NARAL’s free.will.power II
I previously wrote on NARAL’s esoteric free.will.power video campaign, obviously aimed at young abortion customers.
I thought I didn’t ‘get’ the first two videos because I’m not ‘cool’. But others of you had the same problem, so we are uncool together.
On December 10, NARAL released its final video, “power.” Here ’tis:
I got a little more out of this one. Abstinence is bad, and birth control pills cost too much. Wanting their cake and to eat it, too. Got it. Interesting they consider inherited traits of offspring “family heirloom[s].” That doesn’t fit. Nevermind. I need to focus on filling my “pink polygon.”
Hey, vote for your favorite free.will.power t-shirt. Or at least peruse the options. See them on page 2.
[HT: reader Susan F.]
free.will.power #1…
free.will.power #2…
free.will.power #3…
free.will.power #4…
free.will.power #5…
free.will.power #6…
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.
So killing you kid is empowering. Got it.
STD’s. The gift that keeps on giving. Merry Christmas. Her argument about birth control letting one down? So does protection. In a non sarcastic way, I ask how does this “power” renounce all the other consequences of sexual contact? Can she rebuke HPV?
Well, you see Jill, American teens are among the most oppressed groups in history. These ads are an inspirational reminder not to let the ‘man’ get all up in their space….
Haha… I can’t keep that up. NARAL’s blowing smoke.
I like that expression. Have a man keep his stuff out of your space. Ooops. That is a re wording of abstinence.
I like #4. The big fist with all that coolness written all over it.
Especially Keep abortion safe, legal and accessible.
Not rare. Accessible.
What nonsense.
Wow, looking at the artwork it is so obvious that a bunch of old babyboomers are running that place. I’m sure they still think abortion is COOL and GROOVY, MAN.
What disgusting, appalling people and ideas. I find it darkly funny that these folks still think they are HIP and FUNKY after all these years. Probably haven’t had an original thought since Woodstock. So very mockable, if it weren’t for their deathly deeds.
Two severe disconnects here.
They say “protect the future of pro-choice America”. How do you protect the future when you are destroying at least part of that future?
Also, these young women they are seeking to empower, NARAL supported destroying their lives 15, 20 or 25 years ago. It is a bit absurd to care about beings, ALL of whom you would have allowed to be destroyed. This is one of the central absurdities in abortionist “thinking”.
All this ad is missing is the encouragement of psychedelic drugs to go with their sexual revolution.
Betty, Joe, truthseeker,
Ha ha. I guess I’m not the only one who sees this this is a throwback to the 1970’s.
“Woodstock”. That’s funny. When’s the bra burning going to begin?
On picture #6, I see what looks like a pregnant belly with a crack in it. What would that mean? Is that a gold smiling fetus at the bottom?
Free. Will. Power. Where’s the Love?
Pro-choicers,
Is this the type of message you want to give? Yes, or no? Why?
Let’s smoke a dogleg and think about it…
janet, I don’t see anything wrong with the message. It doesn’t really speak to me, but I am hardly their target. Maybe some of the younger single prochoice women here can speak to how current and effective it is.
I love these videos. But then, I’m a poet at heart and have done my fair share of slam, so maybe it just goes well with me :-P
Erin,
Do you prefer spoken word or the more traditional type stuff?
Enigma- usually I lean (and perform) more towards spoken word. I enjoy the traditional, but it’s not my style.
I’m closer to traditional–not quite though, I tend to prefer free voice.
The spoken word really isn’t my style, though I can appreciate individual pieces.
Erin and Enigma,
If there is one thing I don’t get, it’s poetry. And I wish I did, but man… every time I come across poetry when I’m reading, EVERY TIME, even if it’s in a book by Bishop Sheen, I skip it. I have no appreciation for Shakespeare either. It’s quite disgraceful. I just simply don’t get it. I just want them to say what they mean. I guess that’s the reductionist in me coming out. Shameful.
bobby I have to admit that sadly I feel the same. Though I do occassionally hear or read something that sounds good or feel good rolling off the tongue and on those occassions I get it. I wonder if disecting poetry and Shakespeare in school killed it for me? Or it’s simply like you said… We just want them to get on with it!
Lol…it’s OK, Bobby, I feel the same way about math, so we even each other out!
Ugh… us and our left brainishness, asitis…
There was a young man named Bobby
although that really wasn’t his name
He likes to do math as a hobby
And speak nicely so not to inflame
His Daughter is cute as a button
His faith as strong as a flame
We’re glad to know him in cyberworld
I’ll call him my friend without shame.
LOL, nice Hal. First poem that hasn’t bored me to tears (though math is actually a profession for me) :)
Hal, I like!!!! Well penned!
Bobby’s not your real name, Bobby Bambino? I think it suits you. It’s nice. :)
Nah. That was my “ring-name” back in my pro wrestling days…
Killer!
There’s not alot of poetry that really speaks to me either.
I find it interesting that some people can write great prose but terrible poetry. James Joyce is a great example of this.
Though, like Bobby, I tend to be someone who just wants someone to just say it already!
There was a young man named Bobby
although that really wasn’t his name
He likes to do math as a hobby
And speak nicely so not to inflame
His Daughter is cute as a button
His faith as strong as a flame
We’re glad to know him in cyberworld
I’ll call him my friend without shame.
Wow, Hal, that is SO sweet!
Not quite in the same spirit, TS.
Ouch.
Ha. Good one.
have a great weekend everyone.
So… Hal was being nice and you decided to be an idiot about it. Wonderful. Also… if you could cite something from the Bible in which Jesus undoubtedly addresses abortion, that’d be great.
I would just like to point out this woman doesn’t address abortion, nor does she say that abstinence is bad. You’re putting words in her mouth.
Also, this is my favourite one so far. I didn’t care for the other two.
If you notice, the gloom, hatred, bitterness, etc., here is not on the part of pro-choicers.
So true Nathan, so true. I’d rather party with us! Though I’d invite Carla, Bethany, Lauren amd Bobby Bambino as well. They are lovely and lively. And Bethany has some sweet dance moves!
Leah, 5:42
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:10)
” Little ones ”
Greek concordance:
Strong’s G3398 – mikros
1) small, little
a) of size: hence of stature, of length
b) of space
c) of age: less by birth, younger
d) of time: short, brief, a little while, how little!
e) of quantity: i.e. number, amount
f) of rank or influence
If you notice, the gloom, hatred, bitterness, etc., here is not on the part of pro-choicers.
Nathan, that’s not always the case… both sides are prone to getting riled up and frustrated at times, as this is an intense and very emotional topic.
Asitis: So true Nathan, so true. I’d rather party with us! Though I’d invite Carla, Bethany, Lauren and Bobby Bambino as well. They are lovely and lively. And Bethany has some sweet dance moves!
Ha! (I bet she does.)
I’d put in a bid for PIP, Mary, and our dear-departed MK too.
What about yllas Doug? I’m thinking a couple festive cocktails and a pair of heels and we might just bring her(?) out of her shell.
C’mon… in the sprit of Christmas? Peace on Earth. Good Will to Men.
:-)
V, yllas is well and widely-read, and would be interesting to talk to, for sure.
