web analytics

You Reap What You “Roe”

A guest submission by Brian Horvath:

In 1973 Roe vs. Wade legalized a woman’s right to abort a human being. The science involved in abortion is unchallenged: A woman who aborts is aborting a human being. We know that humans produce humans, not elephants, dogs, cats, etc. Additionally, we know that being which is within the woman is alive. Why else seek an abortion if that which is within you is not alive? A pretense behind the legalization of abortion was that not only is it the woman’s body to do with what she pleases, but also that by providing places to legally have abortion would keep the woman more safe if she were to have a “back alley” abortion. Back alley abortions were dirty and more dangerous to a woman’s health. Therefore, legalize abortion which would allow the woman to exercise her “right to do what she wants,” while at the same time being safe. Who would want a woman to be unsafe, after all?! Transition…

Karl Rove is recently quoted saying, “So, we have come a long way. Now, maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean, basically, the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.” Of course, he does not think that is going to happen. Anyone with working mental capacity can see that’s what many people want though.  

Consider the consequences if the 2nd Amendment as it is practiced today were to be repealed, if removing guns from society was legitimately on the table. Whatever guns you own would have to be removed from you. Yes, I know, “over your dead body.” Careful what you ask for.  If citizens cannot have guns or access to guns that leaves the government in possession and control of them. A quick look at the news and we can see what people think about the supposed oppression and abuse of power by the government. Imagine how much more oppressive and abusive the government would be if the people had no way to defend themselves.

But worst yet, if law abiding citizens have no access to guns, how will they protect themselves from criminals who have illegally ascertained weaponry? Are we really to fight the bad guys off with a knife? Within the year I sent out two emails, one to Fridays and the other to Moms Demand Action. Only TGI Friday responded (October 8 th, 2014).

“We want to be sure that we can provide not only a fun environment, but a safe one as well. It is a corporate policy that we do not allow firearms of any caliber into our stores unless carried by a police officer on duty, for the protection of our many valued guests.”

TGI Friday missed the memo that criminals are called such because they violate the law. Nevermind the fact that each table is provided a knife and a fork, all which can easily be used as a weapon by anyone at any time. So much for a fun and safe environment.  Either way, if a disgruntled worker comes in shooting, or a bitter ex comes seeking revenge, how am I supposed to protect my family and keep them safe. Apparently, I’m a valued guest, but not valued enough to be able to protect my family.  But none of this is even the main point.

As we know, there are multiple stories online about legal gun owners preventing murders and robberies because they had the right to bear arms. They were able to keep themselves and others safe. No surprise, those stories rarely find their way onto CNN and other MSM outlets. But I’m not done…

What’s worse than preventing me from protecting my family? If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the government and of the criminals (see above). But because there will be such tight restrictions on who can and cannot have a gun, criminals will find illegal methods to continue growing their supply of weapons and ammo. Law abiding citizens, you and me, who will follow the law, will literally be at the mercy of the criminal and the government.  Bust down my door, break my window out and climb in…I dare you…my butter knife will destroy your 9mm any day of the week.

More…

Not only will the criminals find illegal methods of finding guns and ammo, but eventually they will find illegal methods to manufacture their own guns (prohibition anyone?). As it is now, guns have serial numbers and can be traced relatively easily to an owner/purchaser/company, etc. Once criminals manufacture their own weapons, any ability to trace anything will be severely limited-which is just how they would want it (no need to file off a serial number now).

It gets worse than not being able to protect your family, untraceable weapons, and criminals manufacturing their own guns…

No one in their right mind would willingly give up their right to protect their family. Once we repeal the 2nd Amendment it’s open season on anyone, anywhere.

In order to protect our families, we will be forced to “back alley” purchasing of guns. If we made abortion illegal, we would be “forcing” women into unsafe “back alley” abortions-or so goes the argument. I mean, we want to keep them safe right? Protect their rights?

It won’t be any different if you take away the 2nd Amendment as practiced today. The guns will continue to fall into the hands of the criminal. And right thinking individuals who actually care about the safety of their family and the rights afforded to them, will be forced into dark alleys to purchase protection from criminals, who may or may not be honest.

