If You Can’t See The Videos, They Can’t See You
8th Shocking Video: StemExpress CEO Admits Planned Parenthood Sells Fully Intact Aborted Babies
In the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.
“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.
“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,'” Dyer adds.
Was it video #7 in which was shown a baby boy, all in one piece and moving, much like a fish out of water, as a butcher carved into its face with a scissors and pulled out it’s brain? “Oh my God.”
If you love and support the idea of killing the lives inside and those outside their mothers, then watch this small clip of the writhing life. And then tell us of your fantasies, of how you yourself shiver with delight at the idea of cutting it up while still alive to make a buck. Sylvain? Jersey McJones? Your thoughts?
The evil and insane at Stop Patriarchy would say that the wiggling creature in the video isn’t a human. What is it, to them? A “lump of tissue.” And what differentiates a “lump of tissue” from a human being? Ask them and answer comes there none.
Scientists Mystified
Science has still no answer to the question as to what activity produces the “lump of tissue” inside women. It surely can’t be the responsibility of those women. Thus scientists have been looking in other places. If you have any ideas, write to your nearest neighborhood scientist.
Tastes Like Chicken
Say, since a “lump of tissue” is a just a “lump of tissue”, one wonders whether those who enjoy snuffing the life out of the lump wouldn’t mind tossing it on the grill. Some good protein there. Many children in America (we are told) are starving, and there Planned Parenthood could provide plenty of free meals. If not, why not?
Seriously: why not? If you’re too chicken-guano to answer, I guess we’ll know of that which you are made.
No! Not Chicken!
Denver council blocking Chick-fil-A because they support natural marriage
Denver City Council, in a rare move, is stalling approval of a Chick-fil-A franchise at Denver International Airport (DIA), because of “concerns” over the owners’ support for natural marriage…
The council’s openly homosexual member, Robin Kniech, was first to raise the issue at the council’s Tuesday meeting. She said Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional marriage was “discrimination,” and she didn’t want “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.”
Kniech commented that Chick-fil-A was on the wrong side of “a national debate about depriving people and their families of rights.”
And depriving them of their chicken sandwiches, too. So Denver says, “No Christians Allowed.”
When are Christians going to get their act together and start some of their own boycotts. Do you have any idea of the size of the convention business in Denver? What we need to do is to pick single targets and expose them to the only fear in which they know: a lack of moola. I’ll expand this later.
Actually, Chik-fil-A ought to take up my suggestion and start selling Lump-O-Tissue patties. Then Denver will love them.
Et Tu, Breitbart?
The Science Is Settled: Sexual Orientation Is Not Purely Biological
This week, YouGov released a poll questioning British people about their sexuality. The poll made headlines because nearly half of all 18-24 year olds said they were not fully heterosexual…
This poll goes to the heart of the question of whether sexual orientation is purely biological, or whether it is societally impacted. Sexual orientation, according to the American Psychological Association, “refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted.” The massive change over a short period of time in sexual orientation in Britain can only be explained in one of two ways: biology or biology combined with environment.
Holy moly, is Ben Shaprio (a top dog at Breitbart) wrong. The biology of human sexual “orientation” can only be towards a member of the opposite sex. That’s the science. And if there is no “consensus” on this, then so much for scientists. As I wrote elsewhere:
The nature or essence of a human being is to be sexually reproductive, meaning there are two and only two sexes, male and female. There is not, and there cannot be, a “continuum” of human sexes. Biology does not work this way. The scientific fact of that there are precisely two sexes has many consequences. It follows, for instance, that there can be no such thing as a “sex-change operation.” The sex a person is born with is the sex that person is his or her entire life. This means it is not only a rank abuse of the English language, but also an affront to logic, to speak, as many do, of a person being “assigned” a sex at birth as if the decision were arbitrary.
Since I cover all of poor Shaprio’s claims there, I won’t repeat them here. The command is: go and read.
Keep Yer Mouth Shut
‘Welcome to college — now be quiet!’ Many campuses maintain militant speech codes
According to [FIRE’s] report, “Spotlight on Speech Codes 2015: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses,” nearly 55 percent of the 437 universities analyzed have “policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech,” earning the group’s “Red Light” designation.
And that article points to another in The Atlantic: The Coddling of the American Mind. Proving (yet again) we’re raising a nation of bratty narcissistic effeminates.
Then there is The Sad Case of Mogens Camre.
Camre, a “former member of the Danish parliament and European Parliament for the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkpartei, DF) was convicted of racism offences handed a [750 pound] fine on Tuesday. The conviction came after he made a tweet in 2014 lamenting the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe caused by the immigration of religiously intolerant Muslims.”
