and come BACK to the rest at a later date. You are free, at some point in the future, to remind me, if you so choose. I truly do NOT mean this as a cop-out, I sincerely don’t. It’s just I DO have A LOT going on right now (remember, I said I’m very pregnant?) so hopefully you’ll understand if I have to take each thing one step at a time.
I appreciate your (hopefully) understanding.
The point I’ve been trying to make is that if there IS a just cause or a crime involved that merits the extermination of a human being through abortion, then what is that? There should be one since people say there is one, then what is it? – it’s whatever the woman concerned considers it to be.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for evidence and “due cause” or “justification” or whatever you wish to call it to define the parameters and evidence that extermination of a human being through abortion is justified. – whose ‘due cause’ and ‘justification’? Yours? The woman directly affected? Or someone else’s?
But there seems to be no real process to establish such a cause. – I doubt there ever can be.
Given that IN GENERAL people demand evidence as to why a human being should be exterminated (in whatever capacity that is–whether a crime or punishment or justice) why not supplying such evidence in the case of exterminating a human being’s existence through abortion? – ‘evidence’ is supplied. Whether you, I or anyone else thinks it justifies the womans decision is another matter. But it’s not up to us.
It seems to be this “justification” that keeps being brought up should be defined. – to whose satisfaction?
If so, then what is the evidence, what is the justification, what is something substantial to justify the extermination of a human being through abortion? – it is usually something which you would find unacceptable. But it’s not your decision.
Apparently, so far, nobody has established that the in-uteral human being has been guilty of any crime, so then, what justifies the end of said human being’s existence? – there does not have to be a ‘crime’ for there to be just cause. I’ve said this a few times now MIT.
We’re not, as far as I know, a cannibalistic society, so I can’t see extermination of the human in question being a source of food. – well I do sometimes see people claim that atheists eat babies.
If there’s no guilt or crime, then obviously the in-uterual human being didn’t commit a crime that answers to extermination of its existence through abortion. – there does not need to be a ‘crime’.
So that leaves what evidence that says the extermination of the in-uteral human being is justified? – whatever the woman concerned determines it to be.
(And yes, I know extermination through abortion is legal in the USA and in some other countries. Whether legal or not, what’s the justification–the evidence that it should be legal and that it is justified? Or even right and just?) – where’s the evidence that it isn’t.
The other thing hasn’t been answered, that I keep asking is: If said in-uteral being is NOT human (despite being the product of a human egg and a human sperm conceiving a new entity through their joining) then what is it? Another species altogether? And if so, what species? I know what is taught in biology and what I learned in sexuality, but if, some how, that is wrong, then I think it only makes sense that we define what this being is. – a human fetus is, generally speaking, human. The biological species concept does cast a bit of a shadow over this though.
As I said, I take what I’m saying very seriously, and I’m not being snarky or sarcastic (despite the fact that it’s April 1st, and in many places considered April Fools’ Day, this is NOT an April Fools’ Day joke or prank). – I haven’t detected any snark or sarcasm from you MIT.
I have taken your questions seriously and addressed them seriously and honestly. I’m sure you won’t like them but that does not render them any less serious or honest.
That you don’t like or agree with my answers, which specifically address what you have asked, doesn’t mean I’m simply asserting stuff. Nor am I aware of having done the pick and choose thing. Please point out where I have done so if such is the case.
I make no demands of others MIT. You have my understanding and support. Best wishes.
We can point to a number of historical movements wherein some humans were not considered people and deserving of basic human rights (like life).
None of them make a very good argument for abortion.
Nazi Germany, Apartheid, Communist China, and Slavery all come to mind. Not a pretty comparison, but an apt one.
This poor guy Bryan. I really hope he gets proper medical treatment for his mental problems. Or does he already? Maybe his obesity is caused by neuroleptics, who knows?