What could possibly go wrong?

Share

31 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on June 23, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    Failed in your very first sentence.

    Also, you should watch this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL8JEEt2RxI

    • End Bringer on June 24, 2015 at 12:56 am

    Roe vs Wade was indeed passed in 1973.

    • Anthony on June 24, 2015 at 11:36 am
      Author

    Perhaps Tim didn’t want to deal with the uncomfortable truth that what was being killed was a “human being.”

    He prefers to think of it instead as a toad, or perhaps a slug. It only becomes ‘human’ through the magical incantation of the spell, “this is a wanted” child.

    Whether or not it is human or not depends on whether it is wanted or not.

    • End Bringer on June 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    Well, at least he’s keeping it organic. Most liberals think that humans produce handbags inside them to be kept or dropped whenever it’s fashionable.

    • Timaahy on June 24, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Haha… OMG! EB MADE A FUNNY!

    There. That’s better.

    • Timaahy on June 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Perhaps Tim didn’t want to deal with the uncomfortable truth that what was being killed was a “human being.”

    vs

    It only becomes ‘human’ through the magical incantation of the spell, “this is a wanted” child.

    No one disputes that a fetus is human.

    Whether and at what point it becomes a human being is another matter entirely.

    I don’t hear you crying when I clip my finger nails.

    • End Bringer on June 24, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    And as the following statements in the post point out it’s a scientific fact that all human beings exist as distinct human beings at the moment of conception. It’s just a scientific fact most philosophical naturalistic secularist pointedly ignore (because one can never let the truth of science get in the way of perceived consequence-free sex).

    Or if they don’t ignore it, they’re like Giubilini and Minerva and assert it doesn’t matter even after being born.

    • Timaahy on June 24, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Scientific fact that all human beings exist as distinct human beings at the moment of conception

    You’ll forgive me for not giving too much weight to your views on what constitutes a “scientific fact”. What with the whole evolution-and-climate-change-denying-young-earth-creationist thing.

    • Anthony on June 24, 2015 at 7:16 pm
      Author

    Tim, you just committed the genetic fallacy.

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

    Address the proposition on its own merits.

    There are a variety of reasons why people resort to fallacies. In my opinion, the reason why you resort to it in this case is because it has implications for your worldview that you’d rather not entertain. EB does not make a controversial statement, here.

    “I don’t hear you crying when I clip my finger nails.”

    You’ve said this before, as though we’re supposed to intuitively recognize something. What? That a finger nail is ‘alive’ but we don’t mourn its ‘death’? Or is it that you believe a human being can be cloned as easily from other cells of the body as through the ‘natural’ process. I genuinely want to know… before I trounce whatever you say. 🙂

    • Timaahy on June 24, 2015 at 7:52 pm

    Tim, you just committed the genetic fallacy.

    Almost!

    I’m not saying he’s wrong about the whole “human being” thing because he’s a YEC, I’m saying that it’s difficult to trust someone when they pick and choose what scientific facts they believe.

    He’s still wrong of course… just not because he’s a YEC.

    • Timaahy on June 24, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    That a finger nail is ‘alive’ but we don’t mourn its ‘death’?

    No, not quite.

    Anti-abortionists use language in a very emotionally manipulative way. Calling a blastocyst a “human being” is a very deliberate attempt to preemptively define anyone who obtains an abortion as a murderer; to make everyone think that women are killing their “unborn children”.

    A blastocyst is undeniably human. But so is my finger nail.

    What neither of them are, are “human beings”.

    • Anthony on June 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm
      Author

    Actually, its quite the other way around.

    Pro-abortionists use deliberately sterile language in order to gloss over precisely what it is that is being killed… I’m sorry, ‘terminated.’

    There is no substantive difference between a human blastocyst, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human neonate, a human toddler, a human pre-teen, a human adult, etc… these are all just stages of development that human beings progress through.

