Senate Abortion: Why not?

My opinion that human life is sacred has nothing to do with the facts I used to define human life. The two are separate topics: Is human life sacred" and "What defines human life."

If abortion is murder of a child, as I believe, don't you have to hold the view expressed in that statement?

Unless, of course, you want to have the debate "When is it ok to murder a child?"

 

Ah... the annual J-Rod abortion thing...

This is a guy who is both against abortion and public assistance for impoverished families--try to wrap your mind around that one.

In other words, he doesn't get it, and likely never will. This debate is 100% an exercise in futility.

 

Good popcorn fodder tho. I don't even read his posts, just the responses.

 

an embryo is not a child j-rod. because something is made of cells and tissues that can potentially become a person doesn't make it one, anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. your much belabored point that embryos are human life is well taken. no one has disagreed with you on that point once that i've seen. but they are not people. every time a fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus or a frozen embryo is donated to science it is not the same as a person dying. does it really seem the same to you? do you see how this looks like a pretty big logical leap to anyone doing even the most cursory evaluation of your argument?

 

I don't think there's a shred of humanity in the pro life movement in general. I think it's a Discipline and Punish! paradigm in its entirety. A woman who gets pregnant without wanting a child is a fallen woman (cause it's all her fault, right) and must be punished by being forced to carry that unwanted child to term. Doesn't matter whether both the mother and the child are more likely to live their lives in poverty as a result. No one cares about that.

 

People who want Planned Parenthood funding cut either deliberately choose to cut a source of birth control and health care for poor women because they "don't deserve it," or they just don't give a **** if a source of birth control and health care for poor women is cut, because it's "not their problem" or something. Again, to what end?!?!?!?!
And I've not used religion as a reason once. Why are you shoehorning it in?

1) I'm from an impoverished family. No one "gets it" more than I.

2) I'm not against public assistance for impoverished families.

Wrap yer mind "round that!

 

Yeee haw

 

At all stages, human life is human life. At all stages. Now, I can see from your post that you understand how I see it. And I guess in a debate with locked minds that's about as much as I can ask.

Do you really think I lack even a shred of humanity?

 

What is the frame of reference that says one is more valuable than the other?

Yes, frequently. I think many people may be personally pro-life but don't feel any need to make others' choices for them.

 

J-Rod the movement itself is pitiless and without mercy of any kind, and has been for as long as either of us has been alive. You seem like a nice enough guy when you're not discussing politics. But the pro life movement seethes with hatred. I've talked to clinic protesters before. There's a deep-seated hatred of women lurking below the surface.

 

So a human ear grown on the back of a mouse is sacred.

Like a foetus, it's a collection of living human cells with no consciousness.

Those crazy scientists had better be careful!

 

"locked minds"

This ironing is delicious.

 

Here is the Dickensian orphanage where my five babies lived until their short lives were perfunctorily terminated.

 

What are you asking here? She's asking you to what end someone who would be against abortion would also be against Planned Parenthood. As someone who has identified himself as wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, to what end? Planned Parenthood and services like it have contributed hugely to the decline of crime in the US. I don't even know what you mean by "to what end?" here.

 

Let's not group me in with those loonies. I don't mean to give the impression that I condone killing Drs who are within the law and their rights. Even though I'm all about discussing those rights.
And that ear was taken from tissue of a person. again, simply part of a person, not a new individual.

As if I don't realize it's a two way street. I wonder if you do...

 

I was asking her to what end would anyone want to restrict access to birth control to poor women.

As to my part? I understand that abortion is murder. And because I know it to be murder, I don't think I should be taxed for the purpose of killing children. (yeah yeah yeah...war...babies killers...blah blah blah)

 

Careful about God, I mean.

When he teams up with Donald Trump to kick some ass, I'd imagine anyone doing ungodly things with sacred ears is going to be in all kinds of trouble.

 

Your liver is more of a person than an embryo.

 

In that it is the life of a creature that belongs to the correct species (homo sapiens), yes. In the philosophical sense, which is the point of differentiation? No.

A plant that instinctively recoils from human touch is not sentient, J-Rod. It merely is. And a foetus in the first trimester is also not sentient, it merely is.

Part of what defines humanity is ability to feel emotion, to think, and to communicate complicated ideas. Step up two levels of the biological classification tree, and you're at hominids - the family that includes humans and primates. We can clearly differentiate between an ape, a monkey, and a human being. But, as soon as it's visibly identifiable as a human being - or, even better, when it is only conceptually a human being because it hasn't started a human growth cycle outside the womb, we layer subjective bias over the top.

It's like this - you would eat all sorts of cute or harmless animals without care. Venison? It's Bambi! Rabbit stew? Bunnies are so cute! Lamb? The adorable little lamb, so cute but so tasty. Beagle! Whoa, I don't eat dog.

What's the difference here? If I had to guess, it's because only one of these has been widely domesticated and anthropomorphised to the point of being near human and "one of the family".

Objectively, there's no difference. It's subjective, emotional, and irrational.

I don't expect you to go and eat a dog to prove a point here, not at all. I wouldn't dare, and I've got an adventurous palette. I just recognise it's a ridiculous bias that makes no sense and is driven by emotion, not reason. And because it's my bias, my subjectivity, my emotion I wouldn't confuse it with a universal truth.

How does this relate back? Objectively, a foetus is not a human being because that which defines humans relative to other primates and indeed other organisms is not possible. Humans are independent, and grow independently; a foetus is parasitic and will die without a host. A foetus cannot form a view about the art of Monet or the music of Beethoven. A foetus cannot love, nor hate; does not know pride nor jealously. It cannot be heartbroken or broken by lust. It just is.

When it begins to show the bare bones minimum of humanity is already when we have decreed that abortions cannot be performed except in case of medical emergency, i.e. by the time it'll react to hearing music in utero, the first trimester has ended.

Your argument is one of subjective and emotional bias, and it makes no sense when you look at it logically. You have been told it's human life, but it's clearly not.

 

Let's discuss: ectopic pregnancies. By J-Rod's definition, a human life. With 99.99999% guaranteed mortality rate for that human life, and the woman with the ectopic pregnancy.

What's to be done?

 

Bomb Iran?

 

yes. we all think you're a moral monster. this is the basis of your entire reputation on this site. how are you just now recognizing this?