Speaking of partiers, here are a couple of my nieces. May I present Lauren Marie and Victoria Faith:
adorable. Simply adorable.
May I know why my poem was removed? I thought blogs like this were all about discussing abortion and it’s effects on society. Is it not true that Hal’s wife killed two of his children and that he just shrugs it off by saying it was her choice. If you people on this blog are willing to let it go without discussion just because you are afraid to hurt somebody’s feeling or of being politically correct, then how can you ever expect the ugly sie of abortion to be discussed in a public forum?
TS, it was lame and mean-spirited.
And I wouldn’t attend a party with a bunch of pro-abort liberals if I was invited. I wasted enough time on that when I was young and dumb.
Hal, I second that about Doug’s nieces, adorable is the word.
Any discussion that talks about kiling babies is mean-spirited. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Any moderator’s wanna respond, preferrably the one that removed my poem.
See that’s the difference between you and those that did make the list truthseeker. Seeing the good in people and sharing common ground even though we don’t agree on everything makes for a better world…. and a rockin’ party.
If you notice, the gloom, hatred, bitterness, etc., here is not on the part of pro-choicers.
Posted by: Nathan at December 12, 2008 6:06 PM
lol, what is so cheery and loving about being in favor of a persons right to tear babies apart in bloody pieces. You have NO righteous ground to stand on Nathan.
above post was ts
asitis,
I’m do see the good in people. That is why I think honesty is more important than ignoring each other. And I understand that is why I won’t get invited to very many liberal pro-abort parties. I have no hard feelings about it. It is what it is.
Truthseeker, it’s not just seeing the good in people. It’s seeing the good in people who don’t agree with you or share your beliefs.
Also… if you could cite something from the Bible in which Jesus undoubtedly addresses abortion, that’d be great.
Posted by: Leah at December 12, 2008 5:42 PM
Leah, it is difficult to discuss Jesus’ teaching in regards to life with pro-aborts because they deny that babies are even human bings/persons worthy of any kind of dignity. On the other hand, if we go from the premise that unborn babies are our friends, then this passage might mean something to you.
“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
asitis,
In relation to the topic of abortion, I understand that there are good people who are pro-choice, that is exactly why it is important to discuss our differences in this regard because I have faith in people.
Gie me an example of seeing the good in people who don’t share my beliefs.
Put my poem back up before I go Blago on somebody
Does anybody see a correlation between a man shrugging off his child getting aborted by saying it’s the women’s choice; and Pontious Pilate washing his hands and turning jesus over to be crucified? I thought my prose made that analogy in poetic fashion.
Wow. Thanks for the graphics. I think I just found my fav. screen saver
I’m still waiting for a mod’s response as to why they took down my poem. Was it cause I said that Hal’s wife killed two of his children and he just bshrugged it off and cause Doug felt it was mean-spirited? Here it is from a different blog-line today from the horses mouth:
************
I don’t think I have anything to add to this discussion. Except, perhaps, a bit of surprise that you are so outraged by someone who does not regret abortions. There are millions of us. I’m just the only one here. (and Erin)
Posted by: Hal at December 12, 2008 12:08 PM
**************
So I ask again, why was my poem taken down and why won;t the mod that took it down stand up and talk with me about it?
TS, most of them are probably asleep for the evening. Be patient and I’m sure one of them will be back tomorrow to address you.
What did you think of my poem Erin? Did you get a chance to read it before it was deleted?
Search your heart, TS.
Why is it ok for you to call Hal a baby killer and write a poem about torn up baby parts?
Why not do the same for Erin?
Why not do the same for Carla?
I deleted your poem. I do not stay up until midnight.
Matthew 10:29 Even the hairs on your head are numbered
Jeremiah 1 4-5 I knew you even before you were conceived
Psalm 139:15-16 You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book
Acts 17:26 I determinded the exact time of your birth and where you would live.
Psalm 139:13-14 I knit you together in your mother’s womb. You are fearfully and wonderfully made
This is only the tip of the iceberg of pro-life support in the Bible. Need more?
And there are lots of passages that are decidedly not “pro-life” too.
“I determinded the exact time of your birth and where you would live.”
And when death would come, too, including miscarriages and abortions.
~~
The Jeremiah quote is because Jeremiah was going to be a big prophet, right? God was making plans, there, not the same for every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
The number of hairs; well, why wouldn’t God know that? Makes no big dif. Same for God being able to see into the future, as with “I knew you even before you were conceived.”
The same God could say, “I knew you were going to be miscarried,” and “I knew you were going to be aborted.”
What’s a “mistake,” there? A miscarriage?
Search your heart, TS.
Why is it ok for you to call Hal a baby killer and write a poem about torn up baby parts?
Why not do the same for Erin?
Why not do the same for Carla?
Posted by: Carla at December 13, 2008 6:59 AM
Carla, the difference is that Hal is brazen in speaking of his lack of regret about his abotion experience. In fact, as I stated above, Hal had just posted “a bit of surprise that you are so outraged by someone who does not regret abortions. There are millions of us. I’m just the only one here.” And judging by Hal’s response from 5:39p.m. it didn’t disturb him at all.
On the other hand, you treat my post about Hal’s lack of regret as “inflammatory” and “provoking” Hal about abortion.
Can you really not see why I would direct a comment like that to Hal but would never direct one like that to you? Your openly speaking of your regret for your abortion is what brings you forgiveness. Hal does not understand this and my poem to him was meant to show/teach him same. His words are like poison and would lead others (like Erin) to believe there is nothing about abortion to regret. Your censorship is done out of compassion but you just may be condemning Hal and anybody else who he leads astry to a life without forgiveness.
And when death would come, too, including miscarriages and abortions.
No, you’re putting words in God’s mouth.
The same God could say, “I knew you were going to be miscarried,” and “I knew you were going to be aborted.”
Yes, God does know which babies will be miscarried or aborted. That doesn’t mean God chooses to make women abort their children anymore than it God makes God murder born people. God’s command is “thou shalt not murder”, and when we kill any innocent person, we are breaking His commandment.
What’s a “mistake,” there? A miscarriage?
Natural death happens all the time, and yes, God knows exactly how long each person’s life will be.
When a woman miscarries she has done nothing wrong, just as if her born child dies naturally she has done nothing wrong.
Hal is brazen in speaking of his lack of regret about his abotion experience. In fact, as I stated above, Hal had just posted “a bit of surprise that you are so outraged by someone who does not regret abortions. There are millions of us. I’m just the only one here.” And judging by Hal’s response from 5:39p.m. it didn’t disturb him at all.
Well, TS, he was being honest, and not acting like his opinion had to apply to others. You cannot claim the same thing.
…..
On the other hand, you treat my post about Hal’s lack of regret as “inflammatory” and “provoking” Hal about abortion.
Well, it was mean-spirited, and you’re acting like your way has to apply to Hal and others, which is not true. If somebody else makes poems about you being a woman-slaver, etc., that’s not fair either.
Truthseeker, he doesn’t have to lead me. I already know that I made the absolute best choice for me and I’m perfectly content with that. Everything I’ve ever seen from Hal makes me think that he is a wonderful man and a loving father, so if I were to be led, I could only hope that it would be by someone I respect as much.