    Not only did you commit the genetic fallacy (sorry, you did, and sorry, you’re wrong–EB is right) you have now also equivocated, or perhaps worse, moving the goal posts. All sorts of logical badness going on, I may not be able to pinpoint the actual fallacy. But it is fallacious:

    You said “A blastocyst is undeniably human” and “so is my finger nail” but THEN you said neither of them are “human beings.” But to say that something is human is NOT the same as saying that something is a human being. It’s apples and oranges. You ought to say, rather, that your finger nail is a human finger nail. This would prompt you to have to fill in the proper modifier on the other side of the equation, a human blastocyst.

    Having performed this operation, we now see that “blastocyst” and “being” and “finger nail” do not actually belong to the same categories.

    We can probably make this clear easily enough by pointing out that a human neonate is nonetheless a human being.

    (I say this assuming you are not like many in our day who have no problem with infanticide, on the view that newborns are not human beings. If I’m wrong, and you think newborn humans can be aborted just like ‘fetuses’ can, you better let me know now.)

    Calling something a blastocyst is only a descriptor of its state of development. Calling something a ‘human being‘ is completely independent of its state of development, for obviously we refer to people as ‘human beings’ regardless of their stage of development… unless, of course, we wish to have the right to kill it.

    Then we call it a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, and yes, even a neonate. Wouldn’t want anyone to get emotional about what they’re doing, after all.

    Anyway, ‘being’ and ‘finger nail’ are not in the same category.

    The only way that I will tolerate you disagreeing with me on this is if you are willing to continue your reasoning, saying,

    A blastocyst is undeniably human. But so is a toddler.

    What neither of them are, are “human beings.”

    • End Bringer on June 24, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    “I’m not saying he’s wrong about the whole “human being” thing because he’s a YEC, I’m saying that it’s difficult to trust someone when they pick and choose what scientific facts they believe.”

    Pot and kettle. I can’t help but notice you merely assert we’re wrong, while offering no backing to support it.

    It should also be noted though that determining when human life starts is in the realm of consistent and repeatable observation (supposedly a fundamental necessity to the scientific process), while the other two is either complete inference and theoretical speculation and/or has been observed in such little time as to be kin to a person only taking enough time to see the tide is going down and jumping to the conclusion the oceans are disappearing because people swim in them.

    So if I seem selective about what “scientific facts” I accept, it’s because there is indeed a fundamental distinction in how certain topics are “proven” that I’m aware of, and you may not be.

    “Anti-abortionists use language in a very emotionally manipulative way.”

    Hilarious from a liberal, whose beliefs are so often rested upon emotionalism. What are you so often fond of accusing me of? I’m not empathetic enough? Heh.

    It’s interesting to note you seem to be rather blind to the fact that if your statement is true than the opposite is also true – Pro-abortionists use dehumanizing language (just as every group trying to annihilate other groups have done) so as to convince themselves what they are doing isn’t the same atrocity that’s been committed throughout history just to different target.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 1:18 am

    Pro-abortionists use deliberately sterile language in order to gloss over precisely what it is that is being killed… I’m sorry, ‘terminated.’

    Well now we come to it, don’t we…

    The language isn’t deliberately sterile. It’s deliberately descriptive. I know you genuinely believe you are doing the same thing that we are – and just calling a spade a spade – but there is no rational basis for describing a group of five cells a “human being” or a “person” or an “unborn child”.

    It’s a group of five cells. It can’t think. It can’t feel. It can’t move. It has no brain, no heart, no bones, no muscle, no internal organs of any kind.

    So what it is, then, is a blastocyst.

    Certainly, it’s on its way to being human, should a long list of fortunate events take place, including, but not limited to, a just god choosing not to step in and abort it himself. And certainly, should those events fall into place, there will come a time when its status as a human being is assured. Somewhere in between is a grey area that there isn’t much point in discussing, due to your insistence on assigning personhood to something smaller than a pinhead.

    There is no substantive difference between a human blastocyst, a human embryo, a human fetus, a human neonate, a human toddler, a human pre-teen, a human adult, etc… these are all just stages of development that human beings progress through.

    I answered this above… but perhaps it would be better to analogise with use everyone’s favourite birthday treat – cake.

    I’m sure you already know where I’m going with this, but just so we’re clear – it would be a brave baker that threw a bunch of ingredients into a bowl and tried to call it “cake”.

