NARAL director admits fetal heartbeat begins very early
This [heartbeat] bill would essentially outlaw abortions in Ohio because they would be banned before a woman even knows she is pregnant.
~Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice OH, unwittingly admitting just how early the fetal heart begins beating in pregnancy (21-22 days post-conception), as quoted by The Columbus Dispatch, March 2
[Photo is of 6 week embryo]
Mar.03, 2011 7:00 am |
Inconsistencies, Industry watch, Pregnancy |
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.
Gee, Kellie, I didn’t think the blob of tissue, the parasite, the embryo, the “pregnancy” had a heartbeat that soon! You mean it’s alive?!?!
Kellie Copeland provided more information on fetal development in one sentence than PP counselors apparently provide during an entire counseling session.
40 years of ‘blob of tissue’ eradicated in one sentence by a member of NARAL. sweet.
Bernard Nathanson might be giving a thumbs up from heaven. :>) !
Abortion stops a beating heart? Really Kellie?
No question unborn children have heartbeats, but do the people at NARAL?
A product of conception with a heartbeat!?!?
Who knew?
Praise God! Let the TRUTH be known!
She must have meant heart tones, right? 8P
Fearfully & wonderfully made: embryoscopy, the maturing heart at 6 weeks 6 days
The bill is achieving what needs to be done — getting abortion advocates to admit that what they say to women about “blobs of tissue” is a bald faced lie.
Love it!! Too bad no one in the mainstream media will cover this.
Bet she has to be submitted to thought retraining at NARAL. “It does not have a heartbeat, it does not have a heartbeat….”
Praise God!!
Good zinger, Joe!
Actually, her quote was in a mainstream media article! I just wonder how many people will pick up on what she said. :D
EXACTLY! Now you’re catching on.
klynn73 says:
March 3, 2011 at 11:10 am
________________________________
Is that not PRECIOUS? :)
It’s a pretty stupid (not to mention duplicitous) bill, at any rate. Why draw the line at heartbeat? Are fetuses that don’t have heartbeats less worthy of protection than fetuses that do? What about embryos? This bill is nothing more than an end-run around constitutional rights, and along with the embarrassment happening here in Wisconsin, should be a good, solid lesson to any and all swing states contemplating throwing a tantrum over a temporary economic downturn that is really beyond anyone’s control and going “red” in order to teach the Democratic Party a lesson: the GOP, particularly individual state Republican Parties, plays for keeps, and will immediately set off to drag an otherwise normally blue or purple state 80 years into the past in order to appease the fringe elements of their base, all under the auspices of their new “mandate” which actually says nothing more than “don’t have a “D” after your name”.
Great argument Joan – maybe we should consider not aborting if humans are in the womb!
Thank you for getting that straight! wonderful!
Joan, the rationale is this: When a person at an accident scene has no heartbeat, they are declared dead (this is just one of many possible examples). Since the heartbeat determines deadness vs aliveness at the end of life, it makes perfect logical sense to use the heartbeat as a boundary in this case. Of course, biologists and mothers know that life begins at conception, because it is not the mother’s body that creates the heart and its beat, but rather the new developing person who’s own heart develops and grows.
A baby who’s heart is just beginning to beat has not yet picked a political party so whether you’re a D, an R, or an I, or even a Q, you all have the right to your own body. Baby’s body, baby’s choice. :>)
Joan,
Funny coming from a person who has total disregard for constitutional right to life. And don’t give me the bogus argument that since the SC states you have that right, that it somehow proves it is constitutional, or I will say by your own rationale, Dred Scott cases proves owning slaves is constitutional and should be legal now.
Joan, I’d say that Obama and the Dems have already turned the clock back 80 years.
I think that God is awesome, because he sees into the hearts of men and women, and as of now, the theology of the entire issue about abortion from 1973 up to precent- is being proven wrong by the one thing most arguements about God and ways of nature usually win over-SCIENCE is our friend on the race against ending abortion! God knew centuries ago! He knew the time frame the baby would need to form it’s entire nervous system and organs and be able to have LIFE,,…this time frame is vital in the first 6weeks before the heart can efficiently start working towards growing all these systems into a full blown human being..the fact that this all happens BEFORE a Woman misses her period,…before she is even “experiencing morning sickness” or any other signs of pregnancy- this child is already formed and just simply growing..Before a woman had “quickening” and felt her baby move inside her, the only evidence was a growing belly!Now thanks to SCIENCE and Truth..we can defend our pre-born children, The truth shall set you free..May God keep the pro-aborts’ hearts heavy…til they seek the truth and join in the race for LIFE.
Ah, more hyperbole from Joan, but nothing of substance backed by factual evidence.
along with the embarrassment happening here in Wisconsin,
I know, right, joan. At least some rules are finally being put down to keep those dems from further trashing our beautiful capital building and it looks like the runaways are gonna be held accountable too. About time.