This is a good example of “Reality” playing loose with language:
” “The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature”. If you take that literally, then sterile individuals are not members of the human species. and “Science has determined that development is a process of epigenesis; that is, that it involves a progressive unfolding and emergence of new attributes, not present at conception, that manifest gradually by interactions within the field of developing cells and with the external environment. The conceptus is not equal to the adult. It is not a preformed human requiring only time and growth to adulthood; developmental biologists are entirely aware of the distinction between proliferation and growth, and differentiation.” ”
According to “Reality,” a caterpillar is not alive, and a maggot is not alive. The caterpillar will have to wait until he becomes a butterfly, and the maggot until he becomes a fly.
The passage above does not address when life begins, but notes that a developing human fetus is qualitatively different from an adult human. Duh. Same with caterpillar/butterfly.
We are not so sure about the baby joey passing from womb to pouch at such an early developmental stage.
But as long as we can obfuscate issues and parse words, we progressives can carry on with abortion, claiming, “there are politically based opinions differing on whether an eight-week-old fetus is alive, so let’s err on the side of allowing them to be killed; Troy Davis is just totally unrelated – we progressives believe the law was not sure, and so he should have been spared the death penalty.”
We can point to a number of historical movements wherein some humans were not considered people and deserving of basic human rights (like life). – none of which were backed by science. Unlike in the case of fetuses.
None of them make a very good argument for abortion. – no they don’t, but they aren’t needed.
This is a good example of “Reality” playing loose with language – well no, it’s a good example of you playing loose with basic comprehension. It is me quoting scientific information from places such as Berkeley.
According to “Reality,” a caterpillar is not alive, and a maggot is not alive. The caterpillar will have to wait until he becomes a butterfly, and the maggot until he becomes a fly. – I’d simply loooovve to see you attempt to explain how you drew that conclusion from the quotes I provided. Apart from which, whether something is ‘alive’ or not was not what was under discussion.
The passage above does not address when life begins, but notes that a developing human fetus is qualitatively different from an adult human. Duh. Same with caterpillar/butterfly. – no, it doesn’t address when life begins, it wasn’t intended to. That’s not what it’s about. Seemingly it was beyond your grasp. It is about speciation, not when life begins. Double duh.
We are not so sure about the baby joey passing from womb to pouch at such an early developmental stage. – do you think that falls within the epigenetics category?
But as long as we can obfuscate issues and parse words, we progressives can carry on with abortion, claiming, “there are politically based opinions differing on whether an eight-week-old fetus is alive, so let’s err on the side of allowing them to be killed; Troy Davis is just totally unrelated – we progressives believe the law was not sure, and so he should have been spared the death penalty.” – it’s not too often that I see someone so completely and utterly miss the point. How did you manage that TLD?
Reality 7:24PM
-“none of which were backed by science. Unlike in the case of fetuses.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
You may be especially interested in the section titled:
United States: Slavery Justified.
Thank you Mary, that makes for interesting reading. Did you read it? It clearly demonstrates that the claims made at the time turned out to be not backed by science. Unlike in the case of fetuses.
Reality,
LOLL. Nice try. But in their era this was considered established science. Science isn’t carved in cement Reality, its ever changing, debated, researched, proven and disproven. Scientists can’t even agree with each other. We can look back and laugh at what we consider complete nonsense, except it had such dire consequences, just as people will look back at us 100 or 200 years from now and laugh at our “science” as well.
But in their era this was considered established science. – was it? Where is your evidence for that. Your link only tells us that certain ‘scientists’ were making claims which proved to be incorrect.
Science isn’t carved in cement Reality, its ever changing, debated, researched, proven and disproven. – yes, isn’t it wonderful.
Scientists can’t even agree with each other. We can look back and laugh at what we consider complete nonsense, except it had such dire consequences, – I’m not laughing about it. Why are you?
just as people will look back at us 100 or 200 years from now and laugh at our “science” as well. – certain aspects of it yes. Not all of it. Do you think they’ll find that water isn’t ‘water’? Or that gravity isn’t?
And all this means what exactly?
