If Pro-Lifers Got into the Car Business

Have you heard of Trinity Car Company? They’re new, and they claim to have a much more sensible approach to car buying. They’ve eliminated the showroom, and you go right to the factory. A friend of mine, whom I’ll call Frank, told me about his experience. For his college graduation present, Frank’s father made the down payment. Frank wasn’t sure that Trinity was the right car or that now was the right time, but he went along.

Frank was greeted in the lobby by the salesman, a clean-cut young man with a big smile.

“I’m amazed you’re so quick,” Frank said. “I just put my order in a week ago, and yet here I am.”

The salesman carried himself as if he had found his dream job. “We treat every car for the miracle it is,” he said. “‘Every Design has a Designer,’ after all.” He pointed up to the large plaque on the wall that carried the same motto. “Well, let’s go see your baby.” The salesman ushered Frank into a large room that appeared to be empty except for a car’s engine block on the floor. It lay on a fuzzy pink blanket. The pistons hadn’t been installed, and the six shiny cylinders were empty. “There you are,” he said. “You’ve made a nice choice. She’s a beaut! Five days ago, it was just a schematic.”

Frank looked around. “Where?”

“Right here.” The salesman took a step closer to the engine block and pointed.

“That’s not a car.”

“It is a car.” He put his hands on his hips and smiled, looking back and forth between Frank and the engine block. “Well, if we’re done here, let’s go wrap up the paperwork.”

“For what?” Frank said. “It’s not finished.”

“It will be.”

“Then get back to me when it is. I’m not paying $21,000 for that.”

The salesman cocked his head to the side like a perplexed puppy. “I must say, you seem to have a cramped definition of ‘car.’ Think about how fun it’ll be to drive.”

“But it’s not a car!”

“Of course it’s a car. What else would it be? It’s not a flower. It’s not a dinosaur. It’s a car. You’re just not familiar with the development process.” He walked over to the engine and pointed to the front of the block. “And take a look at this.”

Frank walked over and knelt next to him.

“See? It even has your VIN number—it’s unique.” The salesman ran his finger gently over the small engraved characters as he read out the number. “You can touch it if you want to.”

Frank stood and waved his hands. “Look, this is not what I wanted.”

The salesman said, “Getting a car is big step, I’ll grant you, but I’m sure you want to see this process through.”

“I do not.”

The salesman’s smile dissolved. “I can show you what it’ll look like next week and the week after that and so on. Let me show you the pictures.”

Frank held up his hands. “Hold on. Maybe this is my fault. To me, a ‘car’ is what it’ll be when it’s finished, but I don’t want to debate definitions. A car that won’t be finished for months simply won’t work for me. This isn’t a fit.” He took a step toward the door.

The salesman ran his hands through his hair compulsively, erasing the clean-cut façade. “You knew about this when you signed up.”

“What’s the big deal? Sell it to someone else.”

The salesman looked at Frank as if he’d vomited on himself. “That’s not the way it works here. You saw the VIN. This is your car! Do you know what happens if you don’t take it?” He paused to catch his breath. “Let me show you.” He took out a small packet of photos from his jacket pocket.

“No, that’s okay,” Frank said, stepping back.

“I insist.” The salesman stood between Frank and the door. “They come with a crane with sharp tongs. They pick it up. They drag it out.” He flipped through photos of these steps. “They put it in here.” This photo showed some sort of grinding machine with enormous teeth. “Is that what you want? Can you live with that?”

Frank feinted to one side, and the salesman blocked him. Frank dashed around the other side and ran to the door. He looked back as he yanked the door open.

The salesman was holding up the photos as if showing a cross to a vampire. “Murderer!” he said, his eyes glistening. “Murderer!”

I was not;
I was;
I am not;
I do not care.
— Epicurus’s observation on death

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/2/13.)

Image credit: Don O’Brien, flickr, CC

 

"You win the internet today! https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"I really loves Ricky G's quote, "Bible says God created us from dust and ribs."So ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."
"Here is a revision of the argument I presented above.Argument that God Cannot Exist:Part A:1. ..."

The Hypothetical God Fallacy
"How depressing to live your entire life and then just die, with no hope of ..."

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kevin K

    Snort.

  • KarlUdy

    Hw would this be different if it were houses, instead of cars that were being sold?

    • smrnda

      I’m guessing that someone would show someone the blueprints, an empty lot, and perhaps some construction supplies. Perhaps even less.

      • KarlUdy

        Would a house-buyer be as perplexed as the car-buyer in the example at not being shown a “finished product”?

        • adam

          Depends on if you bought a house, or paid for the building of house doesnt it?

        • KarlUdy

          Yes it does. Although most buying of existing houses is more akin to buying a second-hand car, which is quite different from Bob’s analogy.

        • What I hear you saying is that you’re congratulating me for using an effective analogy rather than a stupid one.

          OK, thanks, I guess.

        • Sgt Carver

          I think you could tweek it by saying that it could happen that Frank is forced to take it off the lot before s/he was ready and was injured and/or killed before s/he could give it to someone who wanted it.

          A bit rough but I think you get the idea.

        • Kodie

          I kind of think like buying a house like getting into a consensual relationship with an adult rather than having or adopting a baby, even if you are building a house on a lot. You can’t live inside the frame, so it’s not a house. Plenty of people get pregnant who want to bear a child, and think of that plan as the baby it will become, but that doesn’t mean they can cuddle it… I mean, if you took what was inside them out, it wouldn’t be fit to show off or do anything to brag about, like crawl or say a first word. New homes are not that fragile. They are inanimate. If you have a sudden change of plans, you can tell the builder that you’re out. Whether or not they keep building and sell to another buyer, the “parent” can opt out, and the house-in-construction does not care who moves in. If the builder finishes up with cheaper fixtures, the house doesn’t cry. If the frame is demolished, it doesn’t cry. If the house is finished and other people move in instead of the original intended buyers, the house feels no difference. I think the analogy is flawed because a part of a car or a whole finished functioning car has no feelings. The idea is that the customer here does not have to accept the unfinished car as the car he was promised. He would be psyched to get the finished car, but has no interest in investing in parts of a car.

          As far as pregnancy goes, if people want to have a baby, they are generally willing to accept the process during which a baby gestates from a fertilized egg. They will spend the money preparing for it, and measure the cost of having a child against not going through with it. Potential cost is a huge factor in deciding not to go through with pregnancy to birth. Frank in the story was looking forward to the gift, and the cost of having the gift beyond paying to take it home is not addressed. When he got to the dealership, they tried to sell him parts of a car, and the part of the story that’s real is that the parts have no feeling. The whole car would also have no regrets if Frank rejected it. If Frank wanted to buy the parts or the whole car (if it was available) and demolish it in some statement to stick it to his father, or own it a couple years and sell it when it became impractical, it wouldn’t cause an uproar. If Frank treated his car like shit, no one would call the authorities. That is, if the finished car is equal to a child, no one would criticize Frank for treating his own property like shit, where if the car was actually a child, authorities would be called over his neglect and abuse.

          But the main point is, an engine is not something you can drive, therefore, not a car. If you are building a house on a lot you bought, you aren’t moving into it, even if you want to pay for it. It’s not yet a house.

        • adam

          So like adopting children already born that the owner cant afford or doesnt want.

    • Anat

      Look, once upon a time I bought an apartment when it was a blueprint. I had a contract with the contractor that had various protections for my money in case the contractor ran into trouble, couldn’t complete the job, bailed out etc. The contract specified materials that were going to be used. There were also protections in the form of regulations that set up standards to ensure the designed building was going to be safe and sound.

      • KarlUdy

        And if you pulled out, and said that you didn’t want the house, would it be destroyed? No, they would find someone who did want the house. Hmmm, a case for adoption?

        • Anat

          If I had changed my mind I would have lost money but I wouldn’t have risked my health. So not a good parallel to pregnancy at all. Adoption addresses the question of there being a child that their biological parents do not wish or cannot raise, but does not address the problem of a woman not willing to continue being pregnant.

        • KarlUdy

          Does it seem strange to think of a car or a house, that has once started being built being destroyed simply because “the order was cancelled”?

          If so, wouldn’t it also be strange to treat pregnancy that way?

        • Anat

          You can’t transfer an embryo or fetus to someone else, only the child. In most abortions, this is the reason the embryo or fetus dies. It isn’t deliberate destruction but the side-effect of terminating a pregnancy. The equivalent would be if the car or house broke down on their own because the customer backed out of the deal.

        • KarlUdy

          So assuming a duty of care on the part of the pregnant mother, shouldn’t there be a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term unless there are exceptional circumstances.

        • Anat

          Duty of care starts after the fetus is no longer inside the pregnant person’s body. When it no longer imposes on the pregnant person’s health. Even if we concede personhood to the fetus (which I don’t) persons do not get to use other people’s bodies for their continued existence. We do not force people to donate blood or organs against their wishes. We do not force people to go through with an organ donation if they were willing to donate but later changed their minds. We do not even take organs from corpses without prior consent. Women who are pregnant are not lesser entities than people who are not pregnant, and certainly not lesser than corpses. Forced continuation of pregnancy is a travesty to human rights.

        • KarlUdy

          Forced continuation of pregnancy is a travesty to human rights.

          I think the big sticking point for us is going to be personhood before birth. However, you said, even granting that …

          In which case, you have two persons with rights. And in no other case, would a person’s right to life be considered right to be denied unless the other person’s right to life were to be similarly jeopardized.

          The talk of “using other people’s bodies” is misplaced. Can a mother justify not carrying her child because the child has no right to just “use her body”?

        • Anat

          The right to life is secondary to the right to bodily autonomy. That is why we cannot force people to donate potentially life-saving organs. People die all the time because we think preserving other people’s bodily autonomy takes precedence over their lives. We even give precedence to not violating the wishes of people who have died over life.

        • adam

          “In which case, you have two persons with rights. ”

          No, only one.
          Because you have only one person.

          ” Can a mother justify not carrying her child because the child has no right to just “use her body”?”

          Can you justify not giving me one of your kidneys, both of your eyes, your liver, and half gallon of blood, just because I have no right to ‘use your body’? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/399c1022fd17d83255a20fac5966c628aa950fa0fd4a935be54e8b676bde95e7.jpg

        • Anat

          BTW when my child was an infant I often carried him in a sling. Not everyone thought that was a good idea, but it was a choice I made and it worked for us. But I had no legal or moral duty to carry my child in that or any other manner. Some parents are incapable of physically carrying their children and things work out fine. Was that what you meant about ‘Can a mother justify not carrying her child because the child has no right to just “use her body”?’?

        • KarlUdy

          No. My question would be more along the lines of – Is it OK for a mother to leave an infant behind because she doesn’t want to carry her? (being carried is using someone’s body, right?)

        • Joe

          Is it OK for a mother to leave an a potential infant behind because she doesn’t want to carry her[adding that reason was unnecessary]?

          I feel your question was worded in a way that is problematic, so I made an edit.

          Is it OK?

          That’s an ethical question which is subjective depending on who you ask. The question you should ask is:

          Should it be legal?

        • KarlUdy

          Your editing of my question changed the meaning completely. My meaning was an actual infant (ie child aged under 2).

        • Joe

          Then it’s completely different.

        • MNb

          That’s the point, silly. Exactly because the meaning is completely different your question has zero relevance for the discussion whether abortion should be legal. May I conclude that you don’t understand your own arguments anymore?

        • Anat

          There are other solutions to moving a child from point A to point B than requiring one specific person to physically carry the child, so I don’t get your point at all. You can ask someone else to do it, you can pay someone else to do it, you can use a device such as a stroller etc. You might also be able to take care of your child without getting them to that specific point B at that particular time. And yes, the question isn’t ‘is it OK?’ but ‘should the law be able to force people to do it?’

        • Kodie

          Infants are not what we’re talking about here. Embryos don’t cry where’s my mommy I want my mommy I’m so sad I don’t get to live! Women who are forced to go through with pregnancy do!

        • adam

          “(being carried is using someone’s body, right?)”

          Not unless it is the child who is directing the carrying.

          You dont think these things through very well, do you.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe8e27776008c5b6dee5a4303b63a6b12145b0158ed081d2d0a38f0dfe3bfa5c.jpg

        • Joe

          I think the big sticking point for us is going to be personhood before birth

          Which brings us back to Bob’s argument: if a foetus can be called a ‘person’, an engine can be called a car.

          That’s literally the analogy he was going for, correct me if I’m wrong.

        • Oh, good. Someone got it. Maybe that’ll help Karl.

        • Joe

          I’d wager most pro-choice advocates get it.

          The question is, do they not understand the argument or do they deliberately refuse to comprehend?

          I haven’t met a ‘pro-lifer’ yet who can neatly summarize the pro-choice arguments.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that’s because such ‘arguments’ are predominantly driven by emotional insistence, which past a certain point can never be ‘neatly’ rationalized.

        • Kodie

          Yes, that’s slavery. Nobody has the right to enslave my body, especially someone who isn’t anyone yet.

        • Michael Neville

          Like so many forced birthers, you give more rights to a clump of cells than to an adult woman. Also calling a fetus a “child” is an emotional appeal. A fetus becomes a child or baby after birth.

        • T-Paine

          And just to show they don’t really believe a fetus is a person is that they have yet to ban pregnant women from smoking or drinking alcohol or allowing pregnant women to drive in the carpool lane.

        • Kodie

          Sometimes, I park in the space at a supermarket parking lot where you’re supposed to have kids with you or pregnant. Nobody gives a shit, either.

        • I think the big sticking point for us is going to be personhood before birth.

          This shouldn’t be a sticking point. I say that it’s 0% a person at fertilization and 100% at birth–that gestation is a spectrum of personhood. You disagree.

          Not a problem–you tell me what word to use. You tell me what the single cell isn’t and the newborn is. I say person. Give me a better word.

        • KarlUdy

          You sound like Miracle Max …
          “Not completely a person, just mostly a person.”

        • Joe

          Where is the definitive line when something becomes a person?

        • Kodie

          Not even mostly. Stop being so dishonest.

        • Otto

          That is the way the law works…please explain why a religious foundation should be used in it’s place.

        • … which doesn’t answer the question.

          I’m not surprised, though. I’ve asked this to lots of pro-lifers. Maybe you in a previous conversation? Anyway, they always sidestep it.

          I guess that makes it an effective challenge.

        • KarlUdy

          Well, I guess my point is that you would need to back up your claim that personhood can be treated as a spectrum. When has it ever been regarded as anything other than a binary issue?

        • MNb

          “you would need to back up your claim that personhood can be treated as a spectrum.”
          Do you see the difference between this

          http://www.beltina.org/pics/zygote.jpg

          and this?

          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C_DUNNbk3To/Te3u9-GaufI/AAAAAAAAAT0/F6M-0_oJsls/s1600/Babby-9.jpg

          If yes, do you agree that there is a gradual development from the first picture to the second one?
          If yes, do you object the usage of the word “spectrum” for this gradual development?
          If yes, why?
          If no, would you call the first picture a person?
          If yes, based on what definition?
          And of course BobS’ million dollar question, which you keep on evading: if you don’t want BobS to use the word “person” to describe the difference between the first and the second picture, what word would you prefer?
          Continuing to evade that last one will be taken as an admission that your criticism is nothing but baked air.

        • Joe

          When was it ever a binary issur?

        • Paul B. Lot

          personhood can be treated as a spectrum. When has it ever been regarded as anything other than a binary issue

          War?
          Justifiable homicide?
          The death penalty?
          Hammurabbi’s code?
          Life in prison?
          Slavery?

          You seriously want to question whether or not [personhood] has *ever* been overtly/explicitly, or covertly/implicitly, treated as a non-discrete, non-binary system?

        • adam

          “Well, I guess my point is that you would need to back up your claim that
          personhood can be treated as a spectrum. When has it ever been regarded
          as anything other than a binary issue?”

          You mean when they are regarded as PROPERTY?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • First, can you answer my question? I said: You tell me what the single cell isn’t and the newborn is. I say person. Give me a better word.

        • epeeist

          So tell us what you mean by “person”.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          The mother WAS a child. The “right to life” was only important for one day using that child as an incubator to get some more incubators. We don’t have to suppose your villainy- we see it playing out before our eyes on previous generations of “unborn babies”.

        • KarlUdy

          Giauz, are you in the matrix?

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I am asking Jesus.

          XD

        • Otto

          Can a mother justify not carrying her child because the child has no right to just “use her body”?

          Yes, the mother has a right to consent or to refuse her consent to use her body in that manor. You would take that right of a person to use their body away?

        • KarlUdy

          Such a mother exercising her “rights” in such a way would be guilty of negligent care of a child.

        • Otto

          A mother who refused to give a kidney would be guilty of negligence?

          what country do you live in that has laws like that?

          You can say she was wrong but legally she has every right to refuse. She is not legally guilty of anything

        • KarlUdy

          No. A mother who refused to carry her infant and left her behind would be guilty of neglect (probably a better term than negligence).

        • Otto

          That is a completely different situation.

        • KarlUdy

          But the infant is “using the mother’s body” for transport. Can the mother, even if there is no alternative way to transport the infant, claim bodily autonomy to refuse, argue that she is being enslaved by the infant, or any other such argument?

        • Otto

          The mother can put the child down, the mother can take the child and leave it at an orphanage.

          The difference is that the child is not dependent on the woman’s body to live AND a baby that is born has legal rights an unborn embryo does not have.

          You have not explained why an embryo/fetus should have more rights to a females body than a 2 year old has.

        • KarlUdy

          For many infants, in their current circumstances they are dependent on their mother’s body to live.

          Whether an unborn embryo’s rights are what they should be is within the scope of the argument here. Saying that they do not currently have the rights equal to those that have been born as an argument to not give them more rights is a circular argument, and follows exactly the same logic as:
          Black people do not have the same legal rights as white people, therefore they should not have those rights.

        • Black people do not have the same legal rights as white people, therefore they should not have those rights.

          But that’s a stupid analogy. Black people and white people are both people. Embryos are not people. Who could possibly want not-people to be given the same rights as people? If embryos today, will it be rats tomorrow and then slugs?

          That’s a big burden of proof. Go.

        • KarlUdy

          Begging the question? Again?!

          If both sides agreed on the issue of personhood the argument would largely disappear.

        • Nope, not begging the question. I’m making the very simple and obvious observation that there is an enormous gap between the single cell and the trillion-cell newborn. The development during that 9-month process is gradual and continual. It’s a spectrum of development.

          This is clearly uncomfortable for you, which is why I keep pushing it. It defeats your position.

          I’m demanding that you tell us what the newborn is and the single cell isn’t. We have lots of words expressing comparatively subtle differences after birth: newborn, baby, infant, 1-year-old, toddler, and so on. Surely you can think of a word to fit into my question.

        • KarlUdy

          Nope, not begging the question.

          By asserting that an embryo is not a person, you are begging the question. Or do you think that both pro-life and pro-choice agree that an embryo is not a person?

          I’m making the very simple and obvious observation that there is an enormous gap between the single cell and the trillion-cell newborn.

          Great physical development. As there is after birth to adulthood. But gradual physical development does not mean that a binary attribute like personhood develops gradually. Both philosophically and legally, there needs to be a marker for personhood. I don’t think birth is the best marker.

        • By asserting that an embryo is not a person, you are begging the question.

          I cannot conceive of how I could be more accommodating. I say that a single cell is not a person, but a newborn is. You disagree. All right, I can accept that. Then you tell me: what is the newborn that the single cell isn’t?

          Seriously—how much more accommodating can I be? You say that “person” doesn’t work? Fine—then tell me what word will work. The gulf between the single cell and the newborn is immense.

          Great physical development. As there is after birth to adulthood.

          Wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I’m guessing that you know it’s wrong. See the chart below for an illustration.

          http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/files/2016/09/chart2.jpg

          But gradual physical development does not mean that a binary attribute like personhood develops gradually.

          As I’ve said before, I’m a flexible guy. If you don’t like “personhood,” don’t fucking use it. You tell me.

          We’ve gone round and round on this. You’re now being evasive. You know that this bitch slaps your argument and you’d prefer pretending that you’re stupid to facing up to the challenge and answering it squarely.

        • KarlUdy

          Seriously—how much more accommodating can I be? You say that “person” doesn’t work? Fine—then tell me what word will work. The gulf between the single cell and the newborn is immense.

          I’m saying that “personhood” is the issue, but your idea of how personhood works is seriously deficient.

          Describe to me how the area in between person and non-person exists. You’re the one who’s proposing the spectrum of personhood (and from a quick search on the internet, no one else). So back up your proposal with some evidence.

          See the chart below for an illustration.

          Nice chart. How about a list of things that a healthy adult can do that a newborn can’t: Walk, talk, chew, focus their eyes, digest solid food, reproduce … Does that make a healthy adult a person, and a newborn not?

          We’ve gone round and round on this. You’re now being evasive.

          No. You’re being evasive. You repeatedly fall back on the physical differences between a newborn and fertilization. Your conclusion (based on the way you use this as an argument for abortion) is that personhood is an attribute that is not possessed until birth. But you don’t back it up with any reasoning? Is personhood based on possessing certain physical characteristics? Is that the point of your chart? Is it based on the experience of being born? You don’t say. And when you get asked to provide evidence for your proposal of a spectrum of personhood (that, again, you seem to be the only proponent of), you accuse me of being evasive?!

        • I’m saying that “personhood” is the issue, but your idea of how personhood works is seriously deficient.

          In trying to figure out what you’re talking about, all I can figure is that you realize the argument is lost, so you won’t give up “personhood” even though the word itself is the stumbling block. Put this aside and answer the question: what is the newborn that the single cell isn’t?

          Once you’ve addressed that, we can move on if there is more to talk about. But it seems clear that you won’t. My suggestion: admit that you can’t respond squarely to my question because it defeats your position, and then we can drop this.

          How about a list of things that a healthy adult can do that a newborn can’t: Walk, talk, chew, focus their eyes, digest solid food, reproduce … Does that make a healthy adult a person, and a newborn not?

          A good list. I should make a chart illustrating the difference . . . oh, wait a minute. I already did. “Reproduce” is the only significant thing that an adult can do that a newborn can’t, and the enormous gulf between single cell and newborn remains.

        • KarlUdy

          “I’m saying that “personhood” is the issue, but your idea of how personhood works is seriously deficient.”
          In trying to figure out what you’re talking about, all I can figure is that you realize the argument is lost, so you won’t give up “personhood” even though the word itself is the stumbling block.

          It should be simple. Your proposal of a spectrum of personhood necessarily implies that there is something between non-person and full-person. How does that work?

          Your response to that line of enquiry has been
          a) to claim that it is an issue of semantics so I should not talk about personhood.
          b) to claim that I must know I’ve been defeated by your argument
          c) to claim that you can’t figure out what I’m talking about.

          It sounds like you’re being evasive because you insist I answer your question first. Need I remind you that it is your proposal of a spectrum of personhood that you are refusing to explain?

          In any case, to answer “What is the newborn that the single-cell isn’t?”
          The newborn is outside of the womb, and the newborn has undergone usually about 9 months of physical development.

        • How does that work?

          I have no idea how to even begin to deliver something that would satisfy you. But that’s not really surprising because this is just a smokescreen. It’s just busywork to avoid the spotlight.

          You are just one more in a sequence of bold pro-lifers who admit that they can’t answer the question, What is the newborn that the single cell isn’t?

          Your answer: “The newborn is outside of the womb, and the newborn has undergone usually about 9 months of physical development.”

          Nope. Let me rephrase it for you: A newborn is an X, while the single cell is not an X. What is “X”?

        • KarlUdy

          But that’s not really surprising because this is just a smokescreen. It’s just busywork to avoid the spotlight.

          Asking you to explain how your “personhood spectrum” works, as opposed to the near universal accepted concept of personhood as a binary attribute is a smokescreen?!

          Wow! I can’t help but feeling that I’m being told I don’t need to read the fine print because if I did I’d find out it was just “lorem ipsum”.

          You are just one more in a sequence of bold pro-lifers who admit that they can’t answer the question, What is the newborn that the single cell isn’t?

          I did answer the question but you didn’t like my answer.

          Let me try again.

          Nope. Let me rephrase it for you: A newborn is an X, while the single cell is not an X. What is “X”?

          X is a human who has undergone the initial several months of development inside the womb.

        • Kodie

          Asking you to explain how your “personhood spectrum” works, as opposed to the near universal accepted concept of personhood as a binary attribute is a smokescreen?!

          WHAT??????

          Yes, that’s trying to pull a fast one Karl.

        • KarlUdy

          Show me the research on personhood that doesn’t treat personhood as a binary attribute.

          You won’t find much.

        • Susan

          Show me the research on personhood that doesn’t treat personhood as a binary attribute.

          Show the research on personhood that does.

          You won’t find much.

          You’ve made a bold statement about personhood that you can’t support and then followed it with burden shifting wrapped around a category error.

          You claimed that:

          Personhood is a near universal binary concept.

          Now, support it.

        • KarlUdy

          Show the research on personhood that does.

          Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

        • Kodie

          Yeah, that doesn’t support your position at all.

        • Susan

          Start here.

          I see nothing on that page (which I originally linked to you in a comment to which you have yet to respond) that supports your statement that:

          Comment link… https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/if_pro_lifers_got_into_the_car_business/#comment-3148988824

          Personhood is a nearly universally accepted as a binary attribute.

          It’s not a trick question, Karl. It’s a reasonable and honest request that you support this claim.

          It really is quite a claim.

          It would be fascinating if you can support it.

          If you can’t, then stop making it.

        • KarlUdy

          I see nothing on that page (which I originally linked to you in a comment to which you have yet to respond) that supports your statement that:

          “Personhood is a nearly universally accepted as a binary attribute.”

          Tell me, is personhood referred to generally in the article and quotations as an attribute that is either possessed or not, with no reference to a middle ground? Or is it generally referred to as a scale or spectrum along which different values exist?

        • Susan

          Tell me

          You’re like that guy who shows up at the book club for the white wine and snacks but didn’t read the book.

          You wouldn’t have asked those questions if you read just the first three paragraphs of the article.

          But, we all know you are stalling because you made a statement that:

          Personhood is nearly universally recognized as a binary concept.

          And rather than support such a breathtaking claim, you divert to anything you can reach for.

          Why not just support it?

          We are waiting.

        • KarlUdy

          You’re like that guy who shows up at the book club for the white wine and snacks but didn’t read the book.

          Oh, you mean that there is a tribe in PNG that does not have a binary view of personhood? You might note that I said “nearly universal”, meaning that there are very few who dissent from the binary view of personhood. Show me that there is even a significant minority who dissent. Can’t? Why not? Because personhood is nearly universally recognized as a binary concept.

        • Susan

          you mean that there is a tribe in PNG that does not have a binary view of personhood?

          No. I mean that you don’t appear to have read the article. (And you are diverting to an imaginary opponent Karl, rather than supporting your claim.)

          You might note that I said “nearly universal”

          Not only did I note it, I included it in my phrasing and rephrasing of your basic claiim.

          meaning that there are very few who dissent from the binary view of personhood

          Yep. That’s your claim.

          Think I got it.

          Now, support it.

          Show me that there is even a significant minority who dissent. Can’t? Why not? Because personhood is nearly universally recognized as a binary concept.

          No. Because it’s an absurd claim based on a category error.

          You will note that you haven’t lifted a finger to support the claim.

          I certainly have noted it.

          You just keep repeating it Then, shifting the burden.

        • KarlUdy

          No. Because it’s an absurd claim based on a category error.

          Why do you think it is a category error?

          I am saying that almost everyone holds to the view that there are only two values for personhood: “person” and “non-person” (hence binary).

          And the article is evidence for this by, aside from the mention that there do exist different views, talking about personhood in exactly that binary manner throughout the rest of the article. What’s more, so do the quotations by various sources.

          Now, what is absurd about what I am saying?

        • Susan

          Why do you think it is a category error?

          Because it’s personhood. Because it is a philosophical category, a legal category… in more specialized ways, it becomes a medical ethics category.

          In order to show studies, one has to define the term to rigorous degrees and then show measured reality in order to effectively interpret those choices.

          I don’t think it’s a category error. It is one.

          But of course, you are still doing everything possible to draw our attention away from your inability to demonstrate what you seem to be claiming I will directly quote your last comment):

          there are very few who dissent from the binary view of personhood.

          So, you keep saying. When are you going to show us?

          the article is evidence for this by, aside from the mention that there do exist different views, talking about personhood in exactly that binary manner throughout the rest of the article. What’s more, so do the quotations by various sources.

          Where does that happen?

          what is absurd about what I am saying?

          almost everyone holds to the view that there are only two values for personhood: “person” and “non-person”

          That.

          Support it. Define “personhood” and support it.

        • KarlUdy

          Support it. Define “personhood” and support it.

          Defining personhood is not necessary to support my position.

          There are many definitions of personhood. Almost all of them give only two values for personhood – “person” and “non-person”. Read the wikipedia article and see for yourself. Follow the links and read the other research.

          If I’m wrong it shouldn’t be difficult to demonstrate it. But instead you resort to accusing the claim of being absurd. It’s looking a lot like you don’t actually have an argument.

        • epeeist

          Defining personhood is not necessary to support my position.

          Defining “frugiclips” is not necessary to support my position that these are the things that cause the appearance of dust bunnies under beds.

          There are many definitions of personhood.

          So which one are you using/abusing? Until you say then why should we accept your claim that there are binary positions?

          Here is an extract from Douglas Warburton’s Informal Logic, from the table on “Negative Persuasion Rules”:

          Failing to define, clarify or justify the meaning or definition of a significant term used in an argument, in accord with standards of precision appropriate to the discussion is a violation, if the use of this term is challenged by another participant.

          Read the wikipedia article

          Seriously? You want to claim Wikipedia as an authoritative source? There is a vast amount of philosophical literature on personhood and the best you can do is Wikipedia.

        • KarlUdy

          So which one are you using/abusing? Until you say then why should we accept your claim that there are binary positions?

          As I said there are multiple definitions. What the actual definitions are is irrelevant apart from one point – how many values they have. In almost every definition there are two values – “person” and “non-person”. Check it out. Wikipedia is not a good final authority, but it is a good starting point for investigation. So start with the wikipedia article on personhood, and see if what I say is right.

          As I said to Susan, if I’m wrong it should be easy to demonstrate. First Susan, and now you seem to prefer to try to call foul as opposed to actually argue the issue, which does nothing for your credibility.

        • epeeist

          In almost every definition there are two values – “person” and “non-person”.

          You continue to assert this, but provide no justification for your assertion. So, no definition of what personhood is and no substantiation of your claim it is binary. Oh, and the usual intellectually dishonest trick of trying to get other people to do your work for you by directing them to Wikipedia in order to search out material you should have provided.

          As it is, this article is a better resource.

        • Greg G.

          The Wikipedia article gives many examples of attempts to define personhood from pre-personhood, but the fact that they cannot agree indicates that there is not a clear delineation between pre-personhood and personhood. A bunch of contradictions does not support your position.

        • Greg G.

          Seriously? You want to claim Wikipedia as an authoritative source? There is a vast amount of philosophical literature on personhood and the best you can do is Wikipedia.

          Wikipedia isn’t perfect but it is a reasonable starting point for internet discussions. I don’t like it when someone cites a whole book without summarizing the point being referred to. Doing that has the appearance of trying to assign busy work to shut down a conversation. Of course I am not saying there is anything wrong with recommending books for someone who wants to learn.

          In this case, KU scored an own goal, as his examples collectively show that there is no a clear delineation between personhood and non-personhood.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Paul B. Lot

          KU: Show me the research on personhood that doesn’t treat personhood as a binary attribute.You won’t find much.

          S: Show the research on personhood that does.

          KU: Start here…

          I did a search on that page for “binary” and nothing came up. If all the research on the topic indicated that “personhood [is] a binary attribute” why do you think that would be, Karl?

        • KarlUdy

          I did a search on that page for “binary” and nothing came up. If all the research on the topic indicated that “personhood [is] a binary attribute” why do you think that would be, Karl?

          “Binary” refers to having exactly two values – for personhood, that would be “person”, and “non-person”.

          Your argument is like saying that Dr Seuss doesn’t use rhyme, because you can’t find the word “rhyme” in his books.

        • Greg G.

          It goes back to some of the earliest writings that the idea of the life of a person starts with birth and ends with their last breath. Even in the Bible, the penalty for causing a miscarriage is less than the penalty for harm to a person.

          Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

        • Kodie

          Support your claim, Karl.

        • Susan

          the near universal accepted concept of personhood as a binary attribute

          That’s at least twice you’ve made that absurd claim. You haven’t lifted a finger to support it.

          If it’s a binary attribute, you should be able to define “personhood” in a way that shows a universal conception of it.

          X is a human who has undergone the initial several months of development inside the womb

          What sort of development has it undergone that makes it distinct
          from its single cell beginnings?

          What characteristics does it have that a single cell doesn’t?

          If you define “personhood”, we can compare the two against your definition.

          Please. Don’t wriggle away from your statements on the subject, or disappear entirely and return to hit the reset button.

          This is important stuff, Karl.

        • X is a human who has undergone the initial several months of development inside the womb.

          We have words to express subtle differences in a person once born–newborn, infant, baby, child, toddler, one-year-old, and so on–but for the vastly greater difference between a trillion-cell newborn and the single cell it was 9 months earlier, we have nothing more efficient than the phrase of gobbledygook that you offered.

          I curse our primitive language!

        • Paul B. Lot

          X is a human who has undergone the initial several months of development inside the womb.

          Very close, so you get partial credit (from me anyway).

          I would be a little more concise, and precise, and say: “X is an autonomous-human-person”.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Your proposal of a spectrum of personhood necessarily implies that there is something between non-person and full-person. How does that work?

          The proposal of a spectrum of numbers between 1 and 2 necessarily implies that there is something between 1 and 2. How does that work?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFzR_FOTq2I

        • Paul B. Lot

          Nice chart. How about a list of things that a healthy adult can do that a newborn can’t: Walk, talk, chew, focus their eyes, digest solid food, reproduce … Does that make a healthy adult a person, and a newborn not?

          If an adult is “healthy” in that the cardio vascular, digestive, and respiratory systems work, but their brain has died – they are not a person any longer.

          A zygote has to brain to function at all – they are not a person yet.

        • KarlUdy

          So you are saying that possession of a working brain is the definitive marker for personhood. So what is your stance on abortion once the brain has formed?

        • Greg G.

          No person has the right to use the organs of another person without consent of that person.

        • Do I hear you using the spectrum argument? Saying that the inherent worth of a fetus increases over time?

        • Susan

          So you are saying that possession of a working brain is the definitive marker for personhood

          It is necessry but not sufficient. Or we wouldn’t abide factory farming and habitat destruction or countless other things.

          But I can’t see how it isn’t necessary.

          So what is your stance on abortion once the brain has formed?

          What Greg said, which was:

          No person has the right to use the organs of another person without consent of that person.

          Now, this is a point that you are aware of as I’ve seen it brought up in discussions with you on the subject before.

          But you ignore it. That you repeatedly ignore it is solid evidence that you have no response. It won’t go away just because you choose to ignore it.

        • epeeist

          By asserting that an embryo is not a person

          Still waiting for you to come up with a definition of “person”.

        • Kodie

          Here’s the huge difference you are missing. The reason embryos are not fit to live outside the womb, why they aren’t the same thing as a baby – everything they would become a baby from is built from the mother’s blood and tissue. You’re not just forcing a woman to carry a baby until it’s finished becoming one, you’re forcing her body to build it, just because it got into there somehow. At this point, you are giving her less rights than you have.

        • Otto

          No that does not follow at all

        • Paul B. Lot

          For many infants, in their current circumstances they are dependent on their mother’s body to live.

          Equivocation of the kind you’re employing here is dishonest, and therefore bad dialogue. You should work on trying to reduce your reliance on such tactics.

          [The tissues and organs of an infant] and [the tissues and organs of a fetus] are not [dependent on the mother] in analogous ways.

          If they were, it would be impossible for the father of an infant to pick it up or feed it a bottle.

        • TheNuszAbides

          follows exactly the same logic as:
          Black people do not …

          if you honestly confuse ‘logic’ and ‘sentence structure’, no wonder you can’t ever make any progress with your thought processes when confronted by people who actually know what they’re talking about (or at least how to articulate their ideas clearly).

          if you’re merely pretending to confuse the two in an effort to derail … STFU and GTFO.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, many states allow a mother to take the baby to a hospital or fire station.

        • You’re big on posing vaguely relevant hypotheticals. Why not participate yourself and answer my challenge? Be the first Christian to do so.

          I say that the single cell is 0% a person and the newborn is 100% a person. You disagree. Tell me then what the spectrum is: what is the baby that the single cell isn’t?

        • KarlUdy

          You’re big on posing vaguely relevant hypotheticals.

          If people are going to propose the “bodily autonomy” argument, I want to know if they really believe it or if it just a convenient excuse for abortion.

          I say that the single cell is 0% a person and the newborn is 100% a person. You disagree. Tell me then what the spectrum is: what is the baby that the single cell isn’t?

          I reject your spectrum proposal because personhood is universally recognized as a property that something either possesses or not (ie binary). You’re going to have to give some really good evidence to convince me otherwise (ie demonstrations of different “stages” up to but not including full-personhood, including how the aspects of personhood are partially but not fully met.) Good luck trying to do that.

        • Susan

          If people are going to propose the “bodily autonomy” argument, I want to know if they really believe it or if it just a convenient excuse for abortion. not donating a kidney.

          I reject your spectrum proposal because personhood is universally recognized as a property that something either possesses or not (ie binary).

          That is a textbook example of an argumentum ab rectum/

          Please, please, PLEASE provide us with support for that claim. It’s an absurd claim.

          Personhood looks nothing like that.

          You’re going to have to give some really good evidence to convince me otherwise (ie demonstrations of different “stages” up to but not including full-personhood, including how the aspects of personhood are partially but not fully met.)

          You are shifting the burden. You are claiming personhood for something that doesn’t meet most definitions of personhood. (This is why you talk about infants when we ask about zygotes.)

          A nervous system for starters. But of course, that is not sufficient. Or we wouldn’t abide (for instance ) factory farming and species extinction on manic levels.

          I don’t see how one can form a reasonable moral case without demonstrating connections either directly or indirectly to its effects on nervous systems. Bearing in mind that we live on a planet where morality can only be calibrated, never perfected.

          Nervous systems are necessary but not sufficient when discussing morality.

          The endless diversion to the care of infants is irrelevant to a discussion of zygotes and other chemical ->biological-> psychological->stages that are not infants.

          Infants cover a gamut of moral issues that zygotes don’t..

          The point of the article. The point that has been made to you countless times.

          And you dodge it.

        • Holy shit–the word “person” gives you gastritis? Then don’t fucking use it.

          I’ve invited you to give me a word that you say works better half a dozen times now. Alternatively, throw in the towel. Man up and admit that this this argument is too powerful for you to address.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I reject your spectrum proposal because personhood is universally recognized as a property that something either possesses or not (ie binary). You’re going to have to give some really good evidence to convince me otherwise (ie demonstrations of different “stages” up to but not including full-personhood, including how the aspects of personhood are partially but not fully met.) Good luck trying to do that.

          The death penalty.

        • Kodie

          If a woman decides to walk away from her zygote, it’s not neglect.

        • Otto

          That is an inane argument. you are taking “using the body of another” to a ridiculous length to try and argue your point.

          1) A mother does not legally have to carry an infant.
          2) A person born has legal standing an embryo does not have.

          Again I wall ask you why should an embryo have more legal rights than a 2 year old as to using another persons body without their consent?

        • Susan

          No.

          Exactly.

          A mother who refused to carry her infant is not the same thing as a mother who does not submit her body to the development of a zygote.

          You want to talk about infants upon which the right to life is conferred. And the act of carrying one around.

          This is not the same as having your body held hostage to develop a zygote until it reaches a stage at which it is an infant.

          Becoming an infantt requires pregnancy and childbirth.

          Pregnancy and childbirth (and all that goes with it) is not remotely comparable to carrying something around.

          And a zygote is not an infant.

          Why won’t you address the actual subject?

          Category errors in both directions.