Erin,
You are free to choose your path but neither you or Hal or anybody else should be allowed to speak such evil without rebuttal. Where is the love in abortion Erin? Or are you saying that you are choosing a path for yourself other than love?
Doug said:
Well, TS, he was being honest, and not acting like his opinion had to apply to others. You cannot claim the same thing.
Wrong Doug, Hal applied his opinion to Erin.
*sigh* No, TS, I applied it to myself. Everyone on this site knows that I had an abortion and feel no regret about it.
Doug said:
On the other hand, you treat my post about Hal’s lack of regret as “inflammatory” and “provoking” Hal about abortion.
Well, it was mean-spirited, and you’re acting like your way has to apply to Hal and others, which is not true. If somebody else makes poems about you being a woman-slaver, etc., that’s not fair either.
**************
Bring it on!!!! I’d love to see the poem :
above post was ts
*sigh* No, TS, I applied it to myself. Everyone on this site knows that I had an abortion and feel no regret about it.
Posted by: Erin at December 13, 2008 11:04 AM
I was just pointing out to Doug that he was mistaken about Hal and that Hal had applied his feelings to you by using your name as a reference to somebody with those feelings.
I ask you again. Where is the love in abortion Erin? Or are you saying that you are choosing a path for yourself other than love?
TS, here’s the thing. Even if Hal is hardened about his abortions now, it doesn’t mean he always will be. We can attack abortion itself and show the truth in it, and even tell someone “this is what you did.”
However when you attack the person it just makes him retreat further into the pro-choice safe haven.
I don’t understand what you expect ‘love’ to have to do with any minor surgical procedure. I didn’t feel any love when I got my wisdom teeth removed, either.
Erin,
Love has to do with treating others with goodness. What if any differences do you see between a wisdom tooth and the baby you aborted?
Erin, you know that there is a difference between a living human being and your molars. I’m sure you’ve seen Bethany’s picture of Blessing. You can’t honestly say that the two are similar.
A fetus was extracted from my nethers, teeth were extracted from my mouth. That’s it. A fetus is not an ‘other’.
However when you attack the person it just makes him retreat further into the pro-choice safe haven.
Posted by: lauren at December 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Lauren, did you read all my posts. It was Hal who said he had no regret for his abortion so how was my poem an attack? Was it cause I pointed out that he shrugged off the responsibility by saying it was his wifes choice? Don’t shoot the messenger for holding someone accountable for what they say.
Lauren, I feel bad that Bethany feels bad. I can empathize with her. It doesn’t mean that I think that those picturess prove anything. I’m sensitive to Bethany’s feelings, so I don’t want to go into my opinions on that issue. You’re welcome to e-mail me and we could discuss it there.
No, but it shows without any shadow of a doubt that an early fetus is a human being. You can’t say that Blessing was equivalent to a molar when you can look at the pictures and see that it is obviously not true.
Using your logic childbirth is the same as having a wisdom tooth removal since both involve removing something or someone from my body. Obviously on this level they are similar, but that negates all of the ways in which they are dissimilar. Namely, your analogy does nothing to address TS’s question of love, since it’s obvious that removals can have very different implications.
Your “fetus” had a lot of the same characteristics as you Erin. But he/she did not have their wisdom teeth yet. Your baby had a heart, a central nervous system, arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and a mouth, but bthe teeth conme later. At what arbitrary point in time do you presume to know when the baby is an
“other”?
No, but it shows without any shadow of a doubt that an early fetus is a human being. You can’t say that Blessing was equivalent to a molar when you can look at the pictures and see that it is obviously not true.
Using your logic childbirth is the same as having a wisdom tooth removal since both involve removing something or someone from my body. Obviously on this level they are similar, but that negates all of the ways in which they are dissimilar. Namely, your analogy does nothing to address TS’s question of love, since it’s obvious that removals can have very different implications.
Posted by: lauren at December 13, 2008 11:37 AM
Thanks Lauren, you said that very well for me :
Lauren, that’s not how I see those pictures.
Erin,
I respect the way you are willing to talk openly about your abortion. Most pro-aborts hide behind the “medical privacy” BS and keep their abortive experience hidden because of shame. I expect your honesty will one day lead to regret for your abortion.
Erin, since we are talking honesty here, you are sheltering yourself from hurtful feelings when you are denying that you don’t see any difference between having your baby pulled from your womb and having a`wisdom tooth pulled from your mouth?
You do not have to bear your thoughts and reasons for your abortion in public. It will quickly become apparent to you why other non-regretful post abortive mother’s do not do so either.
Erin, it’s not like the pictures are subjective in any way. They’re pictures of a human fetus. How you feel about abortion doesn’t change the status of a human being.
“If somebody else makes poems about you being a woman-slaver, etc., that’s not fair either.”
TS: Bring it on!!!! I’d love to see the poem
Have to laugh, TS, but many people here wouldn’t like it, and no real useful purpose would be served – we see enough nutty stuff already.
I have thought that it’d be cool to have a “different” site or chatroom where we could just all go crazy, no censorship involved.
Doug,
I am not after a place without censorship. I don’t see where what I posted was crazy or nutty and I don’t think Hal was offended at all. imo it wasn’t removed so much cause it was an attack on Hal, who’s reply showed that he thought it was a “good one”, but rather because it offends Carla and makes her cringe to hear abortion describe as “tearing babies from their moithers wombs in bloody pieces”.
Erin, thanks for adding your story to this. And I feel the same way about Blessing. I’ve seen the photo. It does not change my position, but it does help me see how the misscarriage broke Bethany’s heart and that of those women who do regret an abortion.
TS I saw your poem and it didn’t teach me anything.
I already emailed you a reply truthseeker. I also told you to take it up with Jill.
Yes, abortion tears a baby from the womb of its mother. In bloody pieces. Continually telling someone who is unrepentant about it serves no purpose. Your intent is to provoke Hal.
Hardly compassionate.
There are women who had an abortion who read this and see your words and cringe just as I do.
Not offended. Disgusted.
” imo it wasn’t removed so much cause it was an attack on Hal, who’s reply showed that he thought it was a “good one”, but rather because it offends Carla and makes her cringe to hear abortion describe as “tearing babies from their moithers wombs in bloody pieces”.”
Don’t you think that maybe…tells you something? Do you seriously not think of others when you post stuff? Do you not consider that women who regret their abortions on here post and read and then they read your whale vomit about “tearing babies form their mother’s wombs in bloody pieces” and do you really expect them NOT to be offended especially since they are obviously remorseful (for whatever reason) and regret their previous decisions? You’re willing to alienate those women in favor of trying to guilt Hal into feeling bad about something he feels he shouldn’t feel bad about (and I would be inclined to agree with him)?
I believe Hal’s “good one” was meant in derision. I would have said the same had I been here to read your “work of art” and had I bothered to keep up posting.
*returns to vaguely lurking*
You should be disgusted Carla. Abortion is disgusting so describing it is disgusting too.
But you can’t be afraid to describe it to people or they will continue to live in ignorance and/or denial about it. I worry more about the babies getting torn apart every day and less about the sensibilities of pro-aborts.
TS I saw your poem and it didn’t teach me anything.