The Palestinian who was responsible for the charges against Mogens Camre is a 30-year-old violent criminal and drug dealer named Samir Badran. In 2009, Samir Badran was sentenced to six years in prison. His brother Saied Badran was at the same time sentenced to eight years in prison. The prosecutor demanded that they be deported from Denmark and barred from returning, but that did not happen. Nor was this Samir Badran’s first brush with the law: when he was seventeen years old, he was given a one-year “conditional” jail sentence for unlawful imprisonment, violence and threats.
For no other reason than the one I’ll suggest in the moment, the Left is intent of punishing any who tell the truth about militant Islamism. “Islamaphobia”, they call it.
The reason is (of course) insanity, coupled with Christophobia (which is much the same thing).
What’s the saying? When the inmates take control of the asylum?
What’s the solution? I don’t really know.
The solution is collapse. Soon.
I’ve been a lurker here for a while.
It’s good to sit somewhere sane now and then.
Thankfully there’s a few spots like this on the internet.
Pingback: This Week In Doom: Whole Babies For Sale, But Not At Chick-fil-A. Why Not? | Reaction Times
The European Left has Christofobia and Muslimofilia. Probably because the USA is still very much a Christian Country, the USA is loosing from Muslims in their wars, and the European Left dislikes the USA very much indeed. But their main reason is their hatred of the USA, not their hatred of Christians.
Hate to be that guy, but…
1. If the Church bows to medical science on the question of death (to enable organ harvesting) but doesn’t bow to science on the question of realistic chance of personhood of undeveloped embryos, the cynic can’t help but speculate whether the list of Bishops in need of a transplant liver has anything to do with it.
2. Check out Gregory Cochran’s theory of infectious origin of homosexuality. Doesn’t in any way contradict the nature of homo sapiens as a sexually reproducing organism, but his hypothetical homosexualizing pathogen (aka “Gay Germ”) is clearly a purely biological agent.
Sylvain will be along shortly to lie about this.
As Rush says, the key to the abortion issue is changing hearts and minds, one at a time.
I gave up on the abortion ‘debate’ many years ago, and directed all but a pittance of my pro-life donations to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. The tactics this group has been quietly applying for years now seem particularly successful at reaching young minds in our visually-oriented society. The pro-aborts can only respond with sputtering hollow-sounding rhetoric, and when that inevitably withers under the huge visual impact, they are reduced to harassing/disrupting/destroying, a coffin-nail to the onlooking uneasy fence-sitters. These are localized events and rarely get any news coverage (beyond the CBR newsletter) from a mainstream media very reluctant to amplify the message.
I actually believe that the outcome of the issue has now been determined, the only remaining impediment is for the cemeteries to fill up a tad more. But I will continue to donate anyway and perhaps hasten the day along enough to fall within my remaining lifetime.
The moral here, which took me years to take to heart, is that when commanded to ‘just shut up’, an alternative to responding noisily is to go ahead and shut up, then work to undermine them quietly, while leaving them to smugly believe they have won the argument and move on.
Andy,
How come you didn’t complete my previous challenge of pointing my actual lies as you call it.
“The massive change over a short period of time in sexual orientation in Britain can only be explained in one of two ways: biology or biology combined with environment.”
What? ONLY two ways, and those are the two ways? Where are this guy’s brains? I can think of two more right off the bat: 1) They’re lying, 2) it’s very fashionable to think this, or at least say one thinks it, and so they did. Oh and here’s a third: Someone faked the results. And four: They’re all deluded.
Can anyone recommend a taxidermist who could prepare them with little tap dancing shoes. I’d like to establish a company to sell unique door knockers, hopefully before someone else beats me to the market for souveniers of opposite sex coupling before it’s completely banned.
Maybe this is ahead of its time, but only by a few years. We’ll get there soon.
The Left fears militant Islam because they kill you for disagreeing. Christians do not.
Sylvain: (1)No need to point out the obvious and (2) You won’t listen or care anyway.
“The biology of human sexual “orientation” can only be towards a member of the opposite sex. That’s the science.”
So “Scientists [are] Mystified” when it’s convenient to the claim being made yet the science is settled when it’s also convenient to the claim. Or perhaps one is just making it up as you go along? I think a problem here for those who position themselves on either end of the argument, is that they believe saying something is true makes it true. Even if a cursory inspection of the claim makes it nonsense.
“If you love and support the idea of killing the lives inside and those outside their mothers, then watch this small clip of the writhing life. And then tell us of your fantasies, of how you yourself shiver with delight at the idea of cutting it up while still alive to make a buck”
A) I once saw a dead person twitch for a while after death while studying nursing. The twitching doesn’t make anything alive. At least 2 things are required to be alive 1) breathing 2) a beating heart. Muscles can be made to contract with electricity for a while after death. Hair grows for days following death. This does not make a a corpse alive.