Something that will likely send our future generations into fits of laughter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301122152.htm
Just remember what my grandmother always said: If we didn’t laugh we’d cry.
Why?
Relevance?
Reality,
Scientists made claims that were incorrect? Why how can that be?? That certainly couldn’t be the case today, could it?
Well I’m glad we agree. We just shouldn’t mindlessly accept what the supposed great thinkers tell us.
So you agree they will laugh at certain aspects of our “science”. Good grief Reality we’re in agreement again.
Reality, 11:51PM
Why pick on poor Flossie and Buttercup? What about elephants, hippos, humans?
Scientists made claims that were incorrect? Why how can that be?? – the lack of scientific knowledge compared to what we have today and will have in the future enabled hypotheses which – in this example – were underpinned by ideology. Thankfully we soon reached the stage where most of those hypotheses were quickly extinguished.
That certainly couldn’t be the case today, could it? – yes it can. My observation is that approximately 3% of scientists make unsupported claims due to an ideological viewpoint. There are also non-ideological hypotheses which simply don’t make it to becoming theories of course.
Well I’m glad we agree. We just shouldn’t mindlessly accept what the supposed great thinkers tell us. – or even those who aren’t great thinkers.
So you agree they will laugh at certain aspects of our “science”. – they already are.
Good grief Reality we’re in agreement again. – careful what you wish for.
Why pick on poor Flossie and Buttercup? What about elephants, hippos, humans? – your link tells us this is being done with cattle. It doesn’t tell us it isn’t, hasn’t or won’t be done with elephants hippos or humans. It concludes by informing us that “Collaborative research is continuing to further measure methane release from other agricultural sources.” There’s also the probability that it’s quicker, less expensive and easier to attach global positioning devices to domestic cattle herds than to wild animals in, you know, the wild. Not to mention humans.
You didn’t attempt to answer my questions.
Reality, 12:15am
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. This only gets better.
Why and relevance were your questions? You answered them. I’m showing what absolute nonsense is now passing for science and will likely send our future generations into fits of laughter.
Reality, 12:15am
YOUR observation is that only 3% of scientists make unsupported claims due to ideology. Oh well, that certainly settles it. Of course “ideological” is in the eye of the beholder. Anything more than your observation to back this up Reality?
Even you admit future generations will laugh at much of our “science” of today. Remember Reality that people then, like people now, listened to and believed the so called great thinkers, often with dire consequences. As far as I’m concerned little has changed.
Reality,
Thank you for starting my day with a great laugh. Elephants, hippos, and humans. I’m sure the elephants and hippos will be most cooperative and you will only be too happy to volunteer your services. I can see these idiots just trying to insert probes….oh never mind, I’ll just enjoy my laugh.
Regarding the matter of whether a fetus is alive: one solution is to simply accept that scientific view that the fetus is a human being, with “fetus” being the title for a stage of its life, and going on ahead and declaring that abortion kill that individual.
That is the solution for this abortionist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfWB7tcAdhw
Planned Parenthood used to adhere to the scientific view that life begins at conception…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1185302/posts
In the 1950s through the 1960s, there was a move to obfuscate this issue.
It has progressed, in this century, to a state of heightened, confused rhetoric: you can now be a “little bit pregnant.” The morning-after-pill profiteers realized that most sensible people would not be in favor of a pill that aborts a very early pregnancy. So, they redefined “pregnancy” to begin at “implantation,” not fertilization.
And Cecile Richards has quite a view on when life begins. This video would be laughable if you did not know she is the leader of the largest abortion provider around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdK–xwxwBA
All semantics and rhetoric.
In regards to her own children and when human life begins, Cecile says, “Life began when I delivered them. They’ve been probably the most important thing in my life ever since.”
Probably. Or probably not.
I think I probably know what the mo$t important thing to ˘e˘ile i$.