Posted by: asitis at December 13, 2008 2:12 PM
asitis,
Do you see any correlation between a man shrugging off his child getting aborted by saying it’s the women’s choice; and Pontious Pilate washing his hands and turning Jesus over to be crucified? I thought my prose made that analogy in poetic fashion.
Whether it’s a child or not depends on your beliefs . Period. Plus it was just a bad bit of poetry.
TS
You cannot scream, yell, swear, condemn or put down someone to get them to regret what they do not regret. Not gonna happen. Honestly.
I am hardly afraid to discuss abortion. That is not what you did with your abortion poetry. You were not discussing anything. You were taking another jab at Hal.
If some are ignorant about abortion then by all means educate. Scientifically, theologically or personally. If you know nothing of abortion recovery then say so. I know a little about it. :) Enough to know that some NEVER regret it. Some it takes years before they reach out. Those that scream “baby killer”!!! in condemnation hasten that journey to healing. It is the women reading right now that had abortions and are really struggling that I am here for. I want them to know that there is help for them.
Should we all continually beat Hal over the head with his past? I consider it hateful and counterproductive. Still wondering where the compassion for everyone here is??
I understand your frustration. I do.
Rae,
I liked your post.
asitis, You talk about common ground and moderation but you avoid my question all together and redirect?????????????
Carla siad,
I am hardly afraid to discuss abortion. That is not what you did with your abortion poetry. You were not discussing anything. You were taking another jab at Hal.
********
Carla,
#1) Quit worrying about your own self for a minute. I challenge you to find where I bother to just take a jab Hal. Can you find another post where I did? If not, then understand that HE crosses the line when he states that it is o.k. to abort without regret. Even the most liberal pro-choicers (Obama for example) call it a morally wrenching decision.
#2) Do you see any correlation between a man shrugging off his child getting aborted by saying it’s the women’s choice; and Pontious Pilate washing his hands and turning Jesus over to be crucified? I thought my prose made that analogy in poetic fashion and it applies uniquely to a man in Hal’s situation.
I did answer ts . I told you why there was
no corelation.
#1)Not worried at all. Doesn’t Hal have a right to say he doesn’t regret it? I don’t see too many people engaging him in conversation about it. Why not, Hal? What do you mean? How has it affected your wife? Do you ever think about your other two children? What they might be like today? I am praying for you, Hal. All I have seen lately is baby killing comments.
#2)I do see the correlation. Leave Hal out of it.
You cannot scream, yell, swear, condemn or put down someone to get them to regret what they do not regret. Not gonna happen. Honestly.
Carla,
What are you talking about? It was a comment directed at Hal. And just as you may understand the post-abortive regret of women better than I do; I think I understand the post-abortive effects of abortion on men a little better than you do. And though you keep on saying that you deleted my poem because it is offensiove to you; I wasn’t directing my comment to you or any other post abortive woman who showed any hint of regret. It was a comment to Hal not you.
Carla,
have you gone from guardian angel for aborted babies to guardian angel for abortive men?
I did answer ts . I told you why there was
no corelation.
Posted by: Asitis at December 13, 2008 3:13 PM
Then you can learn something form the poem if you would only open your mind asitis. For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his children when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise tgat it is the woman’s choice.
You’re not liiiiiiistening TS! I said it is not necessarily a child – it depends on your beliefs. If you do not believe it is a child then it is quite a different thing than baby-killing, murder….. Your ranting does not chnage that.
asitis, if you were serious about being open and moderate to debate then you would skip the semantic redirections. What about this?
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his offspring when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Does it really take that in order for you to see any correlation asistis?
And truthseeker, your approach isn’t going to open anyone’s mind . That’s what Carla is trying to say. You could learn from her.
Still not woking TS. “Offspring” refers to child.
Try again for something we can agree on.
I already have asitis. But I’ll be damned if anybody ever teaches me that it is improper to rebuke those who claim to abort without regret of any kind. A
asitis, let’s take it slow and one at a time. Why do you object to using the word offspring?
You tell me asitis. Just what is it that a man has conceived in the womb of his lover than. You object to calling this life a baby. You object to calling this life a child. You even object to calling this life offspring because it refers to a child. Wait a minute, I remember now. You are the one who denied that the life inside was even a human being. Of course you wouldn’t understand the analogy. But you are the exception in your denial.
Oh, you are frustrating! ….. I oblect because , as I just told you (!), it still refers to child.
What to call it?
Well, how about fetus? That is undeniably an unborn so that works. Except abortion quite often occurs before 8 weeks, so fetus doesn’t work quite right either. Byproduct of sex? That works, though some won’t like it. But then again, those that don’t like it, would probably be the same to argue that the primary purpose of sex is to create offsring, in which case saying “byproduct of sex” would not apply to their case….. okay maybe then, you could revise your little analogy specifically for us substituting “byproduct of sex” for “blood of his children”. Do that and then I’ll let you know if there’s a corelation, okay?
asitis, does this work for you?
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his procreation when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Or how about;
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives through intercourse when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
I don;t see why you have to put the sex in teir though. How about this:
Or how about;
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the human beings he conceives when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
I like this one:
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his procreation when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Any objections?
You can’t use “human beings” because that depends on yoru belief, same as child and offspring.
“blood of his procreation” doesn’t work because procreation is the act or process of begetting offspring or descendants. It’s a process not an object and also, it implies that the purpose of the process or act is to produce offspring. Sex is not always procreation. Even less so, when abortion results.
Why do you have to put sex in there? Well you don’t if you can find other terminolgy that works. Byproduct of sex works though. Try that.
asistis,
by-product of sex doesn’t work because many procreated human offspring that take form of fetus’ and babies who become children are not conceived through sex.
Any other ideas?
How about this,
For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christ and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his progeny when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Are you beginning to get the idea how difficult it is to have meaningful conversation with somebody who just wants to play semantic games?
TS, it’s not semantics. It’s meaning.
Look at your case @ 4:48. It makes no sense. We are talking about something that is aborted.It is very unlikely that something that has been procreated through means other than sex, has been purposefully created and often at great effort, time and expense. It is not likely to then be aborted. So it remains that in the case we are talking about, byproduct of sex DOES make sense. You just don’t want to use it, because of your personal beliefs but, more importanatly because than your analogy falls apart: If what we are talking about is a byproduct of sex, not a child, not our offspring, not the fuit of our procreation, than the comparison to Pontius Pilate does not stand. That was the killing of a human being, Jesus Christ. And not just any human being for many.
Now, if you will excuse. me I have to get dressed-up.. I have a party to get ready for!
I am not after a place without censorship. I don’t see where what I posted was crazy or nutty and I don’t think Hal was offended at all. imo it wasn’t removed so much cause it was an attack on Hal, who’s reply showed that he thought it was a “good one”, but rather because it offends Carla and makes her cringe to hear abortion describe as “tearing babies from their moithers wombs in bloody pieces”.
TS, Carla is quite fair-minded, and Hal has the perspective to see you and what you say without it hurting him or threatening him.
You might take notice of sarcasm, however.
asitis: Erin, thanks for adding your story to this. And I feel the same way about Blessing. I’ve seen the photo. It does not change my position, but it does help me see how the miscarriage broke Bethany’s heart and that of those women who do regret an abortion.