I posted this as a response to a respondant that insisted unwanted children are better off dead.
“As an unwanted child who suffered years of physical and emotional abuse who was born just months before Roe V. Wade was passed…I’d choose life. Yes, I’d choose to live that life all over again, ten times over.
No matter how difficult life is, no matter how little food you have, no matter how crowded your house is, life is better than death. Life is a chance, a gift. Even if brief or painful, life is a gift. Our culture has evolved to consider our children as liabilities instead of assets. When our children stop being cattle to be constantly entertained and start being the helpers they used to be, then maybe we can turn this around.”
“Wisconsin, should be a good, solid lesson to any and all swing states contemplating throwing a tantrum”
Wait wait wait… you’re comparing Gov. Walker’s behavior to a tantrum? Really? Have you seen the behavior of the protestors in Madison? I’d be inclined to support Walker just because of their reprehensible behavior.
“…Life is a chance…” Beautifully put, Christine.
Punisher, Dred Scott doesn’t apply any more because of the 13th Amendment.
http://www.ehd.org
Education for Human Development website.
These pro-abortion people seriously need to go there and educate themselves! I see so many DUMB comments and ideas to support abortion in articles and on the news everywhere, and I have NO idea where they are getting their information from!!! I honestly think they just make it up and think if they said it out loud, it becomes a fact. It is crazy!!
This is great, just more progress being made here. If we can establish that a fetus with a beating heart is a human, we can potentially eliminate a lot of abortions in Ohio right there. It reminds me of a law in (I believe) Nebraska about fetal pain. Outlawing abortions once a fetus can feel pain. At least now some states are trying to set a determining factor of when a fetus has rights.
Personally I don’t think the question of heartbeat should even BE a matter of debate. If there is any uncertainty about when something is alive we should lean on the side of caution, just assume it should have rights because a life is at stake. However, this is a good step in the right direction, if it gets passed, outlawing abortions in Ohio altogether isn’t too far away.
Joan,
The reason the embryonic/fetal heartbeat is so important is that many people do not consider the embryo/fetus to be alive until that point, as a heartbeat is a major measurement of life.
I have a friend who, several years ago took a Child Development class at the college we were going to. She came out of class in tears. I asked her what was wrong, and she said, “I killed my baby after it was alive. I didn’t know that they were alive so soon.” She had watched the video of a seven week-old heartbeat in that class. I asked her, “Isn’t there life from conception?” She gave me a weird look, and said, “No!” So I asked her when she was taught that a human begins to live, and she told me at the first heartbeat. She has not been the same since that day. She has a much more gloomy outlook on life now, and I can see it eating her up inside.
Throughout college, I was given the same story by many people, that a person is not alive until their heart begins beating. I, however, have always known that life begins at conception (splitting cells that breathe = life). No matter what anyone says, conception is when life begins. However, the fact that so many hold that one belief is enough to say that if that’s what they believe, then that’s the point where the line should be drawn.
The basic problem is that the right to life of the unborn entails the right to the most intimate possible use of a female’s body. This places it apart from the “right to life” of any born individual — none of whom have the right to another person’s kidney, bone marrow, or even a pint of blood — even if the lack of it will lead to death. Of course, it is possible to argue that the embryo or fetus has a special entitlement since the womb is its natural habitat. Thus, it possesses rights that the born do not.
I think that the constitution needs all 4 bills passed as amendments to roe v wade-the heartbeat bill,the sonogram bill,the fetal pain bill as well as regulating any clinic that performs ANY abortions 1st trimester surgical thru full term,to be regulated with same requirements as a hospital and to be monthly audited for proper funding and health care as well as checking for HIPPA violations-these 4 bills will basically cause the financial downfall throughout the world- discipline has to be consistent-only then can we expect change, babies at any stage of development should be protected as human beings,but to have the law work for life, it has to enforce the laws all the same in all 52 states of the U.S. our country used to be freedom of life liberty and pusuit of happiness IN THAT ORDER.
Denise I think that is the key, the unborn should have special entitlements that the born shouldn’t because the unborn is in a special situation where he needs the mother’s body to survive. People who use the bodily-autonomy argument don’t address the fact that the child never asked to be conceived. It is the parents who are responsible for creating the unborn child. So it’s not fair to say I have the right not to sacrifice my body for the child’s life when your responsible for the child being there in the first place.
For instance, I have a right to privacy in my home and I can kick someone out if I don’t want them there but I can’t forcibly place them in my home without consent then have them arrested for tresspassing, that would be wrong.
Making comparisons from fetal development to stealing a kidney are a result of very faulty logic.