Again,
Abortion joins the ranks of other historical movements which have (falsely) defined some living humans as non-persons. Honest analysis of our history brings us to the conclusion that IF we are to define any group of humans as non-persons, THEN we must be VERY VERY CERTAIN of our correctness. It is very very unlikely that any movement which argues that some humans are non-persons is justified. We can see the evidence of this.
Reality, I know that you would not want to be compared to those who hold the ideology of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler. Unfortunately, what you want and how you behave must correlate or else you betray yourself.
After all, Hitler read, respected, and referred to Margaret Sanger and her works.
Some of the following quotations come from Hitler, some from Stalin, some from Pol Pot, and some from Margaret Sanger. Can you sort them out without google?
“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer, don’t think”
“Since he is of no use anymore, there is no gain if he lives and no loss if he dies”
“Hate is more lasting than dislike”
“It’s up to history to judge”
“He alone who owns the youth, gains the future”
“Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization”
“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
“Birth control must ultimately lead to a cleaner race”
“Words build bridges into unexplored regions”
“Am I a savage person? My conscience is clear”
“Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come.”
“The writer is the engineer of the human soul”
“I don’t want to tell people I’m a leader”
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”
Reality, I know that you would not want to be compared to those who hold the ideology of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler. Unfortunately, what you want and how you behave must correlate or else you betray yourself. – no problems there then.
After all, Hitler read, respected, and referred to Margaret Sanger and her works. – one of many sources he cited. Care to nominate some more?
Some of the following quotations come from Hitler, some from Stalin, some from Pol Pot, and some from Margaret Sanger. Can you sort them out without google? – why? Do you expect me to know various quotes from history, nominated by you, and who made them? Did you know who said which one before you googled them? Or took them from your little book of whatever?
.
MaryRose and Others –
Here is yet another disingenuous reply from “Reality.”
He or she simply cannot engage in productive discussion.
He or she is an anti-science eugenicist.
when you catch on and pose the question that will make this obvious, he or she responds with something distracting and off-topic.
Here, “Reality” is basically saying that you, MaryRose, are being ridiculous.
You are not.
He or she could, and ought to, put those quotes in Google. It is not that hard.
I will donate another $150 to the Jill Stanek website if “Reality” will correctly post the authors of each of these quotes.
That donation will serve as succor to all readers who have to bear with “Reality”‘s weak grasp on reality, and the server/bandwidth burden sustained by his or her anti-science rhetoric.
Your brain would be an absolute goldmine for neurologists to study TLD.
Here is yet another disingenuous reply from “Reality.” – all my responses are genuine.
He or she simply cannot engage in productive discussion. – you still failing on the whole gender thing!!! I strive to engage in productive discussion. It is difficult when people litter their contributions with as many errors and failed comprehension as you are displaying here.
He or she is an anti-science eugenicist. – ahem, I’m the one who places science before faith. Nor am I a eugenicist. (your error)
when you catch on and pose the question that will make this obvious, he or she responds with something distracting and off-topic. – not at all. I addressed MaryRose’s points specifically. (your error)
Here, “Reality” is basically saying that you, MaryRose, are being ridiculous. – no, I asked what she hoped to demonstrate. (your failed comprehension)
He or she could, and ought to, put those quotes in Google. It is not that hard. – MaryRose specifically said “Can you sort them out without google?” (major comprehension failure on your part)
I will donate another $150 to the Jill Stanek website if “Reality” will correctly post the authors of each of these quotes. – why? What would be the point? That’s not what MaryRose asked. If you’ve got $150 to spare just give it, I’m not doing tricks for you to do so.
That donation will serve as succor to all readers who have to bear with “Reality”‘s weak grasp on reality, – or your plethora of compounded errors and comprehension fails.
and the server/bandwidth burden sustained by his or her anti-science rhetoric. – the memory capacity of a crystal set would probably be enough for yours.
Mother In Texas: People want to say that “It’s not a baby.”
Mom, I agree with some of your post, disagree with some of it, but arguing over “baby or not” is really fruitless. It’s subjective and up to the user.