Pro-life vid of day: MSNBC host calls preborn a “thing”
by LauraLoo
As reported by Newsbusters:
On her MSNBC show this morning, MH-P repeatedly revealed how little respect she has for life in its early forms.
At one point, [Melissa] Harris-Perry callously spoke of how much it costs “to have this thing turn into a human.”
Watch as MH-P makes light as she accidentally breaks a model of a fertilized egg, claims there is no science supporting the notion that life in its early forms could be considered a person, and dismissively refers to that early life as “this” and “this thing.” You really have to watch and listen to hear the dismissivness, the virtual contempt, with which MH-P speaks of “this thing.”…
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Thomas S.]
Mar.25, 2013 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
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.
“Allow this thing to turn into a human”…. People before profit$ please. Motherhood before money. Lets support our women.
First off, I’d like to tell Mr. Finkelstein at Newsbusters that it is a zygote, not a “fertilized egg.”
Secondly, for Perry to say that the fact that a human zygote is actually a human is a “particular kind of faith claim not associated with science” is pure propaganda.
The rest of what she said – that human zygotes shouldn’t be allowed to “become persons” – is interesting.
You would think that the liberal crowd would attempt consistency. I mean, they want government interference in what we can eat, drink, smoke, weigh, buy, and do. EXCEPT when it comes to sex and abortion. Then they want no government interference (except of COURSE, to keep Roe v. Wade, which trampled all other state abortion laws). Oh, and government funding for Planned Parenthood. And government/taxpayer funding for abortion.
I think we should send Harris-Perry some fetal models so her collection is complete, and then ask her exactly when does “that thing” become a human, based on science. You know, science – like DNA.
“…there is no science supporting the notion that life in its early forms could be considered a person.”
That’s because “person” isn’t a scientific term. It’s a philosophical term. Is she honestly trying to suggest that a human being – any human being – is not a person? Science has established that a zygote is a human being. There’s no debate on that point.
What irks me to no end is the constant use of the term “fertilized egg.” There is no such thing as a “fertilized egg.” There are eggs, and there are sperm. When the two come together, both cease to exist, and the result is called a zygote; a unique, individual human being.
If this “thing” is not a human person then what is it?
A thing I guess. What is the thing and when does the thing become human??
The burden of proof is on you Melissa Harris-Perry.
And yes let’s support women in ALL kinds of these different ways. Except when it comes to abortion. Make sure mills only offer abortion.
LOVE the other two hosts btw.
Mr. Blank Stare and Mrs. Smile Nod.
“I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim, it’s not associated with science…”
False.
It’s a scientific fact, lady. I have the citation right here. Where’s YOURS?
“Each of us began life as a single cell stocked with DNA inherited from our parents.” – Biology, 8th Ed., Campbell, Reece, pg. 8
Was that a lab coat she was sporting? Gee, she seems qualified for any abortion clinic. Well, at least to be an Igor-like assistant to a “Dr.” Gosnell.
“A thing I guess. What is the thing and when does the thing become human??
The burden of proof is on you Melissa Harris-Perry.”
Exactly. Our stance is simple. It’s evident that human zygotes/embryos/fetuses have human DNA and are distinct human organisms. Pro-choicers are the ones who claim that there is some mystical point that these humans become Real Persons(tm). They need to be the ones to prove it.
I’ve got some embryology textbooks here that mention human beings begin their new life at conception; should I quote them or can abortion advocates navigate on their own?
Note: the textbooks don’t mention religion or religious beliefs. The crazy thing is, life begins at the same time for atheists, Christians, and Buddhists. I know, I’m blown away too. LOL!
Well who is that thing calling an unborn baby a thing??
I really don’t think some people belong in the medical profession. I’ve met plenty of nurses and doctors who are cruel mean and ignorant . Do us a favor and GET OUT
Its common to meet people in the medical profession and they are book smart but they suck with bedside manor and they lack common sense . Goof balls its a baby
To postmodern elitists, terms like “human,” “person” and “rights” are all fuzzy terms with no inherent meaning. Anyone who says otherwise is labeled a religious nut and dismissed without engaging their thoughts or claims. Citing all the scientific facts in the world won’t shake them from their own infallibly-held faith and pop-culture echo chamber. How do we reach these people so invested in abortion that every part of their thinking is horribly bent to the point where human rights no longer is a meaningful and consistent concept?