In order for something to be true, it must always be true. If we could not do kidney transplants X number of decades ago, then what argument would abortion advocates have made? None, obviously. It is only with the use of technology and immuno-suppressant drugs that a person can even receive a donor kidney. When a person recieves a donor kidney, they must take immuno-suppressive drugs for the rest of their lives in order not to reject it. This is all highly unnatural, but in these post-modern times we have come to accept it.
In order for the developing child to be considered an invader in the mother’s body, one must also employ very faulty logic. The child does not willfully invade the mother’s body from an outside location. Even in the case of sexual assault, it is not the child who willfully invades.
I have witnessed years of pro-abortion verbal acrobatics, a vain attempt to talk oneself out of scientific fact. Two parents cannot force a child into existence. Even if they are having sex in order to conceive, they cannot force a child into existence. Logically, it goes the other way: the child cannot force itself into existence. Because the child is not willfully responsible, he cannot be punished with death.
If a man attacks me to kill me, and I kill him in self defense, I won’t go to jail for protecting my own life. Humans have agreed in all societies and cultures on this planet that self-defense is not the same as homicide.
If a man is not attacking me to kill me or hurt me, can I kill him in self defense? No. You may not kill a person in self-defense if they are not attacking you and harming you. If you are sitting in a chair and a man trips and falls on you, can you kill him because he has invaded or compromised your autonomy? No. If you kill a man for falling on you, you will, in all cultures throughout history, be accused of murder.
Some pregnancies, like an ectopic pregnancy, are a danger to the mother’s immediate health. However, you cannot simply kill the baby. If a mother has an ectopic pregnancy and you use chemicals/drugs to kill the baby, you have NOT treated the ectopic pregnancy at all and have in fact attacked the child and endangered the mother.
We are placental mammals. Our species reproduces itself by conception and gestation. We don’t lay eggs. We don’t create spores. We don’t “bud” like yeast. When people take a very natural process and make it into a political act, they are acting against their own species. We don’t currently have a law on the books anywhere that means “acting against the species” but it does violate natural law. If you act against your country, that is called treason. Perhaps we should call abortion and abortion advocacy “treason against the human species.”
JS says:
March 4, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Denise I think that is the key, the unborn should have special entitlements that the born shouldn’t because the unborn is in a special situation where he needs the mother’s body to survive. People who use the bodily-autonomy argument don’t address the fact that the child never asked to be conceived. It is the parents who are responsible for creating the unborn child. So it’s not fair to say I have the right not to sacrifice my body for the child’s life when your responsible for the child being there in the first place.For instance, I have a right to privacy in my home and I can kick someone out if I don’t want them there but I can’t forcibly place them in my home without consent then have them arrested for tresspassing, that would be wrong.
(Denise) This is altogether arguable. However, I think you must be specific that you are requiring an ORDEAL so that the unborn may survive. I emailed a woman who was married. She and her husband weren’t prepared for kids yet but their method of contraception failed. She planned to give the baby up for adoption. She also said, “The last few months have been sheer hell.” I asked her why and she replied, “You’ve never had an unplanned pregnancy, have you? You feel like your body has been invaded. It’s gotten worse in the last few months.”
Nulono, you misunderstood my point. The fact a SC decision can be overturned by amendment or later SC decisions is precisely why the abort argument that since Roe v Wade decision that is somehow real proof that abortion is constitutional I’d such a bad argument.
Denise, I endured an unplanned pregnancy and now have a beautiful little boy, but at the time it was a very difficult experience. I think it is essential to note, however, that the physical aspects of pregnancy were not the difficult ones. As evidenced by your friend saying “you’ve never had an unplanned pregnancy, have you?” key word being unplanned. What differences are there between a planned pregnancy and an unplanned pregnancy? Anatomically the same processes are occurring. It is the lack of desire to have a child at the time that causes a mother to feel trapped, to feel like her child is an “invader”. The ORDEAL you referenced is an emotional one. I know that firsthand.
Here is my point. Should a woman’s attitude toward her child dictate whether or not that child is granted human rights? Can I toss aside science and say “I didn’t want the child I accidentally conceived to grow within my body, so I have a right to kill him/her”?
I believe the answer is to provide emotional support to women with unintended pregnancies. That’s what I needed more than anything before my son was born. I felt sick, my belly was growing, I had terrible heartburn and constipation, but the reason all of that was so terrible was because it was against my will. That being said, I knew that I could not take my child’s life based on my will. There have been many times that people in my life have inconvenienced me and put me through emotional ordeals. Even if they did it intentionally, I would not be granted the right to kill them because of it.
Now that my son is here I would do it all over again and then some. Before he was born (especially in the early months) I hadn’t forged an emotional connection with him, but my feelings toward him have never dictated his humanity. He is the same amount human now that I love him so dearly as he was when I was vomiting and wishing he wasn’t inside of me.