Yeah, there it is. Bethany (and Carla) are very good at getting across how they feel and how they felt.
Asistis,
Pat yourself on the back, put on your party dres, and pretend that the “the product of sex” is not procreation. Convince yourself that a man and woman joining together to conceive a new life is something other than conception of a new distnct human being. A life that is not a “part”of either parent but an individual life in and of himself/herself. You really don;t see how ridiculous you look when you keep repeating that “the by-product of sex” is not a human being. I wonder what your children would think of that. lol
astisis,
Is the byproduct of two dogs having sex a canine being?
Asitis: Please, do not try arguing with Truthseeker. It’s really a wasted effort and will only cause you brain damage (from smacking your head onto your desk or computer).
If what we are talking about is a byproduct of sex, not a child, not our offspring, not the fuit of our procreation, than the comparison to Pontius Pilate does not stand. That was the killing of a human being, Jesus Christ.
Posted by: asitis at December 13, 2008 5:10 PM
Asitis, I guess that means everybody who believes that the by product of sex between two human beings is a human being understands the analogy. And everybody who believes that the by-product of sex between two human beings is something other than a human being doesn’t. But if the life created by sex is not human than what life form is it asitis? Maybe you could ask your friends at the party? lol
Hello Rae,
I wasn’t arguing. I was having a discussion with asitis about “semantics” and “meanings”. The only word she could find that accurately describes the beings that a human man and a human woman join together to conceive was “by-product of sex”. Do you find you get confused as to the meaning of a discussion when somebody refers to said being as “human” or the conception of said being as procreation?
You might take notice of sarcasm, however.
Posted by: Doug at December 13, 2008 5:18 PM
Doug,
Sarcasm is not helpful and often leads to insults and misunderstandings. It should be avoided.
Ok, we’ve been over this 20000000 times.
Child:
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
…
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
Or, from another dictonary…
Child:
1 a: an unborn or recently born person
-Merriam Webster
Sarcasm is not helpful and often leads to insults and misunderstandings. It should be avoided.
Truthseeker, okay, but if you see insults as bad then think of your own posting.
Doug, If somebody says they have no regrets about killing their offspring, they are insulting themselves, don’t blame me for calling them on it.
The by-product of sex is pleasure.
The reason for the sexual organs is for reproduction.
When one begins to believe that human beings are by-product’s of sex acts, one becomes incapable of reasoning from objective reality.
Rae is such a example.
So is that recruited pro abort, Asitis.
Are you postabortive TS?
Hal will be won by love not by your indignation which I noticed you turned on me earlier. Something about guardian angel…something…something.
Ask yourself why you are so incensed???
Do I abhor the thought that 4,000 babies die everyday in this country by abortion?? Absolutely.
Do I feel the best way to reach those that have abortions in their past is to shout Baby Killer at them? Absolutely not.
I understand Hal because I thought I was fine with my abortion for a time. I was blind but now I see.
yllas @4:46am
Only when one has sex to create a child is the BYPRODUCT pleasure.
Sex is most often had without the intent of creating a child, but for pleasure instead.
“Sex is most often had without the intent of creating a child, but for pleasure instead.”
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 7:09 AM
Exactly, and as usual Yllas has things backwards. Some serious issues about sex there.
Heather,
Do you have any by-products of sex? When did they become human beings? When you have sex and a new life is created is that procreation? lol
Asitis,
Is the by-product of two caninies having sex a canine being? lol
I don’t know enough about dogs to say for certain TS, but don’t they only mate when the female is in heat? If so, it’s fair to say that their offspring are not the by-product of their sex, because their purpose is always procreation.
duh
Are you postabortive TS?
No, but I may understand Hal better then in many respects because I am a man. And it is proper to rebuke those who would falsely speak that abortion without regret is healthy.
******
Hal will be won by love not by your indignation which I noticed you turned on me earlier. Something about guardian angel…something…something.
Carla,
You were trying to silence my rebuke of Hal for his lack of compassion of any kind for babies that are aborted.
*************
Ask yourself why you are so incensed???
Carla, It was his denial of a need for any kind of compassion for the unborn.
************
Do I abhor the thought that 4,000 babies die everyday in this country by abortion?? Absolutely.
Carla, so do I
****************
Do I feel the best way to reach those that have abortions in their past is to shout Baby Killer at them? Absolutely not.
Carla, there are many ways and having them face the truth of what they have done is ONE of those ways.
**************
I understand Hal because I thought I was fine with my abortion for a time. I was blind but now I see.
hallelujah
Truth seeker, I don’t know about Heather, but I can say that I have two children. They were not the by-products of sex. They are the products of procreation, because we had sex with the intent of creating them.
If I had got pregnant having sex without intending to get pregnant and then had carried to term and given birth, these children could be considered, by definition, the byproducts of sex. But oh how I would love those sweet by-products!
I think I get it! Truthseeker, you seem to be having diffficulty with this concept of having sex for pleasure as opposed to procreation. Is it that you have never had good sex? Is that it? Look up “foreplay” Consider that tip my Christmas gift to you…. and your wife. ;)
asitis,
If two humans have sex and they create a new life even though bthey weren’t trying is that unintentional procreation? You seem to think that a persons desire to carry a pregnancy to term is part of the definition of procreation. What is the source of your definition? I can’t find caveat in any of the defintions I see for procreation neither the length of the new beings life nor the intended puurpose of the sex has anything to do with it.
Asitis, when a woman gets pregnant is a new life created? rotfl
I think I get it! Truthseeker, you seem to be having diffficulty with this concept of having sex for pleasure as opposed to procreation. Is it that you have never had good sex? Is that it? Look up “foreplay” Consider that tip my Christmas gift to you…. and your wife. ;)
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 11:41 AM
Asitis,
I have been having frequent sex with my wife for over eighteen years. I never use protection and she has never been on birth control. We have never had an unintended pregnancy though we are always open to the gift of children. Pleasure during sex has never been a problem so the concept of working for pleasurful sex is foreign to me. You may want to keep that Christmas gift or give it to somebody else cause I have no use for it anyway.
“If so, it’s fair to say that their offspring are not the by-product of their sex, because their purpose is always procreation.”
duh
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 10:57 AM
Let me get this straight asitis.
Was the point you were making that puppies are NOT the by-product of sex between two canines? Or did you mean to say that dogs only have sex with purpose in mind, like when they want to raise a family?
The latter, if it IS true they only mate when female in heat.
Pity you have no use for foreplay!
furthermore i was saying that puppies are NOT the by-product of sex if dogs only mate to procreate. In that cause puppies are the product .
You do understand that by-product refers to a secondary, unintended outcome, right? Because I’m starting to think maybe that’s the reason for your confusion here? Yes?
Asitis,
So you are saying that male dogs wait until the female dogs go into heat before having sex because they the only reason they have sex is cause they want to make puppies? That hasn;t been my experience. My male dog doesn;t really seem to understand that sex is for making puppies. It’smore of an instinctual thing based on hormones that the female releaeses that drive him bonkers and make him howl all day.
And what did you mean when you said puppies are not the by-product of sex beween canines?
Interesting how you redefine terms. Like saying that by-product means secondary unintended outcome? Do you think other people will just accept terms as you define them instead of the way they are defined say in a dictionary.