    But to say that something is human is NOT the same as saying that something is a human being.

    I love it when people make my own point back to me. 🙂

    My very first comment referred to that exact fact. And my subsequent comments were an attempt to address comments like this, that indicate you believed otherwise:

    Whether or not it is human or not depends on whether it is wanted or not.

    Having performed this operation, we now see that “blastocyst” and “being” and “finger nail” do not actually belong to the same categories.

    Well that all depends on what level of category you’re talking about, doesn’t it? If you put a finger nail, a heart and Pat Robinson on a table and asked, ‘Which of these is human?’, the correct answer – and I’m being incredibly generous to Pat Robinson here – would be ‘All of them’.

    I say this assuming you are not like many in our day who have no problem with infanticide

    Infantacide for lifestyle reasons would be abominable. But I can imagine times when it’s not so clear cut, or even morally obligatory. Like almost every issue on the planet, there are grey areas.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 9:39 am

    “It’s a group of five cells. It can’t think. It can’t feel. It can’t move. It has no brain, no heart, no bones, no muscle, no internal organs of any kind.”

    Aw yes, the whole “it doesn’t have the right physical characteristics” defense. Understandable given liberals are more often than not philosophical naturalist where EVERYTHING is reduced to physical traits, but it’s also ironic given how liberals tout themselves as being the defenders of another group discriminated under that same logic.

    “I answered this above… but perhaps it would be better to analogise with use everyone’s favourite birthday treat – cake.”

    You put forth the exact same logic that arbitrary physical traits define being human that’s justified racism for centuries, with all you’ve done being just changing the criteria of what traits you’ll discriminate against. Why should we acknowledge having a brain, heart, internal organs, feel pain, etc. etc. is in anyway necessary to defining a human being? Just because it will allow guilt-free abortion?

    “Like almost every issue on the planet, there are grey areas.”

    Maybe for people who look for excuses to do whatever they want regardless.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    You put forth the exact same logic that arbitrary physical traits define being human that’s justified racism for centuries, with all you’ve done being just changing the criteria of what traits you’ll discriminate against.

    That is absolute rubbish.

    Why should we acknowledge having a brain, heart, internal organs, feel pain, etc. etc. is in anyway necessary to defining a human being?

    OK EB. Sorry. You don’t need a brain to be human. This conversation should have made me realise that already.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    “That is absolute rubbish.”

    I agree, but that’s indeed your argument. The only thing separating you from any other garden-variety racist is in which group of cells you use in your criteria.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    No I mean it is absolute rubbish for you to say that “You need a brain to be a human being” is in any way on the same level as “You need white skin to be human”.

    Possibly the longest bow I have ever seen you draw. And I’ve seen you draw quite a few long bows.

    Aren’t your arms tired by now?

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    It is on the same level as I pointed out – both are based off arbitrary physical characteristics.

    That you can’t defend your position with anything other than bald-faced assertions and denial, just reinforces previous observation of liberals living in their own world of self-delusion.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    Hahaaaa… ah classic EB.

    Did you not consider that you’re just asserting that my point is essentially the same as that used by racists?

    Why don’t you do us all a favour and show us exactly how that works.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    What? Go into a lengthy demonstration how internal organs are simply physical traits the same as skin tone is just a physical trait?

    Unless you failed every level of biology and don’t know what “physical traits” means, then I can only say you’re intentionally being obtuse at this point (not that you aren’t usually obtuse to begin with), because a part of you does indeed recognize they are ultimately the same thing, and are just deceiving yourself to avoid coming to a conclusion you don’t like.

    And that is a text book example of self-delusion.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    It should be noted I did indeed also provide several links to articles supporting why a human being is indeed a human being at the moment of conception (one of the more compelling distinctions being a cells from a fertilized egg will grow and divide with their own distinct chromosomes, while cells of a fingernail will always remain cells of a fingernail and rot), while you have simply ignored them.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    What? Go into a lengthy demonstration how internal organs are simply physical traits the same as skin tone is just a physical trait?

    Yes please.

    Please explain how a brain is just as relevant to the definition of a “human” as the colour that happens to be on the outside.