        • Kodie

          You don’t see when the society neglects the woman though. If the woman was hungry, it’s her fault, if the woman gets pregnant, it’s her fault. You’re not her family, you don’t give a shit what happens to her or her baby after you force it to be born.

        • MNb

          Yes.
          Next simple question.

        • Cynthia

          1. It is perfectly legal to refuse to donate a kidney or a piece of your liver, even if doing so would save someone’s life with minimal risk to yours. It is even legal to refuse to donate bone marrow, even if you are someone’s one in a billion match and therefore their only hope at life.

          2. I stopped carrying baby #3 because he was a heavy baby and I had developed back and hip pain. Maybe Dr. Sears fans would have a problem with this, but I was well within my rights to make that decision. That’s why we have strollers and other people. FWIW, the pain started during the pregnancy. I voluntarily decided to continue the pregnancy, but there was a real physical impact on me as a result, and it also impacted kids #1 and #2 – for example, kid #2 had to be weaned, and I couldn’t carry her or run after her, and I couldn’t do anything at all for a month prior and a month following the birth.

        • Joe

          So assuming a duty of care on the part of the pregnant mother,

          No such duty exists.

        • KarlUdy
        • Joe

          That pertains to individuals that have been born.

        • adam

          See how apologetics ALWAYS leads to lies, misinformation and #alternate truths.

        • adam

          Ass – u – me

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          “responsibility to carry the pregnancy”

          Use people like machines to get the next group to use like machines? Come to think of it, all the current women were once “unborn babies”, too. No, your “responsibility” is enslavement in the most cynical sense.

        • rabbit

          That is the truth at the base of this entire argument. It is about the enslavement of women and has nothing to do with “babies.”

        • Otto

          Why? Would you force a mother give a kidney to her 2 year old? Why would you force a mother to use her body for a fetus, or an embryo?

        • Joe

          Plenty of unfinished houses out there.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          No one tears them down. Just existing tears them all the same.

        • adam

          “Does it seem strange to think of a car or a house, that has once started being built being destroyed simply because “the order was cancelled”?”

          Well some get destroyed, but many just get abandoned.
          Many of those get damaged, many get abused by people who have no vested interest in them.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d4f62bb9c43ffa3af5e794d9a62a8d6bb2c331b91a17f0caa5b42a77615c00c.jpg

        • Kodie

          Well, in the case of pregnancy, you’re the builder. You can do whatever you want with the property.

        • Are you truly lost about how this analogy works? If so, I could take your hand and walk you through it.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          People don’t, unless you claim a baby can live on its own (care of other people/machines as adults do outside of other peoples’ bodies) after only a couple weeks at the start of pregnancy?

        • Jim Jones

          Do you ever confuse a brick with a meat pie?

        • eric

          Well, the Federal government operates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they consider it good for society when citizens can afford their own homes, well kept, to code, etc. So this could also be an argument for federally funded maternity and paternity leave, as well as federally funded pre-school. And do you know what? If the government did that, I bet the abortion rate would go down. But the GOP is as vehemently opposed to the fed providing basic support to families with kids as it is abortion, so, the Fannie Mae analog will probably never happen.

        • KarlUdy

          I agree. It seems as though you think abortion is something that we don’t want in society (or want as little of as possible). If so, then we’re in broad agreement. I am happy to live in a country where maternity and paternity leave are government funded. American politics is complicated; there are some things I’ll probably never understand about it.

        • Anat

          I think of whether we want abortion in society the way I think of whether heart surgery is something we want in society. It is better if people are healthy and don’t need heart surgery. But everyone who needs heart surgery should be able to have it.

          Similarly, it is better if only people who wanted to become biological parents soon got pregnant, and that society were constructed so that it would be easy for people who would like to become parents at some point to raise children at the timing of their choice. But anyone who finds that for one reason or other their life turned out differently should be able to have an abortion.

        • Cynthia

          Also, anyone would unintentionally becomes pregnant but voluntarily decides to continue the pregnancy should be able to do so….without worrying about being bankrupted by medical expenses, or being fired, or not being able to afford diapers (not covered by Food Stamps), etc.

        • Jim Jones

          Until and unless these states pass legislation ensuring that every pregnant woman, without exception, will be provided with full prenatal maternity care, will have a hospital bill of zero and will get at least 2 years of follow up medical care for each child, they should be told to go screw themselves since they are utterly hypocritical.

          Many other, much smaller, countries do this and more. That’s because they actually care about their nations’ children, they don’t just lie about it to punish women.

        • Cynthia

          That would be a good start, but medical expenses alone aren’t the only potential issue that can impact a pregnant person.

          I did find myself yelling things at the TV a couple of nights ago when Ted Cruz was answering a pregnant woman’s question during a Health Care Town Hall on CNN. He was congratulating her on the upcoming blessed event while explaining that no, maternity benefits should not be mandated. Well, yes, they should be – if you only offer them on policies that pregnant or fertile women buy, you lose the whole point of insurance which is to spread out the risk and expenses.

        • Jim Jones

          They talk about saving babies. They are more interested in saving dollars – for themselves.

        • rabbit

          and depriving women of the ability to build good careers by taking away all power over their lives–remember, they think rape and its products are okay too, and that now adoption contracts don’t mean anything so if you put a baby up for adoption, you can guarantee that at some point an angry young adult is going to show up on your doorstep and demand–“why did you get rid of me?”

        • adam

          “It seems as though you think abortion is something that we don’t want in society (or want as little of as possible). ”

          In the US some 77% of adults identify as christian.
          This is almost 250,000,000 christian adults
          Why arent they lining up to provide care for those who dont want or cant afford children?

          Why arent they providing a loving environment to accept these children into their homes when they are born?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/509e842891415be6bf59795638af928b446aa51e621dce6cd2b81bc45533e14d.jpg

          Why are these same people not promoting the thing that can actually REDUCE abortions.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e137fbcb53ac95fe112ba7671e922efda9b9c621e3651bb0a112935a0045fc75.jpg

          If ONLY these 250 MILLION christians stopped talking out of both sides of the mouths.

        • Right. Pro-lifers don’t think of abortion as a Holocaust. The wringing of the hands about all the pweshush babees is a nonsense. If they did care, they’d take the very straightforward and sensible steps to making unwanted pregnancy much, much less common–honest and thorough sex ed + convenient access to contraception.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          But then they couldn’t put the now pregnant “unborn children” of yester-year in desperate situations to shame them and gain power off of their pligh- Oh, wait!

        • Otto

          Until you run into the inane argument that contraception actually causes more more abortions….yeah really. It is a Catholic favorite.

        • I guess that contraception encourages more sex, which is worse than abstinence? Is that the argument?

        • Kevin K

          Some relig–bots think that birth control methods which rely on making the uterine milieu unsuitable for implantation to be abortion. Like IUDs.

        • adam
        • Kevin K

          Very nice. Stealing.

        • adam

          They are not really against abortion, and apparently they dont even trust their own God:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ecb966db1a62a1ce5c353d5752323ae84f0ee2cf2dae065fcc17ee961e0b7ae.jpg

          Hypocrisy is what trust…

        • Otto

          More sex happens, so there is more failure of contraception which ends in more abortions.

        • That’s similar to the rather unbelievable argument made against the HPV vaccine. Knowing that they were immune from one more STD, unmarried people would have less mental impediment to sexing.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I think they’d also do more to follow the lead of Christian terrorists.

          If, as they continuously and shrilly insist, the US were worse than Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR combined for it’s abortion death count, then they’re all spineless collaborators for not being so civilly disobedient or violent that they disrupt the process.

          They (almost all of them) don’t do anything because subconsciously they know they’re full of shit.

        • Which gets us back to the question of how to get them onto a more constructive path.

        • epeeist

          And of course their god designed women so that the majority of conceptions never make it to term due to the number of spontaneous abortions.

          In other words their god is theabortifacter-in-chief.

        • Michael Murray

          Yes but with the big G himself it’s very much “do as I say not as I do” !

        • TheNuszAbides

          or they’re so busy maintaining their [arguably] comfortable lifestyles and sweeping their cognitive dissonance under the rug, they never think about it long enough to figure out they’re full of shit.

        • adam

          I couldn’t agree more.

        • Jim Jones

          Colorado. A program begun by a $23 million anonymous donation provided teens with free IUDs. As a result, teen pregnancy rates fell 40% and abortion rates fell 42%.

          Republicans blocked public funding to the program in 2015.

        • Herald Newman

          I’ve become convinced that many Republican aren’t interested in actually making a better society. They’re interested in implementing their own ideas, even if they are demonstrably harmful.

        • scdorman2

          Funny, I was thinking the same thing about democrats.

        • Herald Newman

          I’m curious. Do you have a problem with spending public money on a contraceptive program that works? For arguments sake, let’s make it available to people under 21.

          Is this a problem for you, in light of the fact that it would reduce teen pregnancy rates, and the number of abortions that are happening?

        • scdorman2

          “Do you have a problem with spending public money on a contraceptive program that works?”

          It depends. If by “contraceptive program” you mean abortion then yes I have a problem. If you mean promoting the use of condoms or abstinence, then no.

        • Herald Newman

          No, I mean paying for contraception for people. IUDs specifically, since that was the example. Free IUDs to anyone under 21 who wants them. Is this a problem?

        • scdorman2

          Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. It would probably help prevent many abortions.

        • Herald Newman

          At least we agree on something.

        • scdorman2

          🙂

        • Yes, it would. It’s easy to see how comprehensive and accurate sex ed coupled with easy access to contraception (subsidized by the government if necessary) could reduce the abortion rate by a factor of 10.

          God knows that making abortion illegal won’t do that.

        • I’m pretty sure that Herald means the Pill or some other chemical means.

        • Joe

          I’m pretty sure that Herald means the Pill or some other chemical means.

          Ah, you mean ‘preemptive abortion?

        • adam

          ” They’re interested in implementing their own ideas, even if they are demonstrably harmful.”

          Because they are not ideas but dogma.

        • An excellent data point. Maybe data isn’t what the Right is looking for.

        • adam
        • Jim Jones

          ISTR that every dollar spent on this saves the state $5.

          So you are right.

        • TheNuszAbides

          but they can’t reconcile the whole thoughtcrime thing with honest and thorough sex ed. cuz jeebus.

        • Jim Jones

          More than 415,000 children (USA) are in limbo, waiting to see where their future will go. Of those, 108,000 are available for adoption and waiting for a family to say yes to them as a son or daughter. … If one family from every three churches committed to adopt one child and those three churches committed to support that family, there wouldn’t be children in foster care waiting to be adopted.

          https://drgrcevich.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/what-if-the-church-destroyed-the-foster-care-system-as-we-know-it/

          That’s one family from every three churches, not one family in every three families!

        • adam

          Brings me back to hypocritical christians and hypocritical christianity.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23de23fa57ddfbd8a6fbc88fbeb9bddb950e4811e29dc9434b160b8152badd43.jpg

        • Pofarmer

          I had a forced birther on an Ag site that was complaining that abortion was killing the babies that he and his wife could adopt. He used the words “There babies.” I pointed out that there were literally hundreds of thousands of babies available for adoption. When he replied that they “weren’t the right babies.” I pretty much left the site.

        • American politics is complicated; there are some things I’ll probably never understand about it.

          Yes, and it’s getting much more complicated (or confusing) of late, unfortunately.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Abortion is needed for people who either do not want a pregnancy or who have health concerns. A lot of abortions would not happen with universal high standard sex ed, free low-error contraceptives + condoms, job protections like paid parental leaves, programs to meet daycare/early education and food/other childcare (diapers!) needs. Rightwingers think that the state, acting as a good nanny to get a child to independence from them (something that does take continual early investments as more children come into their care or more if, say, the “child” in this analogy is developmentally disabled), is a horrible idea.

        • KarlUdy

          You use “needed” like a teenager who pleads to their parents that they “need” to go to a party.

          I agree that a lot of unwanted pregnancy is a result of social ills. And that attempts to reduce these social ills should be a high priority.

        • Paul B. Lot

          You use “needed” like a teenager who pleads to their parents that they “need” to go to a party.

          He included women who have health issues.

          You’re aware that sometimes it’s a matter of life and death, yes?

          Your flippancy on this issue is….unappealing.

        • adam

          ” I agree that a lot of unwanted pregnancy is a result of social ills.”

          Social ills from RELIGION, especially Abrahamic ones.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e137fbcb53ac95fe112ba7671e922efda9b9c621e3651bb0a112935a0045fc75.jpg

        • You use “needed” like a teenager who pleads to their parents that they “need” to go to a party.

          No, more like a car accident victim who “needs” medical attention.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          “You use “needed” like…”

          get out of my genitals, rapist! That’s how! The host is the owner of their own body, and every one of them you said had a “right to life” (so you would have their future pregnant bodies to molest) with your silver tongue.

        • Kodie

          There’s nothing wrong with abortion. Trying to convince you Christians that you don’t want what you say you want is the problem.

        • epeeist

          I too would like to see fewer abortions. One of the ways to do this is to improve and widen sex education, and make access to contraception (especially long term contraception) easier and cheaper.

          Are you in favour of those as well?

        • eric

          I think there are a lot of good secular reasons why we should want a lower abortion rate.

          I think any time you can avoid a weeks-long, drawn out, anxiety-creating decision the person never wanted to be confronted with by giving access to a $1 pill, society should do that for the emotional and psychological benefit it provides to the citizen.

          I think any time you can replace a medical procedure costing hundreds or thousands of dollars with a $1 pill or a $0.50 condom, society should encourage that because of the practical, economic benefit to both the citizen and the state.

          I think for women questioning whether they are economically or socially ready to have a child, a better pre-natal and post-natal ‘safety net’ can relieve a huge amount of stress and allow them to make a clearer decision, based more on what they (and their partner) may want, rather than what they economically need to do. And that’s good too. Not just for women who want a child and don’t know if they can afford to raise it; IMO the existence of a safety net is probably going to reduce the anxiety and second-guessing for women who choose to abort too.

        • adam

          Fantastic response exposing ‘christian’ hypocrisy

        • Susan

          And if you pulled out, and said that you didn’t want the house, would it be destroyed? No, they would find someone who did want the house.

          But it’s not a house. The woman who didn’t want the house would have to provide all the materials and womanhours to build the house. With health and safety risks included.

          If she decides to do that for someone who wants a house, then that is her choice, but not her obligation.

        • adam

          ” No, they would find someone who did want the house.”

          Then why are there so many vacant homes?

    • Michael Neville

      My friend owns a house in Mystic, Connecticut which has a placard by the front door reading: “Built in 1834 Daniel R. Williams Ship Chandler”. With decent care a house can last a long time.

      • epeeist

        At this juncture I point out that I live in what was the toll cottage for the road I live on. The toll road was opened in 1760…

        What’s that you say “Declaration of Independence”? Pfft, latecomer.

      • Jim Jones

        Something something Sears’ house kit sets, shipped by rail.

      • T-Paine

        This reminds me of Theseus’ Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus. Assuming the materials of the house haven’t been replaced over the 183 years it stood.

    • Joe

      You’d have to start paying a mortgage as soon as the ground was broken.

      • Len

        Interestingly enough, that’s pretty much how it works in some European countries. When I bought an appartment in The Hague many years ago I started paying when it was just a piece of space in the sky.

        • Joe

          Thats unusual. In Australia you only pay the deposit.

          Still, I don’t see many people on the right agreeing to pay child support to a pregnant mother.

        • Jim Jones

          Only if they want to adopt it.

  • islandbrewer

    Probably the best analogy I’ve read.

    Thanks, Bob.

  • eric

    Also remember that after you buy your first car from Bob’s Fords, you can’t ever buy a care anywhere else. Even if Bob mistreats you and charges you a ruinous interest rate. Stand by your Dealership! Bob’s Fords can of course sell cars to other people and be forgiven for that – after all, dealerships will be dealerships. But God will punish you if you go to Ted’s Audis or Tim’s Porche Dealership. Why, you’re thinking about Tim’s Porche right now, aren’t you? You slutty slut slut.

    • Kevin K

      And you have to keep the car for 18 years!

  • Pofarmer

    Hey Bob. Can you get wtfwjtd and I I together?

  • Tony D’Arcy

    Bloody car salesmen ! Conmen the lot ! Now I have this nice bridge in Brooklyn that leads straight to heaven. Auction to be held on eBay in a few days. Only the highest bids considered.

    • Michael Neville

      Pay no attention to the guy selling a non-existent bridge in Brooklyn. Everyone knows that Brooklyn is a fictitious place used for movies taking place in somewhere called “New York”.

      Instead invest in my ocean-front property in Manitoba. Picture yourself sitting in a cabana, sipping a mai tai and watching the bikini-clad sunbathers soaking up rays. Hudson’s Bay is beautiful this time of year.

      http://bundhayaresort.com/bundhaya-villas/images/activity/Sunbath/sunbath_08.jpg

      • kraut2

        Manitoba, dreamland of every Canadian to pack up to live..and die there…as fast as you can if you are forced to live there….

      • Michael Murray

        Wow that should sort out the global warming deniers.

        • Michael Neville

          In reality, the Northwest Passage is becoming ice-free because of global warming. This past summer a cruise ship went from Alaska to New York City.

          Until about a decade ago, the Northwest Passage could be reliably navigated only by ships with icebreaking capabilities — even in the summer. But a warming Arctic has meant increasingly ice-free summers.

  • alverant

    If pro-lifers got into the car business they’d sell a steering wheel at MSRP for the complete car and call it an “unbuilt car”. Then they’d say that steering wheel could be the car that doctor that cured cancer drove and not mention that it’s more likely going to be the car a drunk drove when he smashes into a bus full of kids.

  • To me, a ‘car’ is what it’ll be when it’s finished.

    Yes, to me, as well. And to me, a ‘car’ is not a living organism, therefore it makes no sense to compare the two. To me, “[i]n multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage [of an individual life].” Oh, wait, that’s not just me, that’s Wikipedia, and medical publications.

    But let’s put that aside, and run with your analogy, as amateurish as it is. So are you saying that once a fetus is fully formed (ie: has all the parts you’d expect in a human) it should, at that point, be protected as a human? That sounds like what you’re saying. If so, according to this article, that’s at the three-month point. Seems pretty progressive for someone whose understand of life is as backwards as this article would seem to indicate. Also, if a relative leaves you the first Mustang ever produced, but it’s missing its tires, muffler, battery, windows, and fuel line, drop me a line and I’ll take it off your hands for free. After all, to you it’s not really a car.

    • alverant

      So are you saying that once a fetus is fully formed (ie: has all the parts you’d expect in a human) it should, at that point, be protected as a human?

      Except that doesn’t happen at three months. Full brain development doesn’t happen until much later.

      • Kevin K

        Nor lungs. In fact, that’s the biggest issue with premies. Every day matters in terms of lung development. And it was pointed out to me on several occasions that breathing is kinda important.

    • Kodie

      I would somewhat agree the analogy isn’t wonderful. Cars have no feelings, and Frank did have a choice. Frank’s father made a down-payment (probably non-refundable) on a car Frank might not even want. It might not fit in with his plans. Maybe he is joining the Peace Corps or taking a job in New York City, or someplace else with a decent public transit system and impractical to own a car, especially when he’s just setting off on his own. Frank is going to have to tell his dad he can’t take the gift, and also that he got scammed and gave his money to a factory that doesn’t actually sell cars.

      As for your Mustang frame – it’s still not a car. It’s going to take a lot of work, and if you are up for all the restoration, go for it. Why would you demand Bob restore it instead of anything else he’d rather do with his time? No, you didn’t ask that, but that’s what you’re asking pregnant women to do before they give up babies they carried for adoption.

    • Joe

      therefore it makes no sense to compare the two.

      It’s called an ANALOGY. It doesn’t have to be exact.

      To me, “[i]n multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage [of an individual life].

      That’s not in dispute. Same as the engine is the beginning of building a car. So what?

      But let’s put that aside, and run with your analogy, as amateurish as it is. So are you saying that once a fetus is fully formed (ie: has all the parts you’d expect in a human) it should, at that point, be protected as a human?

      No, that’s not what he’s saying. Try again.

    • Anat

      Being protected as a human does not include unencumbered access to the body of an unwilling other.

    • But let’s put that aside, and run with your analogy, as amateurish as it is.

      My amateurish attempt was to compare an engine block (which most of us wouldn’t call a car) to a zygote (which most of us wouldn’t call a baby). You’ll have to tell me what didn’t work for you.

      So are you saying that once a fetus is fully formed (ie: has all the parts you’d expect in a human) it should, at that point, be protected as a human?

      There’s a spectrum of personhood—0% as a single fertilized cell and 100% (9 months later) as a newborn. Beyond a certain point (viability outside the womb, maybe?) it’s enough of a person for society to step in and say that abortion is no longer an option. Seems like a simple idea to me.

      That sounds like what you’re saying. If so, according to this article, that’s at the three-month point. Seems pretty progressive for someone whose understand of life is as backwards as this article would seem to indicate.

      Sounds like you’re seeing personhood as a spectrum as well—not a person at day 0 but enough of a person after 3 months to say that abortion is no longer an option. Seems pretty progressive for someone who sounds like a troglodyte pro-lifer. Perhaps I misjudged you!

      Also, if a relative leaves you the first Mustang ever produced, but it’s missing its tires, muffler, battery, windows, and fuel line, drop me a line and I’ll take it off your hands for free. After all, to you it’s not really a car.

      Ahh—sounds like my spectrum argument is growing on you. Great! I’ve written more here.

      • Kodie

        Bob, nobody would step in and stop a person from destroying their own car, rather than, say, sell it or trade it in or repair it. That’s talking about a whole functioning car. Of course they are not going to feel for the sucker whose dad bought into some scam where the dealership says the engine is the car.

      • Cheryl Brigid

        While I agree that as far as personhood is concerned, a single fertilized cell has 0% personhood.

        However, from a legal and social POVs, a single fertilized human cell still has legal protections and social consideration. Two (or more) bio genetic donors to a human zygote’s existence have legal constraints on what can be done with their products of in vitro conception. Recipients of those donated zygotes also have legal constraints.

        While pro-lifers want to mandate personhood from the moment of conception, those of us who believe differently can’t disregard the most basic humanity of such zygotes. Humanity. At a most fundamental level, such beings have the right to be free from the hands of unethical researchers or procedures.

        But I do love the car analogy because too many pro-lifers do approach life part by part, rather than looking at the whole sum of the being.

    • epeeist

      And to me, a ‘car’ is not a living organism, therefore it makes no sense to compare the two.

      Fine, so try this article by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.

    • Paul B. Lot

      After all, to you it’s not really a car.

      Dogs aren’t really people.

      That doesn’t mean that you get to have my dog.

      The idea that [a developing fetus shouldn’t take precedence over the mother carrying it] does not entail that [the fetus has no value at all.]

    • Jim Jones

      Can’t help with the Mustang but I can ship you a Trabant in that condition.

      Collect.

      What’s the address?

  • Dys

    When does the car get possessed by a magical spirit?

  • scdorman2

    Humans can be like cars but not how this blog post suggests. A better analogy would be that the sex or whatever process that leads to conception is where the human being is put together. That seems to make more sense. You have different parts (egg and sperm) that are not in themselves human, but when put together do make a human being.

    • alverant

      Nope, a human being is capable of thinking. A zygote is not. At best it’s blueprints or a CAD drawing, not a person.

      • scdorman2

        I will refer you to my first reply to Dys above.

        • alverant

          And I replied to your nonsense reply.

    • Dys

      What people usually mean by “human being” is a person. Putting together an egg and a sperm do not immediately result in a person.

      Unless, of course, you accept the silly notion that magical spirits are imbued into zygotes. Like the kooks who push for personhood amendments.

      • scdorman2

        “What people usually mean by “human being” is a person.”

        There is an important distinction that needs to be made between human being and person. When I say human being I mean that the thing in question is a human being biologically only. Its DNA make up is human not anything else. If I was to say human person, then “person” implies consciousness to the human being (biological). So, I agree with you when you say, “Putting together an egg and a sperm do not immediately result in a person.” I would emphasize that it does result in a human being. Of course, what rights should a human being have is the million dollar question.

        • adam

          ” Of course, what rights should a human being have is the million dollar question.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbee2ae71608c49ff6cd3778051384d5ac950eab0a8c65082bd7d40a20822ade.jpg

        • Jim Jones

          Wrong translation. Google “lyings of a woman”

        • adam

          Interesting.

          So fundies have their panties in a wad over nothing, but to a large degree we’ve always understood that to be true.

        • Maine_Skeptic

          ” Of course, what rights should a human being have is the million dollar question.”

          Let the fetus be born, and THEN put it to death. It’s the Evangelical way.

        • adam
        • alverant

          “I would emphasize that it does result in a human being.”
          No it does not. A human being is not just a set of genetic instructions. It’s more than that and a fetus is not a human being yet. Remember the phrase “human being” has the word “being” in it and a fetus is not capable of “being”.

        • scdorman2

          “A human being is not just a set of genetic instructions.”

          I agree! A human being also has intrinsic moral value.

          “…a fetus is not capable of “being””

          I not not sure what you mean by “being” here.

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “When I say human being I mean that the thing in question is a human being biologically only.”

          I think you’re modifying the definition there. The traditional understanding of a “human being” is a conscious person. A fetus would be more accurately described as a potential human being or a potential person.

          Further, the movement to give full human rights to fertilized eggs is tragically misguided. Among other things, it would literally give a rapist’s sperm more rights over his victim’s body than the victim herself.

        • Herald Newman

          > Among other things, it would literally give a rapist’s sperm more rights over his victim’s body than the victim herself.

          It sure does, and this seems consistent with the voices of the forced birth crowd I hear. Once an egg is fertilized, it has an almost unalienable right to use the body of its host.

          This is why I oppose the forced birth crowd. My rights over my body are mine alone, and nobody else can tell me that I have to let something survive off my body if I don’t want it to.

        • scdorman2

          So, I think your comment raises a good question. When, if ever, is it justified to limit someone’s freedom(s) to save a life or lives? Of course, the question assumes that a fetus is a human. You might disagree. However, if it is human, which I think is pretty evident, then how would you answer the question?

        • Herald Newman

          Assuming we talking about being forced to let someone else use my body for survival, my answer is never.
          If this isn’t what you’re talking about, please clarify your question.

        • scdorman2

          So, we’re not talking about “someone else”. We’re talking about your child. Who is innocent in this whole thing. In general, we’re talking about a human being who has intrinsic moral value. I just don’t know if your right to do whatever you want to your body trumps saving this innocent life. Although, I can think of an extreme case were that would definitely be the case. For example, if the mother killed the baby in self-defense.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I just don’t know if your right to do whatever you want to your body trumps saving this innocent life.

          So if your child needs a liver transplant, the government should be able to force you to give them a piece of your liver? That’s the world you want to live in?

        • scdorman2

          “That’s the world you want to live in?”

          Um… no. That is a complete different situation.

        • Herald Newman

          So what is the difference between a child being dependent on your body before birth, versus being dependent on your liver after birth?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Um… no. That is a complete different situation.

          analogy noun, plural analogies.
          1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:
          the analogy between the heart and a pump.
          2. similarity or comparability:
          I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
          3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
          4. Linguistics.
          the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
          a form resulting from such a process.
          5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

          Aspect #5 is what I’m interested in.

          Yes: the situation I described is [an entirely separate situation] from [being pregnant with an unwanted child].

          I was using it as an analogy to describe why I think your reasoning doesn’t work.

          You seem to want [the government to intervene even up to and including using parts of the bodies of their parents in order to save “innocent lives”].

          I constructed a hypothetical scenario to capture a state of affairs where the government can do just what you seem to be wanting it to do: valuing saving “innocent live” over and above the bodily autonomy of their parents.

        • Otto

          No it isn’t different, at all. Not even a little bit, and your failure to explain why it should be viewed differently is telling.

        • Herald Newman

          >So, we’re not talking about “someone else”. We’re talking about your child.

          The unborn is, by definition, not me, so it is, by definition, someone else!

          > Who is innocent in this whole thing.

          I really don’t care. A child who has just been born and requires the use of my blood is not legally (and this is the key) bound to receive my blood. In the same manner, the unborn are not legal bound to receive the care of my body! The fact that it’s natural that they have this dependency is not an argument for violating peoples right to autonomy.

          > I just don’t know if your right to do whatever you want to your body trumps saving this innocent life.

          As long as the unborn cannot survive outside the mothers body, it has no right to life!

          Imagine this situation, which isn’t too dissimilar: A doctor takes two people and hooks them up to one another. One has some medical necessity to use the others body, and only that body will work. Does the person, who’s body is being used, does not consent to having their body used this way. Does this person have the right to disconnect the other person, even if that other person will die? My answer is yes, always! They never had the right to use the other persons body, and the same goes for the unborn.

        • scdorman2

          “As long as the unborn cannot survive outside the mothers body, it has no right to life!”

          So, then you would be against later term abortions. Maybe, that is the middle ground that we can agree on.

          The problem with your situation is that, no matter if your being hooked up to this guy was wrong or right, once your hook up if you decide to pull the plug you are killing an innocent human. Which is murder. What the doctor did was wrong, but a law to prevent abortion would stop you from killing an innocent life after you were hooked up. There would also be another law against what the doctor did, which sounds kinda like rape. The beef you should have is with the doctor for putting you in that situation. The innocent person (the guy) shouldn’t have to suffer.

        • Herald Newman

          > So, then you would be against later term abortions

          Generally, yes. Fortunately, the vast majority of abortions happen within the first 3 months of pregnancy. Very few women determine that they are pregnant, wait 6 months, and then decide to have an abortion.

          > The innocent person (the guy) shouldn’t have to suffer.

          EDIT:
          So should I be required to stay connected to the other person since they will die without my body?

          Let’s change the scenario a little bit. Suppose I consent to allowing the other person to be connected to me, but afterward I change my mind. Should I be forced to remain connected? My position is no, and that consent can be withdrawn, even if the other side would die!

          Ultimately, what I’m trying to get at, is that consent is necessary for the unborn to be allowed to continue using the mothers body, and that consent can be removed. Furthermore, I can consent to sex, without consenting to becoming pregnant.

        • adam

          “So, then you would be against later term abortions.”

          Between a doctor and it’s patient.
          If it is a choice between which one lives.

        • Paul B. Lot

          once your hook up if you decide to pull the plug you are killing an innocent human. Which is murder.

          Ah, okay.

          So the doctors who performed this operation are murderers; and should be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for their crimes?

          http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/familys-heartache-five-year-old-6411134

        • Kodie

          Let’s not forget, this was made by god, the jokester, the tester. Christians love to admire the beautiful sunset, but when god intentionally keeps twins from dividing in time to be separate human beings, this is a tragedy for 4 people. Not 3 people, not 2 people. Look at them, they know they are conjoined twins, they know they are not like everyone else and something went wrong. Remind the Christians who believe god is love that he did that. He performed the miracle of life on an expectant couple, and what came out was not “what god designed” to be human. Can you imagine if you have to be attached to another person and never get privacy? That doesn’t mean they didn’t both have brains and separate identity. Anyone who has ever had surgery knows that something might happen and you won’t wake up. You sign a waiver. But let’s ask the Christians, what kind of god thinks this is how life should be? It’s just a biological anomaly and god is not responsible for any of us.

        • So, then you would be against later term abortions.

          How about you? When are abortions allowed in your mind?

          no matter if your being hooked up to this guy was wrong or right, once your hook up if you decide to pull the plug you are killing an innocent human. Which is murder.

          A friend of mine is a tissue match for you, and he needs your liver. If you don’t give it to him, an innocent human being will die, and that will be murder on your part.

          Thanks, buddy. I knew you’d understand.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          So, it’s ok for a fetus to “murder” a mother. There are too many cases where a woman dies because of pregnancy. I recently read an article where this happens to about 65K women in the States each year and doctors are baffled as to why it is happening.

          Your argument doesn’t hold any substance. You most certainly would not be guilty of killing an innocent human being if you disconnected yourself from an involuntary or a voluntary hook-up to save another’s life. There is no moral or legal obligation to do so in the first place. Each person has the autonomous right to his or her body.

        • Pofarmer

          once your hook up if you decide to pull the plug you are killing an innocent human. Which is murder.

          Yeah, I would very seriously doubt that this is the case.

        • Herald Newman

          I tend to agree. I can’t imagine courts deciding that someone should be compelled to remain connected to another person under and circumstance. I fail to understand why pregnancy is special!?

        • Kodie

          Well, pregnancy is the only trick women alone can perform. That’s what they’ve been used for all this time. Getting married is their ultimate goal, and getting pregnant for their husband is their purpose in life. We have to throw a parade for every fertilized egg! Congratulations to the incubator for successfully fulfilling her purpose! We don’t talk about the cost or difficulty, as women who aren’t married shouldn’t be having sex, and women who didn’t get married who have sex, should have gotten married, and then their husbands would take care of that cost. Resisting your destined purpose is just not done. If you did it wrong, you shouldn’t be allowed to complain. In short, society treats making more people the ultimate goal of living – no negativity allowed!

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          “once your hook up if you decide to pull the plug you are killing”

          How is Herald responsible for that other person’s body killing itself? “I enslaved you, and freedom by definition is murder!”- the essence of your authoritarian “pro-life” bull.

        • adam

          “In general, we’re talking about a human being who has intrinsic moral political value.”

          An embryo is not child.

        • We’re talking about your child.

          It’s not a child if it’s a fetus.

          BTW, I’ve written a series of posts responding to arguments for abortion here. You might find it interesting.

        • eric

          I just don’t know if your right to do whatever you want to your body trumps saving this innocent life.

          Outside of the abortion debate, it always does. If you’re hooked up to an innocent human being who needs your liver to survive, you have the choice to disconnect. If you’re hooked up to an innocent human being who needs your lungs to live, you have the choice to disconnect. The same is true if it’s kidneys, or gall bladder, or heart, or anything else. Except, for conservatives, when it comes to the uterus. You treat that differently. Why?

          Why does an innocent human being (to assume your point of view and give you the strongest possible position) hooked up to your uterus get remarkably more rights than the rights we would give to any innocent human being hooked up to any other of your organs?

          Well perhaps we can phrase that question slightly differently, to get at the heart of what’s really going on here: why do uterus owners get remarkably less rights than a man who would be in the position of supporting an innocent human with some other organ?

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “I just don’t know if your right to do whatever you want to your body trumps saving this innocent life.”

          Here again, you’re redefining terms. Choosing a phrase “saving this innocent life” suggests the suffering or death of a person: someone of character who has felt, and loved, and been known, and who is doing those things today. A fetus is not a person. The attempt to redefine personhood this way devalues the personhood of the women who will pay the high cost of your need for moral certainty.

        • lady_black

          Talking about “my child” is INDEED talking about “someone else” who can assert NO “rights” to any organ of mine.

        • Hans-Richard Grümm

          Something can be human (like a human ovum or a human cell culture) wihout being *a* human. The English grammar is rather sloppy when distinguishing nouns from adjectives. Your argument could not be made in French (“humain” vs. “homme”) or German /”menschlich” vs. “Mensch”).

        • Ficino

          Your slide from “a human” to “human” is noted.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Real simple.
          One human being doesn’t have the right to insist that another must provide any use of her body so that the demanding party can exist.
          In our society, an individual doesn’t have any legal obligation to provide any aspect of his or her body to save the life of another.
          Blood is donated. Organs are donated. (And with certain organs, the donor must be brain dead.)

          People are not forced to give these up so another human being who is already a living, breathing autonomous person can live.

          So why must a woman be forced to do so for a fetus?
          And please don’t tell me there are no risks to a pregnant woman to bring a fetus to term.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re conflating “human” with “person”. During my last colonoscopy I had a polyp removed. It was human in having human DNA and grew within a human body. But it was not a person. Similarly a zygote is human but is not a person. It becomes a person at birth.

        • Greg G.

          You did what?!?!?! But-but-but, you were obligated to carry that polyp to term,

        • Michael Neville

          It was removed and I have no remorse about its removal!

        • lady_black

          The answer to your question is NEVER.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Amen.

          As a woman who was part of the forced birth moment for way too long, I am lucky to be alive.
          I implore you to always fight for that right to autonomy. And I’m fighting for you and other women of child bearing age, too.

          Nobody has the right make you risk your well-being so someone else can survive. That is your own decision to make. Also, nobody has the right to deny you contraceptives and medical care that will keep you healthy and safe. You are a person, not a baby factory.

          Your body is yours alone and you ultimately know what is best for it.

        • scdorman2

          I agree with you that a fetus can be called a potential person. In fact, that alone might be enough reason to justify not killing it for any old reason. Although, I would disagree that it is a potential human being. It seems pretty evident that a fetus is human not anything else. It just is human. I disagree with your last comment. It wouldn’t give a rapist’s sperm more rights. It would give the fertilized egg (a.k.a. human being) a right to life. That is not a lot of rights either. Human’s gain more rights as they age.

        • adam

          ” Human’s gain more rights as they age.”

          What rights does a 50 year old have that a 21 year old does not?

        • Joe

          A right to complain about ‘kids these days’?

        • Kodie

          Kids complain about old people who don’t get it either. I think you have to be really really old to rag on kids these days and nobody is mean enough to tell you to shut the fuck up.

        • Dys

          Although, I would disagree that it is a potential human being. It seems pretty evident that a fetus is human

          It’s not the “human” part that’s up for debate. It’s your use of “being”. A zygote is not a being in any sense – it’s a combination of two cells.

          Furthermore, the insistence that a fertilized egg has a right to life is supremely misguided and at odds with reality. What about fertilized eggs that fail to implant? Did they somehow have a right to life, despite the fact that 50% of fertilized eggs don’t implant naturally? If not, why does the act of implanting somehow grant a right to life?

          In my experience, the inane personhood bills have nothing whatsoever to do with nature, science, or anything based in reality. It’s fueled by the unscientific idea that fertilized eggs have souls.

        • scdorman2

          How would you define being?

          “What about fertilized eggs that fail to implant?”

          So, what? They fail.

          Humans have a right to life because they have intrinsic moral value.

        • Herald Newman

          > Humans have a right to life because they have intrinsic moral value.

          Please define what you mean by “intrinsic moral value”. Such a term seems paradoxical to me, without further clarification.

        • scdorman2

          It is just to say that a human has value just from the fact that it is human.

        • adam

          “It is just to say that a human has value just from the fact that it is human.”

          How so?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bf2c5903bd31c63ade7c2254ddea26df3b1fa938214c6c4db160ffe36546367.jpg

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Good starting point. But does one human being have more intrinsic value than another.

          (We already know the answer to this, because you seem to value the life of the fetus over the mother while the majority of readers here value the life of the mother over the fetus.)

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Also, every one of those pregnant people were “unborn children”. Apparently, “right to life” is just code for “right to be a forced surrogate”.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Unfortunately, the perspective you describe is all to common for many folks.
          Luckily for me, I understand the intrinsic value of having a basic right to life because of human existence and that nobody, individual or government, has the right to force another human being to be pregnant or to have an abortion.

          Many of the posters here don’t believe that a fetus has more right to existence than the woman carrying it. But I think it’s ok to say that most of us here with that viewpoint would not condone a woman getting pregnant, aborting and selling her fetus for scientific research or for any other reason. Heck, most of us here would object to a woman planning to terminate her pregnancy allowing her living fetus to be manipulated in utero for medical research.

          We just don’t let science go there, even if a fetus was scheduled to be aborted. So it’s fair to say that even though a woman carrying a fetus has the intrinsic right to autonomy of her body and the right to abort, she doesn’t have the ethical or legal right to impose certain situations on the fetus she carries. The fetus has an certain level of a right to autonomy in its own regard, just because of its humanity.

          In the US and most industrialized nations, the selling of a human fetus by a parent or a company is not allowed. Legally, a human fetus (embryo or zygote) is not for sale on the basis of the intrinsic value of its humanity. I hope I am making sense of what I am attempting to convey.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I’m sorry? I certainly don’t approve of even sale of one’s cancer cells after their death (coughhellenlackscough) much less sale of body parts. They can be donated for research and any cost in doing so be reimbursed, nothing more.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          I figure most of us here wouldn’t. And we wouldn’t approve of a fetus being sold either, even if we agree and acknowledge that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

          We just don’t go there on the basis of intrinsic human value. Donated is one thing, sold is out of the question. It’s just a human thing (no pun intended).