Well Denise I do appreciate the ordeal an unplanned pregnancy may cause and perhaps the analogy I drew is a little messy. All I am saying is the child should not be punished for this ordeal because they are not responsible for being conceived, I believe to abort a child because of the ordeal that a pregnancy may cause would be to treat the baby as if they are guilty for a wrongful act, since they are innocent they do not deserve to die. I understand that pregnancy may require an intimate use of a woman’s body and I empahtize with women who don’t want this but there has to be a better way to deal with it then to abort the baby.
Hilary said it very well, women in these situations need emotional support and people to help them throughout the difficulties of a pregnancy and to help them recover, a solution to this problem has to be one that helps awomen and the unborn.
JS says:
March 6, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Well Denise I do appreciate the ordeal an unplanned pregnancy may cause and perhaps the analogy I drew is a little messy. All I am saying is the child should not be punished for this ordeal because they are not responsible for being conceived, I believe to abort a child because of the ordeal that a pregnancy may cause would be to treat the baby as if they are guilty for a wrongful act, since they are innocent they do not deserve to die. I understand that pregnancy may require an intimate use of a woman’s body and I empahtize with women who don’t want this but there has to be a better way to deal with it then to abort the baby.
(Denise) There IS. That way is to prevent problem pregnancies. If every pregnant female were overjoyed to learn she was pregnant, we would relegate abortion to the dustbin of history.
I thank Hilary and JS for acknowledging that outlawing abortion does indeed impose an ordeal on girls and women who are unwillingly pregnant. We are making progress when we make this very important acknowledgment.
The law can and does sometimes demand ordeals. For example, males are required to enter the military and combat. The forced continuation of pregnancy can be seen as analogous: a kind of draft of the female.
Thanks for the comments Denise, by the way what do you think society should do to help prevent problem pregnancies?
JS says:
March 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Thanks for the comments Denise, by the way what do you think society should do to help prevent problem pregnancies?
(Denise) A WHOLE lot — a whole lot that we’re not doing not. First, we should jettison the abstinence vs. contraception dichotomy and recognize that we can and should have more abstinence but will continue to require contraception. The young male is biologically constructed to make advances; the young female to be responsive to them. Thus, leaving young people alone together is tempting fate. Greater adult supervision and reviving chaperoned dating — as corny as that sounds — are two major keys. We should always consider a Norplant, Depo-Provera, or the Pill for a girl as soon as she starts menstruating — NOT to encourage partnered sex but to protect her from pregnancy in case of rape. We must direct a lot of attention at young males teaching them abstinence and also trying to re-direct their sexual advances from the type of sex leading to pregnancy. They should be extremely well aware of what they are proposing putting a female through when they make a certain type of sexual advance.
Those are only a start. We’ve got a lot of work to do.
I need to add a point. Forcing a female to carry to term and give birth is forcing her through an extraordinary and terrible ordeal. However, ripping a fetus out of a womb which, however tiny, has a head and rudimentary limbs that are torn off in the process of its being ripped out of the womb, ends a human life.
I won’t call it “murder” because abortion wasn’t prosecuted as murder when it was illegal and almost certainly when not be prosecuted as murder if if is again outlawed. It was always its own category. But the destruction of the creature pictured above is the destruction of a human being.
Yes a fetus has a beating heart at approximately 21 days post conception, but it is only a rudimentary heart. It still can’t survive without the mother. A fetus is not a person. You pro-lifers seem to rejoice in the fact that a fetus is alive, because that’s somehow news to you, that something made up of cells is alive. Like as soon as you say that, your argument is automatically right. Yes a fetus is alive, just like the sperm that fertilizes the egg. Do you see any laws outlawing masturbation? You know what else is alive? A tumor. So we should outlaw medical procedures removing tumors from people who have cancer. Because millions of cells die when a tumor is surgically removed. What a cruel act that is.
It still can’t survive without the mother.
Neither can a newborn infant, if their mother is the only one around to take care of them. Your point?
A fetus is not a person.
Depends on the species of fetus. If it’s a canine fetus of some sort, then you’re right. That would not be a person. However, if it is a human fetus-an organism of the species homo sapiens sapiens-then you’d be wrong. They ARE a human being, and that means they are a person.
You pro-lifers seem to rejoice in the fact that a fetus is alive, because that’s somehow news to you, that something made up of cells is alive.
No, we HAVE to reiterate that point so much, because we are CONSTANTLY told by legal abortion supporters that no, gestating human beings are not alive and that they are merely clumps of tissue, blah blah blah. Seriously, we get that A LOT.
Yes a fetus is alive, just like the sperm that fertilizes the egg.