B) You have more sympathy for a thing that is not alive than for people who are actually alive. Your sympathy is for the look of the thing not the actual state of that thing. For example: good riddance Michael but be damn that something which could potentially be alive in the future, but not at the moment, be aborted. Of course, the cops never plant a gun or weapons on individual. Lets forget that cops lie to protect their own skin and that the murderer of Brown was lucky enough to to not be filmed.
C) the idea that pro-choice people or the women that get abortion delight to the idea of getting an abortion is really asinine and idiotic. The vast majority of women getting an abortion are devasted by the idea, they do feel shame but know that they are not in a position to take good care of a potentially new person in their life.
You either shame them of having an abortion, or again shame them for being poor and requiring government help.
Finally, you are pretty much a heartless inhuman person that wish on other people to suffer for your own selfishness.
As a pro-choice advocate I think children of natural sex for a couple in a traditional man-woman marriage should not be permitted because it removes choice from the collection of persons they have to live with in their household. Under the terms of marriage equality, and equal to the modern advances available to all same gender couples, they should contract a third party with characteristics chosen from a catalogue, or by virtual poker at an imagined dinner party with their acquaintances.
On second thoughts, for diversity, we should allow some non-equal marriage (ie. not same sex) parents to host natural accident offspring just like we allow for accidents between cars on the roads. And just like on the road we should have regulations and insurance to mitigate the inconvenience of accidents.
“If you love and support the idea of killing the lives inside and those outside their mothers, then watch this small clip of the writhing life. And then tell us of your fantasies, of how you yourself shiver with delight at the idea of cutting it up while still alive to make a buck. Sylvain? Jersey McJones? Your thoughts?”
My thoughts? I can’t imagine why someone who ostensibly takes this issue very seriously would make light of it by posing such utterly ridiculous nonsense. Some sleazy punks make videos of uncomfortable realities and people without any inkling of context cry outrage and demand of others to feel the same. No one loves abortion, or shivers with delight at unpleasant scientific experimentation. Notice the tightly controlled news coverage of war? You don’t want abortion to be legal? That’s your position. I disagree. That doesn’t mean I’m a monster, you idiot.
JMJ
If you support evil, you are evil.
Will: Agreed. The area of disagreement is over who is believing that saying something makes it true.
Gary in Erko: Use the poker game. It’s probably going to yield better results.
JMJ: Really? Then I guess in proper context, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc are not monsters. “Uncomfortable realities”??? Like herding Jews into ovens? Like gassing the Kurds? Sex slavery? Nuclear war? By your definition, there are no monsters–just “uncomfortable realities”. I believe the term idiot in this case belongs to you, though that might actually be an insult to idiots. (You have the most incredible ability to simply dismiss reality when it doesn’t suit your purpose. Hopefully, when those you support come after you next, you will maintain that and remain blissfully in lala land. I really believe you’ll never even lightly brush against reality.)
Yes, Mr. Briggs, you are evil because you supported the Iraq War. For the same reason, I’d say you are not pro-life, perhaps, pro-birth at best.
Be unselfish and pro-life, adopt one or two or more children! Pro-Life!
Many mass shooting are committed by white men, so there, proof that white men are evil and insane. The world is doomed.
Hmmm… demonizimg others really doesn’t make me a better person and things better. Nor does making blanket statements.
I know of pro-choice people who have successfully persuaded many young women to carry out their pregnancies, and also of religious, anti-abortion people who have had abortions. All Catholics.
It sure is easier to judge others than to be in other’s shoes.
JH: Evidence that the Iraq War was evil? Or do you just believe all war is evil and people should be ruled by tyrants, rather than fight back?
Adopt a child or two? The children available for adoption in the USA are generally kids that social services took from their parents. It’s based on the adoptive parents views matching that of the social worker and on the race of the children. Much easier said than done. Progressives rule the system. Complain to them. (Yes, I tried to adopt–even a large group. No luck. Four hyper-active kids went to a single mother because of their race. It’s idiocy. There’s a waiting list for babies, so that won’t help either.) Oh, and women are much like men who kill their girlfriends because “if I can’t have her, no one will”. Women kill the baby because “If I don’t want it, no one gets it.”