        • Pofarmer

          So, let’s talk about that. We know that say, for instance, the vast majority of abortions go to women living in poverty and who will wind up being single mothers. We know that when these children are born, they are vastly more likely to commit property crimes, and violent crimes, and more likely to wind up in prison. So, what about the value of the people that are impacted when these kids are born? Do they not have value as well?

        • adam

          “Humans have a right to life because they have intrinsic moral political value.”
          FTFY

          An embryo is not child.

        • Kodie

          I don’t think that zygotes have any intrinsic moral value. People choose to have children when they decide that’s what they want to do. That doesn’t mean they have to have as many children as they can during their fertile years. Those children they want add something to their lives that they didn’t have before and which they chose to add to by having children. The rest of the world don’t give a shit. Therefore, their unborn non-children do not have intrinsic moral value. By unborn non-children, to avoid any confusion on your part, means nobody’s pregnant yet and maybe nobody will be. Life is just life. What is life? I’m talking quality of life, and you are just talking mere existence, like everyone has the right to basically exist. What is morally valuable in that? You have to explain why there is intrinsic moral value in that, because I don’t see it. And if you see it, then all the non-zygotes and non-embryos and non-fetuses and all the glimmers in a young man’s eye have the intrinsic moral value to become a born baby, and the right to nothing else.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyVWmCG-onk

        • Cheryl Brigid

          “What is life? I’m talking quality of life, and you are just talking mere
          existence, like everyone has the right to basically exist. What is
          morally valuable in that? You have to explain why there is intrinsic
          moral value in that, because I don’t see it.”

          Nope. We don’t have to explain it, just because you don’t see it. Everyone does have the basic right to autonomous existence. That is the starting point of our humanity. Quality of life doesn’t dictate the right to existence. We know that slippery slope all too well.

          That doesn’t mean that one individual has to be a slave to another’s existence though. The issue with pregnancy is that the fetus is totally reliant on the mother, whose best interest might be to avoid carrying a fetus to term. That’s what the prolifers forget.

        • Kodie

          I’m talking about eating and living indoors, basically, having parents who want them and can provide for them, and beyond that, decent schools. That kind of quality of life that pro-forced-birth people oppose. What “intrinsic” value is there in human life?

        • Richard Cranium

          Re: “So what? They fail.”

          It’s their own fault. In that case, resort to social Darwinism; right?

        • scdorman2

          No, it s just to say that whats your point? They fail. What can we do about?

        • Richard Cranium

          You could get up in there and rescue them!

        • Pofarmer

          So if it’s no big deal that a fertilized egg naturally fails to implant, or say, miscarries at 9 weeks, why is it a big deal if someone takes a pill that causes the same thing to happen?

        • Dys

          And you’re defining a human life as a fertilized human egg, that includes the ones that fail. Apparently their supposed right to life doesn’t mean that much to you?

        • scdorman2

          “And you’re defining a human life as a fertilized human egg”

          Yes, and their right does mean a lot to me. Although, there isn’t much we can do to save the ones that fail. As far as I know. The mother, of course, should not be considered to be doing something evil or wrong in these cases. There was no intent to harm.

        • Dys

          Yes, and their right does mean a lot to me. Although, there isn’t much we can do to save the ones that fail.

          Given that you’re writing them off, it doesn’t really seem that you think they have any real right to life either. I don’t see anyone holding candlelight vigils for fertilized eggs that fail to implant.

          There was no intent to harm.

          A fertilized egg has no pain receptors, whether it implants or not. No harm done regardless.

        • Kodie

          So you think women can be evil and intend to harm something like this: . or this: o

          You sound like you hate women and really want to punish them. You shrug off all the little dead baybeees, just shrug it off, oh well, it wasn’t like someone did something evil and that’s why they’re all dead. But if they find themselves to be pregnant and they don’t want to be, they are EVIL AND MEAN TO HARM A CHIIIIILLLLLDDD. You’re a woman-hating hypocrite with that attitude.

        • Pofarmer

          Just brainwashed.

        • adam
        • Joe

          So, what? They fail.

          Why are you so callous regarding the fate of these particular human beings?

        • scdorman2

          They mean a lot to me. Although, there isn’t much we can do to save the ones that fail. As far as I know. The mother, of course, should not be considered to be doing something evil or wrong in these cases. There was no intent to harm. So, whats the point?

        • Joe

          So it’s not about the ‘baby’ after all? It’s about punishing an action.

        • lady_black

          No, they do not.

        • Pofarmer

          or anything based in reality. It’s fueled by the unscientific idea that fertilized eggs have souls.

          Which would rather seem to fall foul of the First Amendment.

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “It seems pretty evident that a fetus is human not anything else.”

          Many things are human without being human beings. The sperm is human, too. So is the egg. Personhood does not magically begin at a certain moment in time. While there does have to be a point in the development of a life at which human rights begin, it would be arbitrary, cruel, and untenable to decree that fertilization, or even implantation, should be that point.

        • scdorman2

          “From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species.” This doesn’t apply to sperm, eggs, human fingers, etc…

          “While there does have to be a point in the development of a life at which human rights begin, it would be arbitrary, cruel, and untenable to decree that fertilization, or even implantation, should be that point.”

          The least arbitrary point to say life beings is at conception! It is a biological fact. From conception on all you have are different stages in a human beings life. To say a 2 year old isn’t a human being because she/he hasn’t devolved some human part or trait they get at a later stage is just arbitrary, cruel, and untenable.

        • Paul B. Lot

          if left to develop naturally, will grow into

          Your logic breaks down, at minimum, when you said this.

          It is not the case that a fetus will become an autonomous human person if left alone. The fetus requires constant and complete support and input from the mother through the placental/uterine boundary. 100% of the material which composes a newborn comes through and from the mother.

          If, for example, the mother ceases to drink water, the fetus will die. If the mother ingests the wrong chemicals or hormones, the fetus will die.

          You occupy an intellectual framework which allows you to skip over the pesky details, and so you’ve come to an rationally unsupported conclusion.

        • scdorman2

          Where did you get “if left alone” in what I said and quoted? The quote says, “if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species.” Naturally, here is just referencing the normal way humans develop in and out of the womb.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Naturally, here is just referencing the normal way humans develop in and out of the womb.

          You refuse to acknowledge, let alone deal with, the fact that “the normal way humans develop” is radically different in many ways in, versus out, of the womb.

          And thus you fail the logic test. I won’t say that you fail the honesty test, since there’s a strong chance that you don’t grasp (or are not willing to grasp) the problem.

        • scdorman2

          “…the normal way humans develop” is radically different in many ways in, versus out, of the womb.”

          I agree with this. It is different, but it doesn’t change the fact that what is in the womb growing is still a human being and I believe should be protected more than it is currently under law.

        • Greg G.

          Even if it is a human being, it has no right to used the organs of another person without that person’s consent.

        • Paul B. Lot

          what is in the womb growing is still a human being and I believe should be protected more than it is currently under law

          Pure curiosity: are you also against the death penalty?
          Against having a standard army?
          Against self-defense killings?

        • scdorman2

          No.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Indeed.

          Thanks for the direct and clear answer.

        • scdorman2

          🙂

        • Kodie

          So you’re not really pro-life.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Where did you get “if left alone” in what I said and quoted?

          You certainly didn’t use those exact words, which is why I didn’t present those words as if they were a quote from you – notice the absence of quotation marks “”.

          Nonetheless, those words seemed an accurate paraphrasing of the argument I’m familiar with from the forced-birth crowd which, roughly, goes:

          “Abortion is an *intervention* in a natural process. If left alone, the natural course of events would lead to a human person being born.”

          Perhaps you weren’t intending to follow that line of argumentation, if so I jumped the gun.

          If you were, however, I will again ask for clarity and precision on the subject.

        • scdorman2

          “Perhaps you weren’t intending to follow that line of argumentation, if so I jumped the gun.”

          I do NOT mean that if a fetus is left alone outside of the womb that it will naturally grow into an adult human. I mean that it will grow into an adult human if left to grow just like all humans naturally grow.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I mean that it will grow into an adult human if left to grow just like all humans naturally grow.

          And, once again, I will try to remind you that I’m not concerned about fetuses growing.

          I don’t mind it. I’m not against it. I don’t hate fetuses.

          What I’m concerned with is the [negative space] you left out of your description.

          It is not merely the case that a fetus grows and develops naturally if left alone.

          It is also the case that the pregnant woman’s body must intervene and support and provide constantly for the fetus to survive.

          Your insistence on framing it as-if the fetus were some sort of passive human agent which requires nothing for the “natural” thing to happen “just like all humans” willfully ignores those facts.

          Until you start accepting and incorporating those facts into your argument, I’m forced to conclude that you’re (intentionally or not) dishonest.

        • scdorman2

          “It is also the case that the pregnant woman’s body must intervene and support and provide constantly for the fetus to survive.”

          I agree with this. I would just argue that, in some cases, the innocent child’s life is more important to save than the choice of the mom to provide this support or have him/her killed.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I agree with this. I would just argue that, in some cases, the innocent child’s life is more important to save than the choice of the mom to provide this support or have him/her killed.

          And now we’re back full-circle to the question I asked you three days ago, and in response to which you gave an answer that you failed to support.

          If, as you said again here, you believe that “the innocent child’s life is more important to save than the choice of the mom to provide this support”, on what grounds do you stand when you claim that you wouldn’t like the state to take a chunk of your liver without your consent to save your child?

        • scdorman2

          You raise a good question! In the case of pregnancy you have two people joined together. Now do you think that the right thing to do in this case is to separate them, but save them both if at all possible? In the liver case, I think that it is a good thing to give a chuck of your liver to save your child. Maybe, in some extreme cases you could argue that the law should require it. For the most part, there is already a good system in place for getting a liver if need be. Unfortunately, there just isn’t any other way to save a human at such an early stage of pregnancy than to keep them in the womb until they are old enough to make it outside of the womb.

        • adam

          “Maybe, in some extreme cases you could argue that the law should require it.”

          on what grounds do you stand when you claim that you wouldn’t like the state to take a chunk of your liver without your consent to save your child?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57fc02d9d9eb86554f705551ba2dbc89bf3ab7bfd35db508e5ec140698255ebb.jpg

        • Paul B. Lot

          for the most part, there is already a good system in place for getting a liver if need be.

          The real world would like a word with you:
          https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/

          Maybe, in some extreme cases you could argue that the law should require it. …Unfortunately, there just isn’t any other way to save a human at such an early stage of pregnancy than to keep them in the womb until they are old enough to make it outside of the womb.

          These seem like very vague and mushy answers to very real and concrete questions.

          Some women want to end their pregnancies. You want to deny them the right to do what they will with their bodies because of the “rights” of a single fertilized egg, a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo smaller than a pea.

          You want to deny them these rights because, on your view, the rights of the fetus trump the bodily autonomy of the parent.

          When does it end? Apparently not even after birth, from your new point of view?

          What about when the child reaches 18? Should a parent be forced to donate a kidney to an adult-child who hates them, whose been written out of the will?

          If not, why not? What’s the difference? There’s sill [a child] who needs [pieces of the parent’s body]?

          Why do we stop at “parents”? Because it’s their “fault” that the child was created? Why not the doctors, in the case of IVF? Should an IVF child have the rights to a doctor’s kidney, if they need it?

          Why should the “fault” matter? If a child is in a car accident where both parents get killed, and the child’s heart is damaged, why does that innocent child not have a right to their grandparent’s heart?

          Why keep that duty in the family at all? The child is no less innocent, has no less potential simply because they’re an orphan.

          These are difficult questions, and if we’re going to get anywhere discussing them we’ll need to offer careful, thoughtful answers based on reason and evidence.

          I asked you before if you’d be okay with the gov’t forcing organ donation on parents, and at first you said “no” unhesitatingly.

          Now you’re not so sure, maaaybe you’re for it. Why the switch?

          Why is your new position morally sound?

        • Kodie

          I don’t call a cannibal “innocent”.

        • Kodie

          You know, they don’t just grow in there. Fetuses are built from the blood and tissue of the host female, similar to a parasite…. I mean exactly like a parasite.

        • scdorman2

          The main problem is that humans can have things in common with other things, but that does not mean that they are those things. Honestly, I have some things in common with Hitler (like most of us, especially guys) but that doesn’t make me Hitler! A fetus or a 1 month old could have things in common with a parasite, but they also have differences that make them human. So, we have to judge what a fetus is based on all the things a fetus is, not just a few things it might have in common with something else.

        • Kodie

          No, really, that’s how they grow. I have no compassion for them at all. I have compassion for women who have to put up with your bullshit.

        • Greg G.

          Some parasites affect the brain of the host to cause behavior to benefit the parasite. A fetus produces hormones that cause the mother to develop strong attachment to the infant when it is born.

        • Kodie

          Manipulation!

        • BlackMamba44

          Exactly like a parasite…hence the need for a placenta.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy

          Placental mechanisms

          The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:

          • It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasiticnematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[3]

          • Also, there is presence of small lymphocytic suppressor cells in the fetus that inhibit maternal cytotoxic T cells by inhibiting the response to interleukin 2.[2]

          • The placental trophoblast cells do not express the classical MHC class I isotypes HLA-A and HLA-B, unlike most other cells in the body, and this absence is assumed to prevent destruction by maternal cytotoxic T cells, which otherwise would recognize the fetal HLA-A and HLA-B molecules as foreign. On the other hand, they do express the atypical MHC class I isotypes HLA-E and HLA-G, which is assumed to prevent destruction by maternal NK cells, which otherwise destroy cells that do not express any MHC class I.[4] However, trophoblast cells do express the rather typical HLA-C.[4]

          • It forms a syncytium without any extracellular spaces between cells in order to limit the exchange of migratory immune cells between the developing embryo and the body of the mother (something an epithelium will not do sufficiently, as certain blood cells are specialized to be able to insert themselves between adjacent epithelial cells). The fusion of the cells is apparently caused by viral fusion proteins from endosymbiotic endogenous retrovirus (ERV).[5] An immunoevasive action was the initial normal behavior of the viral protein, in order to avail for the virus to spread to other cells by simply merging them with the infected one. It is believed that the ancestors of modern viviparous mammals evolved after an infection by this virus, enabling the fetus to better resist the immune system of the mother.[6]

        • Greg G.

          The least arbitrary point to say life beings is at conception! It is a biological fact.

          No, it isn’t. A 2 year old is not going to become twins or triplets. A fertilized egg is not defined to be one or two or five separate entities.

          Two fertilized eggs cannot be said to be two separate persons because they can still merge to become a single person with two unique sets of DNA, so that eliminates the unique DNA argument, too.

          So, it cannot be a biological fact because it is not even a mathematical fact.

          But your argument mainly fails because no person has the right to use another person’s organs or other body parts without consent of the owner of the organs and body parts.

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “The least arbitrary point to say life beings…”

          And again, you’re mis-using terms. It isn’t true that “life” begins with conception, because sperm and eggs are alive as well. “Human beings” don’t begin at conception either, since personhood isn’t possible for (at least) several months after conception. If you’re arguing that “potential persons” should have human rights, why should “potential” start as late as conception? We fertilize eggs in vitro by the millions. Is it murder not to forcibly implant them into the nearest woman?

          Nor is “least arbitrary” the standard by which most moral, ethical, or legal decisions should be made. For instance, those who believe in both the innocence of children and in the existence of hell could argue that the least arbitrary way of ensuring their children’s avoidance of hell would be to kill them before the age of accountability.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Why should the fertilized egg’s right to life supercede the life of the person (aka woman) carrying it? The person whose uterus is pregnant has made it through several processes of human development, whereas the fetus has yet to accomplish those milestones. Why is the fetus more important?

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “It wouldn’t give a rapist’s sperm more rights. It would give the fertilized egg (a.k.a. human being) a right to life. That is not a lot of rights either. Human’s gain more rights as they age.”

          I thought I’d responded before on this, but I can’t find it. I’m sorry if this is a duplicate response.

          A fetus is not conscious. It isn’t capable of consciousness. For most of the pregnancy, it lacks the neural connections to feel pain. For weeks after those neural connections form, it lacks the ability to process pain. There is no personhood or “human being”ness there. To satisfy your own doubts, you want to value the potential personhood of the fetus more than the personhood of the adult who will pay the high price.

          I doubt you view women as property, but that would be the impact of making abortion illegal. The minute a woman became pregnant, she’d effectively become a ward of the state, her rights suspended until a fetus was brought to term. Then, of course, she’d face shunning and abuse if she didn’t voluntarily raise the unwanted child. We’ve seen how that works out. In Old Testament days, women were plunder. They might be called “wives” but they were rape victims forced to obey the men who murdered their fathers and brothers.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m gonna post this here, too. You’re changing the definition of human being.

          Definition of human being for Students

          : a man, woman, or child : person

          From mirriam webster

          A fetus has no autonomy, has no consciousness, no interactions, no experiences. It it certainly not a human being, at that point.

        • scdorman2

          Are you willing to call a humans who are knocked unconscious not a human being? They have no autonomy, consciousness, interactions, or experiences.

        • Paul B. Lot

          They have no autonomy

          This is false. They can breathe on their own.

        • scdorman2

          It depends on how you define autonomy.

        • Paul B. Lot

          It depends on how you define autonomy.

          No, it does not…unless, of course, one “defines” autonomy to be something other than what the word means.

          Then you would have a point.

          But you would also be playing dishonest word-games, instead of dealing with the problems in your argument.

        • Herald Newman

          > This is false. They can breathe on their own.

          So is a person in a coma, who cannot breathe on their own, but shows brain activity, a human being?

        • Paul B. Lot

          So is a person in a coma, who cannot breathe on their own, but shows brain activity, a human being?

          Before I answer this question, let’s be clear: My observation was in response to a specific chain of comments.

          … humans who are knocked unconscious … have no autonomy

          This is false. They can breathe on their own.

          Note that I was not trying to advance a list of criteria for determining which bodies are, and which are not, well-categorized by “human being.”

          I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy involved in labeling [a temporarily unconscious person] as [non-autonomous].

          au·ton·o·mous
          ôˈtänəməs/Submit
          adjective

          acting independently or having the freedom to do so.

          The body of a knocked-unconscious-person is not well-described as non-autonomous because it continues to sustain its own life independent of others. While higher brain functions are temporarily impaired due to trauma, breathing continues, cardiovascular function continues, hormonal and cellular functions continue. (Obviously I’m describing some of the lowest-levels of brain-injury which are called “knocked unconscious” here. While they exist on a spectrum from a few seconds on up to sever traumatic brain injuries, I thought it best to address my comments to the lease-severe cases because those are what I imagined scdorman had in mind when he made his comment.)

          To directly answer it: for most cases I don’t know. There exists a spectrum of injury/deformity/incapacity. At the low-end of the scale, much like with sleep, I don’t think personhood can be questioned. At the most severe levels, ie. anencephaly or brain-death, yes: I think that the label of “human being” is justifiably withheld.

          I don’t know where the line *should* be drawn between the two situations; I would likely defer to the family members and/or medical doctors in difficult/edge cases.

          Edit:

          I should’ve read your reply more carefully. I mistook “but shows brain activity” for “but shows NO brain activity”.

          My response is altered, then, to add this: if higher-brain functions are still present it seems to me clear that a human person is present. People who are “locked in”, on my view, are still human beings.

        • Herald Newman

          I’m wasn’t trying to put you on the spot, I only wanted to point out that there are some gaps in your definition of “human being.”

          Thanks for your answer.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I only wanted to point out that there are some gaps in your definition of “human being.”

          I think I understand – but that’s why I went to the trouble of pointing out that I was not advancing a definition of the term, merely responding to a problem I saw with scdorman2’s list of characteristics.

          I’m wasn’t trying to put you on the spot…Thanks for your answer.

          Thanks for saying so,and I apologize for making my initial answer without more-carefully reading your question.

          These are difficult questions, and I should take my time in thinking about them.

        • Pofarmer

          A fetus has NEVER HAD any of those things.

        • Kodie

          “any old reason”?

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          If a pregnant person found out they were pregnant only a couple weeks, I doubt scdorman2 means that inducing birth would somehow be different from “killing” the thing. All that matters to sc is using a formerly “unborn child” to get another to molest in the exact same way when they are grown and pregnant, too.

        • Joe

          I agree with you that a fetus can be called a potential person. In fact, that alone might be enough reason to justify not killing it for any old reason.

          Humans are killed, often justifiably so, on a daily basis though.

        • lady_black

          It would give a fertilized ovum NO RIGHTS. Humanity or personhood does not come with any “right to life” that comes at the bodily expense of another. Therefore, it is a meaningless designation.

        • rabbit

          and laws in some states allow the rapist to sue for parental rights

        • Maine_Skeptic

          When a woman’s personhood is devalued to beneath that of a fetus, she becomes property. History and the Bible provide many, many stories about women being treated as property, taken as plunder, raped, and being forced to raise the unwanted children of their rapists. The anti-abortion movement may not consciously hold that perspective on womanhood, but if men could be impregnated, the anti-abortion movement would not exist.

        • Kodie

          I really can’t understand the viewpoint that a fertilized egg should have more rights than a grown pig. People make fun of vegetarians and troll them, painting them as people who never talk about anything else and are overbearing on people’s love of slaughtered meat and other animal material. Meanwhile, shedding tears over the goo inside a uterus and a woman making the choice to abort is absurd to me in comparison.

        • rabbit

          Exactly

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Hi Maine,
          I disagree that the traditional understanding of a human being is a conscious person. A fetus comprised of human DNA is a human being. An embryo, too. I mean, ethically and legally it is not acceptable to sell and harvest an individual at this stage of development for stem cells, body parts or scientific research. Just because it is in the prenatal development stage doesn’t exclude it from human status with certain protections. kwim?

          However, a human zygote, embryo, and fetus don’t and shouldn’t have full human rights. I agree with your perspective on the pregnant victim having less rights if a fetus was granted personhood. Such a law would literally make women slaves to the beings they carry.

        • Maine_Skeptic

          “I mean, ethically and legally it is not acceptable to sell and harvest an individual at this stage of development for stem cells, body parts or scientific research.”

          Cheryl, I appreciate what you’re saying, and I don’t think we’re far apart at all in our perspectives. I wouldn’t argue that stem cells, body parts, or fetuses have rights just because there may be laws about the way they are handled. Dead bodies and amputated limbs are also “human,” and there are laws about how they are treated, but they don’t have rights.

          I think I understand Evangelicals and fundamentalists enough to say they value– and perhaps they *need*– moral certainty. In pursuit of that all-important moral certainty, they draw sharp lines at extreme points “just to be sure.” If there’s a chance that souls exist, and that they inhabit a fetus before it’s brain is functioning or its neural connections exist, they will take that absolute position. Every other consideration but their desire for moral certainty is irrelevant. What’s worse: the lines are drawn without evidence or reason outside their own doctrines, but anyone who disagrees with their lines is either consciously evil or deceived.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Yep. We’re definitely on the same page. Good points!

        • Pofarmer

          Definition of human being for Students

          : a man, woman, or child : person
          From Mirriam Webster.

          You are, indeed, changing the usage.

        • lady_black

          No, it would not.

        • eric

          ethically and legally it is not acceptable to sell and harvest an individual at this stage of development for stem cells, body parts or scientific research

          AIUI this has little to do with the abortion debates or the status of the zygote as a person, however. The bioethics surrounding it is basically that we don’t want to encourage adults to use other adults or even themselves in ways that can be psychologically or physically abusive. We don’t want to create a market-push to enslave people or use them as we might a sheep or cow, to be farmed for their bits. The moral status of the ‘bit you farm them for’ is irrelevant. It would be just as unethical to create a for-profit kidney-selling market as it would a for-profit zygote-selling market, because kidney or zygote, the issue isn’t about the bit you sell but how we treat the potential buyers and sellers.

        • scdorman2

          “Such a law would literally make women slaves to the beings they carry.”

          This brings up the million dollar question. Should a woman’s right to do whatever with her body be restricted in a way to help save a human? It already happens with other things. For example, a woman cannot even leave her kid in the car for a minute to go in a store. She can’t kill or abuse her child. These things limit her freedom to do whatever she wants with her body to protect innocent lives. Now, granted she would not be required by law to give a kidney or even blood, I think, to save her kid. So, it depends on the case. I would argue that a pregnant woman’s freedom to kill the baby for any reason should be restricted. At least, restricted to the point where they can remove the baby and save it. Unless the baby is going to kill her, then she can choose to abort in self-defense. Once a child has been born we restrict the right of the mom to kill it for any reason. If she doesn’t want to deal with the baby she can give it up. Although, in the early stages of pregnancy she doesn’t have that option to give it up. If they remove the baby it will die. So, I believe that her freedom should be restricted until the baby can be separated from the mom and live. You might think this is awful, but what I think is awful is an innocent baby dying because it would inconvenience the mom for a few months. Again, I’m not against abortion in some cases but they need to be justified.

        • Greg G.

          If a baby doesn’t have the right to the mother’s blood and a kidney without consent after being born, why should it be able to use them without permission before birth?

          Any pregnancy could unexpectedly cause the death of the mother. I have seen two TV shows recently with a plot twist with some amniotic fluid getting into the bloodstream of the mother and killing her (though one of the shows had it as the season finale but it turned out to be false in the next season). I don’t know if that is an actual condition but there are other ways a mother could die.

        • Herald Newman

          I would say that none of your examples compare to the situation of pregnancy. Can a mother ever be compelled to give part of her body, or the use of her body, after her child is born? If not, you’re drawing bad analogies.

          > If they remove the baby it will die.

          So what? Like my example earlier of being hooked up to somebody else, you would seem to want to compel me to remain connected if disconnecting them would cause them to die.

          If you don’t value a woman’s bodily autonomy, I don’t know what I can say to you to make you value it.

        • scdorman2

          “Can a mother ever be compelled to give part of her body, or the use of her body, after her child is born?”

          Certainly, they can. I know my wife would if it meant saving our child. He/she is your child it is hard to understand people who would not want to do what they could to save him or her.

          With your example, it depends on the context when it would be justified to pull the plug or give you the option to pull the plug.

          “If you don’t value a woman’s bodily autonomy, I don’t know what I can say to you to make you value it.”

          I do value it. However, I think there are times when it takes a back seat to something that is more valuable.

        • Herald Newman

          > Certainly, they can.

          Under what circumstances does the law require a mother to give up their body to their child.

          > With your example, it depends on the context when it would be justified to pull the plug or give you the option to pull the plug.

          It is ALWAYS justified to pull the plug! Nobody has the right to use my body without consent!

          > I do value it.

          Then why don’t you apply it equally? If I cannot be force to give up my body to someone after they’re born, why can I be forced before they are born?

        • scdorman2

          “Then why don’t you apply it equally? If I cannot be force to give up my body to someone after they’re born, why can I be forced before they are born?”

          We are talking about two human beings of equally value that are physically joined together. Don’t you think the right thing to do is to separate them but save both if possible?

        • Herald Newman

          > Don’t you think the right thing to do is to separate them but save both if possible?

          Well, the “if possible” is really the key. Nothing, however, requires me to remain connected to the other person. While disconnecting them may be seen as immoral, it says nothing about being illegal.

        • Otto

          If you think that an embryo should take precedence over a woman’s bodily autonomy your have your priorities messed up. And by the way just because you think an embryo is more valuable does not mean that others should be forced to agree with you.

        • adam

          ” I know my wife would if it meant saving our child. ”

          so your ‘wife’ would be compelled or do the compelling?

          Or both?

          “I think there are times when it takes a back seat to something that is more valuable.”

          What times?

        • Kodie

          You answered “can they be compelled” with an example of someone doing such voluntarily, and then basic emotional horror as though embryos can feel anything or know what life might be like or that it’s any of your fucking business what other people do with their own bodies or projected future.

          I can understand the kind of feeling to sacrifice for a child that’s yours, but being protective of an embryo that you can see the future – needing to think of it before yourself? That’s a voluntary decision. That’s not a compulsory decision. I mean, I can think right now if I had a teenager, what would that be like? If you get pregnant, and are not prepared for that future, or the nearer future, the best to do is get an abortion. I can’t see any rational reason to forbid it, only emotional appeals.

        • Otto

          “Can a mother ever be compelled to give part of her body, or the use of her body, after her child is born?”

          Certainly, they can.

          Really? They can? Name a situation where someone can be ‘compelled’, i.e. forced externally against their will.

          I know my wife would if it meant saving our child.

          Mine would as well, and so would I…of our own choice. But that is not what we are talking about is it?

        • Greg G.

          But what if you had a “quiverfull”? You might have to pick and choose who gets which organs.

          It’s like the flight attendant’s instructions when they say to put your own oxygen mask on before helping your child. There is an implied, “If you are traveling with two children, decide now which one you love the most.”

        • Otto

          Should a woman’s right to do whatever with her body be restricted in a way to help save a human?

          Should you be forced to give up a portion of your liver to help save a human? Using your logic the answer is yes.

          She can’t kill or abuse her child.

          A woman can’t give her child alcohol or cigarettes….unless she is pregnant. She can smoke and drink all she wants then, you are opening up a can of worms with your logic.

        • Greg G.

          Being born means giving up a warm, wet world where one doesn’t even have to breathe. Then one must start breathing cold, dry air. Just think how much worse that is with a nicotine fit because your mother smoked.

        • Otto

          Mine did

        • Kodie

          This is just a guilt scenario. You are not thinking rationally about what is at stake, and you think a blob of cells with no neural networks is an innocent little infant. I bet you actually believe the posters that they look like infants who are only the size of a pea.

        • Pofarmer

          You might think this is awful, but what I think is awful is an innocent baby dying because it

          I’m sorry, but taking mifepristone at 6 weeks gestation is simply not “an innocent baby dying.” Words mean things.

          This is about the size of a baked bean at 6 weeks.

          https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-6-webbed-hands_square.jpg?width=505

          This is not a baby. I really wish they showed these pictures to scale.

        • BlackMamba44

          Inconvenience??

          http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

          Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
          exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
          altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
          nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
          heartburn and indigestion
          constipation
          weight gain
          dizziness and light-headedness
          bloating, swelling, fluid retention
          hemmorhoids
          abdominal cramps
          yeast infections
          congested, bloody nose
          acne and mild skin disorders
          skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
          mild to severe backache and strain
          increased headaches
          difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
          increased urination and incontinence
          bleeding gums
          pica
          breast pain and discharge
          swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
          difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
          inability to take regular medications
          shortness of breath
          higher blood pressure
          hair loss or increased facial/body hair
          tendency to anemia
          curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
          infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
          (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
          extreme pain on delivery
          hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
          continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

          Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
          stretch marks (worse in younger women)
          loose skin
          permanent weight gain or redistribution
          abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
          pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
          changes to breasts
          increased foot size
          varicose veins
          scarring from episiotomy or c-section
          other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
          increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
          loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
          higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s
          newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

          Occasional complications and side effects:
          complications of episiotomy
          spousal/partner abuse
          hyperemesis gravidarum
          temporary and permanent injury to back
          severe scarring requiring later surgery
          (especially after additional pregnancies)
          dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
          pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)
          eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
          gestational diabetes
          placenta previa
          anemia (which can be life-threatening)
          thrombocytopenic purpura
          severe cramping
          embolism (blood clots)
          medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
          diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
          mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
          serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
          hormonal imbalance
          ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
          broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)
          hemorrhage and
          numerous other complications of delivery
          refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
          aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
          severe post-partum depression and psychosis
          research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors
          research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
          research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

          Less common (but serious) complications:
          peripartum cardiomyopathy
          cardiopulmonary arrest
          magnesium toxicity
          severe hypoxemia/acidosis
          massive embolism
          increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
          molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
          (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
          malignant arrhythmia
          circulatory collapse
          placental abruption
          obstetric fistula

          More permanent side effects:
          future infertility
          permanent disability
          death.

        • Cryny

          Now, granted she would not be required by law to give a kidney or even blood, I think, to save her kid.

          Bingo. Our society values bodily autonomy over life in every analogous circumstance. We don’t even force prisoners to donate blood or organs to save lives. We don’t even harvest organs from corpses without their prior consent.

          Why should a pregnant woman have less bodily autonomy than a prisoner or a corpse? And why should the life of a fetus that isn’t even aware of its own existence be valued more than that of a conscious human being dying from organ failure?

        • rabbit

          That is happening in some states and is in danger of happening in more.

        • lady_black

          As I’m always eager to point out, there is no “full human right” to the use of someone else’s body. Therefore, whether a zygote has “full humanity” or not is a red herring.
          Zygote, child, or adult, it has no rights to assert against any of my organs!

        • When I say human being I mean that the thing in question is a human being biologically only.

          In that case, I suggest using the term “Homo sapiens.” That’s a better fit for your usage.

        • Richard Cranium

          You would have yourself calling acorns trees, when really they’re just food for squirrels.

        • Greg G.

          Are you saying there is a difference between fried eggs and fried chickens?

        • Richard Cranium

          When you put it that way, I guess, in sort of a strange way, they both taste like chicken.

        • Kodie

          See, even squirrels can tell the difference between food and homes.

    • Hans-Richard Grümm

      An interesting claim: that a human ovum is not human. Let me remind you that it has its own, unique DNA.

      • Paul B. Lot

        Let me remind you that it has its own, unique DNA.

        As do cancer tumors.

      • Joe

        Let me remind you that it has its own, unique DNA.

        This statement is meaningless on it’s own. So does a bacterium.

        • Hans-Richard Grümm

          … “own, unique human DNA” – the phrase which is frequently used to assign personhood to a zygote.

        • Joe

          Why did you add ‘human’ to that list?

          And just saying ‘unique human DNA does nothing for personhood. Chimpanzees and even companies have been granted personhood.

        • lady_black

          Because he initially stated human ovum, the DNA being human is a given.

        • Hans-Richard Grümm

          You may have missed the context of my post. I argued that if a zygote or early fetus is a person because of its unique human DNA, then an ovum would have to be a person, too. IOW, my post was a reductio ad absurdum.
          I know, it is hard to tell the players without a score card … 🙂

    • Greg G.

      when put together do make a human being.

      They make a fertilized egg that is most likely to not reach term due to failure to implant or die from lethal mutations.

      • Michael Murray

        The number that don’t make it is really high as well. Based on IVF studies at least 2/3rd’s don’t make it.

        • scdorman2

          See my comment to Greg G. on this.

      • scdorman2

        Ok… this wouldn’t be the fault of the mother. At least, not any that would be considered wrong or evil. So, why does it matter?

        • Otto

          because the ending of the viability of a fertilized egg is not seen in and of itself as a problem, or even something to be concerned about in the least…that is until the mother chooses to do it…and even only then by certain self righteous religious types in some weird attempt to claim a moral high ground.

        • scdorman2

          see my comment above to eric.

        • eric

          It matters because, if your ideology was really consistent about all zygotes being humans, you’d be screaming for some massive government research program focused on preventing the untimely and accidental death of all these innocent humans via miscarriage. But you aren’t.

          What explanation is consistent with conservative behavior of (a) not caring about preventing involuntary miscarriages but (b) caring about preventing voluntary abortions? It must have something to do with greater opposition to women’s choice rather than zygote death.

        • scdorman2

          Maybe, we should put some research into it. ATM I don’t know if it would really help save them though. Voluntary abortions are a clear case of intent to kill and should be justified if done.

        • Otto

          Maybe, we should put some research into it.

          The point is that you or other people who are Pro-birth have never felt it was anything to be concerned about. The question is if you felt all these ‘innocent people’ were needlessly dying why wasn’t it a high priority?

          The answer is obvious, the fertilized eggs and embryos are not considered on par with a viable baby that has been born, and with good reason…at least until you want to show off your self righteous moral high ground flag.

        • Herald Newman

          > Voluntary abortions are a clear case of intent to kill and should be justified if done.

          You’ve got the situation backwards. Voluntary abortions are a case of terminating a pregnancy, not the unborn. The death of the fetus is simply a consequent of that.

        • scdorman2

          Voluntary abortion is like hiring a hit man.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I have no doubt that you would do what you could to save a random stranger’s child from danger/murder if you saw them in the street.

          And so I don’t believe you mean what you say.

          If you believed that, you would be in jail for attacking doctors or obstructing clinic entrances.

          You’re obviously not in jail, therefore you haven’t done what you would do if you meant what you said, therefore you don’t mean what you say.

          A good thing, too. We have had enough radical christian terrorism in this country as it is.

        • Greg G.

          A good thing, too. We have had enough radical christian terrorism in this country as it is.

          Especially from North and South Carolina. Some of the worst terrorist bombings in this country in the last decade and a half have been by people from the Carolinas. Maybe we should build a wall around them.

        • Paul B. Lot

          We should pull another Trump-move, and take the oil BBQ with us when we pull out.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          What a shitty person you are. You have zero compassion and aren’t really pro-life.

        • Greg G.

          Maybe we should put some research into transplanting a pregnancy into anti-abortionists. Then everybody gets what they want. You can be at the top of the list.

        • eric

          Now you’re sort of arguing circularly. It only needs to be justified if you first assume what you’re trying to show, which is that the zygote is a human with rights etc… Absent that assumption, there is no need to “justify” killing a few cells in your own body. Good thing too, otherwise beer would be illegal.
          [EDIT] but I have to say Otto’s response downstream is right on the money. It never occurred to you to demand the government work to end miscarriages until I mentioned it. Even after I pointed this out, your response was tepid. You clearly don’t think saving these innocent human lives is a high priority or even worth much of a federal R&D attempt. The explanation that best fits this data is that you’re really strongly opposed to the woman having a choice in whether the zygote dies or not; as long as she isn’t given the choice, you don’t care all that much if the zygote dies.

        • Greg G.

          It’s either God’s fault or it is a poor way to determine personhood.

          A fertilized egg could becomes twins or triplets so it cannot be a person.

          Two fertilized eggs, each with a unique set of DNA, during the process of development can merge with one another to produce a one person. A woman was thought to not be the mother of the children she gave birth to because the DNA samples from her mouth did not match the DNA from her ovaries. Some might have different colored eyes or patches of hair that are different colors.

          So a fertilized egg can be zero persons, a fraction of a person, one person, or multiple people. That makes conception a poor method of determining personhood.

          But that is irrelevant as even if a fetus is a person, it has no right to use the organs of another person, to remove nutrients from another person’s bloodstream, to release waste products into another person’s bloodstream, and to make physical changes to another person without that person’s continuous consent.

    • Otto

      Just because certain religious people want to define an embryo as a full human being does not mean they win by default. The law does not work that way.

      • scdorman2

        I’m saying a fetus is a human being, not necessarily because some religion says so, because it is a biological fact.

        • Otto

          Even if that is the case, the issue is of one persons rights coming in to conflict of another ‘potential’ persons rights. Legally rights are emergent. A 2 year old does not have the same legal right as a 16 year old, an 18 year old has more rights than the 16 yro…it is not until a person is 21 that they have full rights.

          But regardless of all that, no one has the right to force another person to use their body to support the life of theirs…the only people who are pushing for that situation are the pro-birthers.

        • eric

          We actually don’t get full rights until 35. You forgot the right to run for Congress at 25, the Senate at 30, and President at 35.

        • Otto

          Good point

        • Richard Cranium

          Maybe the president shouldn’t be required to have been born in the U.S.A. Maybe just being conceived in the U.S.A. should be enough.

        • adam
        • Otto

          I had that argument with a pro-lifer. They called it arbitrary…I laughed rather hard.

    • Richard Cranium

      I can put all the ingredients together, but I still cannot make a worthwhile chocolate mousse.

      • Kodie

        You can mix chocolate pudding and whipped cream like Ponderosa does.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    I usually agree with Bob, but I don’t think this analogy works that well, because it doesn’t anticipate the arguments of Evangelicals in response.