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    Pretty much because they are both simply physical traits that are grown during development as dictated by one’s already existing DNA. Both are simply just a bunch of cells a human posess. And are thus irrelevant to the issue of when a unique BEING begins to exist.

    There is really no other way I can make it any simpler for you.

    • Timaahy on June 25, 2015 at 10:47 pm

    That there proves why any discussion with you on abortion is entirely useless.

    • Anthony on June 25, 2015 at 11:23 pm
      Author

    Tim, you’re letting your ideology get in the way of basic scientific facts. What EB is reporting to you is something that even honest pro-abortionists admit. I’m pretty sure the one who is being ‘useless’ to debate with here is you, if you cannot concede basic biology.

    About that.

    “but there is no rational basis for describing a group of five cells a “human being” or a “person” or an “unborn child”.”

    You are not the arbiter on what constitutes rational. This is only your assertion, no more.

    A ‘human being’ is, in any other context, the over-arching term we give to the human organism. In fact, if you wanted, we could just switch out the term ‘being’ with ‘organism’ and it would be communicating essentially the same thing, with perhaps a little more sterility.

    “So what it is, then, is a blastocyst.”

    No, it is a human blastocyst.

    Are you saying that the blastocyst is not a human organism?

    “Certainly, it’s on its way to being human,”

    Everything from here is just mumbo jumbo and nothing more than your opinion, completely detached from the real world.

    It is a human organism. Not a toad. It does not have the potential to be a human organism–it is a human organism. It is a human being. It is not a human toe nail.

    I don’t agree with you that “I know you genuinely believe you are doing the same thing that we are…” It is much more than that. This isn’t the pot calling the kettle black or what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This is you being completely, 100% wrong.

    I don’t particularly have objections to referring to human stages of development by certain technical terms, such as ‘fetus’ for the unborn child or ‘neonate’ for the newly born child.

    However, it is a simple scientific fact that we are just talking about the stages of development for the human ‘organism.’ YOUR use of the term has the express purpose of treating the STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT as a THING ITSELF. But only for the purposes of justifying the killing of the THING ITSELF.

    I can call the THING ITSELF an unborn child, or a child, or a toddler, or a neonate, and it doesn’t matter that much, because I, at least, do not forget that I’m describing a phase that the THING happens to be going through. You deny that it is a thing: it is not human, it is a blastocyst. That’s what you are explicitly saying.

    But that is dead wrong. It is a human blastocyst, which is to say it is a human organism (and not, say, a dandelion organism) at a particular stage of development.

    All the honest ones admit this, even if they do think they should still be able to kill it. Like in this instance:

    Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

    She’s talking about you, here:

    When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

    When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

    I have seen numerous admissions like this. They end up finally coming to grips with the real rub of the issue:

    Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.

    So, yea, she really actually is a “death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper”, a real, honest to goodness sick and twisted “wingnut” that I wouldn’t want anywhere near any lever of power–but at least she’s honest.

    You should try it.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

    “Infantacide for lifestyle reasons would be abominable. But I can imagine times when it’s not so clear cut, or even morally obligatory. Like almost every issue on the planet, there are grey areas.”

    I’m glad to hear that you aren’t a monster, of course, but once again we’re only seeing that you are better than your ideology. I can produce several examples of very smart people–smarter than you and I put together–who make the very obvious point, that if you support abortion on demand, the same reasoning and rationale should prompt you to support infanticide on demand–that is, “for lifestyle reasons.”

    HUMAN LIFE, HUMAN BEING, HUMAN ORGANISM

    These are all equivalent terms. They’re all in the same basic category.

    NEONATE is not the same as HUMAN ORGANISM, because it could refer to a newborn cat. Stages of Development are in a different category than Essences.

    I literally dare you to email a medical doctor and ask them if a “HUMAN NEONATE” is in the same semantic category as “HUMAN TOENAIL.” If you insist, we can use BLASTOCYST instead, as long as you compromise by having it described as a HUMAN blastocyst.

    How about this. We’ll put this question to 10 medical doctors. For everyone that says yes, I’ll give you $5. For everyone that says no, you give me $5. Put your money where your mouth is, Tim?