And this is where you reveal your ignorance. No, not “just like the sperm that fertilizes the egg”. Spermatozoa and ova are entirely DIFFERENT than a newly created human being. They are sex cells which belong to an organism-they are haploid cells-that means they do not have complete sets of DNA. That is definitely NOT the same as a human being from the point of conception onward. A human being in their zygotic stage is an entirely new, complete human organism with a full diploid DNA set. “Do you see any laws outlawing masturbation?” Of course not, just like I don’t see any laws against trimming toenails or exfoliating, but there ARE laws against smothering your toddler to death. Toenails and skin cells are not new complete organisms like a toddler is, just like sperm and ova are not new complete organisms as a zygote is. Same thing goes for a tumor. “Alive” is not the same thing as “New, complete, unique living organism”. We don’t lose sleep over nondescript cells dying. We only care specifically when human beings are killed. Like, by abortion.
Dan: “Yes a fetus has a beating heart at approximately 21 days post conception, but it is only a rudimentary heart.”
And a newborn has an epistemology, but it’s only a rudimentary one.*
Geez the idiotic things people suppose pass for argument around here…
Will someone please doff this utter n00b with a quick does of basics? Please. Where DO these people come from?
* (Like some pro-choicers)
xalisae: “And this is where you reveal your ignorance. No, not ‘just like the sperm that fertilizes the egg’. Spermatozoa and ova are entirely DIFFERENT than a newly created human being.”
I never said they were the same. I said they’re both alive. Lrn2english. “blahh blah haploid blah diploid.” You must be really proud of yourself for remembering something from that Biology class you took in high school. I have a B.S. in Biology I’m well aware of the difference between haploid and diploid cells. I’m not really sure how the fact that germ cells are haploid and somatic cells are diploid strengthens your argument, but hey if it makes you feel special to throw around some words you found on google go for it…
rasqual: “And a newborn has an epistemology, but it’s only a rudimentary one”
I’m not really sure what your point is. Do you know what epistemology means? Here’s a link to a definition. And who says noob? What are you 12?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology
Also xalisae” “Neither can a newborn infant, if their mother is the only one around to take care of them. Your point?”
That’s not the same argument. Fetuses cannot survive without oxygen, nutrients, etc. from the mother’s umbilical cord. Infants have lungs. Their hearts beat autonomosly and supply blood to their organs without the help of a mother. If their mother or caretaker gives them milk they can swallow it and digest it. They are cognitively aware of their surroundings. They can experience pain and other sensations. Fetuses can’t do any of that. That’s why I don’t consider them to be alive beyond being made up of cells that are performing cellular processes. Stop with this “killing a human being crap.” Fetuses aren’t human beings. I said it before and you deflected with that “Oh I’m so smart. If it’s a dog; it’s not a person! Haha I win!” It’s still just a clump of cells. Yeah it has a heartbeat? So what? That doesn’t make it any more alive than it was before it had a heartbeat. I’d understand if you came at it from a moral perspective and said you’re killing a clump of cells that is going to develop into a human being some day, and you think that’s wrong. I’d argue with you for different reasons, but at least that’s consistent with your beliefs (good thing we don’t live in a theocracy so your religious beliefs don’t get to decide our laws!) and makes some sense. But don’t try this “oh it has a heartbeat” crap. It doesn’t change anything.
Dan says:
Fetuses aren’t human beings.
I thought by “B.S. in Biology” you meant Bachelor of Science. Apparently you meant something different by B.S.
It’s still just a clump of cells.
So are you.
hu·man be·ing
Noun:
A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate.
If they’re not Homo sapiens, wtf are they?
Apparently, your money would’ve been better spent elsewhere.
Dan: “I’m not really sure what your point is.”
Obviously, even though the parallel to your own remark was clear enough for you to infer a reductio was afoot.
You’re broaching freshman arguments here, friend. You have much to learn.
“That doesn’t make it any more alive than it was before it had a heartbeat.”
So it’s dead?
Geez…
“good thing we don’t live in a theocracy so your religious beliefs don’t get to decide our laws!”
She’s not religious, doof.
Geez…
The mother’s umbilical cord? Seriously?
And what’s with the love affair with the “clump of cells” cliche?
Clump- ”a compacted mass or lump of something.”
Anyone who knows anything about embryolology stands in awe of the delicate and precise dance that the human zygote performs, cells splitting in perfect pairs, growing at a rate never again repeated in human existence, duplicating and transmitting information at a speed that we cannot even begin to match even with our matured adult brains and all technology at our disposal.
We know more about the surface of the moon than we do of the mechanisms of early human development at a cellular level.
A clump is the dirt that falls off my tire. An embryo is a miracle.
“A clump is the dirt that falls off my tire.”
Well, that pretty much captures Dan’s respect for human life, Michelle
Fetuses cannot survive without oxygen, nutrients, etc. from the mother’s umbilical cord.
The mother does not have an umbilical cord, Dan. The fetus brings that equipment along with him/her when his/her parents chose to bring said human fetus forth.