    :::::::: Channeling his inner Evangelical :::::::::::

    1. If the purchaser didn’t want the partial car, he shouldn’t have knocked up that Chrysler Slut.
    2. Given time, the engine block would grow into a fully conscious go-cart, and later an adult full-sized SUV. If you wouldn’t kill a go-cart then you shouldn’t murder an engine block fetus.
    3. This kind of engine block murder is what we should expect from a society in which vehicles don’t worship the Ford. If the Chrysler Sluts don’t have to carry their engine blocks to term, where is the accountability for promiscuously swapping drivers?

    • The analogy is not completely parallel, as is true for all analogies. I was mostly going for the conclusion, “If an engine block isn’t a car, then a zygote isn’t a baby.”

      If I were to (incompletely) respond to your challenges, I’d say that when a car gets into an accident, we all share in the costs (insurance spreads out the risk, we deal with the snarled traffic after the accident, we pay for cops to direct traffic around the accident, etc.). Similarly, we pitch in when someone has a medical problem, like needing an abortion. In the car case, we don’t say, “Well, you knew that an accident was a possibility when you drove the car, didn’t you? Maybe you’ll learn something from this” and provide no assistance.

      • Maine_Skeptic

        Your point was clear, and I agree that no analogy is ever perfect. I’m just not sure who your intended audience was. The analogy was less subtle than usual for both your work and for non-religious readers. If your audience was, in part, Evangelicals, they can too easily dismiss you as a base heathen for “comparing a sacred human life to car parts.”

        Granted, Evangelicals dismiss nearly everything a non-Evangelical says on these subjects, but sometimes part of their mind recognizes their own views reflected back in the humor. When that happens, they might even see how our humor could “seem” funny to us unenlightened scum. I’m not sure an Evangelical would recognize their views in your analogy.

      • Kodie

        I think the analogy would be a little better if Frank didn’t actually want a car, or wasn’t sure he would be able to have a car fit into his near future plans. In your analogy, Frank wanted the car, as a new graduate, didn’t think of the costs of having a car, and was totally able and willing to pay for the car minus the downpayment. If a car equals a baby in this analogy, it’s not until Frank goes to the dealership and finds out there’s no car and they try to get him to pay for parts of a car.

        • That would be an improvement. I’ll play with it, thanks.

        • Greg G.

          Suppose Frank bought a raffle ticket to be charitable and won the car. But he lives in a small Manhattan apartment and can’t afford to park it and doesn’t want to pay for insurance. He can’t leave it somewhere because it would accrue fines. He can’t give it to a friend because they either have a car or do not want one. Suppose the state said he couldn’t sell a new car unless he could show it would have an adverse effect on his physical health.

  • swbarnes2

    Too many “pro-lifers” make arguments that completely ignore the presence of the thinking, feeling woman inside whose body the pregnancy is happening. So sorry, not super thrilled to see a pro-choice argument that does the exact same thing.

    Make it more like “Oh, and this car is going to be assembled in your house. We’ll have to compromise some load bearing walls to complete the job, the livability of your house is going to be permanently impaired, maybe badly.”

    • Yes, the analogy is incomplete. I was going for: An engine block is not a car, and a zygote is not a baby.

      The inconvenience and health risks to the woman aren’t as big a deal to me as the world she sees the baby being born into. If she thinks that the baby’s life will suck (it will be unwanted, not enough money, dangerous environment, etc.), she’s probably onto something.

      • Cheryl Brigid

        Aww shucks, inconvenience and health risks aside, she knows it sucks. She knows her fate in the American culture. She will face wage discrepancies and lost opportunities for job advancement because of motherhood. She will be blamed and told she is worth less as an employee because her little progeny competes with her job for her attention. Her punishment for taking on the inconvenience and health risks to produce free, future labor capital for society is lost opportunity, lower pay, and less income in the long run. That sucks!

  • T-Paine

    This analogy is a winner.

  • T-Paine

    KarlUdy, why are you always wrong?

    • Pofarmer

      God Goggles. He can’t help it.

    • Joe

      It just demonstrates that pro-lifers can’t (or won’t) engage with our arguments. They just stick to arguing their own opinion that a foetus is a baby.

  • LadyOfBooks

    From the title, I thought it was going to be an essay on how you had to drive as fast as the car could go at all times, but you weren’t allowed to use safety belts, airbags,breaks or any of the other safety features that cars usually have.

    • Nice! In the same way that contraception and anti-STD vaccines (against HPV, for example) are frowned upon by the Right.

  • Cheryl Brigid

    I would recommend that the commenters here take a healthcare ethics course. Humans have an intrinsic value just by being “human”. There really isn’t a delineating moment in our development within the uterus that makes us a “person”. If one argues consciousness as the defining moment of being a human or person, then not only can a zygote, embryo, and fetus be labelled *not a human being*, but newborns, infants, children, and certain disabled or aged individuals could be as well. Children don’t have the full level of consciousness that adults do. Would that give a sperm and egg donor (aka crappy parents) the right to euthanize their “born” progeny if the said crappy parents refuse to play that role anymore. Most folks would vehemently say, “Of course not. That is a living, breathing human being.” The process of being born has historically and currently is that collective moment when we become a person within our own right. But whether we are conscious or not, we are still human if that is what makes up our DNA.

    • Greg G.

      There really isn’t a delineating moment in our development within the uterus that makes us a “person”.

      We recognize anything from a goatee to a ZZ Top face as a beard but one whisker is not a beard, nor is ten whiskers. There is no delineating moment when a collection of whiskers become a beard.

      But I think the whole personhood argument is a red herring. It comes down to the autonomy of the person who doesn’t want to be pregnant.

      • Kodie

        The problem seems to stem from people who do want to have children projecting a pregnancy as if it is a child. We are conditioned to congratulate pregnant mothers, but they have also been conditioned not to announce it to the public for at least 3 months. If they wait that long, we imagine they must be happy about the circumstances, but it’s still not a baby. Calling any amount of pregnancy an “unborn baby” is a social definition, I guess you could call it, just like Christianity is assumed, so pregnancy is assumed to be a permanent and wanted condition. I recall some time ago, one of those pee sticks advertised the woman who was happy she was pregnant, and one who was disappointed she wasn’t pregnant, but not one who was upset that she was pregnant. I didn’t actually notice this, I read an article about it. Pregnancy is a projection of a baby, not a baby. If you want a baby, it’s normal to be excited to find out you’re in progress of gestating one. If you don’t, well, “polite” society just doesn’t speak of such things, just like you don’t speak of there not being a god while Christians freely express thanks and praise to their imaginary friend and expect you’re on board. Pregnant women are marginalized to the prescribed emotion of joy, and negative outlooks are discriminated against and censored.

      • Cheryl Brigid

        I agree that the whole personhood argument can be a red herring. Not only does it come down to the autonomy of the person who doesn’t want to be pregnant, but also to one who doesn’t want to be trafficked, enslaved, experimented on, held against their will, touched, etc.

        It’s how and when we define personhood that makes all the difference.

        • eric

          What’s wrong with a system in which autonomy and rights grow with development?
          You’re trying to fit an analog, scaled peg into a binary hole.

    • Pofarmer

      The process of being born has historically and currently is that collective moment when we become a person within our own right

      Yeah, not so much. It wasn’t that long ago that it would have been common to “expose” deformed infants. It also wouldn’t have been terribly uncommon, until really recently, for a child to die from a disciplinary beating with no repercussions at all to the parent. The idea of childhood rights is a fairly new and progressive one.

    • Dys

      Humans have an intrinsic value just by being “human”.

      Why? The universe doesn’t care whether you’re a human or a rock – it doesn’t care about you either way. The intrinsic value you’re suggesting isn’t actually intrinsic – it’s a human value system.

      • Cheryl Brigid

        It’s intrinsic to our human system and that’s what we currently have to live within. Doesn’t matter if the universe cares or not.

        • MNb

          Repeating your decree with slightly different words is not an answer.
          Why?

        • Dys

          Okay…the lives of human beings have some basic value to other human beings. A fertilized egg is not a human being, because there is no “being” there.

          While you are correct that there is no one delineating point where one is considered a person, you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater as a result and effectively saying that one should be instituted at conception/fertilization.

        • adam
    • Joe

      Humans have an intrinsic value just by being “human”

      No they don’t.

      If one argues consciousness as the defining moment of being a human or person, then not only can a zygote, embryo, and fetus be labelled *not a human being*, but newborns, infants, children, and certain disabled or aged individuals could be as well

      How?

      But whether we are conscious or not, we are still human if that is what makes up our DNA.

      Again, so what?

      • Kodie

        The way I think is the “intrinsic value” of being human means that you can be forced to be born, and forced to stay alive when you know you are already dying. Humans have some value as a cog in the great machinery of how societies work, and some value to their families and communities, but I don’t think of humans individually having that much actual value. If your neighbor dies, you get a new neighbor, you know? Everyone dies eventually, so some are irreplaceable like a grandma, but your grandma isn’t my grandma. Basically, we’re regenerating a work force and a population, and once you’re alive, while we think that life itself shouldn’t be taken away from you, 1), you wouldn’t know if it was, and 2), it’s not a great adventure for everyone, and can be a grueling grind with no help. If someone has made it to birth, one would assume they are wanted, and can be cared for, but that is not the case, and orphanages are full of children that may grow to make something of themselves, but technically would not be missed either. I’m not saying orphans have no value, but most of human value is to whether the person is glad they were born, and it’s hard to be glad you were born if you have no parents, or if you provide something to someone else that no one else can, which is usually a family, but can be an inventor or something. If you have invented something or are a philanthropist, or whatever, your legacy takes place. I mean, David Bowie is dead but I can still enjoy his music, so his death kind of has minimal effect to me, but great effect to his family. Anyone in my family could die and not affect David Bowie’s family at all, just to have that perspective.

        I am not saying it’s ok to kill people, but what value they have is not intrinsic. Over 100,000 people died today, and I don’t feel any different, but a million or so are grieving today over deaths of someone they loved in the last week or so. Some people are missing a piece of their puzzle now, and some people don’t know they got a new garbageman because their old one just died, etc.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          I appreciate your thoughts on intrinsic value and can see why you have such a perspective.

          By intrinsic value, I mean “in and of itself”. Like how you say it’s not ok to kill people. We don’t go around killing each other because we’re human beings and in and of itself, that is a good enough reason to let each other be free to run their own lives. Well, at least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Unfortunately, some individuals and groups don’t care and wreak havoc by using others as a means to their ideologies.

        • Dys

          By intrinsic value, I mean “in and of itself”.

          Then there is no intrinsic value, and what you’re actually talking about is a human valuation system. Human beings have value and worth to other human beings due to evolutionary traits and sociological structures, not “in and of themselves”.

          Unfortunately, some individuals and groups don’t care and wreak havoc by using others as a means to their ideologies.

          By instituting policies that would force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and violate their body autonomy.

        • adam
      • Cheryl Brigid

        Humans do have an intrinsic value from ethical and philosophical points of view. And this value influences laws and cultural patterns.

        So what?

        Your intrinsic value as a person keeps the rest of society from snatching you off the street, transporting you to a research facility, and harvesting your body parts for whatever use a corporate scientist desires. You have the right to autonomy of your body because of human value. No corporation or government entity is given eminent domain to use your body/being in a way they see fit.

        Imagine a man named Average Joe, by some misfortune, ends up devoid of consciousness and is brought to a medical facility. A nearby family in the waiting room has a loved one who needs a lung transplant. The doctors are not allowed to test Average Joe to determine a match and remove his lung if it matches.

        Why? The law says so. Why? Because Average Joe has an intrinsic value as a human being, and medical ethics and society’s laws are written to reflect it.

        Kant you understand my gist? Average Joe is not a means to an end for someone to get his lung without his or his advocate’s consent.

        Humans, from one-celled zygote stage through death, have an intrinsic value that is philosophically, ethically and legally acknowledged in our society.

        • lady_black

          Just as average Joe’s body cannot be used without his consent, neither can mine. Get the picture?

        • Herald Newman

          > Your intrinsic value as a person keeps the rest of society from snatching you off the street, transporting you to a research facility, and harvesting your body parts for whatever use a corporate scientist desires.

          It’s much more likely that a persons empathy, and compassion, is what keeps them from abducting you and harvesting your organs. After all, if it can happen to me, it can also happen to you.

          > You have the right to autonomy of your body because of human value.

          No, I have the right to bodily autonomy because it’s a right we’ve granted to each other. Bodily autonomy over pregnancy is a logic extension of the rights we’ve previously granted.

          It’s important to remember that rights only exist because people are willing to grant, and respect, them. George Carlin, a sort of hero of mine, has famously said “Rghts aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country: a bill of temporary privileges.”

          > Kant you understand my gist? Average Joe is not a means to an end for someone to get his lung without his or his advocate’s consent.

          I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don’t agree that there’s some innate value to humans that makes this so, rather, I don’t want my body harvested, and I’m pretty sure most others don’t either. We agree that this is undesirable, and want to protect others from this happening.

        • eric

          You have the right to autonomy of your body because of human value. No corporation or government entity is given eminent domain to use your body/being in a way they see fit.

          I agree with this, though I suspect I apply your logic to pregnant women more than you do.

        • Bravo–you make an eloquent case for Average Joe’s rights. I wish you were than enthusiastic about the rights of Average Jane when she gets pregnant.

        • Cheryl Brigid

          Sorry for such a late reply. I’ve been very busy finishing some courses at school. The responses you see just reflect the knowledge I attained in a recent healthcare ethics class, which sided with a pregnant woman’s autonomous right to her body.

          I don’t know how my defense of human intrinsic value made people people think that I disavow a woman’s right to autonomy. In fact, I debated that issue with another poster.

          Cheryl Brigid scdorman2•

          19 days ago

          “Why should the fertilized egg’s right to life supercede the life of the person (aka woman) carrying it? The person whose uterus is pregnant has made it through several processes of human development, whereas the
          fetus has yet to accomplish those milestones. Why is the fetus more important?”

          For me, a woman controls the autonomous right to her body, whether pregnant or not.

          However, I enjoyed your analogy very much. I spent too many years in the oppressive pro-life lifestyle. It literally almost killed me. And it had me so brainwashed that I was unable to defend my own right to a quality, healthy life. When I left the pro-life movement, I didn’t have a sense of self-worth. In fact, I had been so exhausted and beat down by that system of no contraception and pregnancy that I was willing to put a DNR on myself.

          Here I was, a mom with many children, ready to give up the ghost if I were to hemorrhage during a menstrual cycle, miscarriage, or giving birth. Luckily, I made it out alive, got a tubal, and returned to college for a degree in healthcare.

          It was at school that I learned about intrinsic value ie Kant “in and of itself”. I also learned that society considered me valuable as a human and as a parent of young children. If I were to get an illness, society (the conservative right aside) expects me to get adequate treatment so I can heal and be there to raise my kids. That was the moment it clicked for me.

          But back to your car analogy, it struck a chord because that’s how pro-lifers are. They can’t see the value of the human being (ie women). People are treated as a means to an end. It’s scary really.

          Yet some comments also concerned me because of the perspectives on “human being” in ways that also could result in a similar outcome .

          The responses I wrote reflected my understanding that pregnancy inside of a woman isn’t the only place where human beings occur in their zygote, embryonic, or early fetal stages. Respecting the “human” status (or aspect) of a zygote, embryo, or fetus created from human DNA or other human tissue (as we get there) is still very important. Why? Because there are opportunists out there that would happily generate, experiment on, sell, etc, human tissue, parts, or “beings” at our various stages of existence. As humans, we have to keep this in mind and draw the line somewhere.

        • myintx

          All the unborn Average Janes should have rights too…

        • Michael Neville

          Another forced birther who thinks a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an adult woman.

          Why do you forced birthers hate women? Why don’t you trust them to make decisions applicable to their own bodies? Why don’t you mind your own business and let adult women mind theirs?

        • myintx

          No human being has more rights than another. All innocent human beings should have equal rights – including a right to life. That right to life may mean that a woman or a man has to care for a newly unwanted newborn against their will (boo hoo) – at least long enough to get him or her to safety. That right to life should mean that a woman has to ensure the safety of an unwanted unborn child – at least as long as it takes for the baby to be born and SAFELY handed off to someone else.
          No one should be able to make a decision that takes the life of an innocent human being.

        • Michael Neville

          So you think women have no rights to decide what they can do with their bodies. Instead a clump of cells has more rights than an adult and you want it that way. And you still haven’t explained why you have such a deep hatred of women.

        • myintx

          The right to do with your body what you want should END where the body of another innocent human being begins.
          All innocent human beings should have an equal right to life. That may mean a woman or a man has to bring an unwanted baby to a fire station even thought they’d rather be headed to a beach and that may mean a woman cannot kill her unborn child.
          Are you OK with abortion restrictions after viability?

        • Michael Neville

          Are you okay with abortion in the case of incest or rape? How about abortion when the woman’s life is threatened? Or is your hatred of women so great you’d rather they die instead of having an abortion?

        • myintx

          You answer the question from my last post and I’ll answer yours.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you know what they call an abortion after viability? A premature birth. As Pofarmer said, your question is dishonest.

          Now answer mine, honestly if you can.

        • myintx

          No, abortion after viability could involve poisoning or an abortioninst pulling out parts of the unborn child’s body piece by piece. So you didn’t answer the question. Try again. Do you support a woman killing her unborn child for any reason she wants to after viability?

          I will answer one of your questions though even though you didn’t answer mine… No matter how conceived, an unborn child is a human being and should have a right to life. Many women realize that and give that chance of life to their unborn son or daughter. No child- born or unborn – should have to pay with his or her life for the crimes of his or her father. There is help out there for women facing difficult pregnancies. Help that doesn’t involve killing.

          NOTE – It took Michael over 4 hours to not even answer my question honestly. even though he has made other posts during that time.

        • Michael Neville

          I did answer your question, you just didn’t like my answer.

          So you would force a rape or incest victim who becomes pregnant to have an unwanted child. You really do have a complete disregard for women, their feelings and their rights.

          Also you didn’t answer the question about abortion when the health or life of the woman is in danger. Does the name Savita Halappanavar mean anything to you?

          NOTE: I was visiting my wife in the hospital where she’s recovering from orthopedic surgery. Sorry if my family is more important to me than some misogynist forced-birther. And I wrote exactly one post before I answered yours.

        • myintx

          Your answer was based on a LIE… So answer the question….

          Savita didn’t die because she was denied an abortion. She died because of the doctors incompetence.

        • Michael Neville

          She died because the doctors wouldn’t give her an abortion, you incredibly dishonest motherfucker.

        • myintx

          In Ireland at the time (as it is now), it was legal for doctors to remove the baby if the mother’s life is in danger.
          But doctors screwed up. They didn’t realize her life was in danger. The problem wasn’t the law but doctor’s incompetence.

        • BlackMamba44

          Liar.

          “The husband of a pregnant woman who died in an Irish hospital has said he has no doubt she would be alive if she had been allowed an abortion.

          Savita Halappanavar’s family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.

          Her husband told the BBC that it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat.

          When asked by the BBC if he thought his wife would still be alive if the termination had been allowed, Mr Halappanavar said: “Of course, no doubt about it.”

          He said Savita had been “on top of the world” before experiencing difficulties.

          “It was her first baby, first pregnancy and you know she was on top of the world basically,” he said.
          “She was so happy and everything was going well, she was so excited.

          “On the Saturday night everything changed, she started experiencing back pain so we called into the hospital, the university hospital.”

          He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced.

          “They said unfortunately she can’t because it’s a Catholic country,” Mr Halappanavar said.

          “Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her.

          “But she said ‘I’m sorry, unfortunately it’s a Catholic country’ and it’s the law that they can’t abort when the foetus is live.”

          The baby’s heartbeat stopped on the Wednesday.

          “I got a call at about half twelve on the Wednesday night that Savita’s heart rate had really gone up and that they had moved her to ICU,” Mr Halappanavar said.

          “Things just kept on getting worse and on Friday they told me that she was critically ill.”

          He said some of Savita’s organs stopped functioning and she died on Sunday 28 October.”

        • myintx

          If she wasn’t well, if doctors had properly recognized her condition, the doctors would have removed the baby – the law allows that. The case for medical incompetence is clear.

        • Kodie

          How could they all miss it? They’re religious, and you are making excuses for them.

        • myintx

          So only religious people make mistakes?

        • Pofarmer

          The laws in Ireland don’t. The directive of the USCCB don’t. And we have increasing number of Catholic Hospitals in the U.S. This will happen here. Already, women who are having difficulties with pregnancies at a Catholic hospital will be sent somewhere else, but, increasingly, even that isn’t being allowed. It could be one reason our Maternal mortality numbers are going up relative to the rest of the developed world.

        • Kodie

          I imagine the romanticizing of martyrdom adds to it. Allowing a woman to die while giving birth is the most amazing form of martyrdom there is since Jesus. It’s so sad and beautiful, isn’t it? I could totally see hospitals favoring the baby’s life over the mother’s, as it is just tragic to send a woman birthing a baby home with no one to hug, but awesomely tragi-beautiful to send a baby home, while its mother was so brave and willing to die to save that infant. The child will want for nothing at least until they’re old enough to hear the tale of the day of their birth, and how heroic their mother was.

        • myintx

          The laws in Ireland and here allow abortion if the woman’s life is truly endangered… or to deliver the baby early if the woman’s life is endangered.

        • Pofarmer

          The laws in Ireland and here allow abortion

          In a Catholic hospital, abortion is NEVER an option. As long as there is fetal heartbeat, they will not induce or abort.

        • myintx

          Thats incorrect.The law says they can deliver a baby to save the life of the woman.

        • BlackMamba44

          Liars just keep lying.

        • myintx

          Maybe there is a therapist out there that can help you so you don’t have to lie so much.

        • BlackMamba44

          Another lie.

        • myintx

          Nope…. Just the truth.

        • BlackMamba44

          and fuck off, troll.

        • myintx

          If doctors has PROPERLY diagnosed Savitas health as being endangered they would have delivered the baby. It wasn’t being denied an abortion that killed her it was the incompetence of the doctors.

        • BlackMamba44

          Liars just gotta lie.

        • myintx

          Then you should work on that and try not to lie as much.

        • BlackMamba44

          And another lie.

        • myintx

          Nope..

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off, troll.

        • adam

          “No matter how conceived, an unborn child is a human being and should have a right to life. ”

          Why?

        • myintx

          Because they are human beings that have done nothing to deserve death.

        • adam

          Innocent deaths happen all the time.

          So WHY should zygotes have the right to life?

        • myintx

          unborn children should have a right to life like every other innocent human being….

        • MNb

          According to your belief system zygotes already have a soul. That means that they suffer from Original Sin and hence are not innocent.
          Not that your belief system cares about consistency.

        • myintx

          What “belief system”? I believe in science… has science said anything about whether or not human beings have souls?

        • Pofarmer
        • myintx

          Then unborn children should be protected because they are human beings that have done nothing wrong to deserve death. not because they may or may not have souls.

        • Pofarmer

          So you’re just going to flail around the goal posts?

        • myintx

          No flailing here….

        • epeeist

          I believe in science…

          I really hope you don’t “believe” in science.

          has science said anything about whether or not human beings have souls?

          What’s science got to do with it? It is you and your theist colleagues who make the ontological commitment to the existence of souls. In other words, yours is the burden of proof to demonstrate they exist.

        • myintx

          I never said science had anything to do with souls….
          It doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong.

        • epeeist

          It doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong.

          What’s an “unborn child”?

          But let’s take it further. You say that aborting a foetus in the womb is wrong because it is potentially a child. However there are two involved in this, namely the woman who is pregnant, who is a human being in actuality. Why are you not concerned about the risk to an actual human being?

        • myintx

          Definition of unborn

          1. (of a baby) not yet born: “the sound of an unborn baby’s heartbeat”

          Abortion is wrong because the unborn child is a human being. The lives of ALL innocent human beings matter. If a woman’s life becomes truly endangered from her pregnancy, doctors can deliver the baby so that no one has to die. A small percentage of abortions are done due to health issues.

        • epeeist

          1. (of a baby) not yet born: “the sound of an unborn baby’s heartbeat”

          So where did you pull this so-called definition from? It bears little resemblance to any you can find in an authoritative dictionary. Which means that you are simply Humpty-Dumptying, claiming a word means what you want it to mean in order to support a conclusion you have already come to.

          Abortion is wrong because the unborn child is a human being.

          Which would make an acorn an oak tree.

          If a woman’s life becomes truly endangered from her pregnancy, doctors can deliver the baby so that no one has to die.

          And what then? What are you going to do when you induce a pregnancy which is in the first trimester. What happens to the “baby” that is born? What are the odds of its survival? What happens if the parents of the “child” do not want it?

        • myintx

          The definition is from the Oxford dictionary. Another reputable dictionary (Merriam Webster) had this medical definition –
          Medical Definition of unborn

          “: not yet born : existing in utero -unborn children”

          Truth hurts doesn’t it?

          Sorry Biology is hard for you… A member of an oak species goes through a life cycle that includes acorn, seedling,, sapling and mature oak… An “oak” is what they call the ADULT member of the species… A newborn isnt an adult, neither is an unborn child, but they are all members of the same species – Homo Sapiens – i.e. human beings. Glad I could clear that up for you.

          Many complications from pregnancy occur after viaibility. If there is a complication that requires early delivery and If a woman doesn’t want her baby she can give him or her up for adoption.

        • Pofarmer

          Let’s take it further than epeeist. We know that the vast number of abortions are done by women in poverty and out of wedlock. In fact, having a child out of wedlock is one of the number one indicators for poverty. We know that children born in poverty are more likely to wind up in prison. They are more likely to commit property crimes, and violent crimes, including rape and murder. So what you are advocating, in effect, is that this potential person, and that’s all that it is, is more important than the actual people, the Mom’s and Dad’s and Grandma’s and Grandpa’s that the statistics tell us that this potential person will likely cause to suffer. You’re also telling us that you would rather see a young girl not get an education, or remain in poverty, possibly for the rest of her life, than to see this potential person not be born. You’re putting the value of a potential person, and that’s all that it is, above the needs of actual, living, people, that can be helped. Make no mistake about it.

        • myintx

          If a woman with a good job and two children loses her job and realizes she can only afford one child can she kill one of her children because she might go into poverty and her kid might end up in prison? no… the lives of all innocent human beings matter – born or unborn.

          Who said women cannot get educations when pregnant or when they have a family? Are you an old white man or something? Abby Johnson had this to say

          “It was actually MEN on the Supreme Court who decided Roe v. Wade. It was two MEN who created NARAL. It was men who insisted that women were certainly not capable enough to be a mother and have a career…or to be a mother and get an education. The majority of abortion providers in this country are MEN.
          Abortion is a design of the patriarchy. It says that women are less than. It says that being a mother makes a woman weak. But nothing could be further from the truth.
          The prolife movement believes that women are strong enough to achieve their goals while being a mother. We believe that women are strong enough to handle whatever challenges they are faced with. We believe that the answer to a difficult situation is never to take the life of an innocent human being. We believe in women. Period.”

        • Pofarmer

          Holy shit that’s stupid.

        • myintx

          Nope…it’s true.

        • Are you an old white man or something?

          Yep. And you? You sound like one.

        • myintx

          Actually, I’m not. I am a woman. Many women are pro-life. Lila Rose, Abby Johnson, Jill Stanek, Kristan Hawkins, Gianna Jessen (abortion survivor), Melissa Ohden (abortion survivor), Rebecca Kiessling and Kelsey Hazzard, to name a few.

        • Good to hear. The anti-choice crowd is way too dominated by men. I wish they could understand that after “You should behave this way” comes an implied “which is easy for me to say since this problem could never affect me.”

        • myintx

          So it’s OK for a man to be pro-choice and voice support for killing unborn children but not OK for a man to say we should have laws protecting unborn children from being killed?

        • If someone is declaring a moral rule that doesn’t affect him at all, one should be wary of that person’s argument. The argument could be valid, but one’s suspicions should be raised when an argument is just a little too convenient.

          Kind of obvious, wasn’t it? But thanks for the opportunity to explain it.

        • myintx

          Should only teenagers vote on curfew laws or have an opinion on curfew laws? Men are fathers so abortion does affect them….

        • My point stands.

        • myintx

          Your point has been refuted.

        • But apparently it takes a lot more common sense than you have to realize that if you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a “child.”

        • myintx

          I didn’t say “child”, I said “unborn child” – which is a valid synonym for all the stages of the life of a human being before birth.

        • You said child. A single cell isn’t a child of any sort.

        • myintx

          I didn’t say “child”, I said “unborn child” – which is a valid synonym for all the stages of the life of a human being before birth.

        • I said “unborn child” – which is a valid synonym for all the stages of the life of a human being before birth.

          And I disagree.

          Where do we go from here?

          (Kidding! I know where we go: back to square 1, where you just repeat yourself. This is fun!)

        • myintx

          “Where do we go from here?” well, you could educate yourself… start by looking up the definition of “unborn” and see it’s uses….

        • MNb

          Science says nothing about the definition of innocent human beings either. So you don’t believe in god?

        • myintx

          Science tells us an unborn child is a human being.
          Logic tells us they haven’t done anything wrong to deserve death.
          It doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong.

        • So you reject the evidence-less claim of souls? Good to hear. Then we won’t have to get into the problems of when a zygote (with one soul) divides into twins–how many souls do we have afterwards?

        • epeeist

          According to your belief system zygotes already have a soul.

          And I would want to make the same point as I have done before. His god supposedly designed the reproductive system, a system in which the majority of zygotes never implant.

          In other words, his god is the abortionist-in-chief.

        • Pofarmer

          Yep, all we’re doing is adding(slightly) to the tally.

        • Pofarmer

          In general practice, this isn’t the case at all. I’m not required to give anything at all that might contribute to the health or even the survival of another. If someone is laying in the table dying of blood loss, and my blood type would save him, I won’t be required to give to save that person. Why should a fertilized egg have more rights than an already sentient person?

        • myintx

          yes you are… if you have a baby and you wake up one morning and cry “SLAVERY!!!!” you cannot walk out of your house and leave your baby to die. You HAVE TO use your body to ensure the child’s basic health and survival as long as it takes for him or her to be SAFELY handed off to someone else. And you certainly cannot cry “I don’t wannnnaaaaa use my body to care for my baby” as an excuse to kill him or her.
          A closer organ donation analogy to pregnancy/abortion than yours would be that you donated blood to someone else and then want to kill them to get it back. Selfish and not allowed.

        • Michael Neville

          We understand that your hatred of adult women is so great that you would deny them the right to make decisions which don’t affect you but that you think are icky.

        • myintx

          It doesn’t affect me if a woman decides to kick her puppy across the lawn like a football… should that be legal? it’s icky….

        • Michael Neville

          Then you shouldn’t care about what a woman does with her fetus, it doesn’t affect you! But you’ve decided that since you find abortion icky that your opinion supersedes that of the actual woman involved.

        • myintx

          So we should have no animal abuse laws then right?

        • Kodie

          Most people are cool with animal abuse, actually. Oh, they say draw an arbitrary line between pets and livestock, but you’re not going to make a case against abortion until you make a more impressive case for veganism.

        • myintx

          Many people aren’t cool with animal abuse – that is why most states have laws against abusing dogs and cats… are you OK with those laws?

        • Kodie

          You missed the fucking point, liar.

        • myintx

          The point is that we can have laws based on our opinions…. Answer the question in my last post.

        • Kodie

          You missed the fucking point, liar. I’m not talking to you if you are going to keep dodging.

        • myintx

          Veganism has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

        • Kodie

          You’re the one who brought animal cruelty into this debate, but you only consider cats and dogs “animals”. You are so fucking idiotic and ignorant. If you can’t see that a hamburger is more murderous than abortion, then there’s no sense talking to you.

        • myintx

          That’s not the point.. the point is that we CAN and DO make laws based on our opinions…. Most people are of the opinion that dogs should be protected from abuse so we have laws protecting them. Most people are of the opinion that it is OK to eat hamburgers so we dont have laws against that. Most people think it’s wrong to kill unborn children after viability so we have laws protecting unborn children after viability. Most people think it’s wrong to kill unborn children after 20 weeks – we should be able to have laws protecting them.

        • Kodie

          It is the point. You keep pretending it’s not the point, you must feel so righteous about the murder of pigs and chickens and cows. Look around your home and your kitchen for various examples of murder, you hypocrite.

        • myintx

          Murder only applies to human beings.

        • Kodie

          Another hint you’re a Christian. Why did you keep bringing up animal cruelty?

        • myintx

          Are you saying atheists are for animal cruelty? really?

        • Kodie

          Why do you keep bringing up animal cruelty when you avoid what it entails?

        • myintx

          It involves harming the body of another living being… so does abortion – in the worst possible way.

        • Kodie

          So you eat bacon and deny that’s harming a living being but abortion is the worst possible way, when you can only compare it to graphic violence against a 4-year-old when in actuality it is closer to clipping your fingernails. “It has DNA,” you hysterically scream like a typically fraught ignorant Christian.

        • myintx

          Really? you’re placing the lives of human beings at the same level as pigs? Glad you weren’t in charge when the little boy fell in the gorilla cage – you would have asked which being more cells or who has a higher IQ before deciding who to protect and who to kill..

        • Kodie

          You only apply it to dogs and cats, but avoid confrontations about how much animal cruelty feeds and clothes you and decorates your home. You say “it doesn’t matter”. How can you be less caring to actual living beings than something that can’t feel or know anything? I think abortions are like killing mosquitoes, which is arguably cruel to the mosquito, but I don’t really care. You think it is like kicking a puppy for fun, because you’re deluded about what’s actually at stake. You don’t like the tumor or the fingernail comparison either, but you presumably eat a lot of bacon and chicken fingers and that doesn’t count as cruelty. An embryo is much closer to a fingernail or a tumor than it is to a cute puppy or a yummy cow.

        • Kodie

          You really are a cherrypicking hypocrite.

        • myintx

          Nope…. Just a person who thinks innocent human beings should have a right to life.

        • Greg G.

          The point is that we can have laws based on our opinions….

          The problem is when we have laws based on superstitious opinions.

        • myintx

          It’s not superstition that an unborn child is a human being. It is a FACT.

        • adam

          “It is a FACT.”

          Just as it is a FACT, that is it NOT a child, like you keep LYING about.

          Yea, though they bring
          forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. — Hosea 9:16

          Even the bible discounts them.

        • myintx

          I said “unborn child” which is a valid synonym for any of the stages of the life of a human being before birth… If you support abortion, you support the killing of unborn children

        • adam

          ” If you support abortion, you support the killing of unborn children”

          Then I am in the same company as God, what’s the problem?

        • Greg G.

          A fetus may be human but not a human being. Your citations with the words “ovum” and “human being” show your reading comprehension limits.

        • myintx

          There is nothing magical that happens on a trip down the birth canal that turns something that is not a human being into a human being. The same being exists one second before and one second after birth. if that being is a human being at birth he or she is a human being one minute before birth. And 1 minute before that. And 1 minute before that etc all the way back to when he or she was created. At fertilization.

        • Greg G.

          Something profound happens when it starts inhaling oxygen on its own instead of taking it from the mother’s bloodstream.

        • myintx

          It’s called a milestone… just like first step, first words, viability, first heartbeat and puberty all milestones in the life of a human being.

        • Michael Neville

          Your red herring does nothing to answer why your opinion on something that doesn’t affect you but does affect a woman should be more important than the woman’s opinion.

        • myintx

          Kicking a puppy across the yard might make a woman FEEEEEELLLLL better. Should she be allowed to do that if she is of the OPINION that kicking a puppy across a yard is fun?

        • Kodie

          Why do you keep talking about kicking puppies? Do you have a problem?

        • myintx

          Why do you not want to answer my question? hmmmmmm because you know I’m right…..

        • Kodie

          You have a problem being honest, and you are starting to get hysterical. I don’t think you know how little I care about your opinions, and your red herring questions.

        • myintx

          LOL you think I’m not Honest when it’s your side that uses the “clump of cells” and “her body” LIES…

        • MNb

          This clump of cell is a lie according to Myintx:

          http://biologypop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/zygote.jpg

        • myintx

          By the time most women realize they are pregnant an unborn child is not a clump of cells.

        • Greg G.

          Right. By the time a woman learns she is pregnant, it is already taking nutrients from her bloodstream.

        • myintx

          So? Doesn’t mean she can kill him… She should have a responsibility to ensure the safety of her children – born or unborn.

          What if a woman with a newborn was trapped in her house by a flood with no one to rescue them. The house is well stocked with food. Can she refuse to feed the child because it requires use of her body?

        • Kodie

          Oh my god, s/he’s adorable! Can’t wait to see the soccer moves, looks like a strong spirited child to me!

        • Michael Neville

          Are you fucking saying that having an abortion is FUN? You are one sick puppy.

        • myintx

          Well, its certainly not a “difficult decision”.. If it was NO ONE would use the “my body” excuse… And women who became pregnant would try to seek out help and work with adoption agencies before running to the killing clinic.

          I happen to think its sick to support the killing of innocent human beings.

        • MNb

          What you think sick and not sick is what you think. It has nothing to do with science and/or logic. So when you claimed you only used those two you were lying. Well, I don’t care what a liar thinks sick or not sick.

        • myintx

          Logic can mean lots of things… like using a dictionary to help define words instead of making up definitions like pro-aborts like to do….

        • Michael Neville

          I think it’s inhuman to not allow a woman to make a decision concerning her own body. But we’ve already determined that you don’t give a rat’s ass about women, you only care about fetuses.

        • myintx

          Getting a tattoo is making a decision about your own body. Using your body to walk out on a newborn and leaving him or her to die is making a decision about the body of another human being. Killing your unborn child before or after viability is about making a decision about the body of another human being – and that should be illegal.

        • Michael Neville

          Comment by myintx blocked.

          I don’t respond to people who intentionally and knowingly lie to me, especially when I know what the truth actually is.

        • myintx

          What did I make up…In most cases, abortion doesn’t kill the woman, it kills another human being… i.e. abortion isn’t about a woman doing something to her body, it’s about her doing something to the body of another human being.

        • Greg G.

          There are many children waiting to be adopted already. Throwing more children in with them is not going to make more homes for them.

        • myintx

          Does there being kids in the system justify killing everyone in prison for life or on death row and using the money to hire more case workers to help get kids adopted? Or killing abandon pets on the spot and using that taxpayer money to hire more case workers?

          There are long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborn babies…

        • Susan

          Kicking a puppy across the yard might make a woman feel better.

          A puppy has a brain, a developed nervous system, a capacity to bond with others.

          A zygote doesn’t.

          A puppy isn’t dependent on the woman’s organs to develop.

          A zygote is..

          A zygote is not a puppy. Aborting a zygote is not in any way remotely connected to kicking a puppy.

          So, enough about puppy kicking.

        • Pofarmer

          Her arguments, such as they are , are enough to make me want to kick a puppy,. And I like puppies, a lot.

        • Susan

          Her arguments, such as they are , are enough to make me want to kick a puppy

          Nothing could make me want to kick a puppy.

          But I could kick a bucketful of zygotes without blinking.

        • Kodie

          You might hurt your foot.

        • myintx

          Are you OK with banning abortion after the zygote phase of a human being’s life? You seem to be obsessed with zygotes..

        • Susan

          Are you OK with banning abortion after the zygote phase of a human being’s life?

          No. Are you OK with abortion of zygotes?

          You don’t seem to be able to make a distinction between zygotes and children or zygotes and puppies.

          Nor do you seem to understand that not giving consent to letting a cell develop in your body is not the same as puppy kicking.

        • myintx

          Human zygotes are human beings (as confirmed by scientists), so they shouldn’t be killed.

          I do understand that killing your unborn son or daughter because you don’t wannnnaaaa give a damn about them is infinitely worse than kicking a puppy. Do you?

        • Kodie

          Infinitely worse than kicking a puppy? Have you looked at what we’re talking about?

        • myintx

          Yes, we are talking about a human being.

        • Kodie

          You can’t seem to get a grip on when most abortions occur. That’s why you have to keep getting more and more graphic and violent against hypothetical cute things outside of a woman’s uterus to support your position. Purely emotional appeal.