    • End Bringer on June 25, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    And Timmy’s total lack of any substantive argument (or any argument whatsoever) just highlights my previous point:

    Liberals can never let scientific facts get in the way of their desire of suppose consequence-free sex.

    • Timaahy on June 28, 2015 at 11:45 pm

    Tim, you’re letting your ideology get in the way of basic scientific facts.

    Oh noes! You’ve fallen into the dreaded EB fallacy. That’s HEAPS worse than the genetic fallacy!

    Just so we’re clear… that’s when you trumpet the scientific facts that support your conservative / right-wing / religious views, but ignore the ones that support evolution, climate change, vaccination, and flouride. 🙂

    Seriously though… I think I’ll go elsewhere to find out what constitutes a scientific fact. Ditto for “basic biology”.

    You are not the arbiter on what constitutes rational.

    Agreed!

    This is only your assertion, no more.

    Disagreed!

    A ‘human being’ is, in any other context, the over-arching term we give to the human organism.

    Thank you. This is exactly my point. In any other context.

    This is what I was alluding to above. If you presented me with a turnip, a ’57 Chevy and a blastocyst, and asked me “Which one is a human being”, I would say the blastocyst. But if you presented me with a blastocyst, a turnip and Donald Trump, I would answer Donald Trump, and add that he is one of the shttier specimens.

    It is about context. A blastocyst is more of a human being than a rock, but a shtload less of a human being than you or I – to the extent that it is merely “human” in the adjectival sense. You know that is true. You must. You are a complex being comprised of trillions of cells. A blastocyst consists of 5. You cannot possibly claim it to be a human being and maintain a straight face, can you?

    Although… perhaps the problem is terminology. I think the terms “human being” and “person” are equivalent. You seem to equivocate the “human” adjective with the noun.

    Perhaps we should just start talking about “persons” instead.

    Case in point:

    Are you saying that the blastocyst is not a human organism?

    Of course it’s a human organism. Human being (read: person)… not so much.

    YOUR use of the term has the express purpose of treating the STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT as a THING ITSELF. But only for the purposes of justifying the killing of the THING ITSELF.

    You have it backwards.

    Yes, the stage of development is a thing itself. Throwing flour, eggs and sugar into a bowl doesn’t mean you’ve made a cake. But no, I don’t say that to justify terminating a pregnancy. It’s the other way around.

    Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me.

    Yeeeah you’ll forgive me if I ignore opinions like this. It’s like when conservatives quote the children of gay parents who lament not knowing their mother. “SEE! SEE! LOOK! GAY MARRIAGE BAD!”

    The children who are quite happy with their two dads never seem to get quoted. Funny that.

    If you think her opinion supports your case, I’ll just go and find someone who opines otherwise. There are plenty around.

    I can produce several examples of very smart people–smarter than you and I put together–who make the very obvious point, that if you support abortion on demand, the same reasoning and rationale should prompt you to support infanticide on demand–that is, “for lifestyle reasons.”

    Produce away.

    These are all equivalent terms. They’re all in the same basic category.

    Those two sentences are what’s at the crux of our disagreement. Are they equivalent or in the same basic category? The former is merely a subset of the latter. So, if what you say is true, the second sentence is redundant. I think it’s revealing that you felt the need to say it anyway.

    I literally dare you to email a medical doctor and ask them if a “HUMAN NEONATE” is in the same semantic category as “HUMAN TOENAIL.”

    My sister and her husband are both doctors, with the latter being an OBGYN, so I could easily do that. But didn’t you already admit that it depended on context? Am I allowed to ask if a blastocyst is a person? Can I ask if there is anything morally wrong with aborting it? While we’re at it, can I ask them if there’s anything wrong with putting flouride in the water?

    And if I do as you ask, will you e-mail some climate scientists and ask if anthropogenic climate change is real? Or e-mail some geologists on the age of the earth?

    • Timaahy on June 28, 2015 at 11:46 pm

    Liberals can never let scientific facts get in the way of their desire of suppose consequence-free sex.

    Huh?

    • Timaahy on July 20, 2015 at 11:54 pm

    This conversation was getting interesting… I’m still keen if you are!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

four × 4 =