I really cannot believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to be educated but Dan, the spot we call our belly button is where our umbilical cord was attached when we were fetuses/babies. Mothers do not have a belly button for each child they conceive. Each child has one belly button.
They may make meds for your condition. Don’t be afraid to ask your physician.
That’s not the same argument.
Sure it is.
Fetuses cannot survive without oxygen, nutrients, etc. from the mother’s umbilical cord.
I refuse to believe they allowed you to graduate with a biology degree and you don’t know that the organism that grows the umbilical and placental tissue is the CHILD, not the MOTHER. You need to ask for your money back, friend.
Also, fetal human beings can’t survive without oxygen/nutrients/etc…and you CAN? Where they come from and how they are provided…how is that relevant to a.) what an organism is and b.) whether or not that organism is alive? I’m sorry to inform you that a breastfed infant is not less of a human being than a bottle fed infant, and your personal preference does not set the criteria for what constitutes a living organism.
Infants have lungs. Their hearts beat autonomosly and supply blood to their organs without the help of a mother.
Not all. Some children are born without lungs. They live only a short while, but until their time of death, they are obviously living children. And…are you trying to tell me you don’t think gestating children have their own blood supply? Seriously…EVERY child killed by elective abortion has their own organs, INCLUDING heart and blood supply, since those things originate around the third week of life, before most women even know they’re pregnant.
You graduated? REALLY?!
If their mother or caretaker gives them milk they can swallow it and digest it. They are cognitively aware of their surroundings. They can experience pain and other sensations. Fetuses can’t do any of that. That’s why I don’t consider them to be alive beyond being made up of cells that are performing cellular processes.
There are a lot of born people who can’t do those things. Are they too not alive by your standards? I seriously hope you’re not attempting to get into the medical field, since, ya know, you’ll be having to apparently in your opinion bring dead people back to life, or help not-alive-by-your-defintion-non-people stay alive.
Stop with this “killing a human being crap.” Fetuses aren’t human beings.
In your opinion. Which is worthless to me.
I said it before and you deflected with that “Oh I’m so smart. If it’s a dog; it’s not a person! Haha I win!”
I didn’t deflect. I countered your claim with the definition of what a human being is, and now you’re not saying anything of substance, just mocking my rebuttal and countering the fact I presented with your opinion.
It’s still just a clump of cells. Yeah it has a heartbeat? So what? That doesn’t make it any more alive than it was before it had a heartbeat.
Funny thing, but we can apply this same set of sentences to Dan. Funny how that works when you’re debating using nothing more than your opinion, right? “Dan is still just a clump of cells. He has a heartbeat? So what? That doesn’t make him any more alive than he was BEFORE he had a heartbeat.” Not that you weren’t alive before you had a heartbeat, but thanks for sharing my sentiment in regards to how irrelevant proper organ function is to whether or not someone is alive.
I’d understand if you came at it from a moral perspective and said you’re killing a clump of cells that is going to develop into a human being some day, and you think that’s wrong.
Perhaps, but then MY position would be just as devoid of fact and based on personal preference or opinion as YOURS is, and I wouldn’t bother fighting for it. I prefer to argue from point of fact that states a gestating human being is just that, and since we don’t allow parents to kill their children post-natally, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it in utero, either.
I’d argue with you for different reasons, but at least that’s consistent with your beliefs (good thing we don’t live in a theocracy so your religious beliefs don’t get to decide our laws!) and makes some sense. But don’t try this “oh it has a heartbeat” crap. It doesn’t change anything.
I’m not religious. My position is entirely fact-based, and makes plenty of sense on its own, whether or not a gestating human being has a heartbeat.
Wait, wait, x — I missed that but you quoted him — he actually said “Infants have lungs. Their hearts beat autonomosly and supply blood to their organs without the help of a mother.”
?!
Um…the unborn also have lungs. But leave that aside because I presume Dr. Dan intends for the implication that infants are using them to obtain atmospheric oxygen, to somehow wow us into imagining that the fetus, on the other hand, is somehow dead, and not alive.
But what’s this “their hearts beat autonomously” crap? “without the help of a mother!”
What could this half-wit possibly be claiming? He’s trying to supply distinctions that differentiate the infant from the fetus, and he includes in his enumeration that an infant’s heart beats autonomously? And that is presumed by this bozo to differentiate a fetus from an infant?
LMAO
Please, help me out here. This guy has to be a false flag. Which of you, my pro-lifer friends, is hiding a dirty secret — that you’re moonlighting as a false flag pro-choicer hell-bent on besmirching their ilk by seeming so, so very stupid.
The jig’s up. No one could be that stupid. You’ve been outed. It remains only to discover who you really are, Dan.
I think it must be Paladin, that craven wretch of a huckster!
Exactly, Rasqual. The idea seems to be that we have beings that have hearts that beat autonomously but that we do NOT value beings that have hearts which beat with an outside aid. In other words, the reason that you and I have inherent dignity and moral worth so that it would be intrinsically disordered to kill us is because our heart’s beat without an outside aid.
I love it when people revive old threads even though they have nothing of value to add. Seriously, Dan, what brought you here?
No, no. Not Dan. Paladin, I tell you. He’s wearied of reason failing to penetrate the pro-choice fog, so he’s donned his cloak of anonymity and is now posing as scores of different pro-choicers on forums all across the web. Wickedly subversive, but he failed to consider that playing the role here exposes his plot to those of us who understand his cunning brain…
I actually played the pro-choicer with Alice a few weeks ago, rasqual. It was actually fun. I learned some stuff, and I think the level of discourse was raised. I really think we should do that more often because I think we are able to give much better pro-choice arguments than most pro-choicers, and it is very beneficial to see each other’s responses.
You’re just trying to cover for Paladin’s perfidy. :D
But you’re absolutely right. Hey, this Protestant respects advocati diaboli! It’s kind of a role we separated brethren have practiced. ;-)
Still, is it ethical for Paladin to be doing this? :D
A colleague of mine has a pacemaker. His heart doesn’t beat [correctly] autonomously. Is an autonomous heartbeat something that gets grandfathered in – once you have one, you’re in the club, even if it goes away later? What about that 15-minute-old baby that got the pacemaker? Seems like she’s never had an autonomously-beating heart. Is she in the club?
Well, of course; I assume you think that this baby whose heart has never functioned properly, autonomously, does have a right to life. Because she’s born, because her mother can hand her – pacemaker and all – to someone else, etc. The “complexity” of the pro-choice stance is that there are all sorts of criteria that must intersect to come to the conclusion that a fetus does not have the right to life. Autonomy comes into it but autonomy cannot be relied upon fully as a justification without also justifying the killing of “real” people. Justifying the killing of a fetus – or an embryo – without also justifying the killing of “real” people requires essentially defining a fetus or embryo in all the ways that separate them from “real people,” and then claiming that the definition itself IS a justification. Because it JUST IS.
Isn’t it possible, Dan, that the fetus’ lack of a right to life – the alleged conclusion of this autonomy/when-is-a-person-a-person dance – is actually the logical starting point, rather than the logical conclusion – that you are beginning with your desired answer and filling in the blanks to get there? Try to start with nothing – not even the long-held cultural assumption that it is barbaric and cruel to deny women abortion. Try to start with a blank slate, not a conclusion, and work via socratic method towards whatever conclusion you arrive at.
So, I would argue no, that it would be scandalous to actually be attempting to convince people that you ACTUALLY are a pro-choicer when you really aren’t. I would make it clear that I am playing devil’s advocate, but that I am still me, whatever that means.
Had I known that Dan was really Paladin, I would have tried to use some big words. I would have at least referred to belly buttons as navels for crying in the rain. (:
:-)
Alexandra observes — rightly, I think — that the least defensible arguments (well, assertions) are not likely to come from someone who has thought their way to a position, but rather from someone who starts with a position and seeks to defend it — in Dan’s case, in total “bridge too far” mode, where his understanding of the issues dramatically lags what he’s willing to spout.
I think many people adopt a position less because of the issue itself, but because they hold one side of the issue in contempt and define themselves by a need to oppose that side. It’s less about advocacy for something they care about a lot, than it’s a case of despising a cohort of people so much that whatever they advocate must be opposed at all costs — even the expense of looking like a total doof for saying transparently silly things.
Willingness to assert ridiculous, transparent untruths is certainly not the mark of a free mind thinking well.
:::sigh:::
I guess that blows my Paladin theory out of the water.
Unless. . . . unless that’s part of The Plan.
Hmmmm.
Oh Dan is Paladin!? Haha! I should read more and talk less! :p
No, no he actually isn’t, Alexandra. But it would make more sense if he was, I think was the joke.
Perhaps my perfidy theory is just wrong. Perhaps he’s just testing us.
If my prediction’s right, he’ll likely deny that he’s Paladin (or dismiss the theory as ridiculous), or double down on the silly stuff. Or both.
So how should we respond to this test, though? He won’t open even the slightest fracture in his feigned persona for us to glimpse him in the least; he’s clever that way.
I suggest we “think sideways” — kind of throwing chaff into the conversation to playfully frustrate his attempt to draw out our most characteristic dialogical ways of engaging. Eventually he’ll realize the test is futile and he’ll divulge the purpose and consequence of his ruse.
Of course, his response for a day or two will be that of an incredulous and bemused pro-choicer. Which will be interesting…
(Bobby, yes, Paladin could be doing it as a joke, too ;-)
Ugh. I just can’t believe that this dope apparently thinks he’s the only one who’s had college Biology. The fact that they let him pass it, spouting the nonsense he does, gives me pause when considering the value of post-secondary education.
I seriously hope and wish with all my might that this IS actually Paladin. ;_;
But that’s just the thing. You have to KNOW college biology to so successfully maneuver entirely around its facts. There’s no way someone unacquainted with it could so completely run afoul of it. You have to steer to be this bad a driver. Someone with dice would do better.
This supports the Paladin theory.
To amplify: Dan is stumbling into factual pitfalls that a real biology student would have learned about — and thus would presently avoid — in 101. This would not be to his advantage (the stumbling into what he already knows) were he an authentic pro-choicer. He would avoid those pitfalls and ply some other point of biology that at least wouldn’t seem as ridiculous, even as he’d make little headway at any rate (as I have it, being a pro-lifer).
Being a charitable sort, I wish to resist the conclusion that Dan is stupid, operating outside of his obvious self-interest as an advocate for a particular point of view — doing it grave injustice by incompetently bumbling about in a field he actually knows.
This concern to extend good will to a sincere interlocutor, however, is forced to a conclusion that makes that interlocutor disappear as a real person. Either the stupidity or the genuineness of the identity must go — both cannot exist in the same instance if I resist a conclusion of stupidity. I must presume, then, as motivated by charity, that the stumbling into Really Bad Implications for his biological facts is a feint, a ruse, a pantomime of some kind. Seriously. If I wish to be charitable and resist reason’s dictate that Dan is stupid, I must conclude that he is an actor.
Thus the application of charity in the arena where oft-embittered conflict obscures truth, serves to draw us to conclusions that discover truths about ourselves and others that we never suspected in the heat of dispute.
As a rule of life, then, caritas ferrets out untruth, affirms goodness, and discovers that this was indeed a wise Test Of Paladin.
Y’all crack me up!
But really though, unless he has taken extreme measures to throw the mods off the track with a different IP and a stolen email address that is the real email address of someone who seems to fit the description we are seeing of Dan, this is unfortunately not Paladin… though he is a pretty crafty guy…
Good, good… Let him think we’re not quite certain yet…
(*arms folded, tapping foot*)
Too late, rapscallions! Thy hijinks be discovered!
:) Good grief, but this thread was a laugh a minute… honestly, I can’t leave you people alone for 10 minutes, without you getting into mischief…
(*rolling eyes, shaking head, tossing hair*)
Whatevs, PalaDan. (:
Hey Pal: just for laughs, come back as Dan at least a few more times, OK?
We’ll humor you.
Bwahahahaha… PalaDAN…
Right? Prax, ya had me laughing too. I can’t believe I missed the obvious clue in his nom de plume. He IS crafty!
Oh, I hope “Dan” comes back to this thread. heehee
I’ll tell my alternate personality that you request his presence, Lrning… :)
Strange, that… I found only a few odd scrawls in my lab journal (next to a mess of spilled beakers, etc.), written in my hand-writing (but slanted quite differently), and a constable knocking at my door, asking about some mayhem or another. Curious business, this!
This is so much fun, I’m really glad this thread was revived.
We have “Dan” to thank for that — first poster since March. What a guy!
“first poster since March. ”
Yeah, March of 2011!
C’mon, Paladin. Just a few more for fun?
Well, OK — but listen, can we at least make it an annual thing? August 14 can be known as PalaDan Day. We’ll fete the incoherence of pro-choice arguments and raise a glass to Reason, God’s good gift.
I for one am calendaring it for 2013.
note: It must be celebrated in this thread. That’s fitting, since PalaDan saw fit to resurrect it despite its antiquity (well exceeding a year).
I can assure you it’s on my calendar as well, rasqual. It’s great to have something to look forward to. :)
And honestly, I think Prax ought to MC the festivities. That’s a big responsibility though, so I’m merely proposing the nomination.
In all seriousness, I will host a bratfest on either the previous or following Saturday afternoon, in the Chicago area, if anyone wishes to be quite serious about this. It’ll be known as the Stanek PalaDan Fest, in honor of our self-acknowledged Nutty Professor. :-)
Facebook:
PalaDAN Day!
When: August 14, 2013
Where: https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/03/naral-director-admits-fetal-heartbeat-begins-very-early/
You have invited friends to this event!
One final thing. Levity aside, there’ll be no “festivity” worth keeping a smile on anyone’s faces until abortion is no longer a matter our civilization shrugs about. Those of us here who disagree on any number of other matters can rightly enjoy our unity as pro-lifers — but that unity comes at the price of postponed joy. We’re all waiting for a better day — not for us, but for the Least Among Us.
rasqual,
in a world like this, with things like abortion in it:
if you’re not laughin’, you’re cryin’.
in a world like this, with things like abortion in it:if you’re not laughin’, you’re cryin’.
This is why I keep coming back to Jill’s. We goofballs get it.
PalaDan Day! is on my calendar.