        • myintx

          So if most abortions happen before 9 weeks does that mean you are OK with restricting it after 9 weeks? If not, you have to be prepared to defend a woman having the arms and legs ripped off her unborn child at 16 weeks for any reason she wants…

        • Pofarmer

          Different standard. If a your baby needs a liver, you aren’t required to give him yours.

          In the case of abortion, we aren’t even talking about a person, in some cases we are talking about a blastocyst, in some cases and embryo, and in some cases a fetus, but we aren’t even talking about a person. I know that probably sounds horrible, but that’s the case.

        • myintx

          A more accurate organ donation to pregnancy/abortion would be “if you donated your baby a liver and change your mind you cannot kill him to get it back”
          In the case of abortion we are talking about a HUMAN BEING whose life is on the line. A human being that should be protected, not killed.

        • Pofarmer

          In the case of abortion, in approximately 66 percent of the cases they occur before 8 weeks of pregnancy. Here is an embryo at 7 weeks. https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/2015/01/pregnancy-week-7-tailbone_square.jpg?width=600 “Now measuring between 1cm and 1.4cm (0.4in and 0.5in), your growing baby is about the size of a blueberry. He has a tiny tail, an extension of his tailbone (coccyx) that will soon disappear.” There is no brain, there is no spinal chord. This simply isn’t anything that could be labeled a person. It could be labeled a person, but only the most strained labeling would call it a human being. In fact, at this stage you can’t hardly differentiate it from any other Mammal embryo. 92% of abortions occur within the first 13 weeks. What is the fetus like at 12 weeks? At 12 weeks the fetus is about 2 inches long. The Nervous system has only started to develop and there is no brain activity, or, at best, limited electrical impulses. There is no pain, there is no though. This might be human, but it is not a person, under any normal definition. In fact, there can’t isn’t anything like regular brain activity until at least the 24th week. You simply can’t have a “person” without brain activity. http://www.lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity And even AFTER 24 weeks, compounds in the Uterous keep the baby sedated, so that there is still only basic reflex actions and only extremely limited awareness. How could it be otherwise in that environment? In other words, even prenatally, up until birth, the fetus is never sentient, nor could anyone argue that it is. The only way that you attemp to make this case, and these bad analogies, is by ignoring what’s actually happening and relying on emotion.

        • myintx

          I don’t discriminate against human beings based on their level of development or what they look like. Here is what the Mayo Clinic has to say:

          “Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your
          baby’s brain and face are rapidly developing. Tiny nostrils become
          visible, and the eye lenses begin to form. The arm buds that sprouted
          last week now take on the shape of paddles.”

          Killing an unborn child at 7 weeks or 7 months has the same result as killing a newborn – ie. a new human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

        • Pofarmer

          Killing an unborn child at 7 weeks or 7 months has the same result as killing a newborn –

          Once again, you’re missing the critical distinction.

        • myintx

          No critical distinction that justifies killing…

        • how many times will you go over this? You simply have a different definition of “child” or “person” or “human being.” We might agree that it’s wrong to kill a child, person, or human being, but that’s only because we use the colloquial definitions that everyone uses. If you want a different definition, you must justify that definition. Otherwise, your argument devolves into, “Ah, but my definition is different! I win!”

        • myintx

          I have a scientifically accepted definition of human being…. You don’t.

          It is a fact that abortion kills a human being.

        • (This reply was to an old comment of yours. I’ll repeat it here in case you didn’t see it. Ignore if you’ve already replied)

          Let em try to explain the problem with your definition argument.

          I’ll say that a newborn is a human being but the single cell it started from 9 months earlier isn’t. And you’ll disagree.

          Then I’ll say OK, let’s accept that, but the single cell isn’t a person. And you’ll disagree.

          Any word I pick to highlight the distinction, the spectrum between single cell and newborn, you’ll say either applies to both or neither. This is the problem–we’re simply arguing about what words mean. Words can’t express how little I care about this argument and how insubstantial it is.

          But let’s try to reach some kind of agreement: you tell me what the newborn is that the single cell isn’t. In other words, the development from single cell to newborn is a spectrum of … what?

        • Michael Neville

          Your arguments are purely emotional. You keep talking about “innocent human beings” and “unborn child” and “baby” and “killing”. Our arguments are more concerned with what the woman (known to you as the “mobile incubator”) wants.

          You’re willing to give the woman any rights she wants up to the point where she makes a decision you find icky. Then you want her to surrender her rights to bodily autonomy in favor of the putative rights of a non-sentient clump of cells. Fetus über alles! You don’t care about an adult woman’s wants, desires, needs or rights and you want to impose your opinion over hers. Her vote doesn’t count, only yours.

        • myintx

          My arguments are based on science and logic. The science that tells us an unborn child is a human being. The logic that says that human beings should have basic human rights.

          There is no such thing as full bodily autonomy. If there were then we couldn’t have post viability abortion laws or laws that tell a parent they at least need to ensure the safety of an unwanted newborn until he or she can be handed off SAFELY to someone else. But you knew that.

          No one’s wants or desires should ever result in the death of a human being that has done nothing wrong.

        • Pofarmer

          Your arguments are actually based on a faulty understanding of science and targeted logic. Much as in Creationism. You’ve been taught things that aren’t true.

        • myintx

          LOL – I don’t see you presenting ANY science to back up your claims…. You’re the one who has been taught things that aren’t true… What species is an unborn child a member of and how does he magically change to another species on a trip down the birth canal? Two human beings have sex and create another living being. That being is NOT a member of a canine or feline species. That being is a member of the same species as his or her parents – i.e. Homo Sapiens – i.e. a human being. Face reality pofarmer. If you support abortion, you support the killing of human beings for convenience.

        • MNb

          The only science involved we use are two points you actually concur:
          1. humans are different at different stages of development;
          2. a zygote, embryo, unborn child or whatever you want to call it depends on the female individual who carries it.
          The only one claiming that more science is involved is you, myintx the stupid liar.

        • myintx

          So a woman can call her newborn a “football” if she wants? and kick him?

        • Greg G.

          You are getting emotional. MNb said nothing like that.

          Thinking seems to be over your head.

        • myintx

          I’m the only one who is thinking… and the only one that has science on my side.

        • MNb

          Science doesn’t prescribe what we should think sick and not sick. So your claim of having science at your side belongs to the category “not even wrong”.

        • myintx

          Science does tell us that the life of a human being starts at fertilization. Sure it cannot tell you whether killing a human being is sick or not… You must think it is sick because you are spending a lot of time denying what you support.

        • MNb

          That question demonstrates how stupid and dishonest you are and says exactly zilch about my comment.

        • Greg G.

          My arguments are based on science and logic. The science that tells us an unborn child is a human being.

          Your arguments are based on misunderstood science, faulty logic, and lies. Science does not say an unborn child is a human being, anymore that science says an acorn is an oak tree.

        • Michael Neville

          You’ve rationalized your emotionally based opinion but it has nothing to do with either science or logic. You’ve decided for whatever reason that a clump of non-sentient cells is more important than an adult woman and that clump of cell’s rights supersede any rights the woman might have. You just don’t care about women or their personal rights. But you’re too cowardly and dishonest to admit your misogyny.

        • myintx

          lol – it’s your post that is full of emotion… misogyny…you don’t care…etc – all LIES. I’ve proven all your lies wrong and I’m the only one presenting science and logic.

          SCIENCE – an unborn child is a human being.

          “Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.” Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).

          LOGIC killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is WRONG.

        • Michael Neville

          You haven’t “proven” shit and you would know it if you weren’t so emotionally involved in your “killing the little babies” shtick.

          I have not denied that a fetus is human. What I have said is that a woman is also human and, unlike a couple of weeks old zygote, is fully sentient and has the right to make decisions affecting her body. That’s the sticking point. You fixate on the rights of the fetus and deny the woman any rights. I believe a sentient, adult woman has more rights than a non-sentient clump of cells.

        • myintx

          Getting a tattoo is making a decision about your body. Abortion is making a decision to kill another human being. That is why abortion should be illegal.

          You do know that by the time a woman realizes she is pregnant her unborn son or daughter is past the zygote phase of life, right?

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, we know that you’re totally fixated on the fetus to the exclusion of anyone else, especially the woman involved. You would rather she die like Savita Halappanavar did rather than allow her to have an abortion. I think you’ve more than worn out your welcome here. Come back when you can be a human being.

        • myintx

          Savita didn’t die because she was denied an abortion.

          I think the lives of all innocent human beings matter. That may require a woman doing something she may not wanna do – e.g. miss an interview because a babysitter is late, etc. That may require a father doing something he doesnt wanna do – e.g. pay child support. And that may require parents ensuring the safety of their unborn child. Telling someone they have to ensure the safety of an unwanted newborn isn’t hating them or fixating on the newborn its PROTECTING the newborn. So is telling someone they cannot kill their unborn child.

        • Michael Neville

          You are lying out of your ass. Savita died solely because forced birthers like you denied her the abortion she needed to remain alive. Even the Irish government panel who investigated her death agreed 100% that an abortion would have saved her life.

          I’m not going to reply to you any more. I don’t like dealing with liars and you’re lying because the truth would show you to be the inhuman, selfish ideologue that you are. Please, do me a favor, fuck yourself!

        • myintx

          If doctors had properly recognized Savita conditions, the doctors would have removed the baby. The case for medical incompetence is clear. She didn’t die because she as refused an abortion..

          And please, do tell how Savitas case justifies a woman having the arms and legs ripped off her unborn child at 16 weeks becuase it’s simply “not the right time for a child”?

        • Michael Neville

          Why do you continue to LIE about Savita? She had a septic miscarriage, the doctors recognized the condition (unlike you, they were competent) but they refused to give her an abortion because there was a fetal heartbeat. So forced birther assholes like you got a twofer, both the fetus and the woman died. Doesn’t it make you proud to know that forced birthers killed a woman because they refused to give a medically needed abortion.

          How can you sleep at night knowing that your anti-abortion ideology is responsible for the deaths of thousands of women per year? Never mind, I forgot, you don’t give a rat’s ass about the woman. The fetus is the only important thing for you.

        • myintx

          If doctors had recognized that her life was endangered they could have removed the baby. But because of their incompetence they didn’t recognize it.

          And please, do tell how Savitas case justifies a woman having the arms and legs ripped off her unborn child at 16 weeks because it’s simply “not the right time for a child”?

        • epeeist

          Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).

          Seriously, do you even read your own references.

          LOGIC killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is WRONG.

          So who taught you logic? Because whoever it was didn’t do a very good job of explaining what logic was about.

        • myintx

          A human being isn’t done DEVELOPING until adulthood…. A newborn is still DEVELOPING – he or she is a human being. So is an unborn child.

          So you think killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is a-OK?

        • MNb

          “A human being isn’t done DEVELOPING until adulthood….”
          Which is why 11 years old don’t have the same rights as 21 years old ….
          Which is why newborns don’t have the same rights either …..
          Which is why a five weeks old fetus doesn’t have the same rights either …..
          Which debunks your “EQUAL rights for everyone” argument.
          Which is the basis for legalized abortion.
          As I already told you.

        • myintx

          newborns, 11 year olds and 21 year olds have the same basic right to life. Unborn children should have that right too.

        • Greg G.

          Unborn children should have that right too.

          They do, as long as they have the consent of the person whose organs keep them alive.

        • myintx

          So you don’t think a parent should be Forced to bring an unwanted baby to a fire station or call CPS and wait for the police to come because they may not give their consent to have their body used that way?

        • MNb

          41 year olds, 31 year olds and 21 year olds have the same basic right to vote. 11 Year olds, nwborns and unborn children should have that right too.”
          Same argument, same conclusion, same bullshit.

        • myintx

          Are you saying newborns shouldn’t have a right to life?

        • epeeist

          A human being isn’t done DEVELOPING until adulthood.

          And not even then, but you miss the point (surprise, surprise), namely that a zygote isn’t the same as a blastocyst, which isn’t the same as an embryo, which isn’t the same as a foetus, which isn’t the same as a baby.

          So you think killing a human being

          I note that you didn’t respond to my question as to who taught you logic, from which I infer that you weren’t taught it and simply throw it around as though you know something about it, which you obviously don’t.

          All of your claims here, including the one above commit a number of logical fallacies, including that of complex question and appeal to pity (You see unlike you, I was actually taught logic).

          Do I think killing a person is wrong? Yes I do, but there again what aspects of personhood does a first trimester foetus have?

        • myintx

          A baby isn’t the same as a teenager… that is no excuse to kill babies is it? A baby, a teenager and an unborn child in any stage of development is a human being though.

          Answer the question – So you think killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is a-OK?

        • MNb

          Stupid liar, nobody here uses the argument “a baby isn’t the same as a teenager hence we can kill babies”. It simply shows why teenagers and babies don’t have the same rights. Unborn childs – zygotes – haven’t either. Of course a stupid liar like you will duck, neglect (by not answering Epeeists question for instance) and/deny it over and over again, but this simply shows your argument “EQUAL rights for everyone hence abortion should be outlawed” wrong. It also shows your claim isn’t backed by science and that your claim that it is is another lie.

        • myintx

          teenagers and babies both have a right to life. ALL innocent human beings should have that right – including unborn children.
          I’m the only one quoting scientists here. They back up my position not yours.

        • MNb

          “teenagers and babies both have a right to life. ALL innocent human beings should have that right – including unborn children.”
          No matter how often you repeat it, claiming like you do that it’s a conclusion coming from science and logic remains a lie.

          “I’m the only one quoting scientists here. They back up my position not yours.”
          Of course the scientists you quote back you position. That’s because you carefully select them. Concluding from it that science backs up your position is called

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

          Because you keep on doing this no matter how often it’s pointed out to you it has become another lie of yours.
          And if you really think I cannot find myself scientists who with me think that abortion should be legal you are even more stupid than I thought.
          I just don’t quote them because I don’t want to be guilty of the same kind of lies as you are. I am not pro legalized abortion because (no matter how) many carefully selected scientists agree with me, because I don’t claim that science should determine if a position on the matter is correct. And that has become another lie of yours: you’re insisting that I should do that one way or another.
          Your worst lie though is implying that I reject science. I already pointed you out that I fully accept the two relevant scientific facts that you accept as well:

          1. a five weeks old unborn child is physically totally dependent on its mother;
          2. that five weeks old unborn child is in a totally different stage of development than a newborn child.

          From here you simply say “that doesn’t mean we can kill unborn childs”. Nobody here ever said so, so that’s again a lie of yours. Our point is that “that doesn’t mean ….” is not a scientific statement and hence that you are lying when you say that your position is backed by science anymore than ours. Our other point is that fact 2 has lead us to grant different rights to humans at different stage of development. Which rights that should be cannot – I repeat for the gazillionth time – be determined by science.
          Finally the one and only (catholic) scientist you quoted when I asked you too wasn’t talking science (you claiming that is once again a lie of yours) but ethics plus deliberately misrepresented some science regarding the development of unborn humans, claiming that a five weeks old unborn is as complete as an adult. If that’s meant as a scientific statement that’s the gazillionth lie.

          As you repeat your lies ad nauseam – and remember, the ad nauseam is also a logical fallacy, demonstrating that your claim that you use logic is a lie – you have lost any moral credibility in our eyes. That was even worsened when you lied about that mother who died because she was denied an abortion.
          So I think you also lie when you claim that you don’t care what your religion prescribes based on its interpretation of the Holy Bible.

          In short, I think that you’re a misogynist lying piece of shit and has done the pro forced birth movement more harm than we ever could.

          And now I’m done with you. From now on my only reply to you will be “you’re a stupid liar”.
          Because I’ve extensively shown why that conclusion is justified and given up any hope that you will ever redeem yourself.

        • epeeist

          Answer the question – So you think killing a human being that has done nothing wrong is a-OK?

          No, you answer mine. What aspects of personhoold does a first trimester foetus have?

        • myintx

          “What aspects of personhoold does a first trimester foetus have?” He or she is a HUMAN BEING.

          Your turn.

        • epeeist

          “What aspects of personhoold does a first trimester foetus have?” He or she is a HUMAN BEING.

          So taking you at your word, the only property that such a foetus has is genetic. It has no other properties of personal identity.

          So the only basis for your pro-forced birth view is that the foetus has human DNA.

        • Michael Neville

          A cancer tumor also has human DNA.

        • epeeist

          A cancer tumor also has human DNA

          Indeed.

          All his “arguments” turn upon the term “human being”, which he uses ambiguously. It is blatantly obvious that he either doesn’t want to or is unable to come up with some kind of definition for.

          Shift the emphasis towards “personhood” and the vacuousness of his claims and his appeals to pity, straw men, false dichotomies, weak analogies and sheer lack of intellectual integrity are open to view.

        • Greg G.

          Note: myintx claims to be a woman.

        • myintx

          We can debate personhood (which is a legal, not biological construct) after you agree with the science that says an unborn child is a human being. Obviously you are smart enough to know that a human being is not just DNA… or are you?

        • epeeist

          We can debate personhood (which is a legal, not biological construct)

          If you had actually read the links I gave you would realise that personhood is primarily a philosophical issue.

        • Greg G.

          Read? That would only slow her spew rate.

        • myintx

          It’s also a legal issue. Slaves weren’t legally full people in the eyes of the law for a long time (i.e. lame people picked arbitrary criteria in human beings and said “this set of human beings arent people” and used it as an excuse to justify evil actions).. yet somehow states could still have laws saying slaved couldn’t be killed though.

        • Kodie

          Slaves are clearly people.

        • myintx

          Wasn’t so clear back then to many people…and in 20 or 50 years people will be wondering how we ever thought killing unborn children was acceptable.

        • epeeist

          It’s also a legal issue.

          I did say primarily, but my expectation is that a) you didn’t read the links and if you did then b) you didn’t understand them.

          Slaves

          Are not relevant to the issue, another case of Ignoratio Elenchi from you.

        • myintx

          Slavery is relevant to the issue – PROOF that you don’t have to be a person to be protected by the law.

          There is no point in debating personhood because – a) A being doesn’t need to be a person to be protected and b)you won’t even admit an unborn child is a human being – you have to agree to that truth before we could debate personhood.

          Now, crack open a biology textbook so that you can understand that the life of a new human being starts at fertilization.

        • epeeist

          There is no point in debating personhood because

          No, you don’t want to discuss personhood because it shows that you don’t give a flying fuck about the person involved in a pregnancy, the only thing you care about is what she is carrying.

        • myintx

          I care about the lives of ALL innocent human beings (born and unborn) – they all should have a right to life. However no one’s feeling or thoughts should EVER result in the death of a human being that has done nothing wrong. Don’t you agree?

        • Michael Neville

          I care about the lives of ALL innocent human beings (born and unborn)

          You never have defined “innocent”. Does someone become “not innocent” as soon as they leave the womb? That would explain your dislike for women and utter disregard for their rights.

        • myintx

          Innocent – as in having done nothing wrong to deserve death. Newborns are innocent… so are unborn children. Newborns and unborn children should be kept safe by their parents – at least as long as it takes to turn them over safely to someone else if they are unwanted.

          The right to kill a child — born or unborn — is a right that no one should have

        • Michael Neville

          So I’m right, a fetus is “innocent” until its born, then it’s on its own. That explains why you refuse to allow women to decide what they can do with their own bodies. Fetus über alles!

          Come back when you have a smidgen of respect for half of the world’s population. Until then, fuck off!

        • myintx

          Someone can decide what to do with their own bodies, they cannot decide to hurt/kill the body of another human being – understand the difference?? e.g. you can decide to swing your arms around, but if your arm hits a child while you are doing what you want with your body that’s a game changer.

          Females make up about 1/2 the victims of abortion. No concern for unborn females, eh?

        • Michael Neville

          As I said, you’re fixated on “killing innocent unborn babbies” and you completely disregard the other person involved. Come back when you can acknowledge that the woman has a choice as to what she can do with her body.

        • myintx

          Is it disregarding someone to tell them they cannot kill their newborn – i.e. that they have to take care of them as long as it takes until they can be safely handed off to someone?

          The choice to do with your body what you want should end where the body of another innocent human being begins. Would you say a man can wave his arms around all he wants and hit a baby? of course not….because his right to wave his arms ends where the body of another innocent human beings begins.

        • Michael Neville

          As I said, you’re fixated on a non-sentient clump of cells. You don’t care one tiny little bit about how the woman feels, what her wants, needs or concerns are. You want a baby born and the woman is merely the mobile incubator carrying the sole matter of importance to you.

        • myintx

          No ones wants,needs or concerns should ever result in the killing of an innocent human being. Please research fetal development. An unborn child is a human being, not a clump of cells. Did you even know that by 12 weeks they have all the limbs, fingers and toes they will be born with (even finger prints) and all major organs in place – organs tat started developing weeks before. Not a clump of cells.

          The lives of all innocent human beings matter. If a woman said her needs, wants and concerns led her to want to kill her newborn and the law said no, would you say “Those people who made the law don’t care about women – they hate women. That newborn cannot see or communicate like we do and his brain isn’t fully developed. He has no idea what is going on. Only her needs, wants and concerns matter!!!!” No, you’d say it was a good law that she couldn’t kill her tiny newborn. Youd probably say that she should get help for whatever issues she is having so that she won’t feel like she has to resort to killing.

          The lives of all innocent human beings matter – born or unborn. Their size, location, level of development, skin color or religion don’t matter either. Discriminating against innocent human beings as a justification to kill is a horrible thing to do. Don’t you agree?

        • Kodie

          Who cares? You hate women anyway. Oh, you are sad for all those incubators you want born into poverty and have a lot of kids they can’t afford because the government didn’t give them birth control so you can pick and choose which one of them would get adopted by an egotistical couple who doesn’t want any of the kids already waiting for a family?

          Is that why you think we care about women and you don’t, that we’d be emotionally appealed that some of those aborted would turn out to be girls? You are some mother fucking asshole piece of shit.

        • myintx

          Who said I hate women? If it’s not hating them to tell them they cannot kill their unborn child after viability or after birth its not hating them to tell them they cannot kill their unborn child before viability.

        • Kodie

          You don’t recognize yourself in the woman-hating mirror, but you did. Nothing you have said sounds like you like women…. or babies. You just care about supply meeting demand so those sterile parents don’t have to suffer on a waiting list for no reason.

        • myintx

          Really? Saying I support places that help families, not just pregnant women, doesn’t show that I care?

          By your logic, any law that tells a woman what she can or cannot do is hating on them, right? Tell me how it is hating on women to tell them they cannot kill their unborn child before viability but not hating on them to tell them they cannot kill after viability or they cannot kick a puppy.. all three would tell a woman something she cannot do.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t care what happens to the woman, what she wants, or how she feels. All you want to do is tell them what to do.

        • myintx

          Animal abuse laws tell women what to do – is that OK? ?

          By your “logic” no law ever should apply to women because it tells them what to do

        • adam

          “The right to kill a child — born or unborn — is a right that no one should have”

          WHY not?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/678a2d711010a1d69c13c89e8ce2d1575bbbe85ea4a45be583970972e42c46bb.jpg

        • myintx

          Because they are human beings…

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • BlackMamba44

          you don’t give a flying fuck about the person involved in a pregnancy

          No, she doesn’t https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d78812aafe86adf09ac6001d46e6f1c71a39f5c1bb42ca2d5bc2f295c1131e4.jpg

        • Joe

          My arguments are based on science and logic

          Then what do you suppose our pro-choice argument is based on? What’s our emotional attachment to this topic?

        • myintx

          the prochoice argument is based on selfishness and lies… It’s all about “me, me, me, me, me, OH and me”! so let’s use any LIE we can to justify killing human beings (“rocks”, “tumors”, “clumps of cells” etc).

        • Joe

          What of me, a pro-choice, intentionally childless man. How am I being selfish?

          Are you saying I’m DELIBERATELY lying?

        • myintx

          So you can continue to be childless… if you and your partner get pregnant you can pressure her into killing your unborn son or daugther.

          If you were a pro-life man there would be women on this forum telling you that you cannot have an opinion on abortion. Hypocrites.

        • Joe

          So, only a conceived clump of cells is a potential person? You’re only concerned with the act of abortion itself then?

        • myintx

          An unborn child isn’t a clump of cells. He or she is a human being. All innocent human beings should have a right to life.

        • Joe

          Any child I decide not to have is an ‘unborn child’, and technically innocent.

        • Kodie

          I don’t know why you keep calling a clump of cells an innocent human being. You are deluded.

        • myintx

          Because an unborn child isn’t a clump of cells. by 12 weeks an unborn child has all the limbs fingers and toes he or she will be born with as well as all major organs in place. This development stared weeks before… NOT a clump of cells.

        • Kodie

          You avoid facts, clearly.

        • myintx

          You don’t agree that an unborn child has all of the limbs, fingers and toes he or she will be born with by 12 weeks? Do tell, what fetal development guide have you read (if any)….

        • adam

          “So you can continue to be childless… if you and your partner get pregnant you can pressure her into killing your unborn son or daugther.”

          Nope, my partner is post-menses.

          So your little EMOTIONAL tirade doesnt apply.

          IDiots.

        • Kodie

          “Me” actually exists and is sentient. You are saying “so what about you, you sentient human being, you don’t matter, your life doesn’t matter!” That’s how you sound.

        • myintx

          The lives of ALL innocent human beings matter (born or unborn). No ones feelings should ever result in the death of an innocent human being.

        • adam

          “the prochoice argument is based on selfishness and lies… It’s all about “me, me, me, me, me, OH and me”!”

          What of me, a pro-choice, intentionally childless man. How am I being selfish?

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Logic doesn’t concern itself what should and what should not.
          Stupid liar.

        • Pofarmer

          I missed that. That isn’t a logical argument, it’s an ethical argument, which is a different kettle of fish.

        • epeeist

          That isn’t a logical argument, it’s an ethical argument

          It’s an is-ought fallacy, and a fairly dubious one at that. It hinges on the claim that “an unborn child is a human being”, something he has asserted time after time and is still no nearer demonstrating.

          And then of course “The logic” (which of course isn’t anything like logic) doesn’t get him to the conclusion that human beings should [ought to] have human rights.

          Personally I get fairly pissed off about people who couldn’t tell a predicate from a proposition wittering on about “The logic”.

        • myintx

          so no you have to resort to name calling… wow…

        • epeeist

          The logic that says that human beings should have basic human rights.

          If this is what the logic says then you can presumably produce the schema that supports your conclusion.

          Let’s see it.

        • myintx

          Born human beings have a basic right to life. those same human beings should have a right to life before birth..

          And by you asking for the “schema” it’s good to know you’re finally admitting unborn children are human beings

        • adam

          “those same human beings should have a right to life before birth..”

          Why and how far before birth?

        • myintx

          From the moment they are created – at fertilization.

        • epeeist

          Born human beings have a basic right to life. those same human beings should have a right to life before birth..

          As David Hume noted, one cannot get an “ought” from an “is”, yet another logical fallacy that you have committed (besides the obvious non sequitur).

          And by you asking for the “schema”

          And by your avoidance of providing such a logical schema you expose the fact that your claims to logic were simply bombast.

          In other words, your arguments are in no way based on logic.

        • myintx

          Not a fallacy… People wanting the slaves to be freed said slaves SHOULD be free and SHOULD have human rights. Unborn children are human beings and should have a basic right to life like every other innocent human being.

          You cannot just scream fallacy every time someone posts something you disagree with but are unable to disprove… It’s like you feel your back up against a wall and either cursing, insulting or screaming “fallacy” are your only options.

          Science and logic tell us an unborn child is a human being. If you think it’s ‘OK for someone to rip the arms and legs off the body of an innocent human being then you have to live with that. Just be honest with yourself

        • Greg G.

          You cannot just scream fallacy every time someone posts something you disagree with but are unable to disprove…

          So you’re saying you cannot provide “such a logical schema”.

        • myintx

          The only “schema” need is that unborn children are human beings and innocent human beings should have a right to life.

          Is people want puppies protected from abuse, they may have different reasons – they are cute, they feel pain. they are living beings…iif people want puppies protected their city or state makes laws to protect them.. We should be able to have laws to protect unborn children from being killed.

        • Greg G.

          You are asked for logic and you appeal to puppies.

        • myintx

          It is LOGIC… there are different reasons to want to protect puppies. It could be emotions driving the desire to protect puppies. For others it could be biology. OH NO, there is no ‘Schema’ so that must mean all animal abuse laws are invalid.

        • Greg G.

          Lay out your premises, and all the steps you use to reach your conclusion.

          You are appealing to puppies for the emotional content.

        • myintx

          LOGIC – Innocent human beings should have basic human rights.

          D U H !

        • Kodie

          Using the label “innocent” is a total emotional appeal and is not logical.

        • epeeist

          Using the label “innocent” is a total emotional appeal and is not logical.

          Not only is it not logical, it is logically fallacious. It is an Argumentum ad Misericordiam. But you knew that and I suspect most others here knew that as well. But mytinx, not so much.

        • myintx

          It means the unborn child has done nothing wrong.. and that is true. Who in their right mind would think it would be OK to kill an innocent human being? A selfish person perhaps? An uneducated one perhaps?

        • Kodie

          It has done nothing. It is nothing.

        • myintx

          By your logic a baby isnt valuable because he had done less than a doctor…. so a woman can kill her newborn… The unborn child has done something. He or she is growing and developing in his or her mother’s womb. Innocent human beings should be protected from being killed.

        • Kodie

          unborn child has done something. He or she is growing and developing

          Yeah, I don’t care. You are using a past tense to describe the future, so you’re also really inconsistent and fucking stupid. I don’t care about your opinion. That is nothing to be worried about or protect if the woman doesn’t want to. Please fuck off with your reruns now.

        • myintx

          Of course you don’t care. You just care about “me, me, me,me, me, OH and me!”

          I am consistent.. it’s pro-aborts that arent.. ”

          Pro-abort “it’s my body”
          me – “are you for a woman killing an unborn child after viability then?”
          Pro-abort “You’re f-ing stupid”

        • epeeist

          LOGIC – Innocent human beings should have basic human rights.

          D U H !

          Ah, an argumentum ad litteras maiusculas, colour me convinced.

          But when it comes to logic we are all aware that you know

          http://www.opinionatedbastard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/sweetfa.jpg

        • myintx

          No, it’s an argument of truth.

        • epeeist

          No, it’s an argument of truth.

          Given your hysterical emotionalism, your evasions and outright lies I doubt that you know what truth is.

        • myintx

          I know the truth (as confirmed by science) that an unborn child is a human being… If he/she isn’t a human being then what is he/she (a member of a canine or feline species perhaps)? And don’t say embryo/fetus because those are stages of life just like newborn and toddler.

        • Greg G.

          When they become human beings, they get those rights. Countries that are big on rights are big on freedom, too, and don’t force women to stay pregnant.

        • myintx

          The life of a human being starts at fertilization, as confirmed by science.

          “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”
          -Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

          So, thanks for agreeing that an unborn child should have a right to life.

        • myintx

          An unborn child is a human being

          Innocent living human beings should have human rights.

          That’s all that is needed.

          Why do you support killing human beings for convenience?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Why do you support killing human beings for convenience?

          Some questions are provoked in my mind by your statement:

          1) Should family members be able to pull the plug on brain-dead relatives?

          2) Do you see a moral difference between [doing a thing x] and [not doing a thing y], if both courses lead to the same consequence?

          3) Should individuals be allowed to sign Do Not Resuscitate orders?

        • myintx

          1 – I dont know enough about the brain death to know that a diagnosis is 100% accurate…. And, of course, saying “yes” would not mean I should be for abortion because an unborn child not having brain activity is a TEMPORARY condition.

          2. I am not sure what you mean by this… do you have a better example?

          3. Yes, because the decision only affects their body. If they are pregnant, that is a different story though.

        • adam

          “Innocent living human beings should have human rights.”

          WHY?

          Viability is the ability of a thing (a living organism, an
          artificial system, an idea, etc.) to maintain itself or recover its potentialities.

        • myintx

          Viability is just a milestone in the life of a human being…. One second before and one second after viability the same human being exists (just like one second before and after puberty, first step, first words, first heartbeat). Human beings shouldn’t be killed based on their level of development. That’s discrimination.

        • adam
        • myintx

          The chart was developed by a computer programmer, not a scientist.

        • adam

          It IS science

        • myintx

          It’s not relevant to anything… It does nothing to show that an unborn child is not a human being.

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos
          in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing
          that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You
          have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • myintx

          If the choice of who to save is a newborn an elderly person and I saved the newborn does that demonstrate an elderly person isnt a baby and can be killed?

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos
          in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • epeeist

          An unborn child is a human being

          Innocent living human beings should have human rights.

          And the same, tired is-ought fallacy again (and again, and again). Just goes to prove that when it comes to logic you know

          http://www.opinionatedbastard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/sweetfa.jpg

        • myintx

          What fallacy. The truth is that an unborn child is a human being. What do you think they are? members of a canine or feline species?

        • epeeist

          The truth is

          Truth? After all your lies, hysterical appeals to emotion and evasions.

          You have no clue what truth is.

        • myintx

          The fact that you didn’t answer my question in my last post means I am telling the truth.

        • epeeist

          I am telling the truth

          But something is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts. And to be blunt about it the number of facts in your posts is negligible.

          As for your mantra (repeated more often than some Hindu monks chant “Hare Krishna”) “The truth is that an unborn child is a human being”, it has been accepted conception leads to something that is genetically human. Try something new for a change, though I doubt this is possible.

        • adam
        • myintx
        • adam
        • myintx

          Please explain how that is relevant to the abortion debate?

        • epeeist

          Not a fallacy..

          It has been know to be a fallacy for a couple of centuries, here is a simple exposition.

          You cannot just scream fallacy every time someone posts something you disagree with but are unable to disprove

          It ain’t me who is screaming. If you keep on making claims that are based on faulty logic I will keep on pointing out these out.

          Science and logic tell us an unborn child is a human being.

          But as has been shown both by your posts and by your inability to come up with a logical schema to demonstrate that “Born human beings have a basic right to life. those same human beings should have a right to life before birth.” then we can assume that your knowledge of logic can be summarised in three letters, SFA.

        • Greg G.

          SFA? Superficial femoral artery? Saturated fatty acid? Segmented flow analysis? Sodium fluoroacetate?

        • epeeist
        • Greg G.

          Thanks. Why couldn’t Wikipedia have listed that?

        • myintx

          Show me where it says we have to have a “schema” before a law is passed to protect innocent beings?

        • adam

          “your inability to come up with a logical schema to demonstrate that
          “Born human beings have a basic right to life. those same human beings
          should have a right to life before birth.”

        • myintx

          Again… Show me where it says we have to have a “schema” before a law is passed to protect innocent beings?

        • adam
        • myintx

          I have presented the logic… Unborn children are human beings. Innocent human beings should have a right to life.

        • Kodie

          They aren’t innocent, they aren’t anything. You have presented zero logic, 100% emotion.

        • myintx

          “they” are male or female members of the same species as their parents – i.e. Homo Sapiens – i.e. human beings. Thats logic.

          If you think that an unborn child is not a human being, please provide more than your opinion – please provide proof. And tell me how a trip down the birth canal turns a ???? into a human being. And what is ???? (hint – don’t say fetus as that is a stage in a life cycle like toddler and teenager…) – no one has been able to give me the name. And is ???? a member of a canine or feline species? Or the same species as his or her parents – i.e. Homo Sapiens – i.e. a human being?

        • adam

          No, you’ve presented an EMOTIONAL case.

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • epeeist

          Show me where it says we have to have a “schema” before a law is passed to protect innocent beings?

          And yet more evasion. You have been asked multiple times to justify your claim “The logic that says that human beings should have basic human rights.” All you have done is twist and turn and try to avoid the subject. But we all know that this is because your knowledge of logic amounts to

          http://www.opinionatedbastard.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/sweetfa.jpg

        • myintx

          Innocent human beings should have basic human rights because they are… wait for it… HUMAN BEINGS.

          We don’t say that because a born child has a genetic condition where he cannot feel pain that he is less of a human being or that he can be killed. He is still a human being. So are unborn children.

        • epeeist

          Innocent human beings should have basic human rights because they are… wait for it… HUMAN BEINGS.

          Simply repeating something over and over and over again, ad nauseum doesn’t make it true. Substantiate your claim.

          If you won’t then we are completely justified in flagging you as just another pathetic, emotional troll.

        • myintx

          Here you go…

          “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
          -Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 Sterling Pub. Co

          “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”
          -Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

          I’ve got more if you want to see them.

        • MNb

          Stupid liar once again uses the plural when he means the singular (namely only the right live). So even that explanation to BobS how he learned to formulate his arguments was a stupid lie.
          The reason is that stupid liar doesn’t even want to try to explain why unborn childs should have some basic rights, but not others.
          Like the right to vote.

        • myintx

          If you saw someone holding up a sign that said “Equal rights” at a LBGTQ rally would you go up to them and say “how stupid are you? 5 year olds shouldn’t have an equal right to vote”? You would be the one showing your stupidity if you did.. just like you’re showing it here…

          https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS97EhpsV0Ykj5kR673-Wmo5ODIU4ckr0DI69-OmUunDHddxjYysbHWSmnU

        • Pofarmer

          a new human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

          Quite honestly, so fucking what? Our political system denies fully sentient and aware adults a chance at a full and productive life. If I KNEW that the majority of these aborted embryo’s were going to be denied the same thing, who’s the monster? The one who would prefer that Children not come into the world who will be exploited and abused and fill our prison system? Or the one who doesn’t actually give two shits about the sentient adult?

        • myintx

          “Our political system denies fully sentient and aware adults a chance at a full and productive life”. – that is not true. Many people in this country have led full and productive lives.

          OH please…… is it OK for a woman to kill a newly unwanted toddler because she thinks he will grow up to be a criminal? If you answered YES then you are consistent…. if not, you’re using the prison b s as a LAME excuse to try to justify killing innocent human beings

        • Kodie

          Why do you have to keep bringing up actual born people to express your opinion? Because you know there’s a difference. You know there’s no harm being acted in an abortion that you have to pretend it’s a toddler.

        • myintx

          How come you have lame excuse (like prison) for killing on set of innocent human beings but not another? An unborn child’s body is harmed during an abortion. Sometimes his or her limbs are ripped off his or her body. that ok with you? Can you look at an ultrasound of an unborn child at 16 or 20 weeks and say “I support someone having the limbs ripped off that tiny human being for any reason she wants. Yay killing.”

        • Pofarmer

          How come you have lame excuse (like prison) for killing on set of innocent human beings but not another?

          Pointing out the very real consequences of your preferred policy is not a “lame excuse”. Have you ever dealt with, or known someone who’s dealt with a child with fetal alcohol syndrome? Known an adopted kid come after their mother with a knife in an uncontrollable rage? These aren’t things that are “lame”. Sentient, adult people are being harmed. And more will be harmed by your preferred policies.

          The rest of your post is emotional circle jerk. Say it with me. When do most abortions occur? Most abortion, 67% occur before 8 weeks, when limbs aren’t even a thing. 92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks, before there is any kind of a functioning nervous system present. The remaining 7 or 8 percent are almost universally because of fetal abnormalities or danger to the life or health of the mother.

        • Kodie

          Sorry you are drugged on propaganda that makes you lie like you do.

        • myintx

          If anyone is pushing propaganda and lies it’s the pro-abort side — “her body”, clumps of cells, tumors, -lies and propaganda

        • Kodie

          I have a realistic perspective. You are imagining things and lying to push your propaganda.

        • myintx

          If you had a realistic perspective you would admit that abortion kills a human being.

        • Kodie

          You’re killing me right now with your stupidity. Deal with it.

        • myintx

          I’m not the one who is stupid. I agree with the DOCTORS who say an unborn child is a human being.

        • Greg G.

          Killing an unborn child at 7 weeks or 7 months has the same result as killing a newborn

          No, it isn’t. A newborn is not using anybody else’s organs without permission.

        • Kodie

          Except the ears.

        • myintx

          The result is the same – a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t need one.

        • myintx

          Yes, all innocent human beings should have a chance at a full and productive life.

        • Kodie

          Why that one and not the next one?

        • Greg G.

          A fetus that isstealing nutrients from a woman’s bloodstream against her will is not innocent.