You do realize that if people really didn’t want children to grow up in homes that were poor, there would be laws saying you can’t have a baby without a permit, and that if you did, you can’t keep the baby. Do that twice, and you’re sterlized. Then no one would have to listen to progressives whining about what happens to the babies if there’s no abortion. Progressives are the ones encouraging women to bang whatever moves and not marry—both Gaurantees of povery for children. Be happy society doesn’t take care of the problem of unwanted pregnancies in a permanent way. Maybe if progressives actually cared and taught women the realities of biology, this would not even be an issue, instead of trying to pretend biology is fiction.
There’s no judging. Biological fact says sex leads to pregnancy. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. (Don’t bother with the rape stats–many women who were raped keep the baby. Also, there were children available for adoption that were products of incest. Not all women kill innocent babies because they don’t want to deal with the reality of the situation.)
Your logic is totally flawed in the white shooter example, but I’m assuming you really don’t care about logic or reasoning anyway, just getting what you feel should be had, right or wrong.
Briggs,
And who actually defines evil? You, I don’t follow false prophets.
The abortion debate is clouded by the euphemistic term, Pro-Choice. What Pro-Choice really means is some people want the right to kill babies. It is only a fulfillment of Planned Parenthood’s original goals to sterilize poor women of child bearing age. That would take care of the primary goal of relieving women of the physical and economic responsibility of raising a child.
It is interesting that Planned Parenthood originally opened their offices in black ghettos. Black leaders recognized what was going on, and cried out that genocide of black people was the purpose. The black leaders were correct.
Neither safe sex or a woman’s health is in the works with Planned Parenthood. It is all about killing babies, and profiting from that endeavor. That much is inescapable.
Sheri, ah, my blanket statement offended you. I usually ignore all blanket statements. Again, assume whatever you wish.
JH: You ignore blanket statements yet make blanket statements? Is that not the definition of insanity? My answer wasn’t really for you anyway. No one expects the progressive making the inane comment to learn. It’s for anyone who can still think and modify their ideas. Clearly, that’s not some of the commenters here.
Sheri, has it ever occurred to you that you didn’t get the point of my first comment? No, your answer was not really for me. It is for yourself to feel better about yourself and to kill time.
Sheri, if you want to keep being nasty, please find another target. The choice between reading a book and talking to a hostile person is a no brainer.
JH: Yes, that does seem likely I did not understand your comment. Perhaps you could enlighten me on what you actually meant?
Admittedly I do answer people who are unlikely to learn just to kill time. Perhaps it’s because I can see no other motivation for some comments other than said person is killing time.
It’s an interesting assumption that people do things to make themselves feel better about themselves and it’s quite often projection on the part of the person making the comment. I don’t need to comment on here to “make myself feel better”. I feel wonderful. Do you? If so, that’s great.
Honestly, if my “hostility” gets you to read a book, I’m okay with that. Book reading is good thing.
If there is any doubt that babies are being killed and these are NOT lumps of tissue, consider that the women who are asking for an abortion are not to be shown an ultrasound of that “lump of tissue”. Why not? It’s a lump of tissue, right????
Sheri,
And of course the state will be the one paying the cost of the medically unnecessary ultrasound??? Which cost between 100$ and 1000$ when on average the procedure cost 500$ but can reach 7000$ which is covered by no health insurance .
Ultrasound and Abortion Care Services:
These services are not available at all of our health centers. Planned Parenthood has financial assistance available for abortion care. Call us for additional information.
Pregnancy Confirmation Ultrasound – $75
Note: Cost of Pregnancy Confirmation Ultrasound can be applied to the price of abortion services.
First Trimester Abortion – $515
– See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-arizona/online-health-center/pricing-health-services#sthash.67m7vuTO.dpuf
Abortion is way pricier than that ultrasound pregnancy confirmation, at least in Arizona.
The price of a pregnancy ultrasound averages around $200-$300. Healthcare Bluebook estimates the average “fair” cost is $263. – See more at: http://www.bernardhealth.com/woofstreetjournal/bid/196963/Expecting-How-much-does-an-ultrasound-cost#sthash.t9LKu6HN.dpuf
Again, cheaper than that abortion.
If one shops around, there may be lower prices in many places. The fact is this is the reason, not money:
From Dr. L. Lacroix of Planned Parenthood on why women should not see ultrasounds of their babies before their abortions:
“Abortion is a hard enough thing for any woman to decide without the torture of seeing the BABY on an ultrasound screen.” (My emphasis)
A lot of intentional conflation of meanings, the purpose of which is to obfuscate. Also assume your premise because nobody is clever enough to notice that rhetorical trick. “You’re killing babies!” although the central point of disagreement between religious dogmatists and everybody else, is that the everybody else don’t see first trimester embryos as human babies. At this stage a head is formed, arms, legs. It looks sort of human, in an alien sort of way. But there are no eyes, nose, any capacity for external sensation. No brain, yet. The argument, such as it is, is that it’s human because how can we be 100% sure that it is not? Some dig their heals in and will not admit that there can be a continuum; you’re 100% human or not. So even a single fertilized egg is apparently a fully fledged human being. This leaves no doors open for rational discourse among those who disagree. Because one side believes in magic and the other doesn’t. The magical side decides it fighting evil. The argument also invokes the precautionary principle. An irrational principle widely mocked here, yet immediately drafted into service, as soon as one finds it necessary to work back from one’s conclusion.