The bottom line is that each individual woman who finds herself to be carrying a ‘product of conception’ is the only person who will decide when and if she will continue gestation and when and if it becomes a ‘baby’.
What you or I may think or say doesn’t really matter.
“Lets support our women.” – yes, lets.
She’s an idiot and a liar. Scientists know that it’s a human from the get go. It is a unique life form.
I hope THAT thing finds her soul and publicly recants this evil before it’s too late.
Why do they always say “fertilized egg” and never “enveloped sperm”?
Great question Navi. When, and why, did the use of that language originate? Are there any misogynist or misandrist undertones or is there a medical science practice which dictated it?
Lets support our women and give them support so they won’t have to choose abortion. Lets support little baby women in the womb…yes lets do!
Women who say they are fine with abortion just might be at first but as father time ticks by you will see the majority of them aren’t
Id run into a nurse a few years ago who had aborted back in 2000. She seemed fine went back to work..the end. WRONG ..she invited me to her house . she had moved to Texas for a few years and moved back. She asked me if I had remembered her abortion. I said yes i had adding remember i told u not to do it? She explos
In the category of all the money spent on things, look at all the money wasted on Melissa Harris-Perry’s courses in basic biology and journalism.
Most of the media would rather spread propaganda than show proof. Why would they want to cloud their issues, and their agendas, with silly things like facts?
If her parents had considered her a thing she might not be here now herself to spout this garbage.
The interesting thing about everyone who is pro-choice is that the choice has already been made in their favor. And if any of the logic they want to apply to others not yet born had been applied to them, the results might not have been so favorable.
Sorry my phone ..anyway she exploded into tears and while shivering and shaking said “i asked the staff to let me see what the baby looked like and they .showed her
She was choking with tears and snot running down her nose n said it looked like a pile of spaghetti …she threw herself into my arms saying I’m a murderer. i could have done it. i could have taken care of her. Yep abortion is great for women
I dropped her off a copy of the book Ill hold you in heaven . She didn’t open up to too many people because of the guilt and shame. Shed held it in trying to return to a normal life. She had her last kid move outt of the house. She could have the company of her 13 year old daughter by her side. How sad that some people think abortion is so cut and dry. After you leave the clinic that’s your problem
My sister in law has had multiple abortions. She is very well off financially and her husband spoils heer rotten. He wanted a baby but she has said nope..i like it being just the two of us. Although she’s quite successful she smokes pot every day and she’s almost 400 pounds. Id venture to say that something is eating her.
Lets protect our women ..yes lets..this might include saving women from walking into a horse stable for a safe legal and rare procedure.
The big-mouthed thing is an embarrassment to my gender. . . . .
Mine too prax!!
Great question Navi. When, and why, did the use of that language originate? Are there any misogynist or misandrist undertones or is there a medical science practice which dictated it?
I never said anything like that. On the one hand, the egg is much larger than the sperm and contributes most of the cellular material. On the other hand, for the longest time it was thought that the sperm contained a full organism and the female only provided a place to grow (rather than contributing her own genetic information). An embryo is neither egg nor sperm.
The bottom line is that each individual woman who finds herself to be carrying a ‘product of conception’ is the only person who will decide when and if she will continue gestation and when and if it becomes a ‘baby’.
So before you’re born, your rights and status as a person are solely dependent on one person’s attitude toward you. If the condom breaks and the woman gets a positive pregnancy test, the unborn is in a Schrödinger’s cat position if she’s unsure about what she’s going to do. When she loses her job the next day and decides to get an abortion, the unborn is reduced to a “product of conception”. If she wins the lottery an hour before the scheduled abortion and changes her mind, the unborn becomes a baby. When the baby tests positive for Down syndrome a few months later and the woman decides she doesn’t want it, it’s back to being a “product of conception”. Absurd. You’re either a human being or you’re not.
And once a human sperm fertilizes an egg its a human!!
It was sad to see and hear Melissa put a monetary price on the life of another human being. Children are priceless gifts that should be protected and cherished. They are a reminder of innocence, wonder and all that is good. Human life at all stages is priceless. As John Paul the Great wrote in Evangelium Vitae, “Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase.” What Melissa was holding was a model of one phase in the life of a human being. No matter how much one wants to rationalize abortion, it kills an innocent defenseless life, and it causes sorrow on the mother.
Nice try changing the terms, reality. Nobody asked “is it a baby?” The legislation, and the news segment are discussing personhood.
Perhaps you might feel compelled to answer my question for Melissa above. Is she trying to suggest that any human being is *not* a person?
I see they continue to hire only the best and brightest at MSNBC. 9_9
You mean mslsd!:)
The bottom line is that each individual woman who finds herself to be carrying a ‘product of conception’ is the only person who will decide when and if she will continue gestation and when and if it becomes a ‘person’. – is that better Andrew?
“That’s because “person” isn’t a scientific term. It’s a philosophical term. Is she honestly trying to suggest that a human being – any human being – is not a person?” – I guess she is. And why not, you’ve just told us its philosophical, not scientific.
“You mean mslsd!:)”
MSDNC and MSD&C are also valid names.
“That’s because “person” isn’t a scientific term. It’s a philosophical term. Is she honestly trying to suggest that a human being – any human being – is not a person?” – I guess she is. And why not, you’ve just told us its philosophical, not scientific.
And what a charming pastime! Determining which human beings are and which are not “persons”. You guys are really in great company. Really.
One’s attitude does not confer humanness to another.
That is why the slavery and Holocaust analogies hold up brilliantly.
Imagine two hundred years ago, folks, if we had the internet and “Reality” was trying to justify slavery on the basis that Blacks weren’t really human if you didn’t think so. It’s all up to the (woman) slaveowner.
How freaky.
Oh, BTW: Melissa and Toure deserve each other.
I am reminded strongly about Reality’s view of ‘science’ and how similar it is to the opinions of ten blind men describing an elephant. While there are a number of ‘specialties’ that may appear with a myopic view, most academics share a commonality of viewpoint. This is not religiously-based and it is simple observation of facts, not hypotheses nor theories.
The ‘old’ notion that the-earth-is-flat still lives, eh Reality?
The bottom line is that each individual woman who finds herself to be carrying a ‘product of conception’ is the only person who will decide when and if she will continue gestation and when and if it becomes a ‘person’. – is that better Andrew?
Nope. Not at all. Either a human being is a person or she is not. I don’t know about you, but my personhood has never hinged on someone else’s opinion. If yours does, you’d better hope that opinion doesn’t change any time soon.
“That’s because “person” isn’t a scientific term. It’s a philosophical term. Is she honestly trying to suggest that a human being – any human being – is not a person?” – I guess she is. And why not, you’ve just told us its philosophical, not scientific.
Well there you have it. It’s ok to call human beings non-persons. Why? “Why not?” Alrightythen. It’s settled.
Please list any time in all of history where classifying certain humans as “non-persons” was not a time of tragic injustice. Go ahead. I can wait.
BAM!
Andrew, the many intellectual disciplines that we now term ‘science’ CAME-FROM///GREW-OUT-OF our own history of philosophical thought. So the terms science and philosophy are not terms in any ways opposed to each other. In speaking these words together, it is very close to redundancy.
What a blissful ignorance!!!!!
I wonder if she ever thinks about the time when SHE was that “fertilized egg” and at what point I wonder she thinks SHE became a person. And how would she feel if say she found out that maybe her mother considered aborting her? Would she still blissfully support abortion and say to her mom – you know what, sure you could have aborted me, I wouldn’t mind?
she’s hurting…she made the ‘choice’ of abortion and she’s covering up her hurt
I disagree Courtnay. I think that since you are the one railing against womens’ freedom, it would be me agitating against slavery and you stating it must remain.
“The ‘old’ notion that the-earth-is-flat still lives, eh Reality?” – you tell me, you’re the creationist.
“Either a human being is a person or she is not.” – you said it was a philosophical question. Philosophical questions don’t have yes or no answers.
“I don’t know about you, but my personhood has never hinged on someone else’s opinion.” – I think you’ll find it did.
“It’s ok to call human beings non-persons. Why? “Why not?” – and that’s the philosophical question you asked.
“Alrightythen. It’s settled.” – evidently not. Maybe it never will be.
“Please list any time in all of history where classifying certain humans as “non-persons” was not a time of tragic injustice. Go ahead. I can wait.” – it is self evident that the answer to your question is ‘pregnancy’.
SHAZZAN!
“you know what, sure you could have aborted me, I wouldn’t mind?” – and if she had – nothing.
Perhaps you know a little more about people before making such radically inaccurate statements priest’s wife :-)
Philosophical questions don’t have yes or no answers.
Is that a true statement? What about your claims that you’re defending women’s freedom (which inevitably rely on some type of philosophy about what women are and what kind of freedom you’re trying to defend)?
evidently not. Maybe it never will be.
You don’t think one position can be shown to be more reasonable than the others on terms that people on all sides accept? If not, why bother?
it is self evident that the answer to your question is ‘pregnancy’.
He was looking for a case different from the one being debated (ideally a non-controversial one). Then again, you already knew that. Also, is this a true statement?
“(which inevitably rely on some type of philosophy about what women are and what kind of freedom you’re trying to defend)” – indeed, as our differing position indicates.
“You don’t think one position can be shown to be more reasonable than the others on terms that people on all sides accept?” – there are situations where this can and does occur and situations where it hasn’t or doesn’t.
“If not, why bother?” – you’d like to think its possible wouldn’t you?
“He was looking for a case different from the one being debated” – why?
“Also, is this a true statement” – for some yes, for others no. It depends on your philosophical viewpoint.
man I personally hate the consistent stupidity of the ‘argument’ that navi and Reality have entered. May I suggest yet another angle: one could claim that ‘chair’ and ‘la chaise’ are two different things, because they are two different philosophies? How about ‘le chien’ and ‘a dog’?
The trick is to obviscate by this strategy and think it brilliant. Reality’s approach to modern science-philosophy is that it is so specialized, that terms yield meaning only within the specialties … ie. the stupidity the a term in ‘science’ is different from a term in ‘philosophy’. Tell me, where does ‘light bulb’ belong? [and Reality, I’m really ‘classical here (am easily dismissed as too-old)]
It seems that many people are unaware of the old sages’ parable from India about ten blind men describing an elephant. Depending on what part is touched a differrent definition emerges – from hugging a leg >> an elephant is treelike; an ear – an elephant is flat and leathery; the nose – an elephant is tubular, like a snake; …. . An elephant is of course one animal, which is known from seeing …which the blind men cannot do! Reality’s argument is that ‘science’ (not his view) has this view. This is hogwash …. good science confirms over and over such observation, sometimes over centuries. The crack about creationism is a case-in-point. Reality thinks, because such a view is dated that it is automatically wrong/dismissed …. all concepts pre-Internet are ‘just silly/old-stuff!
[‘creationism is a SCIENCE-theory …. that is not easy dismissed as Reality does …. proof that he(Reality) is not much of a scientist.]
“Also, is this a true statement” – for some yes, for others no. It depends on your philosophical viewpoint.
Make sure you remember to keep things vague, or else you might have to commit to a statement and show your true colors, which are undoubtedly ugly.
“Please list any time in all of history where classifying certain humans as “non-persons” was not a time of tragic injustice. Go ahead. I can wait.” – it is self evident that the answer to your question is ‘pregnancy’.
I bet living in a world where circular reasoning is valid is really interesting …or terrifying. “Yes, killing human beings is right because killing human beings is right.”
“Also, is this a true statement” – for some yes, for others no. It depends on your philosophical viewpoint.
Ahh… relativism. Tell me, reality, was the Newtown shooter wrong to kill those children?
“Reality thinks, because such a view is dated that it is automatically wrong/dismissed …. all concepts pre-Internet are ‘just silly/old-stuff!” – not at all! It is ‘dismissed’ because it has been proven wrong.
“creationism is a SCIENCE-theory” – it is only the creationists who think or wish it were so. But ok, let’s accept that it’s a theory. So is geocentrism. Both have been thoroughly debunked.
Well xalisae, I agree that some colors can appear ugly, depending on where and how they are applied. I don’t have one particular favorite color, it depends where and how the color is being used.
“I bet living in a world where circular reasoning is valid is really interesting …or terrifying.” – me too! God exists because the bible tells us so and the bible is the word of god.
“Yes, killing human beings is right because killing human beings is right.” – did I say that? Show me where.
“Ahh… relativism.” – ahh, the response you give when you don’t like the fact that philosophical viewpoints means someone has a view you don’t like.
“Tell me, reality, was the Newtown shooter wrong to kill those children?” – you think so. I think so. The majority of people appear to think so. There are probably one or two who don’t.
but excuse my profound ignorance … proven, by who …. please quote exact statements time,etc … even if from the ‘National Enquirer’?
You want a full and detailed history of the accumulated knowledge of evolution as established by thousands of scientists over decades? And unless I can provide a full list of names, explicit quotations and the days, hours and minutes at which they made them then you can deny evolution and declare creationism proven? Would that be Greenwich Mean Time or local time in each case? How many do you expect me to provide? Three, fifty seven, two thousand four hundred and twenty nine?
If you expect me to answer such a question in the way that you demand then I have an expectation that you can inform me of the exact day and time that god completed his 6 day plan. Something that is much more likely to be found in the ‘National Enquirer’.
Evolution has a single core element, your field of endevour has three.
Given the sheer volume of evolutionary evidence and the applicable fields of scientific discipline, perhaps we should start with a specific granule :-
How much do you know about transitional fossils?
Lack of consensus doesn’t imply lack of truth.
This might be a good starting point for you John. It’s almost a precis that will help you to research further. Some of the references probably even have names and dates on them!
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Now I’m bergininng to understand the narrow scope of topics that Reality calls ‘science’. There are some very tiny concepts in the world of science that are blown all out of proportion by a popular publishing …. one is cosmology and if it wasn’t for the pics of the Hubble-universe, there would be scant little attention to it.
The other is biology and Darwin’s theory of evolution. It really is difficult to accurately access just how small this concept is in a whole volume (actually several volumes) of theories that form the sciences of biology-biochemistry. Way off is the very small corner called evolution theories.
I read an adamant evolutionist who said a mitochondria must-have at one point been its own cell and fused with another primitive cell structure, to arrive at the modern cell. Strange that such a process has never happened since, NOR CAN ANY FOSSIL RECORD BE FOUND THAT ‘PRIMITIVE CELLS’ EVEN EXISTED …. transitional fossils are small potatoes. Tell me about the evolutionary development of the windpipe.
“Now I’m bergininng to understand the narrow scope of topics that Reality calls ‘science” – oh boom tish! Start with an attempt at dismissing the entire field of knowledge which floods creationism to an extent that would scare noah.
“There are some very tiny concepts in the world of science that are blown all out of proportion by a popular publishing …. one is cosmology” – and again! ‘There’s no evidence there because I don’t want to acknowledge that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence. There’s too much for it to be true.’
Somehow I don’t think that the ‘thou doth protest too much’ theory applies to the accumulation of scientific knowledge and discovery.
“transitional fossils are small potatoes” – that’s a new one. I’ve not seen creationists go from denial to dismissal on this one. Maybe you’re a trendsetter. It’s all so important when they are denying it and now you say it isn’t. I suppose that’s one way of acknowledging that the continued denial of the existence of transitional fossils has become pointless to the point of embarrassment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130228124138.htm
“Tell me about the evolutionary development of the windpipe”
Ah, you’ve been reading answers in genesis again haven’t you.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist. There are plenty out there though, you could always google it and find out. Or are you asking me to do that for you?
Or would you rather stick to the likes of Ken Ham and Michael Behe? I still can’t figure out whether they are simply dishonest or victims of the dunning-kruger effect.
Can I ask you a question? Given the knowledge we have regarding dna etc., if Eve was created of Adam’s rib, wouldn’t they have to be Adam and Steve?
Seriously people. Don’t talk about something if you don’t know anything about it. Cosmology is not small potatoes. It is a FIELD of physics which attempts to understand how our universe formed. The current theory which describes this formation is the big bang model and there are some VERY compelling reasons to believe that physicists, at the very least, are on the right track here.
Note that a creationist railing against the big bang is actually quite ridiculous. There are numerous highly-respected physicists trying their best to find a way to disprove the idea that our universe actually has a beginning and formed the way it did. The reason they want to do this? Our current model has all sorts of unwanted philosophical implications i.e.: the existence of a “first cause” or a “creator”, the implausibility of the existence of a universe which can eventually support life, etc.
She’s ba-ack!