        • myintx

          I love posts like yours – you disprove the lame “difficult decision” mantra others on your side use to try to justify killing.. If a toddler wandered into your house and took something out of the fridge could you kill him? What kind of parent wouldnt want to ensure the safety of their child – born or unborn.. OH, a SELFISH ONE.

        • Kodie

          It’s not a difficult decision unless you’re delusional and brainwashed.

        • Greg G.

          Not in that situation. But if it bit into my flesh and started sucking my blood and there was no way to get it off but to kill it, I reckon I would.

          If a sixty year-old walked into your house and wanted to use your vagina against your will, would you kill him if you could to stop him?

        • BlackMamba44

          You have a petri dish with a living embryo in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the embryo or the newborn. You have no choice – you have to drop one or the other. Which do you let go of?

        • myintx

          A pregnancy is not comparable because no on has to die… YAY!

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m not talking about pregnancy. How about answering the question?

        • myintx

          It’s an invalid question… If you have a newborn in one hand and an elderly person in a bed in the other and I choose to let the elderly person go and fall to his death is it OK to start killing elderly people now?

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m not talking about an elderly person and a newborn (my family, after watching my Dad lie in a hospital bed for four months, had to pull the plug on him – and watch him take 45 minutes to die – so don’t even go there).

          How about answering the question? It’s a very valid question.

          EDIT: I’m guessing you won’t answer it because it is valid.

        • myintx

          Explain how me answering the question either way justifies abortion…

          And if a doctor said “your dad is on life support BUT he has a rare condition where he will recover in 6-9 months if you don’t pull the plug” would you have pulled the plug (assuming your dad never made his wishes known about lie support)?

        • Greg G.

          You know the answer to his question but you can’t give an honest answer because it destroys everything you’ve argued for the past several days.

          Of course, he wouldn’t pull the plug in your scenario. It’s as stupid as asking if we should have you embalmed even though you have a condition called “sleep” and if you are not embalmed, you will wake up in eight hours.

        • myintx

          Yes, I know you wouldn’t pull the plug… then why kill a human being in the womb because they have a TEMPORARY lack of sentience?

        • BlackMamba44

          I knew she wouldn’t answer it because she’s not honest.

          And this will have to be my last comment because this comments section is freezing up my phone and I’m not at work in front of my pc today (snow).

        • Susan

          BUT he has a rare condition where he will recover in 6-9 months

          And if life support could only be provided with your body, should you be morally or legally compelled to provide your body as his life support? Let’s say that doing so comes with potential health consequences including death. Let’s add that when they disconnect your body from his, there will be terrible pain and potential health consequences including death. Also, that you might feel revoltingly sick for long stretches, have terrible back pain, difficulty moving around, potential dental problems, and all kinds of other side effects during that period and even after you’re disconnected.

          Should you be compelled legally? Should you even be compelled morally?

          It’s a separate question. We all see that you’re ignoring BlackMamba44’s question.

          I thought I’d ask you another one you’ll ignore.

          You’re a flashing billboard repeating thoughtless propaganda and you can’t make a moral or legal argument.

        • myintx

          If I had already donated my body to the person then yes, i would be on the line to provide support and I certainly couldn’t poison him to death.

          We can already tell a woman she cannot kill her unborn child after viability. We should be able to tell her she cannot kill her unborn child before viability.

        • Susan

          If I had already donated my body to the person then yes,

          But a woman has not done that, given consent to develop a cell inside her body.

          I would be on the line.

          Please explain.

        • myintx

          Her body gave consent…

          The lame organ donation analogy pro-aborts like to use is “I shouldn’t be forced to donate my organs… boo hoo”. But in a pregnancy the organs have essentially been donated by her body. What she shouldn’t be allowed to do is kill her unborn son or daughter to get them back. We wouldn’t let someone who donated a kidney kill the recipient to get the kidney back… and really, how selfish is it to want to kill your unborn son or daughter to get your uterus back anyway? boggles the mind that someone would use that as an excuse to kill a human being. wow

        • Susan

          Her body gave consent.

          What does that even mean?

          in a pregancy the organs have essentially been donated by her body.

          Again, what does that mean?

          We wouldn’t let someone who donated a kidney kill the recipient to get the kidney back

          In my scenario, if you have been forced without consent to have your body hooked up to someone and you disconnect your body from that person, you are not murdering them. You are withdrawing the use of your organs by someone else. In this case, someone full-grown and sentient.

          how selfish is it to want to kill your unborn son or daughter

          How selfish is it to force someone to use their body to incubate cells until they turn into babies? It is NOT just her uterus, you ignorant, cold-blooded moron.

          Her entire system is held hostage.

        • Pofarmer

          Are these actually seen as good arguments? Because holy fuck………. her organs have essentially been donated by her body? ??? Really?

          And, still havent addressed Blackmambas question.

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m not trying to justify abortion.

          How about answering the question?

        • myintx

          This video answers it well — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mLrGycmsE

        • BlackMamba44

          How about YOU answering the question?

        • myintx

          I am of the same opinion…

        • BlackMamba44

          Hey, moron. That isn’t an answer. Try again. I’ll repeat:

          You have a petri dish with a living embryo in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the embryo or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other. Which do you let go of?

          How about answering the question?

        • myintx

          You need to explain how this applies to the abortion debate?

        • Halbe

          I will explain to you why you are so reluctant to answer the question: because you know what the answer is. And you also know that the answer would force you to acknowledge a fact that you have vehemently denied in about a 1000 replies all over this thread…

        • BlackMamba44
        • Halbe

          I can tell you where this is going: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml “The only moral abortion is my abortion”

        • myintx

          A much more accurate petri dish comparison to abortion is you are in a burning building with the petri dish in one hand a woman down the street who is safe who has a small headache and wants an aspirin for her headache but has none at home. Do you drop the dish kill the human beings to run to give a woman an aspirin or do you take the few minutes to save the embryos and have the woman wait? I”d save the embryos. The woman will be fine waiting a few minutes since the lives of other human beings are in much more imminent danger.

        • Halbe

          And still no answer. But, no problem, because we both know the answer. Which means that you are a lying hypocrite and a coward. Which of course is SOP for forced-birthers.

        • myintx

          Please explain how the thought experiment is closer to abortion then mine….

        • Halbe

          And still no answer… you really are a coward, aren’t you? And also evading the question about how women that have an abortion should be punished. According to your (flawed) reasoning abortion is first degree murder, so the penalty question should be easy to answer for you. And what about the 12yr old rape victim who discovers she is pregnant 10 weeks later? Force her to carry to term? Really?

          Evade, evade, evade, because you love to have strong opinions about what other people should or shouldn’t do, but are very afraid to really evaluate your own arguments and motivations. In short: coward and hypocrite.

          You would probable be one of these when push comes to shove: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

        • myintx

          And still no answer from your side on how any particular answer to the thought experiment justifies abortion – evasive. Come up with a thought experiment related to abortion and I’ll answer it. Its your side that is evading. Your thought experiment is like saying “who do you think is cuter – a newborn or an elderly person” and if I say “newborn” then you say “oh, you think elderly people aren’t valuable – it must be ok to kill them”.

          There should be penalties for someone who kills their unborn child if it’s illegal. But I would rather see minimal penalties and a law in place than saying someone should be charged with first degree murder and having that be a reason a law isn’t passed. That is why I want to leave it up to the states. When people were advocating for slaves to be freed did they run around and say “hang the slave owners!” There might have been people who thought the slave owners were coerced by family to own slaves and should simply let their slaves go instead of carted off to jail and hung. States got to make the laws saying what the penalty was or owning slaves when it was illegal.

          Regarding rape. A woman who was conceived via rape had this to say “I truly feel that no matter the circumstances surrounding the conception of the child, the child should not be punished for the crime of the father. And I truly feel that when someone says (abortion should be illegal) except in cases of rape and incest that exactly what’s happening. The child is being punished for the crimes of the father, and not given the life that the child deserves. Especially coming from the place I am, I truly feel like every child should be given a chance at the life that they’re given.”

          https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/news/conceived_rape2_350_359_55.jpg

          A woman facing a difficult pregnancy can get help to get through the pregnancy (including counselling) so that no one has do die. PP should provide that for free if they really cared about females inside and outside the womb.

          Why does your side bring up rape when it is about 8th on the list of reasons for abortion (about .5%)… Don’t like talking about reasons of convenience like the oh-so-lame “not the right time for a child” excuse? You want to admit that is a horrible excuse for abortion and it should be illegal?

          I want you to answer the questions in my post…. and not evade, evade, evade.

        • Greg G.

          If you you were escaping a burning building and there was an exit to your left with a two year old that you could save by carrying it out and there was an exit to the right with two two year olds you could carry out. but you could probably not go both ways nor could you carry three of them out, you could easily answer that you would go to the right and save two of them because it would do the most good and cause the least suffering.

          So why can’t you answer the scenario where there is a case of 12 embryos or one two year old but you can’t save both? If you say that you would save the two year old, it would cause the least suffering but, according to you, 12 “human beings” would die.

          If the answer isn’t clear to you, then your abortion argument is meaningless.

        • myintx

          If I had a gun on me, could I rescue one and then shoot the other?

        • Greg G.

          Your refusal to answer the question shows that your position is meaningless. Thanks for playing.

        • myintx

          I didn’t see you answering my question… or telling me how saving one or more human being(s) in a fire and the other(s) dying is applicable to the abortion debate. Because telling a woman she should not kill her unborn child doesn’t mean anyone is killing her instead.

        • Kodie

          Because we’re not talking about old people.

          “How that pregnancy is terminated is up to the woman.” – so you would let her choose to have an abortionist pull out the unborn child piece by piece at 30 weeks then….

          We’re talking about your need for dramatic arms and legs and photos of miscarriages in the late term vs. when abortions typically occur. You can’t tell us you would drop a baby to save a case of embryos.

        • myintx

          And how is that related to abortion? it is NOT.

        • Kodie

          You’re the one who keeps bringing up babies and late-term fetuses because your argument fails without your emotional panic. If you want to stay on the topic of abortion, you’re going to have to stick to the developmental stage of most abortions and not stray for shock value or emotional appeal. Otherwise, we assume you take one baby instead of 12. In fact, we know you do because you do know the difference but you don’t want to admit it.

        • myintx

          Says the person who uses the term “clump of cells”….. hypocrite.

          At 7-8 weeks when, many abortions occur, an unborn child is growing those arms and legs and is moving (https://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-8-weeks_1097.bc). He or she is clearly a human being at that point too.

          If you want to admit you’re OK with banning abortion after 18 weeks we can spend more time on the unborn child’s development at 8, 10 or 12 weeks.

        • Kodie

          You can’t answer the question?

        • Pofarmer

          What is it with these people and just really bad analogies?

          It makes me think of “Crimestop” from 1984, which I just got done reading. They simply won’t let themselves engage with any arguments that might invalidate their position.

        • BlackMamba44

          I finished the book a few weeks ago.

        • Pofarmer

          Am I wrong?

        • BlackMamba44

          You are 100% correct.

        • Pofarmer

          Just checking. Thanks.

        • epeeist

          You can’t answer the question?

          Nah, won’t answer the question more like. She has all the intellectual integrity (and prowess) of TrumpleThinSkin.

        • myintx

          It’s not applicable to the abortion debate. Redirect to another forum. Maybe there is a thought experimet forum on Patheos or something.

        • Kodie

          You can’t handle the thought for a thought experiment. The way I heard it was, there’s a baby, and there’s a case of dozens of embryos, but you can only carry the baby or the case. Which would you grab out of the fire?

        • Greg G.

          The preflight instructions the stewardess or steward gives is that if the oxygen mask drops, put your own mask on first, then help your child put on the mask. It is understood by the person traveling with two children is to decide now which child the parent loves the most.

        • Kodie

          Of course it’s the youngest one. Don’t babies ride on the lap? I have not taken a plane before for a very long time, but how many oxygen masks come down, and what happens if between the parent and the kid, there’s only one?

        • myintx

          What does that have to do with the abortion debate? You’re implying that one will die… well, in a pregnancy, no one has to die.

          A more appropriate analogy would be there’s a fire threatening a case of dozens of embryos and down the street, home safe in her apartment a woman has a headache and no aspirin. Do you let the embryos die and rush to the store to get aspirin or have the woman (gasp) wait a few minutes while you save the embryos. The woman can wait.

        • Kodie

          You cannot make a decision, you have to make the decision. You can’t answer the question? You want to make it an absurd other question. Fuck you. You know you would drop the embryos, you know you would, you can’t admit that you would because that would mean you don’t care about them as much as you pretend to. See? If you can’t answer, I know your real answer.

        • myintx

          Give me an analogy that is closer to abortion and I’ll answer it… like if the choice is between letting the embryos die or delivering aspirin to a woman who has a headache… and I’d save the embryos.

          Women go up to babies in the supermarket and say “awwww how cute” but they don’t do that too teenagers. Does that mean newborns are more important and teenagers should be killed?

          The thought experiment your side presented is useless and irrelevant. Come up with something better.

        • Kodie

          Of course you’d save the embryos, nothing else is at stake. If you continue to misrepresent abortion by posting late term fetuses and wailing about their itty bitty innocent arms and legs, you have to choose, baby or case of embryos. You can only carry one or would you just all die in a fire?

        • myintx

          There are many abortions that occur after an unborn child has arms and legs… Want to admit those are horrible and should be illegal?

        • Kodie

          I am in favor of a woman knowing whether or not she wants to be pregnant and go through pregnancy and have a baby, and make that decision quickly and get on with her life after an abortion, because there’s no reason to wait.

          If you are in favor of that, then we can move on.

        • myintx

          18 weeks isn’t quickly… by your statement you should be against abortion after 18 weeks – agree?

        • Kodie

          That’s not what I said, and I can’t fucking stand any more of your misrepresentations and trying soooooo fucking hard to “trap” people into what you want them to say so you can pretend you won. 18 weeks is pretty late psychologically for a woman, but it’s not too late for an abortion. If you don’t want to have a baby, why be pregnant for 5 goddamned months?

        • myintx

          You said “make that decision quickly”…. implying they should make that decision in what? 4 weeks? otherwise what? it should be illegal?

          The number one reason for abortion after 16 weeks is “did not recognize the pregnancy” – a great reason to work with an adoption agency to place the baby in a loving home at birth, but a horrible excuse to kill a human being.

        • adam

          It is applicable.

          It is all about how YOU REALLY view ‘unborn children’

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfca0255af85259ee0f857563d91ecfc6cb97d776b9e3d512d8ae7e84f4ac9a6.jpg

        • myintx

          Its not applicable. If the choice were an old man vs a toddler and I picked the toddler would that make it OK to kill old men?

          Random-meme-man – What does your meme have to do with the abortion debate?

        • adam

          “What does your meme have to do with the abortion debate?”

          One of the reasons people want unwanted children is that they are easier to abuse.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7b26fa63bd62710b5b0bda13321c325b5f32009b7ac947dd6169bdc88c7b54d.jpg

        • adam

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • myintx

          Tell me what this as to do with the abortion debate?

          If I have a newborn in one hand and a life line to an elderly person in the other and I have to drop one, if I drop the lifeline to elderly person and he dies does that mean they aren’t human beings or can be killed if unwanted?

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos
          in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing
          that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You
          have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44).

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby and even YOU know this.

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • BlackMamba44

          No, I don’t. Because this question wasn’t about abortion. How about answering it?

        • myintx

          If it’s not about abortion, take it to another forum…..

        • BlackMamba44

          Excuse me? My question is a valid question for the “discussion.”

          How about answering the question?

        • myintx

          It has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. If we say an unborn child shouldn’t be killed it is not saying the woman has to be killed…

        • adam

          “It has nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion. ”

          It has EVERYTHING to do with how you DEFINE ‘human being’ for abortion purposes.

        • adam

          It applies much better than you claims of mothers ripping off the arms and legs of children.

          And demonstrates the spectrum of life, which you choose to ignore.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f64750bdb9436f05b4b80d5df43b09378201c1a56a73e279278df839233cbaa5.jpg

        • myintx

          No it doesn’t….

          The spectrum of the life of a human being. Human beings should not be discriminated against based on their level of development.

        • adam

          Yes, it does.

          “Human beings should not be discriminated against based on their level of development.”

          Why not?

        • myintx

          Because they are human beings…. Should we let someone kill a newborn because they are less developed than a teenager?

        • adam

          “Because they are human beings….”

          But they are not newborns

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f64750bdb9436f05b4b80d5df43b09378201c1a56a73e279278df839233cbaa5.jpg

          “Should we let someone kill a newborn because they are less developed than a teenager?”

          Should be promote more births that will end in sexual abuse of unwanted children, physical abuse and neglect.

          I told you already.
          Insure that there are no unwanted children and get back to us.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe8e27776008c5b6dee5a4303b63a6b12145b0158ed081d2d0a38f0dfe3bfa5c.jpg

        • myintx

          That all you got to try to defend your position? A spreadsheet created by a computer guy….. nothing in that spreadsheet says an unborn child isn’t a human being.

          There being kids with more cells in the system doesnt justify killing a newborn that has fewer cells or may have been born without arms or legs… Is a being with 14 checks worth more than a being with 13? What a lame chart.

        • adam

          “nothing in that spreadsheet says an unborn child isn’t a human being”

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You
          have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • adam

          It has EVERYTHING to do with how you really DEFINE ‘human being’ for abortion purposes.

        • myintx

          No it doesn’t. If I’m in a burning building and there an elderly man and a toddler and I save the toddler does that mean elderly men aren’t human beings?

        • Kodie

          You’re complaining about diversion? Answer the goddamned question.

        • myintx

          You answer this – If the choice of who to save is a toddler or an elderly person and I choose the toddler does that make it OK to kill the elderly?

        • Kodie

          So you would drop the embryos and save the baby? I mean, it’s one baby or a lot of embryos. If you want to promote the example of living babies or late-term fetuses to misrepresent abortion, you need to know we know there’s a difference. Do you know it too?

        • myintx

          I’m not misrepresenting anything.. If I choose a newborn over an elderly person is it saying that elderly people are less valuable and worth killing?

        • Greg G.

          But the question is whether you would save a baby or an embryo. Your position won’t allow you to answer the question because your position is wrong. You should change your position so you can answer the question instead of being disingenuous.

        • myintx

          Again- what does saving a baby or an embryo in a fire have to do with abortion/pregnancy? If we say a woman cannot kill her unborn child then no one has to die…. see?

          No, my position is not wrong because abortion isn’t a choice to kill an unborn child or a baby or even a unborn child or a woman. It’s the choice to kill an unborn child to make a woman’s life more convenient. The life of an unborn child is more important than a woman’s feelings or convenience.

        • Greg G.

          Your argument has always been an emotional plea that a fertilized ovum has the same right to life as a baby that has been born. You know you would save two babies instead of one but you won’t save a dozen embryos instead of one baby so we know you don’t really believe your own argument.

          Would you save a thousand embryos instead of a two year old? How many embryos would it take for you to save them over a child? How many fertilized ova would it take to save them over one child?

          You haven’t advanced your argument since you came here and apparently not in over three years. You are fixated on an argument you haven’t thought through and you don’t actually believe. You should get your nose out of other people’s vaginas and get on with your own life.

        • myintx

          Saving 1 baby over a dozen elderly people doesn’t minimize the importance of elderly people… Youre the only playing emotional games with the thought experiment…. And I guess you don’t care if an unborn child can feel pain after viability either, eh? That is an argument that many use to want to protect unborn children after viability – is that emotional?

          Did people who wanted the slaves to be free argue based on emotional reasons? The science wasn’t there to prove they had the same DNA as other human beings was it? The color of their skin was the excuse used to dehumanize them…. Dehumanizing is OK in your book. But saying the slaves should be free because they were oppressed would be an emotional argument and against the rules in your book.

          You are blind to the truth of what you support – the killing of human beings. That’s a fact, not emotion.

        • Greg G.

          What if it was a dozen elderly men vs one baby? What if it was an elderly man or one embryo?

          Or you could just admit that you would save one baby instead of 12 embryos.

          Then admit to yourself that your argument is a big, fat fail.

        • myintx

          No, your argument is the FAIL… If someone picks the baby please explain how that justifies abortion.

        • Greg G.

          Your argument is that embryos are human beings. According to your “logic”, saving 12 “human beings” should be better than saving only one human being. But you know that 12 embryos are not 12 human beings so you can’t actually say that you would rescue them while a single child burned to death because of your choice.

          Your refusal to answer the question shows us that you know an embryo is not the same as a baby.

          Go find a new hobby, you disingenuous buffoon!

        • myintx

          If I save the life of a newborn over 12 elderly people who are in temporary comas, it doesnt mean elderly people aren’t human beings… and I certainly cannot save one and take out a gun and shoot the other.

        • Greg G.

          You are still a disingenuous buffoon.

        • myintx

          Is that your way of admitting what I said in my last post was true?

        • Greg G.

          No, it’s my way of saying you are a disingenuous buffoon. Is that clear enough?

        • myintx

          No, it means I was right…. and you cannot dispute it so you start with the immature name calling.

        • Kodie

          If you had to choose 12 innocent human beings and 1, and you choose 1 because the 12 are disposable. You know if you come out with the house plant, the mom of that baby is going to kill you.

        • myintx

          No human being is disposable. Saving a newborn over an elderly person doesnt make the elderly disposable.

        • Kodie

          Ok, here’s another idea. There are two pregnant women on opposite ends of the hall, and an exit by each of them. The phones don’t work and you can’t warn both of them to get out, you can only run to save one of them. One is 6 months pregnant and the other one just peed on a stick that morning. Which one do you save.

        • myintx

          Did the test come out positive?

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You
          have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44).

        • adam

          It doesnt answer anything for people with no sound.

        • myintx
        • BlackMamba44

          Pro-forced birth site.

        • myintx

          Awwww….too freaking bad if someone feels “forced” to give a damn about their child – born or unborn. And I trust pro-life sites more than pro-death sites.

        • BlackMamba44

          Well, of course you trust them. They tell you the lies you need to believe so you can hate on people.

          Yeah, let’s make that fetus/pregnancy a punishment. Let’s make the born child a consequence. Let’s force birth and throw more unwanted BORN children into the system.

          You must really hate born children if you want them to come into this world unloved and unwanted. You are a sick, sick, sorry excuse of a human being.

        • myintx

          Who said a child had to come into this world unloved? If a woman REALLY CARED about someone other than herself she would call an adoption agency and say something like “I’m pregnant and do not feel I can raise the child. Can you help me find a loving home for my baby when he or she is born”. THAT is what a caring person would do.

        • BlackMamba44

          Like I said. You are a sick, sick sorry excuse for a human being. You would force birth on a woman who does not want it and tell them they can just throw it into a system already filled with unwanted children.

          Do you really think that for every unwanted child out there, there is a loving couple waiting to adopt? There isn’t.

          Continue to live in your perfect little fantasy world. But stay out of my uterus.

          I’m done.

        • myintx

          awwwwww someone is being told they cannot kill their unborn son or daughter and should actually give a damn about them. I’m heartbroken… You on the other hand would support a woman having the arms and legs ripped off her unborn child just because she wanted a boy instead of a girl or because she wants to party instead of care. And you call me a “sorry excuse for a human being”? REALLY? wow.

          There are long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborn babies and even if there weren’t, if there being kids waiting to be adopted doesn’t justify killing a newly unwanted toddler it doesn’t justify killing an unborn child.

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off, troll

          EDIT: I’m beginning to think you actually get off on typing up your descriptions as often as you repeat them. You’re trying to gross us out but it’s turning you on, isn’t it?

        • myintx

          I’m not trying to gross you out, I’m trying to get you to think about what you support – the killing of innocent human beings for convenience.

          I’ll have to ask the moderator if I used language like yours if I would have been banned yet…

        • BlackMamba44
        • So she’d be uncaring if she didn’t do it your way? She gets a positive pee test, and there are no other options? Nothing else matters–not the conditions she’d be bringing the baby into, not her ability to support it, not how it would negatively affect her life?

          I’m ignoring, of course, your adoption route since almost no one takes it.

          If this is your personal opinion, that’s fine. But you want to impose it on us by law, right?

        • Kodie

          It’s my convinced belief that almost no one takes the adoption route because abortion is available, and the opposition to abortion is in part to up the numbers. Those people want available babies, incubated by force. They don’t want to help the women at all.

        • myintx

          What if a woman with an unwanted newborn thinks keeping the baby alive with “negatively affect her life” because she’ll be worried 24/7 about the kid coming back to yell at her in 18 years because he got put in the horrible system? Would that be a good enough EXCUSE to kill the baby? Answer the question and don’t come back with an “appeal to emotion” diversion…

          A woman facing a tough time with an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted baby can GET HELP to get through the tough time so that no one has to die.

          People’s personal opinions are reflected into the law ALL THE TIME. Post viability abortion laws, animal cruelty laws etc. So yea, its allowed. We should be able to protect unborn children from their uncaring and selfish parents.

        • Holy shit–why ask questions to which you know the answer? There’s a spectrum here. Beyond a certain point (viability, for example), society says that the inherent value of the fetus is too important to let the mother decide anymore. That’s why killing babies is criminal.

          But before that point, the mother can decide.

        • myintx

          Youre the one who said it’s OK to kill if not killing will negatively affect your life….

          So you admit the “forcing” argument is lame then? We can tell a woman she cannot kill her unborn child at 25 weeks but not at 23?

          You do realize the same being exists at both points right? They don’t change species — they are human beings at both points…. Why would you support someone ripping the arms and legs off an unborn child at 23 weeks just because they are slightly less developed and only need a little bit of extra time? If (a big IF) there was a condition in born people where they could recover from brain death in 2 weeks don’t you think there would be laws protecting them from having the plug pulled by selfish relatives?

        • Argument from Potential. It ain’t a baby … but it will be.

          Fine. Get back to me when it is, and then we’ll have something to worry about.

        • myintx

          A baby isn’t an adult… is that an excuse to kill babies?
          An unborn child not being a baby is no excuse to kill him or her either. No offense, but pro-aborts pick lame excuses to try to justify killing innocent human beings.

        • I’ve already explained why adults, amputees, children, and so on are basically identical compared to the single cell (see chart below).

          What’s the deal with anti-choicers? Can’t they get it the first time round?

          http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/files/2016/09/chart2.jpg

        • myintx

          I never said a single cell was a baby…

          Someone born without eyes has a red x by them… does that make them less of a human being? NO.. an unborn child IS a human being.

        • Let em try to explain the problem with your definition argument.

          I’ll say that a newborn is a human being but the single cell it started from 9 months earlier isn’t. And you’ll disagree.

          Then I’ll say OK, let’s accept that, but the single cell isn’t a person. And you’ll disagree.

          Any word I pick to highlight the distinction, the spectrum between single cell and newborn, you’ll say either applies to both or neither. This is the problem–we’re simply arguing about what words mean. Words can’t express how little I care about this argument and how insubstantial it is.

          But let’s try to reach some kind of agreement: you tell me what the newborn is that the single cell isn’t. In other words, the development from single cell to newborn is a spectrum of … what?

        • myintx

          No, more like I say an unborn child is a human being and back it up with evidence and you say an unborn child isnt a human being and present no evidence to back up your claim. That’s a big difference.

          the development from single cell to newborn is a spectrum of … a part of the life cycle of a human being before birth….

          “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
          Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

          If that mammals parents are human beings the new being created will be a human being.

        • Can’t face my question head on, so you change the subject back to yet more definitions?

          You lose.

          I realize you don’t want to lose face here, but you might want to ask yourself in public if you have an actual, y’know, argument.

        • myintx

          I DID answer your question… ” In other words, the development from single cell to newborn is a spectrum of … what?” IS answered in my post.

        • Greg G.

          A baby isn’t drawing nutrients and dumping toxins into somebody’s bloodstream without consent.

        • myintx

          So? Youre the one who doesn’t want a woman to be forced to do anything she doesn’t wannnnnnnaaaa do… Then when questioned farther it’s OH, only if it in involves drawing nutrients.. lololololol You guys will come up with any LAME excuses to try to justify killing.

        • epeeist

          Argument from Potential.

          Very obvious that mytinx values something that is a person in potentia much more than a person in actus.

        • adam

          “Killing an unborn child at 7 weeks or 7 months has the same result as killing a newborn”

          Really, so what should happen to those ‘killers’?

        • myintx

          I’m OK with letting the people of each state decide…

        • adam
        • myintx

          Who said I don’t support helping children in need? you sure like to LIE to try to justify your support of killing innocent human beings.

        • adam
        • myintx

          Because they are human beings and innocent human beings should have a right to life

        • Kodie

          What’s so necessary about having a life? I don’t want to kill toddlers or puppies, stick to the issue. Why does something that has no ability to be aware of what it might be someday need to live?

        • myintx

          An unborn child IS alive… A TEMPORARY lack of awareness is no excuse to kill a human being. It wouldn’t be in a born human being if that condition were possible. It shouldnt be in an unborn child.

        • Pofarmer

          Are there or are there not conditions into which it would be better not to be born into?

        • myintx

          I would rather them be born into those conditions and at least have a chance (e.g. via adoption). If a 10 year old lost his parents in an accident and had no other family to care for him, would it be better for him to be euthanized than to wake up the next day in his situation?

        • Kodie

          That’s so cruel of you.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m sorry. stats show that most of these children won’t be given up for adoption. Besides, you are talking about children that are generally not “desirable” for adoption. And, you are also dealing with babies born addicted. Babies born with fetal alchohol syndrome. And then if they make through that, you are dealing with children who are at higher odds of being poisoned. Higher odds of being malnourished, higher odds of being abused or killed, higher odds of being imprisoned. There are things worse than not being born. Have you known a mother of an adopted son, who, through no fault of her own, came after here with a kitchen knife? Who sexually abused his adopted sister? Who will be in State care now the rest of his life? This is the wages of your position. So, no, you don’t care about all those innocent people.

        • myintx

          You shouldn’t kill a human being because he MIGHT have a shitty life. Every innocent human being deserves a chance at a full and productive life.

        • Kodie

          Deserves? A chance? I think grown ass women can maturely decide what a future of pregnancy and giving birth would be like and opt out early with no guilt.

          You are the hysterical monster.

        • myintx

          Yes, every innocent human being (born or unborn) deserves a chance at a full and productive life – no matter what their parents may think.
          So then why should any law apply to women? if they always make the right decision then no law ever should apply to them, right? Sometimes women do horrible things – like kill their children and kill their unborn children

        • adam

          “Yes, every innocent human being (born or unborn) deserves a chance at a full and productive life”

          Why do you support the rape and abuse of unwanted children?

        • myintx

          I don’t… why do you lie? Is that the only way you think you can justify killing unborn children?

        • adam

          ” why do you lie? ”

          Because you do.

          Is that the only way you think you can justify the sexual, physical abuse of unwanted children?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png

        • myintx

          Another useless meme from the guy who supports infanticide.

        • Kodie

          You are an emotional hysterical hypocrite.

        • myintx

          Nope…just pointing out the flaws in your logic

        • adam

          Nope, you are supporting the abuse, rape and neglect of INNOCENT unwanted children.

        • myintx

          Nope…. Interesting how other pro-aborts here aren’t supporting your killing unwanted newborns because they might get abused later in life. They probably hope you go away

        • adam

          Yes, in the very same way pro-births like you support pedophilia on unwanted children.

        • Kodie

          Nope…you’re just complaining about things I say that you don’t like. You don’t have logic, you have emotion. Oh yeah, and stupidity.

        • myintx

          OH, cause its “stupid” to want vulnerable human beings to be protected…. wow

        • Kodie

          Let’s do the thought experiment again only, you have a fire in the building and you can save a 6-month-old baby or a house plant. You can’t decide? You want a different question?

        • myintx

          and how is this relevant to the abortion debate? If I chose to save the baby could I rip apart the plant on the way out? What if the fire stopped right before it got to the plant and the owner came back later to check on his plant. They might be mad that their plant died needlessly….

        • adam

          WHY?

          Are YOU going to take care of all the unwanted human beings?

        • myintx

          Are you? You care about babies don’t you? or is it ok to kil an unwanted newborn?

        • adam

          Answer my question/

        • myintx

          Strawman… I don’t have to volunteer to take care of all the unwanted human beings in order to want to protect them….

        • adam
        • myintx

          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r8nafzaTn7A/hqdefault.jpg

          Watch out tiny human being, Adam doesn’t think you are a living human being yet and would support a woman saying “cut that arm off and close me up – I wanna see what the baby comes out looking like!”

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          A right to life should not supercede a person’s right to the use of their own organs. I know someone who needs a kidney transplant and you have the perfect genotype. You can have the kidney back when a donor who has died is found. Glad to know you don’t mind being forced to loan a kidney.

        • myintx

          A closer analogy you’re looking for is that you have donated a kidney to someone and now want to kill them to get it back…
          But hey, thanks for proving that abortion isn’t a “difficult decision” rather a selfish one (“I want my organs back!”)

        • Joe

          No human being has more rights than another. All innocent human beings should have equal rights –

          What happens when the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to bodily autonomy’ come into conflict?

          at least as long as it takes for the baby to be born and SAFELY handed off to someone else.

          Or dumped down a drain, or left on the porch of a neighbour, or placed in the care of pedophiles…..

          Who cares after they’re born, right?

        • myintx

          “What happens when the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to bodily autonomy’ come into conflict?”

          An unborn child has his or her own body (ie. if there is such a thing as full “right to bodily autonomy” for all innocent human beings an unborn child should have that right. ….An unborn child should have a right to life. So does the woman. The answer – COEXIST for a few short months so that no one has to die. Next time you see a COEXIST bumper sticker think about it… 🙂

          Who says I dont care? If a woman suddenly decides she doesn’t want her toddler can she kill the toddler “peacefully and painlessly” in his sleep so he wont realize he is dead and so he won’t possibly suffer a worse fate in the hands of a pedophile?

        • Adoption is no solution. Only 2% of women with unplanned pregnancies who carry the fetus to term opt for it.

          As for emotional arguments “A human’s a human, no matter how small!” let me point you to my post on intuitive arguments on the other side of the question:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/09/five-emotional-pro-choice-arguments-2/

        • myintx

          Adoption is a solution… How many of those 98% would say they want to kill their 1 year old after keeping the baby for a year… my guess is most are happy they didn’t kill their unborn child.

          Saying an unborn child is a human being is not emotional appeal. It’s the truth.

        • Kodie

          Plenty of people regret having children – and I imagine most of those people had an idealized projection and planned to have those children, rather than decided against having an abortion or were blocked from making that decision for themselves. Most people are culturally pressured to say nice things about their own children and about parenting in general, but we’re more and more informed how much bullshit that can be, how hard and expensive and all-consuming parenting is, and we know this ahead of time, so we can take steps to avoid it, including abortion. I am not on this earth to produce babies for couples to adopt. I don’t care about those people’s problems. Saying a clump of cells is a human being and we have to protect it so it can be the child some sterile couple needs in their lives is the very definition of an emotional appeal.

          Here’s how it is – if a person decides not to get an abortion, out of guilt imposed on them by people like you, that decision becomes quickly irreversible. You are imposing a life story on that person that they did not want. But you are happy because the baby got born. If a person has an abortion and decides it was a mistake, they can get pregnant again and have a baby. Abortion is reversible, waiting too late to get an abortion is not reversible.

        • myintx

          Sometimes life isn’t always about what you want… it has to be about the life of a human being that is dependent upon you for his or her survival. If a woman has the interview of a lifetime and her babysitter didn’t arrive is it “imposing a life story on her” ‘to tell her she has to care for a child and miss that interview? boo hoo — the life of her child is more important than that interview. The life of an unborn child is important too. And i am a-ok with telling someone they need to ensure the safety of their child – born or unborn. No matter what their wittle feelings are.

        • adam
        • myintx

          Who said I didn’t want children fed/housed/educated? I didn’t… Should we kill everyone in prison for life and use that money to help children?

        • adam

          “Who said I didn’t want children fed/housed/educated?”

          So why are you here and not taking care of unwanted children?

        • myintx

          I do my part… do you?

          And you didn’t answer my question from my last post….

        • Kodie

          Yeah, you are a-ok with telling people what to do with their bodies. You are an asshole.

        • myintx

          Abortion isn’t about someone doing something to their body… its about someone doing something to the body of an innocent human being. That is why it should be illegal.

        • Adoption is a solution

          Sure. It’s a solution for some people, but the fraction of people for whom this is a solution is so small that I wonder why you’re wasting our time with this tangent.

          How many of those 98% would say they want to kill their 1 year old after keeping the baby for a year… my guess is most are happy they didn’t kill their unborn child.

          So what? My wife and I had 2 kids. If we’d had an accidental pregnancy and kept it, we’d love our third kid just like the other two. That doesn’t mean that wasn’t planned. More to the point, it doesn’t mean that if we’d been in far more desperate circumstances, abortion wouldn’t have been a viable option.

          Saying an unborn child is a human being is not emotional appeal. It’s the truth.

          You can define human being that broadly, but who gives a shit? You’re still dancing away from the uncomfortable truth that in common parlance, “human beings” are macro objects. Things we see on the sidewalk. People that we interact with at work or in the store. if you want to throw into the definition microscopic objects that are very, very different, OK, I understand this new definition, but don’t pretend there’s any inherent truth there.

        • adam

          “Adoption is a solution… ”

          Then why isnt EVERY child adopted?

          How many have YOU adopted?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87e18056e8935b5339c7ea863d4e0a6633571c050f941790fa21e45fef9f0287.jpg

        • myintx

          There are long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborns… And why aren’t you adopting?

        • adam

          Problem is that the list of newborns FAR outstrips the waiting list.

          Answer my question

        • myintx

          Right now there are long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborn babies… besides, there being older kids waiting to be adopted doesnt justify killing a newly unwanted 10 year old does it?

        • Pofarmer

          I’m sorry, but your continuous use of this type or reply shows you to be a dishonest moron.

        • myintx

          The ones who are dishonest are the ones who deny an unborn child is a human being. At least be honest… there is another proabortion commenter on this article who at least admits an unborn child is a human being and seemed amazed that there are other proaborts in denial of this fact.

        • Pofarmer

          Once again. A fertilized egg is not an unborn child. An embryo is not an unborn child. A zygote is not an unborn child. Imprecise, antiquated usages not with standing, they do not have the necessary qualities to be a child. I would debate that before some set period, certainly not before around 25 weeks, that it would qualify as a human being. I’m sorry you’ve been brainwashed and misseducated. I do feel for you.

          Btw. I should thank you. Thanks for coming here and helping me clarify my own views on some of this stuff.

        • myintx

          The scientific consensus is that an unborn child is a human being and you think I’m “miseducated”? wow…

          The same being exists at 24 weeks and 26 weeks. Beings don’t change species during their development. An unborn child is a member of the species Homo Sapiens -i.e. a human being.

        • Pofarmer

          “The scientific consensus is that an unborn child is a human being and you think I’m “miseducated”? wow…”

          I’ve actually given you links that show the scientific (and especially the philosophical) consensus is no such thing, which you studiously ignore. Words mean things, and when you change or ignore the common meanings, you are being dishonest. Species has nothing to do with it. Personhood does.

        • myintx

          You’re the one who is ignoring the truth…

          Yes or no – do you think unborn children are members of the same species as their parents – i.e. Homo Sapiens?

        • Pofarmer

          You know, that’s actually an interesting question. Do I think, that, say, a zygote has the same DNA as Homo Sapiens? Yes I do. But does a zygote have all the characteristics of Homo Sapiens? No, it doesn’t. That’s why I think it’s also disingenuous to use “unborn child” to refer to anything at least before the 3rd trimester. The requisite characteristics just aren’t there. Same for “human being.” The fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus, lack certain characteristics necessary for it to be a “human being” or a “person”, including but not limited to individual autonomy, sentience, and sapience. And it never had any of these characteristics to start with. I don’t think my position differs that much from Philnomer.

        • myintx

          So what species is a human zygote and how do they change species when no othe mammal does?

        • Pofarmer
        • myintx

          irrelevant…. Answer the question in my last post.

        • adam
        • myintx

          The states can make the laws to decide the penalty for killing an unborn child.