Rational discourse is impossible when half the discussion keeps labeling the other half’s position “magic”.
Sheri,
You are probably right. Keep in mind while I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. Everyone has their magic book (or at least, sacred texts) that they believe is absolutely true. This could be the Talmud, the New Testament, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita… A Brief History of Time (?). If you say, “my magic book tells me this, end of debate” there is not much room for debate is there? Although it’s not even what the magic books say. It’s what the people who are assigned the task of interpreting the magic books, think the magic books *would say*, if the magic books did say something about the topic under contention.
I think the best we can hope for here is to try to make the believer in a magic book try to understand that if you don’t believe in *their* magic book, you’re not therefore evil. Although I suspect that would partly defeat the purpose of wanting to believe in magical books and doctrines.
Will:
You say “everyone has their magic book”, which I assume means you have one too. If no one used the word “evil”, would you be less bothered by this? I have tried to say that abortion isn’t really about babies and that there are non-religious reasons to oppose it, but you get hung up on the “magic books”. Perhaps you are right–your magic book is in contradiction to others here and that’s all that seems to matter. There really is a rational, thinking side to this discussion but I doubt we can ever actually reach the point where that can happen.
Sheri,
Hard to say. I don’t think I believe in magic books or doctrines but perhaps I have blind spots? But it’s been my observation that nearly everyone, if not everyone, believes in irrational doctrines. Climate Catastrophism anyone? A frothing at the mouth atheist will absolutely believe that God does not exist, which is a metaphysical claim. An atheist can’t possibly be 100% sure of this, yet he is. Perhaps you could briefly bullet point your non religious reasons for opposing abortion as a summary?
Perhaps you do have blind spots. I will try and answer tomorrow when I have more time.
I can’t rule them out. One thing about blind spots is that they are hard to detect. I can spot yours, or others, easily enough. My favourite example is the Christian who can spot all the apparent absurdities in the Koran yet is oblivious to all the apparent absurdities in the Bible. Something interesting is happening there. My favourite recent example is David Appell who hand waved away the satellite global temperature data arguing it was unimportant as nobody lived in the middle troposphere, yet immediately wanted to talk about deep ocean warming trends.
Will: This is long, but I thought I’d throw out what I could remember at the moment for arguments. I want to say I do not think you’re evil and my “magic book” does not either. You have thought a lot about this. You recognize that some people have no qualms about the process, while you have qualms and limitations. This issue gets emotional very fast. I really was trying to understand your point of view and how you justify it. It’s difficult to address an argument when the speaker doesn’t fully explain their position. Not one of these arguments I present below is without problems and questions. I have never heard an all encompassing argument against abortion, since in the end most arguments are philosophical, political or religious in nature. I’m not trying to talk you into believing anything–I’m just giving you arguments I have heard and may have some merit. (As for my blind spots, I do have them. However, I think you are misidentifying some of my actions. If my argument is religious, I don’t claim it’s something else. However, rational thought and religion are not incompatible. Religious rules should have a basis in reality and be logically defensible. In other words, most religious rules should stand alone without the religious background. And yes, it’s always far easier to see other’s blind spots.)
Biology: Biologically, a fetus is genetically human and definitely alive. Biologically, it does not posses a soul or other characteristics that may philosophically define human beings. No one asks when a zygote becomes an embryo becomes a dog. It’s dog from beginning to end. It’s only when you introduce elements of humanity that are not well-defined in biology that the question emerges. This means that most of the abortion debate is philosophical or religious, not biological.
Not about a baby: Abortion is not about babies. It is about women having sex without consequence like they view men doing. It is unfair and wrong that nature made women carry babies. Abortion rights that wrong. This is denial of reality just as sex-change operations and gender choices are. It is an attempt to force nature to conform to a sociopolitical ideology, rather than admitting nature is not fair. Again, this a philosophical or religious argument, not science itself.
Quick answers to hard questions: Abortion encourages women to think short-term. Jump in bed with a guy for a night of sex and walk off. It encourages women to not look for a suitable mate, but rather a recreational toy. If humans did not have such a complex society and long childhood this might not cause a lot of problems. However, as people stop caring about others and just view others as a road to pleasure, parenting and society suffer. Witness the “selfies” craze. We are not a species where selfishness make society better.