For example, if I burn some brush in order to make ashes to spread as fertilizer on my lawn, those ashes are a by-product of my burning the wood.
Same thing with your definition of the word procreation. You want to define it as only applying to life that is kept alive for some arbitrary time period that you have yet to define. Let me ask this question again cause you didn’t answer it above.
When a woman gets pregnant is a new life created?
Pity you have no use for foreplay!
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Don’t feel bad, we usually don’t get more than thirty minutes to an hour or so alone together at a time so that doesn’t leave much time for fore-play.
What are you talking about – I’m making up the definition of by-product????? By-product is, as I said, a secondary unintended outcome. It’s an aside. So when you are having sex, simply for pleasure and not intending to get preganant and you do get pregnant, what you have is the by-product of sex.
And I am purposely not answering your question wgen life begins. We have been round and round that before and you are not dragging me into that endless debate again TS. Don’t even try.
Finally, you and your wife only get 30-60 minutes togather alone? What do you have, a family bed or something? Shift work?????
Truth seeker, you really are abit confused on this by-product issue. Let’s use the brush burning example you gave. If you were burning the brush becuase you wanted to clear the land than the ashes would be the by-product which you could use as fertilizer.
But if you were burning the brush because you wanted to create some ash to use as fertilizer, than those ashes would be considered the product.
See? It’s a good example you picked because you can compare it to the sex one: But sustitite having sex for burning brush, pleasure for clearing land and offspring for ashes. You get:
If you are having sex because you wanted some pleasure, and happen to get pregnant, that pregnancy is the by-product of the sex. But if you were having sex because you wanted to get pregnant than that pregnancy is the product of the sex.
Understand?
asitis, I stand corrected on the definition of by-product. I just looked it up and one of theit is a secondary product produced besides the intended product. I had always viewed the word by-product as being inclusive oif the primary product and not just the secondary products of a chemical reaction.
That is the proimary difference between me and you. I am open minded enough to admit when I am mistaken about something. You on the other hand are so stubbornly blinded that you refuse to answer a simple question like.
“When a woman gets pregnant is a new life created?”
The answer is so obvious but it would go against the point you want to argue so you are just unwilling to answer it.
Finally, you and your wife only get 30-60 minutes togather alone? What do you have, a family bed or something? Shift work?????
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 2:24 PM
We do keep busy and often one is already asleep before the other gets to bed and I would let my wife sleep rather than wake her for sex. Sex does not drive our lives and sleep is as important as sex to a persons health. But we find the time often enough and we don’t need the toys or the foreplay that some like you seem to need in order to get pleasure out of sex.
And if the life question is above your pay-grade then how about the procreation question. You want to define it as only applying to life that is kept alive for some arbitrary time period that you have yet to define. Where did you get that idea from?
Maybe the fact that you need so much foreplay is actually a sign that something is lacking in your intercourse?
I never said that there was a time frame attached to procreation. I did say there was a purpose (of creating offspring) attached to the sex though when you referred to the sex as procreation.
Truthseeker, do you have any idea of what foreplay is? And how much women love it?. You sound very defensive. Talk to your wife…..
Oh, and thank you for your apology regarding the use of the word by-product. Word meaning is more important than is often realized.
BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
I never said that there was a time frame attached to procreation. I did say there was a purpose (of creating offspring) attached to the sex though when you referred to the sex as procreation.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:56 PM
Hello???? anybody home??? Procreate does mean to bring something into existense, and when humans have sex that “thing” is another human being.
Procreate comes from the Latin “pro” which means to “evidence in affirmation” and “create” which means to bring into existense. anywhere in the definition.
But purpose has nothing to do with it in reference to my poem because the analogy did not refer to the act of sex, it refers to the life that the man has created.
“For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his procreation when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.
Truthseeker, do you have any idea of what foreplay is? And how much women love it?. You sound very defensive. Talk to your wife…..
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:56 PM
I can unequivocably say that no woman prior to my wife or my wife has ever tols me they enjoy foreplay better than they enjoy intercourse with me. Maybe it’s just me then…. lol
BTW, I do admit when I am mistaken.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 3:58 PM
And you avoid being mistaken by refusing to answer or redirecting to something else.
4:12pm
TS, procreation refers to the sexual activity of begetting offspring. If you are having sex without the intent of creating offspring, but rather for pleasure only, than I would not call the sexual activity Procreation. I would simply call it sex. That is why procreation doesn’t apply in all cases.
4:14pm Just because they haven’t told you, doesn’t mean they don’t have something they’d like to tell you. You should ask her….as a woman, trust me on this.
4:18 Big sigh…. NO, it is quite simply that I do not want to go round and round on that issue again with you. When does life begin? is not a simple question and there is no consensus. Period.
Asitis, “when does life begin” is actually a very simple question. A new, unique human life begins at amphimixis. There is no debate about this, it’s scientific fact.
Lauren, I’m sure you know very well it is debated widely, even within the scientific community, as to when life begins. And beyond then, when does “personhood” begin. It is not a simple question. There is not one answer. However, I do recognize and fully appreciate that you have one answer.
No, there is absolutely no debate about when life begins. It begins, specifically, at amphimixis. The fact that you claim there to be a debate doesn’t make it a fact. Grab an anatomy text, the beginnings of life are spelled out very clearly.
When “personhood” is given is a separate issue, but historically the only time we have classified a group of humans as “non-persons” is when we are trying to deny them rights.
Doug, If somebody says they have no regrets about killing their offspring, they are insulting themselves, don’t blame me for calling them on it.
Truthseeker, that’s what would be called an “unresponsive” reply in court. Or is it “non-responsive”?
Anyway, if you’re worried about insults, “know thyself.”
Ok, we’ve been over this 20000000 times.
Child: 2.a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
Lauren, yes we’ve been over it many times, and the primary definition in many dictionaries is “between birth and….”
Not saying it has to be only “after birth” but it sure as heck doesn’t have to be before birth.
Nope, the *primary* definition in Merriam Webster is
“Child:
1 a: an unborn or recently born person”
Look, Doug, the definition is what it is. Basically, a child isn’t always a fetus, but a fetus is always a child. Thus, using the term “child” is always applicable when talking about a fetus.
TS, procreation refers to the sexual activity of begetting offspring. If you are having sex without the intent of creating offspring, but rather for pleasure only, than I would not call the sexual activity Procreation. I would simply call it sex. That is why procreation doesn’t apply in all cases.
*************
asitis,
Let’s try this again:
Hello???? anybody home??? The word “sex” does not appear in the definition of the word procreate or the word procreation. Procreate does mean to bring something into existense, and when humans have sex that “thing” is another human being.
Procreate comes from the Latin “pro” which means to “evidence in affirmation” and “create” which means to bring into existense. And purpose has nothing to procreation as referenced in my poem because the analogy did not refer to the act of sex or the purpose of any sexual act, it refers to the life that the man has created.
“For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of his procreation when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.”
If you fail to see the analogy then it is only because your liberal self would rather redirect the conversation to semantics. It is a common liberal tactic.
And Lauren is absolutely right about when life begins, but you wish to continue to refuse to admit it and/or redirect the conversation toward personhood. You are a liberal first class.
Even the word life throws you for a loop.
“For just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood of the unborn life he has created when he hands them over to the abortionist under the guise that it is the woman’s choice.”
Anyway, if you’re worried about insults, “know thyself.”
Posted by: Doug at December 14, 2008 9:51 PM
Doug,
That is the second time in this blogline where you said that to me. Care to point out where I insulted you?
asitis said:
Just because they haven’t told you, doesn’t mean they don’t have something they’d like to tell you. You should ask her….as a woman, trust me on this.
asitis, I don’t know what you are getting at with the tips on foreplay for Christmas and wanting me to engage in more foreplay and discuss it more with my wife etc. I have been there, done that. If I had a choice between a month of foreplay or intercourse just once, I’d take the intercourse hands down.
Truthseeker, you keep referring to “procreation” as the offspring. Procreation is the sexual activity or process that produces the offspring. Please look it up.
Lauren, here’s an excerpt from a Developmental Biology text book for you.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Only when one has sex to create a child is the BYPRODUCT pleasure.
Sex is most often had without the intent of creating a child, but for pleasure instead.
Posted by: asitis at December 14, 2008 7:09 AM
What is the reason for the reproductive organs?
Are you really that dense to reality?
What is the reason for the lungs?
Is pleasure the reason for your lungs? Or CO2 the by-product of your lungs? Where in the lung is a pleasure cell located?
What is the reason for your heart?
What is the purpose of the Eye?
To see, and what pleasure your get is a by product of the purpose of your eye, which has no pleasure in it.
Why are you soo stupid?
Only when one defends a vice does one become as ignorant to reason as you are Asitis, and TRYS to make pleasure bend reality and purpose, which ends in killing a human being for and from your mistaken idea of purpose and reason in matters of one organ of the human body.
Your a wonderful meditation on how pleasure makes one ignorant.
Socrates said in The Republic that virtue can know vice but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
Care to deny Socrates description of you Asitis?
The full good of the reproductive organs is exactly what their purpose is. Which is why you don’t know it’s evil to murder a innocent human life also.
And this intent you write of, must be a lots of people failing intent since abortion is a common experience amongst the ignorance you preach for Asitis.
But, of course, no one’s intent is to murder innocent human life, because their intent is to receive pleasure and then murder their “intent of pleasure” by abortion.
First your ignorant of France, now your ignorant of the purpose of the reproductive organs.
Hmm, now we know why Stanek recruited you Asitis.
The only subject you know is expounding on your bourgeois lifestyle.
HEther.
Stay calm, someone will be here to help you soon, God is with us all this day.
I’M ignorant of “the purpose” of reproductive organs Sally? That’s a good one. You seriously need to have sex.
asitic.
You see, not answering simple questions asked of you, and by replying that, “You seriously need to have sex”, is quite foolish, and again exposes your lack of social skills once again.
You really don’t know the purpose of those organs of reproduction.
Abortion is the last action of a sexual act, based on a intention of pleasure, and denying the reality of the organs of reproduction.
Or do people such as you intent to abort for pleasure Asitis?
Or since your soo ignorant to reality not bending to pleasure.
Feces is the last action of eating. That one eats for the intent of pleasure or not, doesn’t change the mephitic of feces.
Asitis, the text you quote is either woefully misguided, or is directly trying to mare the issue.
There is no disagreement. From fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology 7th edition by Frederic H. Martini:
“After oocyte activation and completion of meiosis, the nuclear material remaining within the ovum reorganizes as the female pronucleus. While these changes are under way the nucleus of the spermatozoon swells, and as it forms the male pronucleus (the rest of the sperm breaks down). The male pronucleus then migrates toward the center of the cell, and the spindle fibers form. The two pronuclei then fuse in the process called amphimixis. The cell is now a zygote that contains the normal complement of 46 chromosomes, and fertilization is complete. This is the “moment of conception.”
From Gray’s Anatomy (The text,obviously, not the show):Impregnantion- “One, or perhaps more, spermatozoa penetrate the zoma pellucinda nad are contained in the perivitelline fluid. A single spermatozoon, more advanced than the rest, becomes buried in the yolk, the tail disappears, and the head constitutes the male pronucleus. This gradually approaches the female pronucleus, and ultimately the two pronuclei come in contact and fuse to form a new nucleus, containing both male and female and elements, and named the segmentation of clevage nucleus, and the whole cell thus modified is called the blastophere.”
Anatomy defines the exact moment that a new, unique human life is formed. Trying to obfuscate the issue into some great mystery is done only to give the sibilance of controversy where none exist.
Also, asitis, I looked up the author of the text you sited. It seems he has been widely criticized for “politicizing science” to the extent that he manufactured debate where non exists in order to confirm his own admitted support for legalized abortion.
For instance, when Gilbert describes gastrulation. He states that when the embryo “can no longer give rise to twins or other multiple births it is sometimes called individuation”. No human embryologist uses this term. In fact, the Nomenclature Committee of The American Association of Anatomists rejected this term in its official lexicon Terminologia Embryologica. It is a false term and was used by Grobstein to justify his invention of “preembryo”, which term has also been rejected by the Nomenclature Committee.
ilbert states on page 40: “Science does not offer a hard and fast answer to the question of when human life begins, and there is no consensus among scientist’s opinions”.
Of his stance that there is no concensus as to when life begins “No human embryologist supports his opinion, and that is exactly what his conclusion is – an opinion, a political one at that. Virtually every human embryologist is unequivocal in their fact that the new individual human life begins at fertilization (conception)
See: 20 Kischer, C. W. 2003. When does human life begin? The final answer. The Linacre Quarterly. 70: 326-339. [Back]
21 Kischer, C. W. 1996. The Beginning of Life and the Establishment of the Continuum. The Linacre Quarterly. 63: 78-87. [Back]
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D. is an emeritus professor of Cell Biology And Anatomy, Specialty in Human Embryology,
University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson
Arizona.
According to the American College of Pediatricians:
BSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.
Lauren, I had never heard of the American College of Pediatricians. (The American Academy of Pediatrics is the main organization).
So, I went to their website. They appear to be religious and political, and very conservative (and not in a good way). They were founded to fight the rights of gay parents. While I can respect their “pro life” views, I have complete contempt for their anti-gay views.
Thank you Hal.
I also have friends who are physicians, a genetics professor and human biologists who would argue as well that there is no consesus on when life begins within their scientific communities.
Hal, the American Society of Pediatricians also supported the continuum of life in their 1971 statement.
Asitis, science can point to the exact point of conception. Terms such as “pre-embryo” and “individualization” that are used to create pesudo-controversy are not recognized by the American ass. of Anatomists. The text you quoted extensively sited these terms which are not recognized by the scientific establishment.
Lauren,
“Terms such as “pre-embryo” …are used to create pesudo-controversy”
Yes. As even Princeton pro-choice biologist Lee Silver admits in his book “Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family”,
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena – where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation – as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. “Don’t worry,” a doctor might say, “it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.”
1 a: an unborn or recently born person”
Look, Doug, the definition is what it is. Basically, a child isn’t always a fetus, but a fetus is always a child. Thus, using the term “child” is always applicable when talking about a fetus.
Lauren, dictionaries are descriptive,. not prescriptive. A fetus can be called a “child,” but in no way does it have to be. It can mean the unborn or it can just mean between birth and some future point.
“Anyway, if you’re worried about insults, “know thyself.”
Doug, That is the second time in this blogline where you said that to me. Care to point out where I insulted you?
TS, don’t know that you’ve insulted me in this thread, but some of your posts have certainly been insulting to Hal and/or to other people, and in other threads as well.
Hal, thanks for the heads-up on the American College of Pediatricians. They should more accurately call themselves the American College of Christian Conservative Pediatricians.
You say that like it’s a bad thing Virginia. :)
Carla, what I mean is that they have a definite bias and mission. The name they use does not represent then and gives the impression of including all pediatricians. It’s (intentionally)misleading.
Lauren, when you say that Gilbert is “widely criticized” you should specify that you mean widely criticized by pro-life and catholic organizations.
Kinda like Planned Parenthood.
Exactly! A name that means something.
Kinda like that Planned Parenthood has a definite bias and mission, does not represent what they do and is intentionally misleading.
Glad to see we agree, V.
oh no! I thought you meant their name represnted them. Thats how I meant “exactly!”
I know. I was being a brat.
me too :)
HA!
Something about you I like, V!! :)
Ditto carla!
Asitis, I described above that the terms hey employees to back up his statements are not valid, biological terms, but rather loaded political terms.
Doug:
You’re pretty much echoing what I said. A fetus is always a child, but a child is not always a fetus. There’s no debating that. However, the fact that the primary definition of “child” includes unborn children means that the pro-choice argument that the term is inappropriate is invalidated.
Lauren, by definition you could refer to a fetus (though not anything younger than a fetus) as a child. The issue would be that a fetus and a born child are quite different. I know you will argue on that, but they are.
Asitis, no anything younger than a fetus that falls under the unbrella of “unborn person” fits the definition of child.
The definition is simply:
“1 a: an unborn or recently born person”
A fetus is only as different from a newborn as an infant is from a toddler. It’s just a matter of maturity and age. While a toddler has vast developmental advantages over an infant, we consider them equally human and equally deserving of rights. The same goes for any other developmental discrepancy that occurs after birth.
Ahhhh…. but it is debatable what an unborn person is. There is no consensus as to when personhood begins.
And depending on the age of the fetus, a fetus and a newborn can be fundamentally more different than an infant and a toddler
The very presence of the term “unborn person” confers personhood to the unborn.
Life is a continuum, from conception until death. There is never a time when we are more or less human. Though at times our bodies might function differently, or not be fully developed, but our humanity does not fluctuate.
Sure the term “unborn person” sounds like it confers personhood to the unborn, but not necessarily at conception, or at 8 weeks or at any particular time.
It confers personhood to the unborn. Period. No time frame is suggested, which allows for the definition to apply to any unborn human. Lack of inclusive criteria does not imply exclusion.
“Anyway, if you’re worried about insults, “know thyself.”
Doug, That is the second time in this blogline where you said that to me. Care to point out where I insulted you?
TS, don’t know that you’ve insulted me in this thread
Posted by: Doug at December 15, 2008 11:57 AM
Doug, Care to gived me an example of where I insulted you on any blogline?
asitis,
when you and your husband procreate does your procreation create a living human being?
yllas,
nice post at December 15, 2008 7:09 AM.
well said
I’M ignorant of “the purpose” of reproductive organs Sally? That’s a good one. You seriously need to have sex.
Posted by: asitis at December 15, 2008 7:28 AM
I think you got it backwards asitis. Aren’t you the one who like giving your husband foreplay better than intrcourse?
Hal,
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood his progeny when he hands his unborn child over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice was only his woman’s to make.”
Truthseeker, you keep referring to “procreation” as the offspring. Procreation is the sexual activity or process that produces the offspring. Please look it up.
Posted by: asitis at December 15, 2008 4:26 AM
asitis,
you should look up procreation yourself and then admit you were “wrong”. You can do it, I know you can say it asitis. “Truthseeker you were right”. This could be the start of a whole new asitis. The word procreation is a noun not a verb.
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood his procreation when he hands his progeny over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice was only his woman’s to make.”
Truthseeker, excuse me…. but once again, procreation is the sexual activity or process that produces the offspring. It is not the offspring. Activity and process are nouns. How do you get that this definition is for a verb???????
Do yourself a favor and just look it up. You argued long and hard about by-product before you finally did so and found you were wrong. Don’t do it again.
Doug, care to gived me an example of where I insulted you on any blogline?
TS, I wasn’t saying you’d insulted me. If you have, it was no big deal and it’s forgotten, but maybe you haven’t, ever.
But you have been insulting to some people.
asitis,
You prove my point like I stated previously; part of the make-up of a liberal word twister is to never admit they are wrong, and you are a liberal word-twister on steroids. But on top of that you are a troll because your posts have no purpose but to try and aggravate or offend. But I guess it is to be expected from one who cannot even say that abortion is the taking of a life.
The process that produces offspring is called procreating. When procreating actually creates a new life life that is known as procreation. When you kill that new life you are shedding the blood of your procreation.
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does every man wash his hands of the blood his procreation when he hands his progeny over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice was only his woman’s to make.”
I am a word twister on steroids? Truthseeker you are ridiculous. Seeking the truth. Okay, you must be farsighted, because its right in front of you. Hello!
“The process that produces offspring is called procreating. When procreating actually creates a new life life that is known as procreation. When you kill that new life you are shedding the blood of your procreation”.
Procreating is a verb. It means producing offsping. Procreation is a noun. Its the sexual activity or process that produces offspring.This is straight from the dictionary. Either you can’t be bothered to look it up because you are so (wrongly) sure of yourself, or you have looked it up and rather than admit AGAIN that you are wrong you accuse me of being wrong and twisting words.
Pathetic.
asitis, when you got pregnant was your product representative of procreation? Did same product have the capacity to bleed? Hmmm… You don’t even have to know it’s a life to know that tearing same product from womb would be sacrificing the blood of your procreation….unless you are completely dense that is. I could really give a rat’s ass if you ever admit you are wrong, it’s just fun watching you squirm. Your mind is a sea of redirected nonsense and you are sinkingwith the weight of a millstone around your neck.
“Just as Pontious Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesu Christi and handed him over to be crucified; so also does asitis wash her hands of the blood man’s procreation when she compels this civilation’s progeny be turned over to the abortionist to be terminated under the guise that the choice to kill this new life is only the mother’s to make.”
Hmmm… I’m squirming? Funny, you’re the one who has something to squirm about. I take it you looked up procreation, because at least you’ve dropped that attack. Unbelievably pathetic!
Your mind is a sea of redirected nonsense and you are sinkingwith the weight of a millstone around your neck.
Where do you get this crap, by the way?
asitis, when you got pregnant was your product representative of procreation? Did same product have the capacity to bleed? Hmmm… You don’t even have to know it’s a life to know that tearing same product from womb would be sacrificing the blood of your procreation
elaj kqvpxc zsbrxo fjwnc elfgwx nxhbf vcth
elaj kqvpxc zsbrxo fjwnc elfgwx nxhbf vcth