        • adam

          So YOU support killing.

        • myintx

          Nope

        • adam

          Of course you do, just like you claim everyone else does.

        • myintx

          nope

        • adam

          Of course you do.

          Just like yo support the rape of unwanted children, their abuse and neglect even their death due to abuse.

        • myintx

          This from adam who admits he supports infanticide…..

        • adam

          This from myintx who supports the rape of unwanted children, their abuse and neglect even their death due to abuse.

        • myintx

          Nope… I dont support any of that….

          You support infanticide though….

        • adam

          “You support infanticide though….”

          In the very same way you support the rape of unwanted children, their abuse and neglect even their death due to abuse.

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • adam

          Government already has decided.

          Remember Roe v Wade

          So, according to YOU, everything is fine.

          So quit bitch and pitching your emotional baggage..

        • myintx

          Horrible Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before…

        • adam

          So?

          You are NOT happy letting the State decide, like you LIED about.

        • myintx

          If/when Roe V Wade is overturned then the issue will go back to the states, unless there is another decision that redefines when abortion should be allowed… I’m OK with Roe V Wade being overturned and the issue going back to the states. Its a step in the right direction.

        • adam

          “. I’m OK with Roe V Wade being overturned and the issue going back to the states. ”

          And so you will support it in states where they allow it, right?

          Or did you just LIE again?

        • myintx

          There is always a chance that the people of a state will change their mind and realize the killing of unborn children is wrong. I will work to educate people on the humanity of unborn children so that they will vote to protect them.

        • adam

          “There is always a chance that the people of a state will change their mind and realize the killing of unborn children is wrong.”

          Gee, are you really that ignorant or just stupid.

          Abortion USED to be illegal

          But people got educated and realized that is is NOT wrong.

          So you LIE when you say let the government decide, because they already HAVE.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f64750bdb9436f05b4b80d5df43b09378201c1a56a73e279278df839233cbaa5.jpg

        • myintx

          Polls have shown that a majority of people want unborn children protected after 20 weeks or if the reason for abortion is financial. With the advances in technology people are getting educated on the humanity of the unborn child. Most people have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade.

        • Kodie

          After 20 weeks is way different than before 12 weeks. Why do you keep bringing it up? Is it because assholes like you want to force someone to stay pregnant just long enough that they can’t get an abortion so you can steal their babies to jump ahead of all those kids already waiting for families?

        • myintx

          The same human being is involved…

          If you’re OK with abortion restrictions after 20 weeks then you too have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade.

        • adam

          Here lets make it easier:

          You
          have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • adam

          So you are NOT Pro-life, just Pro birth.

          Just what I thought.

        • myintx

          Said who?

        • epeeist

          Btw. I should thank you. Thanks for coming here and helping me clarify my own views on some of this stuff.

          Yeah, me too. One of the things it has taught me is how difficult it is to argue with stupid and dishonest.

        • Pofarmer

          The problem is, I’m literally surrounded by people that hold these views, and then don’t promote birth control, either. Every anti-abortion post on facebook is pretty much about very late term abortions. No info about how to actually reduce abortions. I could even maybe respect their position a little bit if they actually did anything to reduce the number of abortions. But by and large they don’t, and their great nemesis, Planned Parenthood, does a great deal. Make my head hurt.

        • Greg G.

          myintx keeps flogging the ground where a horse once died.

        • Greg G.

          There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.
          Dec 8, 2015
          Adoption and Foster Care in America – Adoption Statistics
          http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/

        • myintx

          Your stats don’t justify killing a newly unwanted toddler… they don’t justify killing unwanted unborn children either.

        • adam

          Why are their any unwanted newborn babies?

        • myintx

          There aren’t

        • adam

          LIAR

        • Sure. Let’s just not call a single cell “Jane.” It’s just a cell.

        • myintx

          The sex is known when there is a single cell…

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t have a penis, so it must be a girl. It doesn’t have eyes or a heart or a dream to wish upon, but it surely has a sex, that’s how you know it’s a person.

        • myintx

          Way to show that you know nothing about biology…

        • Kodie

          Way to show you can’t tell when you are being mocked.

        • myintx

          yea right… it’s your side that uses the lame “my body” argument… and claims that an unborn child is not a human being… you do need to be educated in biology.

        • And in 9 months, it’ll be a girl. As a single cell, it isn’t a girl.

        • myintx

          “It” is a female member of the species Homo Sapiens. Abortion denies females (and males) a basic right to life.

        • Greg G.

          A right to life does not supercede a person’s right to body autonomy.

        • myintx

          The ‘bodily autonomy’ argument is bs. First – what about the unborn baby’s ‘bodily autonomy’ – it doesn’t deserve to have its limbs ripped apart during a late term abortion. Second- women don’t have complete ‘bodily autonomy’ – in the US; they cannot kill their unborn baby after viability (with exceptions (e.g. their life in danger)), they cannot sell their organs, they cannot do drugs, they cant prostitute themselves)… NO SUCH THING as full body autonomy…

        • Greg G.

          A body that is dependent on another person’s body does not have bodily autonomy.

          Complete autonomy isn’t required. The bodily autonomy granted for a person to not be compelled to donate body organs or blood to save another person is enough.

        • myintx

          There is no full right to bodily autonomy… There are many laws that tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Like telling parents they have to use their body to ensure the safety of an unwanted newborn… or laws that say a woman cannot kill her unborn child after viability…

        • Greg G.

          Your examples have nothing to do with bodily autonomy. You don’t know what you are talking about.

        • myintx

          Show me where in the Constitution this full right to bodiy autonomy exists…..

        • Kodie

          You don’t know what the word “autonomy” means.

        • myintx

          Show me where the Constitution mentions bodily autonomy…

        • Kodie

          Why are you so evasive as fuck? Oh yeah, Christian.

        • myintx

          LOL – you redirect when I ask you to show me where in the Constitution bodily autonomy is mentioned and you call me evasive.

        • Kodie

          You didn’t look up autonomy, you decided to change the fucking subject.

        • myintx

          Cannot find it in the Constitution eh?

        • Kodie

          If you can’t answer the question, I’m not going to let you tell me what to do. Fuck you.

        • Kodie

          I said you don’t know what autonomy means and you changed the fucking subject, so you go first. Yes, you are evasive as fuck.

        • myintx

          Murder has a definition. That doesn’t mean there is a right to it. Autonomy has a definition. That doesn’t mean there is a right to it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          maybe you don’t believe in God, but if you think “do drugs” and “prostitute themselves” are adequate shorthand for substantial concepts outside of parochial moralizing, you most definitely walked into the wrong bar.

        • myintx

          Do you think all atheists support someone doing cocaine or prostituting themselves?

        • TheNuszAbides

          don’t be ridiculous — oh wait, too late for that. do you want to try naming something that “all atheists support”, or do you want to stop wasting everyone’s time?
          if you really thought my phrase “the wrong bar” was shorthand for “in front of any atheists”, then you are entirely unprepared for this exchange.

        • “It” is a female member of the species Homo Sapiens.

          Uh huh. Powerful emotional argument. “It has homo sapiens DNA.” Wow.

          Convince me that it’s a person. “It’s a cell with H. sapiens DNA” includes a lot of things that have no inherent value.

        • myintx

          Personhood doesn’t matter. An unborn child is a human being. Innocent human beings should have a right to life. Certainly you are smart enough to realize an unborn child is a human being, right?

        • TheNuszAbides

          ‘unborn child’ is already a contradiction in terms. but you’ve been indicating for days that you aren’t actually interested in starting from clear definitions.

        • myintx

          “unborn child” is a valid term used used by reputable dictionaries, reputable medical organizations like the CDC and medical professionals.

          Saying “Smoking can be dangerous for your unborn child” is pretty clear were not talking about a toddler or a puppy but rather a human being before birth.

        • Greg G.

          Isn’t that clearly directed at mothers who want to have a child and not toward someone who does not want to give birth?

        • myintx

          Doesn’t matter

        • Kodie

          It absolutely matters.

        • myintx

          no it doesn’t… just like the term pre-teen describes someone who is 12 years old, even if they don’t make it to be 13.

        • Kodie

          Just like? Really, you are that stupid and you admit it publicly.

        • myintx

          Yes, just like…Greg claims “unborn child” is only valid if the mother wants a baby so “pre-teen” must only be valid if a mother wants a teenager….

        • Greg G.

          There you go again. You can’t argue against what people say so you make up stuff you wish they said.

        • Kodie

          Bob, can you change the channel?

        • myintx

          My name isn’t Bob…..

        • Kodie

          Your analogies really suck, and are purely emotional appeals. Any sucker who buys your argument deserves to have a lifetime of misery.

        • myintx

          No, I speak the truth… it’s your “my body”, “parasite” and “tumor” BS that are lies.

        • Kodie

          To me, it is not only directed at women who desire to continue their pregnancies, but also gives in (out of convenience, probably) to the cultural assumption that nobody gets pregnant unwillingly. Our culture is full of parades and parties for babies and even pregnant women who are looking forward to having a child are back-burnered. It’s kind of the same way when I meet a neighbor with a dog, I don’t have a dog, but I tend to greet their dog and never know the neighbor’s name. Neighbors with dogs tend to socialize amongst themselves in the yard, chitchatting all kinds of dog stuff, but the point is, the woman becomes invisible as she grows larger withchild, and people use it as an automatic icebreaker and such.

          Anyway, abortion is ignored as an option, as a life event, as maybe it should be. I mean, I consider it a valid form of birth control that should not be shamed and efforts to minimize the necessity for abortion gives me the feeling that will only make abortions more of a shameful outlier from the norm, instead of a positive choice that doesn’t hurt anyone. If you didn’t want to be pregnant before, there’s nothing to think about after.

          There used to be an ad campaign for a pee-stick pregnancy test that had a few outcomes (I might be forgetting actual scenarios) – one was trying to get pregnant and was pregnant; another was surprised she might be pregnant and kind of happy about it, but disappointed that she was not pregnant; another was a little scared to be pregnant and was relieved to find out she wasn’t pregnant. I remember this mostly because I had read an article around the same time that exposed they never approached the situation where someone didn’t want to be pregnant but found out they were – because the implications. Although there is a lot of relief scenarios whenever someone turns out not to be pregnant, the main cultural story is people who are pregnant must be happy about it, as in, they are securely in the bonds of marriage, no shame in sexual activity, outcome of pregnancy probable and expected. Women who choose not to procreate are shamed also!

          I would imagine the CDC or any medical advice about what to avoid if you’re pregnant is for women who meant to continue their pregnancies and want to avoid damage during the development of their fetus. It is erasure for women who are pregnant but plan to abort. That narrative doesn’t register or count, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

        • Kodie

          People who define what’s inside them as their “unborn child” are the targets of those warnings. That’s not a blanket warning for everyone to consider what’s inside them as an unborn child. You are like Norm, that idiot from a few years ago.

        • myintx

          It doesn’t change the fact that the term “unborn child” is a valid term.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’m perfectly aware that the phrase carries more emotional/rhetorical weight, which is of course why highly-educated folks employed by the government might use it to appeal to the clueless/addicted vast majority of the population because they’re significantly less likely to emotionally identify with the word ‘fetus’; and that aside, why it works so well in your head in general. i’m telling you it’s a useless appeal in the context of clear definitions being important, which could not possibly be more applicable than when we’re discussing legality and/or logical steps.

        • Certainly you are smart enough to realize an unborn child is a human being, right?

          ?? Why is this hard? It’s not a child!

          I realize that treating things honestly won’t work for you, and you have to play games with definitions, but it gets tiresome for those of us who’ve seen this over and over.

        • myintx

          I said “unborn child”… the word “unborn” was clearly visible in my last post. You even copied the word.

        • It’s not a child.

          It’s not a child of any sort–not a green child, not a huge child, not an unborn child. It’s not a child.

        • myintx

          Yes, a child before birth can be referred to as an unborn child.

          The CDC (A reputale organization) does it –
          “A pregnant woman might be especially concerned about the potential effects of carbon monoxide exposure on her unborn child. “

          A doctor who for the Encyclopedia Britannica used the term “- (5) formation of a placenta and maintenance of the unborn child during the entire period of gestation”. You do know encyclopedias are proofread by liguistic experts, right?

          No, if you have evidence that “unborn child” is an invalid term, please provide citations….

        • Kodie

          Just because some people want to stay pregnant and thereafter consider that term to be useful doesn’t mean that’s what it actually is. Don’t tell me about the football again, you asshole.

        • A dictionary argument. Love it! Nothing I like more than hair splitting over definitions.

          Say–why don’t you return when you have an actual argument?

        • myintx

          DIVERSION… I presented evidence to back up my claim… where is your evidence to back up your claim… It was you that created the lame argument by saying there was no such thing as an unborn child. Now either present your evidence or admit that I am right.

        • You want to go back and brag to all your friends that you made a dictionary argument and won? Go for it. Then tell them to come here and convince us that we’ve got the moral issue wrong, and we’ll grind them up just like we do you.

        • myintx

          At least I have the dictionary behind me.. and scientists… and reputable medical organizations… Where is YOUR PROOF that “unborn child” isn’t a valid term?

          You haven’t ground anything or anyone… though sometimes unborn children who are aborted sometimes look like they’ve been ground up.

        • You have no argument. You’re grasping onto definitions. We can define or redefine terms so that we can communicate, but that does nothing to advance your argument.

        • myintx

          The “definitions” come from SCIENCE… you have no definitions to back you up so you pull random criteria from thin air and say “oh lookie a single cell has no arms so it’s not a human being”…. Where is your science to back up your claims?

        • I’ll try once more to explain the problem to you. Perhaps it will at least benefit the lurkers.

          We can define words in our own private way so that we can communicate. You can say, “For this discussion, let’s define ‘baby’ this way,” and we can proceed from that point. The definition isn’t the fucking issue, so stop harping on it. The issue is that I don’t see the moral equivalence with whatever you want to call the thing at the beginning of the gestation process (the single cell) with whatever you want to call the thing at the end (the trillion-cell newborn).

          If your argument relies on definitions, it’s not an argument.

          There. Now at least the lurkers are better informed (though I doubt they were confused).

        • myintx

          No, my argument relies on science….. Science tells us an unborn child (synonym for any of the stages of the life of a human being before birth) is a human being.

          Your “argument” relies on math (number of cells) but is easily disproven by science.

        • Wrong and wrong.

        • myintx

          right and right

        • adam

          “Where is YOUR PROOF that “unborn child” isn’t a valid term?”

          Bob gave it to YOU some time ago.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f64750bdb9436f05b4b80d5df43b09378201c1a56a73e279278df839233cbaa5.jpg

        • myintx

          And what SCIENTIST said that? NONE.

          The scientific consensus is that an unborn cihld is a human being.

          “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
          -Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 Sterling Pub. Co

        • adam

          So?

          Viability is the ability of a thing (a living organism, an
          artificial system, an idea, etc.) to maintain itself or recover its
          potentialities.

        • myintx

          Viability doesn’t turn a potential human being into an actual human being. The same actual human being exists one second before and one second after viability – a human being that should be protected at both points.

        • adam
        • myintx

          Yes, I have questions – what scientist said that had anything to do with whether an unborn child was a human being? I’m betting the answer is NONE

        • adam

          What scientists said that is a viable baby?

          I’m betting the answer is NONE/

        • myintx

          Before or after viability an unborn child is a human being worth protecting.

        • adam

          Science doesnt say that.

          You are LYING AGIAN.

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • adam

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • Kodie

          You keep calling it a human being, when that is nol accurate. Human species and human being are different categories. Please stop trying to make something more than it is by using emotional language.

        • myintx

          Definition of Homo sapiens
          : the species of human beings that exist today

          i.e. An unborn child IS a human being.

          Give it a minute to sink in….

          How does it feel to support the killing of human beings?

        • Kodie

          Great!

        • Susan

          Personhood doesn’t matter.

          Why not?

        • myintx

          We are allowed to have laws protecting unborn children after viability and they legally arent people… When slaves weren’t recognized as full people in the eyes of the law we were allowed to have laws saying a slave owner couldn’t kill a slave… We are allowed to have laws saying people cannot destroy eagle eggs and we are allowed to have laws saying animals cannot be abused… etc

        • Susan

          We were allowed to have laws saying you could own slaves too.

          We are allowed to have laws saying you can’t litter either.

          I don’t see the connection.

          We weren’t talking about laws.

          Why does “personhood” not matter when you are making a moral claim?

        • myintx

          puppies aren’t human beings yet most people think they should be protected from abuse… Puppies don’t have to be people in order to have the moral claim that they shouldn’t be abused.

        • Kodie

          All you can try to think of is slaves and eagle eggs. You really can’t tell the difference between food and a house, you can’t tell your business from my business. You sound like a hysterical idiot.

        • myintx

          Once again, no valid rebuttal from Kodie… yawn

        • adam
        • myintx

          Another irrelevant meme from adam….

        • Kevin K

          I just picked a booger out of my nose. I’m quite sure many, many cells with homo sapiens DNA came out of that transaction.

        • epeeist

          And in 9 months, it’ll be a girl.

          Nah, what you mean is “only a girl”. In mytinx world females of the species barely rank and definitely don’t have the same rights as boys.

        • Susan

        • myintx
        • Pofarmer

          Pretty sure you’d have to kill it at that point. Which is ironic.

        • Kodie

          Relevance? You seem to be obsessed with technicalities but that doesn’t support your position. It has DNA, it has sex chromosomes. That’s not what equals a person.

        • myintx

          I’ve posted the science that supports my position… How many citations have you posted that support yours? uh… ZERO, ZILCH… lol

        • Pofarmer

          You posted, primarily, work, from theologians also doing science.

        • myintx

          No, they don’t have degrees in theology, they have degrees in medicine… go ahead and grasp at a another straw

        • Pofarmer

          As has already been pointed out. At least one of them had been nominated for sainthood by the Catholic Church. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t trust their motivation.

        • Kevin K

          From your citation…

          Sox9: autosomal sex reversal

          One of the autosomal genes involved in sex determination is SOX9, which encodes a putative transcription factor that also contains an HMG box. XX humans who have an extra copy of SOX9 develop as males, even though they have no SRY gene (Huang et al. 1999). Individuals having only one functional copy of this gene have a syndrome called campomelic dysplasia, a disease involving numerous skeletal and organ systems. About 75% of XY patients with this syndrome develop as phenotypic females or hermaphrodites (Foster et al. 1994; Wagner et al. 1994; Mansour et al. 1995).

          That means that sex determination can NOT be determined from a single cell.

          Clean miss.

    • Otto

      A key part of any healthcare ethics issue is consent….or did you miss that part?

    • epeeist

      Humans have an intrinsic value just by being “human”.

      If and only if there exist objective moral facts.

    • lady_black

      NOTHING has “intrinsic” value.

    • Anat

      Humans gain ‘intrinsic value’ when they form the ability to value themselves. A long time after birth. People also have ‘extrinsic value’ – value by others. How much we should consider this extrinsic value depends on what the extrinsic one doing the valuing is doing in support of the human they claim to value. Before birth the pregnant person is giving their body and their health. Thus they are the ones whose value of the embryo or fetus matters.

    • Kevin K

      Liver tumors have human DNA. Are they “still human”?

  • Greg G.

    Have you heard of Trinity Car Company?

    No, but there is a used car dealer near where I live called “Miracle Motors”. Their logo is a cross above a semicircle. There used to be another used car dealer next door to them called “Reasonable Used Cars” but they went out of business so Miracle Motors tore down the building and expanded their lot.

    • Joe

      Was that meant to be a metaphor for what’s happening in America today?

      • Greg G.

        It is a true story but I thought of it as a metaphor.

    • Otto

      Their logo is was a cross above a semicircle.

      You mean like an anchor?

      • Greg G.

        The semi-circle is the other way so the cross is outside of the arc.

        But I think they did away with the logo on their sign because it was like an anchor.

  • Sophia Sadek
  • Herald Newman

    Jonathon Pearce just posted a small set of interesting thought experiments on his blog. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/02/14/showing-embryos-not-value-human-beings/

  • Murph

    Notice how Bob is now recycling his old posts and has nothing new to talk about (just an aside)

    As far as this post goes you have the Christian understanding of pro-life all wrong. You think we believe “put together” equates to a baby. That’s wrong. Instead, we believe that the baby itself is in the actual fertilized egg, i.e. conception. The reason why you’re car analogy fails is because it’s the wrong analogy. The correct analogy would be a seed. For example everything about an oak tree is contained in the seed. The seed grows into a tree just like conception grows into a child. The child is present at conception just like the tree is present in the seed. Destroying the seed is the same as destroying the tree. Destroying the fertilized egg is the same as destroying the child. So when someone destroys the child in utero it’s the equivalent of killing the tree as a sapling except the former is murder the latter could be at worst unnecessary.

    • Let’s tally up the mistakes you make.

      If the correct analogy is a seed, then you’d say that a tree grows into a tree because the tree is in the seed. But we don’t. I wonder if that defeats your argument.

      Destroying the seed is the same as destroying the tree.

      Yeah, see that’s what happens when you ignore reality and say random stuff to support your preconception—gibberish comes out. Make yourself clear and say, “Destroying the tree is the same as destroying the tree.” Although, admittedly, neither sentence makes much sense.

      You also are making the argument from potential: the egg isn’t a baby now . . . but it will be. And, of course, I agree. Get back to me in 9 months and we will have a baby to celebrate, but we don’t now.

      we believe that the baby itself is in the actual fertilized egg

      That’s great! Believe whatever silly thing you want. Just don’t impose your opinions on the rest of society.

    • Kodie

      Notice how Bob is now recycling his old posts and has nothing new to talk about (just an aside)

      It’s an incredible aside! When Christian apologetics has anything modern to show as evidence, instead of lame excuses why the bible (also really old and re-tread, if you want to complain about old news!) doesn’t apply to reality. You’re not the first Christian we’ve met, and you have nothing new to say at all.

      We know you’re demented and delusional, and you think an embryo is equal to a baby. We are realistic. It has none of the capacity or function as a full-term born baby. It is nothing to weep over or call a holocaust about. You are over-wretched emotional delusional people who are warped into the Christian church’s propaganda for the provision of healthy white babies to infertile Christian couples. Every avenue of choice to keep a pregnancy (except adoption!), or not to get pregnant if it’s the wrong time is called a “sin”, and policies to provide education to teens, birth control to women, and food to poor people points to you’re a pawn, you’re just a pawn. If it means that much to you, why aren’t you risking jail time to bar women from entering abortion clinics? Why aren’t you tackling them to the ground to prevent them from harming their own “babies”? Because you really don’t have that much of a problem with abortion. You realize in your tiny brain that these little embryos at 6-8 weeks are none of your own fucking business.

      • Michael Neville

        If you don’t like abortion then don’t have one. Just don’t deny abortions to those women who do want one.

        • Kodie

          I recommend abortion to anyone who didn’t want to be pregnant before they didn’t use birth control or it failed. Right away, there’s really nothing to think about.

        • myintx

          There really is something to think about – the humanity of the unborn child…

        • Greg G.

          The humanity is a red herring. It’s the choice of the person with the vagina.

          I am even-tempered. I don’t get mad often and I have no wish to harm anyone. If someone broke into my house to steal my TV, I would not want to kill them as some people would as long as the person did not threaten me or anyone else.

          But if the person did threaten harm, it would be a different story. He wouldn’t have to cause 10% of the pain of labor pains before I would be very willing to use deadly force. If the person wanted to do anything with my wife’s vagina, I would be willing to use deadly force. If the person wanted to use any of my wife’s blood, or any of her organs, even temporarily, I would be willing to use deadly force. It wouldn’t matter whether the person was extremely intelligent, so insane he didn’t know what he was doing, inebriated, or high on drugs, I would be willing to use deadly force.

          So it is irrelevant what semantics you wish to use – fetus, unborn child, or potential human being – the person whose vagina is being used, whose nutrients are being taken from her blood, whose blood is having waste products added to it, who could die of complications, gets to decide whether it is a welcome guest or a parasite.

        • myintx

          If a child came into your house and headed towards your kitchen you wouldn’t kill him or her. You’d contact the parents and wait as long as it took for them to come and get their child – SAFELY.

          AN unborn child isn’t a thief anymore than a newborn crying for formula is… If a womans home was surrounded by water and she couldn’t get someone to take her unwanted crying baby should she kill the baby or starve him or her to death? What if she was worried she might hurt herself going up the stairs to care for the baby? Is that a good enough EXCUSE to let her newborn choke to death on his vomit?

          NO excuse is good enough to kill a child born or unborn.

        • MNb

          There really is something to think about – the humanity of the fingernail you just clipped.

        • myintx

          Fingernails aren’t living human beings. Unborn children are.

        • Kodie

          You have nothing but propaganda. It is essentially a fingernail.

        • myintx

          No it is not… A fingernail in a woman’s womb will never grow and develop, cause a woman to go into labor and come out as a newborn baby….

          Please don’t show your ignorance…. admit what you support the killing of human beings for convenience.

        • Kodie

          Neither WILL an embryo if she gets an abortion early. You are in favor of inconveniencing people unnecessarily.

        • myintx

          If it means someone cannot kill their unborn child boo hoo on them being inconvenienced. i.e. take the time to GIVE A DAMN about a new human being you created.

        • Kodie

          I don’t give a damn about something with the consciousness of a fingernail. You do. Who sounds like the crazy one!

        • myintx

          Bad analogy…. unborn children are human beings. fingernails are not.

          Besides – unborn children not having “consciousness” is a TEMPORARY condition… If a born child were temporarily unconscious they would be protected by laws.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Besides – unborn children not having “consciousness” is a TEMPORARY condition… If a born child were temporarily unconscious they would be protected by laws.

          So….it’s okay to abort pregnancies where there are genetic problems when the fetus’ CNS development such that they will never be conscious?

        • myintx

          Prenatal diagnosis’ have been wrong before and healthier than expected babies born, so no it’s NOT ok to kill an unborn child because he or she might have a birth defect.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Now now, the proper way to respond to a hypothetical is not to deny that the hypothetical is possible.

          IF there is a way to determine that a fetus will be born without a brain at, say, week 18 – is it okay to abort on your view? That “child” will never have a consciousness, after all.

        • myintx

          How about we agree that the most common excuses for abortion should be illegal and then we’ll get into cases like whether an unborn child has a brain or not… If the excuses are “not the right time for a child” or “cannot afford a child” do you agree those are great reasons for a woman to work with an adoption agency and place her child in a loving home at birth but horrible excuse to kill a human being and that abortion in those cases should be illegal?

        • Kodie

          Those are great reasons for you to mind your own business and stop pressuring women to go through pregnancy and give birth so you can stock up on infants for all the barren Christian parents.

        • myintx

          Adoption is about giving a new human being a chance at a full and productive life. You’re selfish if you cannot see that.

        • Kodie

          Every effort against abortion, birth control, sex education, and welfare is in business for the adoption machine. You’re selfish if you want people to have pregnancies and not allow them to raise their own baby if that’s what they want, or end their pregnancy if that’s what they want. You are deluded and intrusive, and offensive.

        • myintx

          I want innocent human beings to be protected and I’m selfish? LOLOLOLOL….. I want a woman to give her unborn son or daughter a chance at life and not kill him or her and I’m selfish? LOLOLOLOL….. Someone else screams “My body” rushes to a killing clinic to kill an innocent human being and I’m selfish? WOW…. just wow….

        • adam

          ” NOT ok to kill an unborn child because he or she might have a birth defect.”

          Why not?

        • myintx

          Because utlrasounds have been wrong before and healthier than expected babies born. And because even human beings with birth defects should have a right to life.

          If a baby is born with a birth defect not seen before birth would you approve of a woman poisoning her newborn to death?

        • adam

          And because even human beings with birth defects should have a right to life.

          So why is that a reason.
          Who will care for these?

        • myintx

          There are places that specialize in the adoption of special needs children.

        • adam

          So why are there STILL unwanted children?

        • myintx

          There are more unwanted older children than newborns… does that make it OK to kill older children?

        • adam

          Strawman

        • myintx

          Your argument is a strawman…. Of all the reasons a woman gives for killing her unborn child “too many children in the system” isnt on the list. Let’s address the most common excuses used for killing unborn children – “not the right time for a child” and “cannot afford a child”. Since we know there are long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt newborns, all a woman has to do is call an adoption agency and say “I’m pregnant and cannot afford a child” or “I’m pregnant and this isnt the right time for a child for me” and then say “can you please help me find a loving home for my baby so that he or she has a chance at a full and productive life”. There is no valid excuse to kill an unborn child

        • adam

          Unwanted Newborns: A Painful Problem

          http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/newborns.html

        • myintx

          Good thing that guy isn’t in charge of the country… people would be killing their babies too. FYI – there are places that specialize in the adoption of special needs children. Some people are willing to open up their homes and hearts to care for special needs children.

        • adam

          ” Some people are willing to open up their homes and hearts to care for special needs children.”

          And someone needs to adopt all those unwanted children BEFORE trying to put MORE unwanted children on the market.

        • myintx

          So a woman can kill a newly unwanted toddler before he enters the market?

        • adam

          Why not?

          If you dont support abortion then you support unwanted, abused and neglected children.

        • myintx

          OK… wonder how the author of this article would respond knowing that you support someone killing a toddler.

        • adam

          Probably the same way they would respond knowing that you support the sexual abuse, neglect and abuse of unwanted children.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2c443b57866a3ffa3affe90e60f0e1a3251a1a34511ffcbc3ef15c1f6e616a02.png

        • myintx

          By your lame logic if you dont support infanticide you support abuse and neglect… Oh wait, adam does support infanticide. sick

        • adam

          Probably the same way they would respond knowing that you support the sexual abuse, neglect and abuse of unwanted children.

        • Kodie

          Some places, some people who…. there are already way too many kids for that, and you just want to add more. Their chance at full and productive life sounds like a long shot. Sounds like you want to enslave white women so their kids can cut the line when you force them to smile giving away their babies.

        • myintx

          A 13 year old in the system has a long shot at getting adopted – is it OK to kill for that reason? Nope.. its not OK to kill unborn children for that reason either.

        • adam

          Why do SO support unwanted 13 year olds?

          Come back to us when there are no unwanted children.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38105552a1ee7bdfd6f9024d3e27ed0f405887ee3fd5341d468f517d8fdaf963.jpg

        • myintx

          How many unwanted children have you adopted Mr Meme king

        • adam

          None

          But I am all in favor of birth control

          Let’s see how you value these ‘unborn children’

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos
          in one hand and a newborn in the other. You have to drop one, knowing
          that drop will result in the death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You
          have no other choice – you have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • Kodie

          Why do you think each of us is responsible for adopting children who shouldn’t have been born?

        • Greg G.

          I am beginning to realize that one thing worse than a rape victim being forced to carry the resultant pregnancy to term would be to then have the baby raised by small-minded forced-birthers.

        • myintx

          Maybe they were wanted, the parents died and there were no relatives to take the kids… And if you don’t want them to be killed or suffer in the system by your logic you have to adopt them…

          If you really wanted to fight poverty you’d invite all the homeless people in your city into your home to stay. If you were really against slavery you’d be rescuing trafficked women right now! Right?

        • Kodie

          Keep your eyes open – that possibility is distinct, and anyone should think if that might happen, the child would rather not have been born. We shouldn’t be pouring born children into the system in case one of them turns out to be special and amazing and does have a full and productive life. You’re counting on very long odds for that “chance”. You can’t and shouldn’t kill a 13-year-old orphan, but you can judge by the looks of things that that child might rather never been born and would never know the difference or suffer as a result of abortion. The problem is assholes like you who are unrealistic and inflict more suffering than you prevent with your imaginary cause.

        • myintx

          Most adoptions work out… For a newborn who is adopted the odds are good he or she will have a full and productive life. The possibility of them not having a good life is no excuse to kill a newborn, a teenager or an unborn child.

        • adam

          “Most adoptions work out…”

          When they all work out, come back and talk.

          You have a petri dish with a living embryo in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the embryo or the newborn. You have no other choice – you have
          to drop one or the other. Which do you let go of?

        • myintx

          Adoption not working out for a few doesn’t justify infanticide, murder or abortion. And quit asking the same petri dish question. I’ve given my response on other threads.

        • adam

          Then answer the petri dish question honestly.

          It demonstrates a zygote is not a baby

          Here lets make it easier:

          You have a petri dish with 8 living embryos in one hand and a newborn in
          the other. You have to drop one, knowing that drop will result in the
          death of the 8 embryos or the newborn. You have no other choice – you
          have to drop one or the other.

          Which do you let go of?

          (special thanks to BlackMamba44)

        • Kodie

          I’m talking about kids who never get adopted, you shit for brains.

        • Which is 98% of those born to women with an unplanned pregnancy who nevertheless take the pregnancy to term.

          Adoption is a great option … for very, very few women.

        • Kodie

          Of the 2% who “choose” adoption, for how many is it a positive choice; how many were coerced to give up a wanted baby; how many were tricked by crisis pregnancy centers to prolong their pregnancy until there were the dramatic visions of torn arms and legs propaganda, or how many were exposed to propaganda that abortion was cruel but later wish they had done it before it was too late; how many don’t believe in abortion and knew early they were going to give it up for adoption, but didn’t know how bad they’d feel? How many were forced to think of their “child” going to a loving home, despite how they really felt; how many were teenagers whose parents were ashamed of them and made their choice for them? How many of the biological mothers of kids in foster care or orphanages imagine they had been adopted by a caring loving family? It’s not just because abortion is available that only 2% of pregnancies end up being given up for adoption, but I don’t imagine all 2% made it as a positive choice and feel good about it. Adoption as a generous positive giving thing to do is another fictional narrative that assholes like myintx expects to torture women with.

        • myintx

          So is it ok to kill a 13 year old because he might never be adopted…and even crack addicted babies get adopted.

        • Kodie

          So you aren’t willing to face the science. You cling to your superstitious hoarding of clumps of cells by labeling them “innocent” human “beings”. That’s an entirely emotional appeal.

        • myintx

          An unborn child is a human being… If not, what is he or she? What species is he or she a member of and how does he or she magically change species to become a Homo Sapien (i.e. human being).

          Please review fetal development. By 12 weeks an unborn child has all the limbs, fingers and toes he or she will be born with and all major organs in place (limbs and organs that started developing weeks ago). Not a clump of cells.

        • Kodie

          It has a shape but isn’t a person. You want to prolong pregnancy until it has a shape so you can call that shape a person for your emotional appeals that ignore the science.

        • myintx

          “It” is a male or female member of the species Homo sapiens – i.e. a human being. Agree to that truth (confirmed by science) and then we will discuss personhood.

        • Kodie

          It doesn’t matter. If you don’t make emotional arguments, you have nothing.

        • myintx

          Yes it does matter. So, agree to the truth in my previous post and we’ll take it from there.

        • Kodie

          I already said I DON”T FUCKING GIVE A FUCKING SHIT WHAT SPECIES IT IS. Ok, go from there, that’s where you start talking about 13-year-olds. WRONG GODDAMNED DIRECTION ASSHOLE.

        • myintx

          You should care about innocent members of your own species. And instead of admitting I’m right you stomp your feet like an immature child and say “I don’t care”.

          And you’re trying to say “YOUR ARGUMENT IS WRONG BECAUSE I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS!”

        • Kodie

          No, you’re dense, and don’t get it. You’re wrong, but we’ve been over that before too. Why not just leave now? Do you love to get banned? Is it some kind of badge for you to collect? How many more times do you think I want to go around with your dumb motherfucking shitty irrelevant arguments?

        • myintx

          I’m not wrong. Science and logic are on my side.

          Why would I get banned? I’m not posting useless memes or cursing constantly.

        • adam

          ” If a born child were temporarily unconscious they would be protected by laws.”

          Where does the bible state this?

          God’s law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

          Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child
          by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
          — Genesis 38:24

        • myintx

          I don’t care what the bible says… Do you?

        • adam

          Sometime you just have to trust in God that abortion and genocide are acts of love.

        • myintx

          So you think genocide is ok?

        • Kodie

          You can label them whatever you want when they’re inside you. You have literally no perspective and keep asserting your human being horseshit. It has no sensory perception, is not much more than an egg that is discarded with a woman’s period. It has no hopes, no dreams, nothing is missing from it, it is nothing to anyone. If you force it to progress against the living sentient human’s wishes, it will become something we cannot morally discard, but you have zero effect on my opinion with your hysterical ravings and rantings.

        • myintx

          “You can label them whatever you want when they’re inside you” Where is that rule written or do you just enjoy making up b s to support the killing of human beings that have done nothing wrong?

        • Kodie

          That’s the fucking law. What you are saying is ignorant.

        • myintx

          A woman could call her newborn a football… doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean she could kick her newborn like a football.

        • Kodie

          You keep using that stupid example. You call a fertilized egg a baby, and it’s not. There is nothing wrong with aborting it.

        • Pofarmer

          And the problem here is, people use these arguments to justify shooting up planned parenthoods and killing people.

        • Michael Neville

          That’s why I refuse to call forced birthers “pro-life”. They only life they concern themselves with is fetal life. Once the umbilical cord is cut, then the kid is on its own.

        • Kodie

          If they really believed what they say, more of them would do whatever was necessary to get between a woman and her abortionist. They are talking a lot and letting it happen, which says to me, they really know deep down that what’s at stake isn’t that big a deal, and their only job is to keep complaining about it on the internet.

        • myintx

          Where did I say that? You’re LYING…

          And there is something wrong with killing human beings that have done nothing wrong – no matter what stage of development they are in. Way to discriminate….

        • adam

          ” take the time to GIVE A DAMN about a new human being you created.”

          Why?

          Most are going to end up being tortured for ETERNITY according to the character “God” in the bible.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9bfb7cbb09a39ae8911c3879d7def113ab5277eb302961e16b02b2a649a0e7d6.jpg

        • myintx

          Why? Because its the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.

        • adam

          NO, WHY?

          Why is it responsible to let a zygote live?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/509e842891415be6bf59795638af928b446aa51e621dce6cd2b81bc45533e14d.jpg

          Are you promising to adopt them all?

        • myintx

          Is it OK to for a woman to kill her newly unwanted ten year old if you don’t agree to adopt him?

          pro-abort arguments are SO easy to shoot down.

        • Kodie

          If only someone could just choose to abort their zygote before it got unmanageable to afford.

        • myintx

          what do pro-aborts do when they dont have a valid rebuttal – curse, insult or redirect….

        • TheNuszAbides

          then you go right ahead and debate Dillahunty, not leave it up to Kristine K who clearly wasn’t prepared for this supposedly easy shooting.

        • adam

          Answer my question.

        • myintx

          I did…

        • adam

          You did not

        • myintx

          It is responsible to give an unborn child a chance at full and life. If a woman cannot afford a baby she can give him or her up for adoption. So your meme is invalid.

        • Kodie

          Why are you so eager to steal some woman’s baby? If she could not afford to have a baby, why not just give her money to raise it?

        • myintx

          Why don’t you… if that is her CHOICE and you are all for CHOICE then you give her money. Some women feel cornered by abortion. They have no money and are pressured to abort by family members. Why don”t you help them?

        • Kodie

          It’s up to all of us as a society to allow women to make their choice. If their choice is to have a child, and yet, financially she is backed into abortion, why is that my fucking fault? I support her choice to choose good financial choice, which includes abortion, and not get emotionally burdened about it by assholes like you who lie. It is people like you who want to cut welfare programs because you want to steal the babies for adoption.

        • myintx

          Killing an innocent human being isn’t a “good choice” – it is a choice that should be illegal.

          And wow “steal the babies for adoption” – lol…

        • Kodie

          Why do you keep pushing adoption, trying to force women to go through pregnancy, and then if she can’t afford to raise a baby, you don’t care at all about her. Maybe she wants that baby, but you think she should just feel good about giving it away. You hate women and you love suffering and exploitation.

        • myintx

          If a woman wants the baby and cannot afford it shouldn’t YOU be helping too? I support places that help pregnant women AND new mothers. There are places pregnant women can go to for help if they want to keep their baby but feel they cannot afford a child. Unfortunately some of these women are fed the “clump of cells” lie or are coerced into killing.