Abortion is a political tool: More blacks and minorities have abortions than whites. Planned Parenthood opened in black neighborhoods first. This encourages the behaviours I noted in “not about a baby”. Forced abortion is a method of population control that has been used in dictatorships. Forced abortion versus coerced abortion is another problem. Women can be coerced into having an abortion. Also, women use abortion to punish men and prove women are just as or more powerful than men. None of this has to do with a baby or concern over whether or not it is living. It’s about power over another human being.
Uninformed consent: When one has a colonoscopy, one has to watch a film (at least where I live) explaining the process and showing how it is done. Same for most medical procedures. The doctor shows the patient the broken limb on an X-ray. The oncologist may show the patient what the cancer cells look like and where they are. In most medical procedures, doctors will explain options. Except in rare instances, it is probably considered unethical for a doctor to tell a parent their child has cancer in his leg and the leg must be amputated immediately. The parents are not shown any evidence of the cancer (other than the leg hurts and that’s good enough) and are told this the only realistic option. The doctor tells them it would be too upsetting to actually show them the evidence–it’s hard enough asking for your child’s leg to be amputated. The choice should not be made any harder. Yet abortion routinely operates this way. The less the woman knows, the better.
Sort of the Precautionary principle: Women may later become pregnant and realize that “lump of tissue” was actually a baby. In the general population, women mourn miscarriages and stillborn babies. Heavy guilt sometimes ensues.
It’s mine and only mine: I addressed this elsewhere. Abortion is the female equivalent of the male killing his wife or girlfriend because if he can’t have her, no one can. Adoption is rarely considered by women going in for an abortion, even though it is likely all aborted babies, had they been carried to full term, could have been adopted. Americans fly to China to get babies to adopt. There’s no shortage of people wanting to adopt babies. However, if the woman doesn’t want the baby, no one can have it.
It’s two things in one: A fetus is tissue mass for abortion, a living person when it’s fetal homicide. This is important, because again, logically and rationally, it cannot be both. This also applies to the miscarriage situation. Women mourn a lump of tissue–or a potential life. Abortion prevents that potential life from reaching its potential while denying the potential. It leads to very muddled thinking. If abortion is legal and moral, then there can be no such laws as fetal homicide laws. It’s having one’s cake and eating it too, generally considered an impossibility until recent times.
Lastly, I will include an argument for abortion that comes from one of those “magic books”: In Genesis, it says God “breathed life” into Adam. Adam was not alive until he breathed. There are problems with Adam being an adult and never in vitro and God’s creation versus human reproduction, but I have heard people use this verse to justify abortion. The child did not breathe and therefore is not alive. This gives a very clear demarkation one for when being human begins.
Should say “Adam was never in utero, not in vitro.
Sheri, fine, non-theistic arguments!
Adam wasn’t in vitro ( Latin: in glass) either.
Sheri,
“I’m not trying to talk you into believing anything”
Yet you would like to force every women to live according to your belief. (Hint: this is extremely evil.)
” Biologically, a fetus is genetically human and definitely alive”
Any cells in your body is genetically human and alive until it dies. The same way some cells will continue to live for days after death of the host. for examples hair and nails will continue to grow for several days.
Just like for a person the cells are alive yet the entity is not alive. It has the potential to be alive, gain a soul and a conscience.
“Biologically, it does not posses a soul or other characteristics that may philosophically define human beings”
To be a human person you it requires 3 substances spirit (mind/immaterial, perfect undestructible), soul (the conduit) and the body (material/imperfect).
” This means that most of the abortion debate is philosophical or religious, not biological.”
You make no attempt at the biologiacal fact of miscarriage which can reach as much as 15% of confirmed pregnancies but 50% of all pregnancies (miscarriages that happens in the early days or weeks of pregnancies (when the women doesn’t even know she’s pregnant are included).
If fertilization were meant to be brought to term there wouldn’t be so much natural miscarriage.
” Abortion is not about babies. It is about women having sex without consequence like they view men doing.”
Kind of arsh from someone who doesn’t seem to have suffer the consequence of sex. Though if you want children and can’t, it can explain some frustration, that others would get an abortion.
I fon’t know a lot of woman that are that much into sex. Yes there are some but they are a minority. And it is not like men accept no for answer. Their are women that told me that it was easier to simply give in into men desire that fight it off.
“Quick answers to hard questions…”
1) You are realy submissive to your male counterpart and your level of disrespect for women is shocking.
2) You are trying to impose your selfish view that women are the original sinners and should be blamed for everything that goes wrong.
It is not a problem that you lack self-esteem in yourself. It is a problem that you want to force all women into your feeling of guilt.
“Abortion is a political tool..”
You keep complaining about the poor and then complain that they get abortion because they are poor. Children impoverish women because society don’t hold men responsible for their action.
Abortion is about the power of women to make choice for themselves to not have male deciding for them.
“Uninformed consent…”
It is disturbing at how condescending you are to woman. You think that all women who get an abortion get it with joy and no regret. The reality is quite different. of course you could always find one woman like that and apply the model to all.
In all your comment you don’t have a single good argument against abortion.
You make no attempt at the biologiacal fact of miscarriage
Idiotic argument not much different than arguing there is a probability of accidental death for a person so shooting them in the head is OK.
If fertilization were meant to be brought to term there wouldn’t be so much natural miscarriage.
Equally idiotic. If babies were meant to become adults there wouldn’t be so many infant deaths, right?
Dav,
I didn’t know you were pro choice you make great argument for us
Sylvain, the best argument against abortion is that it is taking innocent life, and you can not defend the argument that the fetus and the embryo are not human lives. I won’t try to convince of you of that (there is the defect of invincible ignorance), but I want to state it for others who may read these comments.
Bob,
You see that’s the heart of the problem. For you a fertilize egg, an embryo or a fetus is a person. This is because you have a limited and materialistic view of life, which comes from religious belief.
The more materialistic view of life you have the farther away you are from God. Religion exist to control population and put them under the control of false prophet.
Jesus said we are like him, Jesus said he was god, so we are also God. Our problem is that we listen to religious leaders for so long that they lead their believers astray. They isolated us from God.
I hope for you that you realize that Jesus is among us and that you can talk to him face to face as soon as you truly understand what he has taught us.
materialistic view of life, which comes from religious belief
Ha! Ha! Just when it looked like it couldn’t get sillier along comes this one.
Imagine: a religious belief leads to materialism! Maybe a lack of one does but really? Ha! Ha!
Keep ’em coming. It never occurred to me how entertaining this thread could be.
DAV: Agreed, though if one deliberately misrepresents religion to excuse their own beliefs and behaviours, one could twist religion into being the reason for every wrong perceived. Said individuals believe if there never had been religion, we’d be living in paradise, singing Kumbaya and living in harmony. It’s evil religion that ruined it all. I have a relative that thinks this way. It’s religion’s fault he’s a failure and the world is a mess. He is without guilt in the whole thing.
Sheri,
For once you are right I have no guilt. I also don’t fear God, I love him. He is not jealous or vengeful like the bible written by man portrayed him. I’m not afraid that we are doomed. I’m not afraid that the way you live your life will affect what God think of me.
Religion would be a good thing if it wasn’t based on the desire of the few to control and dictate how other should live.
Sylvain: Of course you have no guilt. You don’t believe you have any personal responsibility whatsoever so how could guilt enter? You worship Barney the Dinosaur–a God that is nothing but warmth and light with no rules. Kind of like that imaginary friend children have. I’m sure you find that very reassuring—you can never be wrong.
I’m not afraid that the way you live your life will affect what any God thinks of me. I am afraid how you live your life will most likely result in Hell on earth if everyone follows your irresponsible, irrational example. God has nothing to do with this, nor has religion. You are 100% wrong on that, even though Barney will not let you believe you could ever err.
Sheri,
“I am afraid how you live your life will most likely result in Hell on earth if everyone follows your irresponsible, irrational example. ”
Wow the cats finally came out of the bag. What you have just shown/said is that you don’t believe in individual liberty but that everyone should live their life according to your own desire.
Your life is based on irrational fear that are brought by mainly religion in your case, but there are other causes global warming is an example. Fear are used to control people into behaving into a specific way.
I quit, Sylvain: Go do your flipping victory dance and go about your idiotic life as you wish. You are an an omniscient, all-knowing god who reads people’s minds and determines what they believe in your mind. You don’t listen to what anyone says because you KNOW. So go puff up and act like the moron you are. You are incredibly stupid and impossible to have any kind of a discussion with. It’s pointless.
Oh, and feel free to say I always quit when I’m losing. It adds to the delusional quality of your thinking. Actually, no matter when any quits talking to you, it’s because you’re so impossible that it’s useless. But go ahead and brag and be an idiot.
Will: I wrote my comment for you. I don’t mind that others ask questions or make comments. However, in a moment of weakness, I replied to Sylvain. Please ignore all those comments, as I really have no idea how to deal with a totally irrational person, short of just ignoring them or “yelling back”. I will hereafter refrain from acknowledging anything Sylvain comments, which is the better choice. You’re right—it’s a bad idea to answer him at all.
You realize that you have the exact same type of argument with whoever dare disagree with you.
Why has this conversation continued when there’s nowhere for it go except to nowhere? The idea that ‘whatever someone else does is of no consequence if it doesn’t effect me’ is a simplistic, unstructured, form of self-serving anarchy. It’s premise is its conclusion. It’s a closed box for closed minds.
Gary,
Can you explain how other people life affect yours? Unless we are talking criminals activity where an individual directly impede on someone else life, by injuring them physically, psychologically, financially or materially.
A gay couple getting married doesn’t injure anyone. A religious person doesn’t injure anyone with her until these beliefs injures someone else. For example hate speech or incitation to violence.
Gary in Erko: I was answering a question by Will and it took on a life of it’s own. It’s time for it to die.
Sylvain, a few sample words to describe and explain it –
empathy, sympathy, responsiveness, revulsion, disgust, shadenfreude, naches (yiddish, look it up), socialisation, cultural environment.
Some people live on both sides of their skin, some only on the inside.
“Can you explain how other people life affect yours?” No, I can’t explain it to you.
Gary in Erko,
We are really not talking about the same thing.
Your feelings are your own. If you are disgusted by two men kissing then look the other. The fact that they are kissing, married and living together doesn’t in any change your life. You are still able to get married to a woman and live with her.
Last week I learned that one of my student that graduated 2 years ago died in a motorcycle crash. Her death though tragic and saddens me, doesn’t affect my life in any way. In fact, I had not seen or thought of her for almost 2 years.
Our societies, at least in the western world, is based on individual liberty. Meaning that each individual can or should be able to choose what is good for eachselves, within the confines of the laws.
Sylvain: You said, “This is because you have a limited and materialistic view of life, which comes from religious belief”
It doesn’t take a religious belief to know that life begins at conception, or so near that the error is trivial. That’s just a physical fact.
Having said that, I am a Christian, and must point out that you have it wrong if you say you are a Christian. You see, a Christian dies not talk of Jesus in the past tense. He lives, and that is the basis of Christianity. He did not equate mankind with God, as Jesus is Lord. No. You seem to be on some sort of random tangent, there. Oh, random is just another word for uncertainty or error, right?
It would be interesting to know just what your beliefs really are.
Bob,
“It doesn’t take a religious belief to know that life begins at conception, or so near that the error is trivial. That’s just a physical fact.”
You confuse fact and beliefs.
The vast majority of fertilized egg do not implant or ends up in miscarriage even when desired, pro-lifers never explain that fact.
My belief are knowledge which I am still clarifying
The vast majority of fertilized egg do not implant or ends up in miscarriage
Which is completely irrelevant — or rather should be. It’s one of the sickest justifications for ending lives that ever existed. It’s OK to end a life because some of them end early anyway?!!
That you even use it shows how horribly twisted you are.
Sheri,
How many times have you heard this: contraception and complete abstinence prevent potential life from reaching its full potential.
I’d say it is mainly the result of an unavoidably muddled legislative process.
“Feticide” is a term that avoids the logical contradiction, but “fetal homicide” laws often also use the term “unborn child”, which blurs the semantic distinction. It is interesting to note that the majority of pro-choice organizations opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Which on the face of it is logically consistent … but not really, because it oddly does not consider the will of the biological parents — particularly the pregnant woman.
Brandon: As I told Sylvain, I presented the arguments for Will and did not intend to debate them. They are arguments I have heard that do not include religion. Will asked about non-theistic reasons given for not supporting abortion and I provided him examples. I am finished commenting here on this topic.
“Which is completely irrelevant — or rather should be. It’s one of the sickest justifications for ending lives that ever existed. It’s OK to end a life because some of them end early anyway?!!”
This why the pro-life argument doesn’t hold on. If life started when you say it does miscarriage would be the exception not the rule.
I suppose even monsters have a need to feel good about themselves but heir reasons for doing so are incomprehensibly bizarre to others. Hey, do whatever you need to hold your head high, Sylvain. It doesn’t change what you are, though. You’re still a sicko.
Dav,
Anytime there’s a mass shooting in the U.S. you’re number one on my list of suspects. With you it is not a matter of if but a matter of when you will do it.
At the moment of Jesus Christ’s conception in His mother, He was like us in all things except sin. Therefore, at the moment of the conception of every human being, we are like Him, except that we are subject to the effects of Original Sin, from which proceeds our bent towards sin, defects, and more. Therefore, when the human sperm or sperms, penetrates the human egg, that which is conceived is a human being.
God bless, C-Marie