        • Kodie

          Crisis pregnancy centers lie to women and exploit them for their adoption business. I support letting grown ass women make a choice that hurts no one.

        • myintx

          Oh, so if she humanely kills her newborn without hurting him that’s OK? Abortion kills a human being. Killing a human being that has done nothing wrong (before or after birth) should be illegal.

        • Kodie

          Your opinion is not worth anything

        • myintx

          Opinions help shape laws….. More and more pro-life laws are being passed. It’s only a matter of time before one is challenged up to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade.

        • Kodie

          Religion poisons everything.

        • myintx

          There is no law that says that only atheists can have opinions… There are atheists that are pro-life also.

        • Kodie

          You don’t come across as an atheist.

        • Greg G.

          She doesn’t say she is an atheist, only that some atheists are pro-life. Her references seem to be Catholic sites.

        • Kodie

          Oh, I want her to say herself. I don’t think all atheists are pro-choice, but these arguments are such shit, they must be religious.

        • myintx

          I dont mention god, religion or the bible ever as a reason to be against abortion. Take a look at secularprolife.org and tell me how I come across differently from them. (e.g. http://blog.secularprolife.org/2017/03/pro-life-online-etiquette.html)

        • Kodie

          It’s like there’s a god in the argument and then you just hide that part. It’s stupid as shit.

        • myintx

          if there is any thing “stupid” it was your comment.

        • adam

          “It is responsible to give an unborn child a chance at full and life.”

          WHY?

          ” If a woman cannot afford a baby she can give him or her up for adoption. ”

          Unwanted adopted children traded online in underground network

          http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/unwanted-adopted-children-traded-online-underground-network-f8C11120107

          Why are there unwanted children, if so many of you oppose abortion?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d17c58543019f9bbd34d05f22a4e8d6c7239af077e311519ada26f086196511.jpg

        • myintx

          You oppose born children being killed, why arent you adopting?

        • adam

          “pro-abort arguments are SO easy to shoot down.”

          then do it.

          We are all waiting.

          Are you promising to adopt them all?

        • myintx

          If you want your city to spend more money on homeless shelters or animal shelters do you have to show your support by letting homeless people live with you or adopting animals?

        • adam

          Still waiting for you to shoot down these ‘easy’ arguments.

          All you EMOTIONAL tirades dont do that/

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e137fbcb53ac95fe112ba7671e922efda9b9c621e3651bb0a112935a0045fc75.jpg

        • adam

          ” admit what you support the killing of human beings for convenience.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/399c1022fd17d83255a20fac5966c628aa950fa0fd4a935be54e8b676bde95e7.jpg

        • myintx

          By that “logic” stabbing someone to death must be OK because God causes natural death in born people.

        • MNb

          A living human being according to liar Myintx:

          http://biologypop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/zygote.jpg

          Not a living human being according to liar Myintx:

          https://nl.dreamstime.com/royalty-vrije-stock-foto-de-cel-van-kanker-image21932665

        • myintx

          Where is your backup from science that the life of a human being starts on a trip down the birth canal? You have none. Science tells us the life of a new human being starts at fertilization.

          Its sad that you support DISCRIMINATING against human beings based on the way they look.

        • adam

          God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

          The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people,
          when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that
          causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and
          thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. …

          And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be
          defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that
          causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly
          shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse
          among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall
          conceive seed. — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

        • myintx

          If God causes miscarriages he also causes natural deaths in born humans… does that make stabbing a child to death ok?

        • adam

          God causes abortions
          Go on say it.

          That makes abortion ok.

        • myintx

          is stabbing a child to death OK because god causes death in born children?

        • adam

          God causes abortions
          Go on say it.

          That makes abortion ok.

          Does God cause death by stabbing children to death?

          So it must be ok to give cancer to a child because God does. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/678a2d711010a1d69c13c89e8ce2d1575bbbe85ea4a45be583970972e42c46bb.jpg

        • myintx

          Born children die from natural causes too – that doesn’t make stabbing them to death ok does it?

        • Greg G.

          Nobody is saying it is OK to kill born children. Nobody says that it is OK to kill the unborn if the woman has consented to being a mother.

        • myintx

          But it is OK in your twisted world to kill a human being in the womb if he or she is simply unwanted or the wrong sex right? sad…..

        • Kodie

          Why do you have to keep trying to transfer the stabbing of children to abortion? Because you’re dishonest and you know it.

        • myintx

          Abortion and the stabbing of a newborn have the same main result i.e. a new human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life

        • Kodie

          No, you’re a liar. You love to make women feel guilty about nothing.

        • myintx

          An unborn child’s life isn’t “nothing”….

        • Kodie

          It is.

        • myintx

          No, the lives of all innocent human beings are valuable

        • Kodie

          It is none of those things.

        • myintx

          Huh? AN unborn child isn’t an “it” – he or she is a member of the species Homo Sapiens i.e. a human being.

          Go ahead and look at an ultrasound of an unborn child at 20 weeks. Can you say LOUD AND PROUD “I support someone having the arms and legs ripped off that tiny human being for any reason she wants! yay for abortion!”? can you do that?

        • Kodie

          Why wait 20 weeks? Why do you keep bringing it up, when you’ve been told and shown and you have ignored it all what is at stake during a typical abortion before 8 or 12 weeks. You have to lie for the emotional appeal.

        • myintx

          There are woman who don’t find out they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy… Why are you deflecting?

        • adam

          “There really is something to think about – the humanity of the unborn child…”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bf2c5903bd31c63ade7c2254ddea26df3b1fa938214c6c4db160ffe36546367.jpg

        • myintx

          Who said I worship God? It doesn’t take God to know that killing a child – born or unborn – is wrong.

        • adam

          “Who said I worship God?”

          I didnt say it.

          So DENY that you worship God.

          ” It doesn’t take God to know that killing a child – born or unborn – is wrong.”

          So you can demonstrate this, right?
          No just claims, either.

        • myintx

          No, I don’t worship God. There are millions of secular pro-lifers out there.

          You don’t think that innocent human beings should have a right to life?

        • adam

          “You don’t think that innocent human beings should have a right to life?”

          Of course, so what?

        • myintx

          Well thanks for admitting an unborn child is a human being. Make sure you tell Kodie and Bob and all the other science-deniers in this comments section they shouldn’t deny science.

        • Kodie

          Your sarcasm detector is broken and your analogies are terrible. Christian!

        • myintx

          Just because I don’t like calling people names doesn’t mean I’m Christian. It means I’m a decent person.

        • Kodie

          You think you’re a decent person, but you’re not.

        • myintx

          A decent person wouldn’t support the killing of innocent human beings for convenience.

        • Kodie

          A decent person wouldn’t dictate what women should do with their bodies. You look through her and see a “human being” that deserves more than she does, and I think that’s cruel and fucked up.

        • myintx

          A smart person would know it’s not the woman’s body killed in the abortion….

          A decent person would know that every innocent human being deserves a right to life.

          A decent person wouldn’t be selfish enough to say “my body” and use that as an excuse to kill their unborn son or daughter.

        • myintx

          “If you don’t like slavery, then don’t own one. ” – slave owner from when slavery was legal.

        • Michael Neville

          And your point is what? Just because your political masters have told you that abortion is icky doesn’t mean that it is.

        • myintx

          Abortion is worse than “icky” it is disgusting because it kills a human being that has done nothing to deserve death.

        • Michael Neville

          As I said, you think a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an adult woman. You really don’t like women, do you? If you did, you wouldn’t object to them making decision about their own bodies. Instead, you want them to remain pregnant because you want it. You’re making decisions for people because you’re afraid they’ll make decisions you think are icky.

        • myintx

          No, I think that all human beings should have EQUAL rights. Is telling a man or a woman they have to bring an unwanted baby to a fire station or call CPS and wait for them to get the baby giving a baby more rights than a parent? After all, those laws “force” someone to do something against their will in the name of PROTECTING a vulnerable human being….

        • Michael Neville

          No, you don’t think that “all human beings should have equal rights.” You think that an unborn fetus has the right to remain in the womb when an adult woman doesn’t want it there. Ergo you give the fetus more rights than the woman. So I ask again, why do you hate women?

        • myintx

          If a woman has a newborn and decides she doesn’t want him in her car can she throw him out the window? Is saying that she HAS TO ensure her newborns safety AS LONG AS IT TAKES for him to be SAFELY handed of to someone else giving a newborn more rights than his mother? Is it hating women?

        • Pofarmer

          You are missing a critical distinction here. I’m guessing on purpose. Words mean things.

        • myintx

          Nope…. sometimes people have to do things the don’t wanna and it’s not hating them to tell them they have to ensure the safety of their offspring (born or unborn).

          You didn’t answer my question…..

        • Pofarmer

          I didn’t answer your question because it’s not an honest question. You are conflating different things.

        • myintx

          No…. you are the one who thinks women should be able to do anything with their bodies.. that may include getting their body out of bed, walking past their newborns crib and leaving him or her to die. Cause, after all, telling a woman she has to use “her body” to ensure the safety of her newborn if she doesn’t wanna is apparently slavery or evil or something..

        • Michael Neville

          sometimes people have to do things the don’t wanna

          Like you don’t wanna let women make decisions about their bodies.

        • myintx

          Getting a tattoo is making about your own body. Getting an abortion is about making a decision about the body of another human being – i.e. to kill him or her. And that shouldn’t be allowed.

        • Michael Neville

          So you do think that a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an woman. I notice that you haven’t even tried to defend yourself against my accusation of misogyny. Is that because you know as well as I do that you hate women?

        • myintx

          Do I have to keep answering the same question from you over and over again? Telling a woman she has to ensure the safety of a newborn doesn’t give the newborn more rights than her. Telling a woman they have to ensure the safety of an unwanted unborn child doesn’t either. All innocent human beings should have an equal right to life. That may mean that a parent has to do something against their will and (boo hoo) GIVE A DAMN about their offspring.

          Is telling a woman she cannot kill her newborn misogyny?

        • Kodie

          You are really stupid if you can’t tell the difference between a newborn and a zygote. You must really think we’re stupid if you think we will assume your propaganda position.

        • myintx

          I know the differences between an unborn child and a newborn… and I know the differences between a newborn and an adult. NONE of those differences justifies killing.

          You are really stupid if you cannot see that an unborn child – in any of the stages of his or her life – is a human being.

        • Pofarmer

          Look. Do you really not understand where the implications of what you are proposing here? Lets say we give a zygote full personhood rights. From the moment of conception the woman is obligated to stay pregnant. What if a woman misscarries? Well, the obvious solution is that we have to investigate the misscarriage. How many women will go to jail for your proposal? But thats not the half of it. How many back alley unsafe abortions? How may children born addicted? How many born into fetal alcohol syndrome or worse? How many born with horrific abnormalities requiring lifetime care? How many born into crushing poverty and abuse? You see, there are things worse than not being born at all, which you undoubtedly fail to comprehend. To quote Mark Twain “I was dead for billions of years and it troubled me not at all.” You see, abortion doesn’t stop a life, it prevents it from ever starting. Especially the very early abortions which constitute at least 92%. The remainder are nearly universally for severe abnormalities or life of the mother. Being a human being isn’t just cell division. It’s brain activity, it’s interacting with others, it’s experiencing and loving and being. A 12 week zygote has undoubtedly never done any of that. It cannot. It is senseless, it is void, no sensation, no pain, no desire. No nothing. Now, we GIVE it these atrributes because that is what humans do. We infer consciousness to an embryo when there is none. We do it to dogs, and animals too. It’s human nature, to see intent, sometimes where there is none. We infer our consciousness on others, even when someone elses consciousness is vastly different, or entirely absent. You make an entirely emotional argument. But preventing a fertilized ovum is not killing. Taking mifeprestone at 8 weeks is not killing. There was never a life. There was the potential for a life, some kind of life, bit real, personal, human life was never there. You can make the argument, and it’s where our law stands now, that the age of viability should determine when abortion should be legal, and that roughly coincides with the age that brain activity commences, so we can find some common ground there. But if you want to say that having an abortion at 4 weeks is murder, then we’ll have to disagree, and I’ll have to fight you as hard as I can. Because the consequences of your position are vast and chilling, both to the women affected and the children brought forth.

        • myintx

          We currently ban abortion after viability and I don’t hear stories about every post viability miscarriage being investigated… So, we wouldn’t need to investigate every miscarriage. NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…

          If something is illegal (oh, like infanticide, slavery, bank robbery) DONT DO IT! Do you think slave owners said “If you make slavery illegal, people are still gonna do it… Oh, and we might hurt our backs if we have to work the field ourselves, boo hoo” NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…

          Very few abortions are done for severe birth defects. Also, ultrasounds have been wrong before and healthier than expected babies born. Why take the chance to kill them in the womb… Are you going to be consistant and support a woman killing a newborn born with a birth defect that wasn’t diagnosed before birth? NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…

          Poverty is not a good excuse to kill a toddler is it? Not a good excuse to kill an unborn child… NEXT LAME ARGUMENT… I’m surprised you haven’t pulled overpopulation out of the pro-abort handbag.

          Science tells us the life of a new human being starts at fertilization. I have provided quotes from SCIENTISTS to back up that fact. All you have is your OPINION. Read fetal development guides and you will see the SAME BEING exists at 7 weeks and 7 months. Sure, he or she is in a different stage of development, but if he is a member of the species Homo Sapiens (i.e. human being) at 7 months, he or she is a human being at 7 weeks. Biology tells us a being doesn’t change species during his or her development…

          The lives of ALL innocent human beings matter – born and unborn. None of them should be killed.

        • Pofarmer

          We currently ban abortion after viability and I don’t hear stories about
          every post viability miscarriage being investigated… So, we wouldn’t
          need to investigate every miscarriage. NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…

          because we currently don’t give fetuses rights, which is what you’re proposing, or at least seem to be. There are countries that do this, and women who have miscarriages can and do go to jail.

          If something is illegal (oh, like infanticide, slavery, bank robbery)
          DONT DO IT! Do you think slave owners said “If you make slavery
          illegal, people are still gonna do it… Oh, and we might hurt our backs
          if we have to work the field ourselves, boo hoo” NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…

          Do you really need to see the statistics on this? Texas, for instance, is seeing a spike in over the counter and self induced abortions. Countries like Chile, where abortion is illegal, have abortion rates over 4 times that of the U.S.

          Poverty is not a good excuse to kill a toddler is it? Not a good excuse
          to kill an unborn child… NEXT LAME ARGUMENT…
          Once again, you fail to make a distinction. Not, poverty isn’t a good excuse to kill a toddler, but it very well might be a good reason not to have one in the first place.

          I’m surprised you haven’t pulled overpopulation out of the pro-abort handbag.

          I can hardly wait for the cardboard shanty town brought about by your preferred policies.

          I have provided quotes from SCIENTISTS to back up that fact.

          You actually provided quotes from, in a least one instance, a Catholic apologist, who is also against birth control, which is a deeply hypocritical position.

          . Read fetal development guides and you will see the SAME BEING exists at 7 weeks and 7 months.

          I have. Reading them, it is clear that a fertilized egg is not zygote, is not an embro, is not a fetus, is not a child. There are developmental milestones which you ignore.

          The lives of ALL innocent human beings matter – born and unborn. None of them should be killed.

          Right. So in Africa where Christians are killing witches? In the past when churches ostracized apostates and burned heretics at the stake? All lives matter, right? The ridiculousness here is palpable.

        • Michael Neville

          Because I want you to admit that you could not care less about the woman’s rights. You only concern yourself with the fetus. I want you to admit your complete and utter disregard for the mobile incubator who’s carrying your precious clump of non-sentient cells.

        • myintx

          I admit that I think that rights given in error can and should be taken away. No one should have a right to kill their unborn child. No one should have had the right to own slaves either. Do you think slave owners whined “my rights are being stripped from me” when someone said slaves should be freed?

        • Michael Neville

          So you do admit that a woman has fewer rights than a fetus. Thank you for FINALLY being honest enough to admit that you don’t care about women, only about fetuses. It took you long enough to summon up that honesty but you finally stopped lying about it.

        • Greg G.

          Do you think slave owners whined “my rights are being stripped from me” when someone said slaves should be freed?

          That is exactly what they said. The official Article of Secession of four states cite the threats to state’s rights but the only “right” specified was slavery.

        • Pofarmer

          I guess it couldn’t might not be an irony meter, but I felt something go spppooooiiiiiinnnnngggggg when I read that comment. Just how historically illiterate are people? Hell, they didn’t just whine, they fucking killed millions over it.

        • myintx

          It’s a good thing people didn’t listen to those selfish people whining about their so called “rights” ‘being taken away.

        • Michael Neville

          If you’re against killing human beings then you should be for abortions. Making abortions illegal or even just difficult to obtain doesn’t lower abortion rates as this <a href="New YorkTimes article” shows:

          A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

          Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

          The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.

          https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/17mq5brv0uhanjpg.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          even when myintx at least pretends to understand, they’ve already explicitly denied that personhood matters. so no representation they make of [at least Bob’s] argument is going to make any sense whatsoever, and they’ll harp on ‘unborn child’ at every opportunity because it’s just poetic enough and used by just enough sloppy intellectuals that myintx thinks there’s a solid case in the bag.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re conflating a zygote and a baby, which is dishonest. But then we’ve learned that forced birthers are often dishonest.

        • myintx

          No I am not.. I was disproving your claim that an unborn child has more rights than a woman.

        • Michael Neville

          You not only think a fetus has more rights than an woman, you think you have more rights than her because you want to impose your opinion on her. But like most forced birthers you’re not honest enough to admit either of these things.

        • myintx

          So a woman can leave her newborn to die because telling her she has to ensure his safety is giving him more rights than her?

        • Joe

          Not sure why that’s relevant? As has been continually mentioned to you, and you continue to ignore, an infant is not the same as a foetus.

          To continue your example: Can a parent be forced to donate an organ to an infant?

        • myintx

          An adult isn’t the same as an infant. We don’t use those differences as an excuse to kill infants do we? An adult, an infant and an unborn child are all human beings though. Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their size, location, level of development, skin color or religion.

          A parent cannot be forced to donate an organ to an infant, however, if they do they cannot kill the infant to get it back (a much closer analogy to pregnancy/abortion).

        • Joe

          An adult isn’t the same as an infant

          Neither is a foetus the same as an infant, which isn’t the same as an adult.

          Human beings shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their size, location, level of development, skin color or religion.

          Yet we do discriminate against people based on level of development, for example. The legal age for drinking in the USA is 21. It’s 16-18 in other countries.

          A parent cannot be forced to donate an organ to an infant

          So they can just leave a child to die, legally?

        • myintx

          Having a different drinking age isn’t the same as saying “we’re gonna kill you because you are too old or too young or because you are Jewish or Black…”

          Not donating an organ is not the same as donating an organ and then wanting to kill the recepient to get it back…

        • Joe

          No, it’s an analogy.

          There’s nothing directly analogous to pregnancy, so your analogies aren’t much use either.

        • myintx

          Your organ donations ANALOGIES are even less relevant.

        • Greg G.

          But forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy is forcing her to donate several organs, undergo a lot of pain, and possibly die.

        • myintx

          The organs have already been donated…. what pro-life laws want to do is tell her she cannot kill her unborn son or daughter.

          The death rate from abortion is much much higher than someone dying during childbirth…. And, I hope you know that “might die during childbirth” isn’t high on the list of excuses women use to kill their unborn children.

        • Susan

          The organs have already been donated.

          Of course, they haven’t. “Donation” implies consent. You are not talking about consent. You are talking about forced pregnancy, labour and childbirth.

          The death rate from abortion is much, much higher than someone dying during childbirth…

          Facepalm… you’ve got to be kidding. Citation please.

          “might die during childbirth isn’t high on the list of excuses

          It only has to be on the list of reasons to be extremely relevant you cold-blooded asshole

          There are many reasons women choose not to develop a zygote inside their bodies. Risk of death doesn’t need to be number one on the list. It’s still on the list.

        • myintx

          An unborn child doesn’t consent to being killed.. Innocent human beings should be protected from being killed by selfish parents.

          “Citation please?” About 1 MILLION human being are killed ever year in the U.S. via abortion. That’s a pretty high death rate dont you think?

          lol — you support human beings having the limbs ripped their body for any reason a woman wants and you think I’m cold blooded….. wow.

        • MNb

          “An adult isn’t the same as an infant.”
          Exactly.
          And an infant isn’t the same as an unborn baby.
          An unborn baby after 7 months pregnancy isn’t the same as a zygote.
          Thanks for undermining your own argument against abortion.

        • myintx

          And right after I said “An adult isn’t the same as an infant”.

          I said:

          We don’t use those differences as an excuse to kill infants do we?

        • MNb

          Which is irrelevant.
          We do use those differences as an excuse to deny infants voting rights.
          As I already told you.
          So differences are used as an excuse to grant different rights to humans at different stages of their development. Which is exactly the point of legalized abortion.
          Stupid liar.

          May I assume you oppose this as well?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

          According to your lying illogic I am a killer of an innocent human being – 35 years ago I helped my then girlfriend to get one. No, I’m not embarrassed, as you lied above.

        • Greg G.

          You are not honest enough to respond to MN’s comment so you respond to what you wish he had said.

        • myintx

          My question PROVES that telling a woman she has to ensure the safety of her child – born or unborn – doesn’t give the born or unborn child more rights than the woman. It ensures that a child – born or unborn – has an equal right to life. It’s a shame we even need laws to tell someone to give a damn about their children (born or unborn)

        • Kodie

          Your emotional appeals are not accurate.

        • myintx

          No emotional appeals and my statement is accurate.

        • Kodie

          You can’t even make your argument without drawing a vivid picture of a woman murdering a infant. You’re a liar, you have no valid position.

        • myintx

          I can make a good argument.. The only argument needed is that an unborn child IS a human being. Innocent human beings should have a right to life.

        • MNb

          Repeating the same argument ad nauseam doesn’t make it a good argument.

        • myintx

          The “my body” argument is an example of a lame argument

        • Kodie

          The problem is you have to lie about your position. You can’t compare a newborn infant human baby to a zygote without a heavy dose of sentimentality.

        • myintx

          At least the same being is involved – just in different states of development. Your side compares an unborn child to rocks, tumors, fingernails and tapeworms. Thats dishonest

        • Kodie

          No, sorry. You have to lie about a thing that has no form being cute and adorable, innocent, needy, etc. You are the liar.

        • myintx

          Never said an unborn child was cute… Is that your criteria for whether someone can be killed or not- if they aren’t cute kill em cause they are inconvenient and it’s all about ME!

        • Kodie

          You know you can’t help talking about infants and toddlers and judging women for killing them hypothetically. And it is about me, it’s not about you. That’s what is ticking you off. You can’t control people, you keep throwing yourself in other people’s ordinary business and calling it a holocaust. Go fuck yourself.

        • myintx

          No, life isn’t about you… if you create a new human being life ceases to be just about you. You now have a responsibility (sorry if that word horrifies you) to care for him or her.

          Animal cruelty laws and infanticide laws aren’t about controlling people ARE THEY? They are about protecting. So are pro life laws that tell women they cannot kill their unborn children

        • myintx

          Many laws reflect peoples opinions. Hope you know that. Most people are of the opinion that unborn children should be protected after viability. which is why most states have laws protecting unborn children after viability. Those laws Ok with you?

        • Michael Neville

          Abortion is legal in the US (although forced birthers like you are trying hard to change that). So it is just YOUR OPINION that abortions should be made illegal. You’ve got no reason other than YOUR OPINION that abortions should be illegal.

          This New York Times article talks about legal versus illegal abortions:

          A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

          Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

          The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.

          http://disq.us/url?url=%3Ci%3ENew+YorkTimes%3C%2Fi%3E+article%3ANgIRWRlYwyDXZGNwVEAx2Cl1jUM&cuid=2306652

        • Greg G.

          Laws should protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses, especially the superstitious masses.

        • myintx

          You didn’t answer the question…

        • Why is this hard? A newborn with a trillion cells is ethically very different than a single microscopic cell. If you want to avoid abortion yourself, that’s fine. Don’t pretend that you’ve got it all figured out so that you can impose your opinions on the rest of us.

        • myintx

          So you want to count cells to determine when a human being should be protected? 1 – KILL ’em…. 2 – KILL ’em… …. 1 billiion kill em… 2 billion?well maybe we can protect them….

          There are many laws that reflect our opinions… People think that puppies (no matter how many cells they have) shouldn’t have their mouths taped shut… People think that unborn children after viability should be protected… Are animal abuse and post viability abortion laws OK because they are based on our opinions?

        • Greg G.

          It’s not the number of cells, it’s the difference between “newborn” and “unborn”. One is a free-living being while the other is dependent on another person’s organs.

        • myintx

          So youre OK with abortion at 8 months without any restrictions?

          A newborn is dependent upon his or her parents body… If the parent decides they dont wanna use their body to ensure the safety of their newborn TOO BAD – they have to use THEIR BODY at least as long as it takes to hand the baby over SAFELY to someone else.. to bad if it is against their will, right?

        • Greg G.

          So youre OK with abortion at 8 months without any restrictions?

          I think that is a decision the mother should make in consultation with her doctor. If something has come up that would make her change her mind, it is not for you or me to second guess.

          A newborn is dependent upon his or her parents body…

          No, it isn’t. A newborn is dependent on whoever chooses to care for it. The rest of your post is even more stupid, even without the random capitalization.

        • adam

          Stealing that and adding to my libraray

        • myintx

          Did I say an unborn child was a baby? NO. An unborn child is a human being though. So is an adult, old person and a newborn. Abortion kills a human being.

        • It’s a child but not a baby?? Wow—keeping up with your redefinitions is getting harder all the time.

          Abortion kills a human being.

          Which you’ve made a meaningless statement because of how you’ve redefined “human being.”

          As I’ve pointed out to you before, if your argument rests on a specific definition, you don’t have an argument.

        • myintx

          I haven’t redefined human being. It’s scientific consensus that the life of a new human being starts at fertilization.

          “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”
          -Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 Sterling Pub. Co

          “The development of a new human being begins when a male’s sperm pierces the cell membrane of a female’s ovum, or egg….The villi become the placenta, which will nourish the developing infant for the next eight and a half months.”
          -Scarr, S., Weinberg, R.A., and Levine A., Understanding Development, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1986. page 86

        • The life of a new Homo sapiens starts at fertilization. Or maybe human. I wouldn’t call it a human being.

          Yes, you’ve found two authorities who say otherwise. That’s not enough to convince Merriam-Webster.

          Yet again: an argument built on a definition isn’t an argument.

        • myintx

          That’s two more authorities than YOU have!

        • … for an argument that is of no consequence.

          As I’ve pointed out before, when your argument rests on a particular definition, you’ve got no argument.

        • myintx

          My argument is based on evidence from scientists, not dictionaries.

        • Greg G.

          Because that human life form is using another person’s organs without permission.

        • MNb

          “I think that all human beings should have EQUAL rights.”
          Then your beloved unborn and newborn childs should get voting rights as well.
          That or you’re lying.

        • Greg G.

          I wonder how myintx would like it if pregnant women got two votes, three if she is having twins, etc.

        • Joe

          I’ve often asked if a parent could claim child support the moment she presented a positive pregnancy test.

          Curiously, the “Pro-Life” right aren’t happy with that suggestion.

        • Joe

          Five year-olds should be given the right to vote as well.

          Wait a minute, I believe that recently happened in the USA?

        • epeeist

          Wait a minute, I believe that recently happened in the USA?

          Wrong, what they got was a president with the emotional maturity of a five year old.

        • myintx

          So when a liberal is holding up an equal rights sign do you get snarky with them?

        • MNb

          Those signs don’t apply to children.
          Thanks for not addressing my point.
          Liar.

        • myintx

          If you know what the liberals sign meant you should know what I meant too… I didnt mean that newborns should have a right to vote… but they should have a right to life. Unborn children should too.

        • MNb

          Then you lied when you wrote “I think that all human beings should have EQUAL rights.”
          You’re discussing one particular right and MichaelN above was correct:

          “you think a non-sentient clump of cells has more rights than an adult woman. You really don’t like women, do you? If you did, you wouldn’t object to them making decision about their own bodies. Instead, you want them to remain pregnant because you want it. You’re making decisions for people because you’re afraid they’ll make decisions you think are icky.”
          The honest thing would be to admit it, but it would also embarrass you. You being a liar of course prefer to start lying.
          Thank you.

        • myintx

          Abortion isnt about making a decision about your own body. Its about making a decision to kill another human being. Hope you realize that….

        • What do you say to a PETA advocate who demands that all living beings be given equal rights? Why should you get to impose your beliefs on the rest of us? Maybe that person should.

        • myintx

          I’d say let them try to convince the majority of Americans on their position and then we’ll talk… As evidenced by laws the majority of Americans think it is wrong to take a dogs mouth shut so most states have animal cruelty laws. Is that denying anyone a right to abuse animals? no….

        • Kodie

          You can’t make a better case for veganism? I mean, people love their animal cruelty for breakfast, lunch, dinner, shoes, coats, belts, upholstery, make-up, entertainment, etc.

        • myintx

          Then you work to change peoples opinion on eating hamburgers and I will work to educate people on the humanity of the unborn child. Go find a thread on another forum dealing with hamburgers and start your work.

        • Kodie

          I’m eating a hamburger right now. You’re the fucking hypocrite.

        • myintx

          Did doctors do an IQ test when the little boy fell in the gorillas cage to see who had more brainpower? No, they saved the boy because he was a HUMAN BEING. The lives of all human beings matter. Including unborn children..

        • Kodie

          That wasn’t a scientific decision. You’re still a hypocrite.

        • myintx

          It wasn’t… they saved the boy because he was a human being….

        • And the majority of Americans are OK with abortion. So stop whining.

          About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

        • myintx

          There was a poll that said that quite a few people didn’t even know Roe V Wade was about abortion, so any generic question asking about support of Roe V Wade without saying it allows a woman to have an abortion until viability for any reason she wants is invalid…. There have been more detailed polls that show that a majority of Americans are OK with abortion restriction after 20 weeks proving that a majority of Americans have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade.

        • OK, OK, I get it! Americans support choice.

          I’m not sure why you thought I didn’t understand, but it’s good to see we’re on the same page.

        • myintx

          Americans don’t support Roe V Wade

        • Greg G.

          It is inside another person’s body using organs against the other person’s will, stealing nutrients from her blood, and dumping toxic wastes back into her bloodstream. The birthing process is not trivial and is a risk to the woman’s life.

        • myintx

          So? A woman may wake up one morning and decide her newborn is in her house using her resources against her will. She cannot kill her newborn. She at least has to SAFELY hand off the baby to someone else – no matter what her feelings are and not matter how long it takes.
          Abortion is a risk to a human beings life as well. Almost always deadly. Sure there have been a few survivors (e.g. Gianna Jesson and Baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown), but it is deadly.

        • Greg G.

          Exodus 22:2-3 (NRSV)2 If a thief is found breaking in, and is beaten to death, no bloodguilt is incurred; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, bloodguilt is incurred.

          Do you agree with that passage? The thief is a human being, too. An unwanted fetus is taking what belongs to the woman against her will. It is potentially a threat to her life.

        • myintx

          An unborn child isn’t a thief. An unborn child has done nothing wrong.

          Going up the stairs to care for a newborn could be a threat to a life. Driving an unwanted baby to a fire station could be a threat to someone’s life. Are those good EXCUSES for a woman to leave an unwanted newborn to die?

          Most abortions have nothing to do with threats to a womans health. They are done for lame excuses like “not the right time for a child” or “cannot afford a child”. Those are great reasons to work with an adoption agency to give a new human being a chance at life. HORRIBLE excuses to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong.

          “stealing my nutrients” – way to prove that abortions aren’t “difficult decisions”…

        • Kodie

          If you are intent on calling it a person, then an uninvited “person” inside my body is a thief, and you are a rapist.

        • myintx

          If you left a door open and a toddler wandered in you wouldn’t call him a thief would you? What would you do? Call 911 and wait as LONG as it took for the police to come and get the toddler? or call the parents and wait as LONG as it took for the parents to come and get the toddler, right? Even if the toddler ran to your fridge and stole a drink, right?

        • Kodie

          Christians make up the worst analogies.

        • myintx

          I see.. you know you have no valid excuses or rebuttals so you start resorting to insults… so sad.

        • epeeist

          Most abortions have nothing to do with threats to a womans health. They are done for lame excuses like “not the right time for a child” or “cannot afford a child”.

          So if you want to eliminate this kind of reason then you would be in favour of better and more widespread sex education, and of cheaper and more easily available contraception right?

        • myintx

          I would be in favor of people taking responsibility for their actions and stop blaming the gubment for everything… Here’s a concept – if there is something you cannot afford then save your pennies until you can afford it… and if education you want isnt provided freely and conveniently then put in the (gasp) effort to teach yourself (e.g. go visit a clinic and ask questions, do research at the library etc).

        • epeeist

          Here’s a concept – if there is something you cannot afford then save your pennies until you can afford it.

          So not only a misogynist but completely lacking in charity and empathy as well.

          If people can’t afford something then fuck em, it’s obviously their fault that they are poor.

          e.g. go visit a clinic

          So where are they going to find all these clinics?

          do research at the library

          And when they do research at the library and find that the most reliable methods of birth control are beyond their means?

        • Pofarmer

          Typical.

        • epeeist

          Typical

          All very, isn’t it. The appeals to emotion, the misogyny, the authoritarian attitude, the refusal to accept something that might reduce the incidence of abortion, the complete lack of empathy with anyone who doesn’t take his position.

          The question is, whether he actually counts as a human being. A distinct failure and despicable if he does.

        • Pofarmer

          the refusal to accept something that might reduce the incidence of abortion

          The “Sluts can get birth control if they want it” reply was an answer I actually got IRL. It was kind of staggering. When you have studies showing that, obviously, people aren’t finding birth control, aren’t using it properly or aren’t using the best methods when they do, and that we can help them and dramatically reduce abortions and unintended pregnancies, all of which are vastly more expensive than just providing proper birth control in the first place, and yet they reject that for “reasons” it just really puts the whole “pro-life” think in stark perspective. These are people that want to roll modern society way, way back.

        • epeeist

          These are people that want to roll modern society way, way back.

          When women were kept barefoot and pregnant you mean. Oh, and not allowed out without their owners of course.

        • myintx

          I’d rather donate money to keep food on someones table than a condom on their pecker…

          There are thousands of clinics across the country that provide low or no cost care to poor people.

        • epeeist

          I’d rather donate money to keep food on someones table than a condom on their pecker…

          So you are adding a false dichotomy to your list of fallacies.

          You also expose yourself as being not only pro forced birth but anti contraception as well.

          There are thousands of clinics across the country that provide low or no cost care to poor people.

          My daughter worked in Boston for a while, I presume she could have gone to St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center for contraceptive information.

          This is a set of weasel words, there might be “thousands of clinics” but how many of these offer sex education or contraceptive advice and provision of contraception.

          I note your avoidance of what poor people should do when they find actual birth control is beyond their means.

        • myintx

          If I don’t want to buy a poor person a car am I anti-car? Me not wanting to buy someonen a condom doesnt mean I’m against birth control – it means I’m for personal responsibility….

          Planned Parenthood is supposed to be there to help women… are you telling me that if a couple went in there and said “we want to learn about birth control” they’d turn the couple away or throw some ineffective condoms at them in the hopes they can make real money when the woman comes back to kill her unborn son or daughter? There are plenty of clinics out there that can help people… not to mention pharacists are pretty knowledgeable too.

          Something like food is a necessity and I don’t have a problem with food stamps or donating food or money to feed the poor. If a couple finds themselves short of funds, perhaps they can get a 2nd job, get a cheap cellphone (or no phone), or budget their money in some other way too pay for it… or go to a clinic and ask for samples or discounts or freebies. Or find other ways to entertain themselves in the bedroom..

          If the choice is feeding a kid who is starving or providing a condom to a horny couple I’ll feed the kid and suggest to the couple to keep it in their pants until they can afford contraception.

        • epeeist

          If I don’t want to buy a poor person a car am I anti-car?

          Add weak analogy to the list of logical fallacies that you keep committing.

          Me not wanting to buy someonen a condom doesnt mean I’m against birth control – it means I’m for personal responsibility….

          But so far you have avoided saying whether you are in favour of better and more widespread sex education and more easily available and cheaper contraception.

          Let’s be blunt about it, do you or do you not support sex education? Do you or do you not support the use of birth control using such methods as condoms, IUD, birth control pills or contraceptive injections?

          Planned Parenthood is supposed to be there to help women…

          This is the organisation whose clinics are routinely attacked and which Paul Ryan plans to defund.

          suggest to the couple to keep it in their pants until they can afford contraception.

          Because of course abstinence is so successful.

        • myintx

          No, not a weak analogy…. Some people think cars are a necessity in life, like sex. Some people think they NEED a car…

          There already is sex ed and accessible birth control out there.. Most abortions are done by women over 20. Do you honestly think they can blame not having sex ed in high school 10 years earlier for an unplanned pregnancy.. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.. Quit blaming the gubment

          All PP has to do is stop killing unborn children and they can stay open…. But that would cut into the money they make so they don’t wanna do that.

          PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY….

        • epeeist

          There already is sex ed and accessible birth control out there..

          Nice sidestep, I didn’t ask whether there was material out there. I asked you whether you supported sex education and birth control.

          Your evasion on the subject is noted.

        • myintx

          No you didn’t – you asked “But so far you have avoided saying whether you are in favour of better and more widespread sex education and more easily available and cheaper contraception.” and my reply is above.

        • epeeist

          No you didn’t – you asked

          Liar

          From this post:

          Let’s be blunt about it, do you or do you not support sex education? Do you or do you not support the use of birth control using such methods as condoms, IUD, birth control pills or contraceptive injections?

        • myintx

          You did say “so far you have avoided saying whether you are in favour of better and more widespread sex education and more easily available and cheaper contraception.”

          I’m OK with sex ed the way it is now and people using birth control that prevents a woman from getting pregnant. There already is birth control out there. The problem is that close to 1/2 of women who have abortions didnt use any the month they became pregnant. Not even the kinds available at the corner drug store. Thats irresponsible on the part of the couple – don’t you agree?

        • epeeist

          I’m OK with sex ed the way it is now and people using birth control that prevents a woman from getting pregnant.

          Still weaseling away. I gave you the example of Texas, where sex education is “abstinence only”, would that be the kind of sex education that is OK the way it is now? Or would you be happier with the way the Dutch do sex education.

          As for “birth control that prevents a woman from getting pregnant”, this is an obvious obfuscation. I asked whether you would support the use of “condoms, IUD, birth control pills or contraceptive injections” and you come back with that mealy mouthed phrase.

          The problem is that close to 1/2 of women who have abortions didnt use any the month they became pregnant.

          Given your cavalier attitude to facts I am going to ask you to provide a reference for that figure.

          Thats irresponsible on the part of the couple – don’t you agree?

          That may be irresponsible on the part of some couples. When I see your citation then I will have more idea.

        • myintx

          Most women who have abortions are over 20 – do you honestly think they should be blaming not having had sex ed 5 or 10 years before for their unplanned pregnancy? That’s like someone getting in a car accident and saying “no one forced me to take drivers ed in high school” I didnt know I was supposed to have a license to drive.. People know they need a license to drive and it’s not the governments fault if they don’t….

          And I did choose my words carefully on birth control. I am against birth control that could cause a miscarriage (e.g. fertilized egg not to implant). That said, there are still many types to choose from. A couple could choose two to make their chances of getting pregnant go down even more.

          “Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2008 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).” https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

        • Kodie

          Having an abortion is responsible.

        • myintx

          No it’s not… it’s taking the easy way out of the responsibility you have to the new human being you and your partner created.

        • Kodie

          You really hate women.

        • epeeist

          You really hate women.

          Yep, one of the strongest cases of misogyny I have seen for a long time.

        • myintx

          So it’s hating women to tell them what to do… hm….. guess we cannot tell women they have to ensure the safety of an unwanted newborn — as long as it takes for them to be SAFELY handed off to someone else… OH NO, we’re telling women to give a damn about a human being they created… BOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOO