If you know @RealtinConnor at all, you know he refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a baby. To him, babies breathe air. So if it's not born yet, it isn't a baby, to him anyway. I suppose an 8 month gestational fetus is a clump of cells to him, even though it is completely viable. No, he would say it's a fetus, but never acknowledge it's really a baby just prior to being born.
Very often, he accuses pro-lifer's of 'confusing' embryos and babies, or in this case, infants. Embryo is a scientific term, just as 'infant' is. As @RealtinConnor admits. 'baby' is not. 'Baby' can mean any number of things, such as an infant, or a cat, a truck, or yes, even a fetus. Anything that means the world to you at the time, can and often is referred to as your baby. Jacked up 4-wheel drive? "That's his baby". Big marketing project? "That's her baby". You get the idea.
It kind of makes you wonder who's confused, doesn't it? Why does the term 'baby' bother pro-aborts so much? I think you know the answer, as do I.
Perhaps because it's indicative of the woolen-headed sentimentality of anti-choice bigots, who envision all fetuses as if they're simply miniature Cabbage Patch Kids and remain willfully ignorant of the devastating birth defects that can arise—birth defects that can cause the grossly misshapen fetuses to survive only for a few hours or days out of the womb, their short lives consisting of nothing but pain.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-choice crowd would force women placed in this unfortunate position to not only go through with the pregnancy, but also watch helplessly as their grotesquely malformed newborns cling on for a few hours or days before succumbing. This is the Culture Of Life Whether You Want It Or Not. Yay for the theocrats! And YAY BABIES!
Yes, such life threatening deformities as cleft palate, or the deadly 'baby doesn't fit in with mommy's lifestyle'. Everyone knows all abortions are done for grotesque malformations, right, Null? Ok, so less than 1 percent are. Shh. We wouldn't want the public to know 98 percent of abortions are elective and done on healthy babies, would we, otherwise there goes our victim card.
ReplyDeleteAs for how prolife envisions the unborn-we see them as they are (there's this thing called ultrasound now, you should look into it) not as parasitic lumps of tissue as proaborts do. We don't need to reduce the unborn to something they're not in order to justify killing them, as you do. But who cares about the issue, it's a handy little platform for hating on those dreaded theocrats, and we all know how much athiests value life-let's ask the victims of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Milosevic...need I go on? Thanks for providing such a great example of the point of this post. LMAO.
Yes, such life threatening deformities as cleft palate
ReplyDeleteThis is not the only birth defect there is, and as far as I know cleft palate cannot be diagnosed from an ultrasound. I was thinking of something more like anencephaly, that can be diagnosed that way. Why don't you look it up? With pictures.
As for how prolife envisions the unborn-we see them as they are....
Actually, you don't see them as they are. Or at least if you do, you don't let others know about it. How many fetus pictures have you guys put out that look like the space fetus in 2001, completely bereft of any umbilical cord or placenta? Hell, how many fetus pictures have you guys got that depict the fetus with its sizable post-anal tail?
If you want to see a fetus as it really is, look at it in cross-section and see how much it's developed beyond "parasitic lumps of tissue". The answer might surprise you.
But as you said, "who cares about the issue"? Not you, certainly. Not enough to learn anything about the subject of developmental biology at least.
need I go on?
Yes. You need to demonstrate that these people were a) atheists, b) that they killed people and how many (note that the estimates that come out of sources like The Black Book of Communism are greatly overstated), and c) that these killings were motivated by atheism.
Then and only then will your tripe be relevant.
Thanks for providing such a great example of the point of this post. LMAO.
The post had a point?
P.S. For the record, since you brought it up, how many people have been killed by capitalist countries or under the capitalist system? Would you really like to make a comparison?
ReplyDeleteNull - Does it make a difference to you that the vast majority of babies who are allowed the gift of being born, are completely healthy? No defects whatsoever, just a perfect bundle of joy. You are supporting the slaughter of these totally healthty babies.
ReplyDeleteNow, you come here after an extended absence, name calling? "Woolen headed anti-choice bigots"? Who's who here. We are the ones trying to get you to see the value and humanity of unborn fetuses. And you call us woolen headed?
Who are you trying to protect? Women who most often had the choice NOT to get pregnant, but didn't bother to take proper precautions.
Who are we trying to protect? Tiny developing human beings who didn't have a choice about being created by the act of sex, and sure as hell didn't have a choice about being dismembered in their home, the womb.
And we're bigots? Give me a break!
It matters as little to me as the fact that you are violating the bodily autonomy of women for the sake of the smug sense of superiority you get by slut-shaming matters to you.
ReplyDelete"Didn't bother to take proper precautions"? Does it matter to you that half of women who get an abortion took some form of birth control in the month that they conceived their fetus?
However, let's assume that all women who have ever gotten an abortion refused to take any birth control measures to prevent it. Why shouldn't I want to protect their interests? Don't they have interests in need of protection?
Yes, I do call you woolen-headed, and you provide me with a wonderful example of why. The humanity of an "unborn fetus" (a redundancy if there ever was one) is not at issue. I accept that a fetus is human tissue. What it is not is a human being with legal rights devolving to it, because that is both a legal absurdity and violates the woman's bodily autonomy as well as several other rights, depending on circumstance.
Who are we trying to protect? Tiny developing human beings who didn't have a choice about being created by the act of sex, and sure as hell didn't have a choice about being dismembered in their home, the womb.
That's because they cannot make such choices. You assume in the absence of an ability to make a choice, they must be forced to "choose life" in the terms of the anti-choice slogan. But it doesn't follow that an abortion is any less in the interests of the fetus than it is in the interests of the woman seeking one. So you are arrogating to yourself the right to make decisions for two people—if the fetus is a person, as you claim. Your arrogance is something breathtaking.
And we're bigots? Give me a break!
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices....
Sounds about right to me.
"Does it matter to you that half of women who get an abortion took some form of birth control in the month that they conceived their fetus?" It's that same 'half' who didn't use birth control correctly.
ReplyDelete"Don't they have interests in need of protection?" YES, but it's up to them to take steps to protect themselves first.
Lastly, because I am out of time, I am aware of the definition of BIGOT, and it suits you perfectly.
"I was thinking of something more like anencephaly, that can be diagnosed that way."
ReplyDeleteNullifidian - besides being headed for hell, you are an idiot. Why don't you do a little more research on anencephaly? Here's the dialog between a OB and a woman carrying a baby newly diagnosed with anencephaly.
Doc - "Anencephaly is a neural tube defect that is incompatible with life. Your baby may not survive the pregnancy, and if it does it will only live a short time - hours, or maybe a few days. It will not be able to see, hear, feel your touch or any sensation, or interact with you in any way. I would recommend that you terminate this pregnancy."
Patient - "I would rather not terminate this pregnancy, I don't believe in abortion"
Doc (or the collective voice of abortion proponents) - "Why would you want to put your child through that kind of pain and suffering?"
Please note, nullifidian, that there is no associated risk with carrying an anencephalic child except for possible polyhydramnios (which is typically a self-limiting problem since it initiates pre-term labor), which can be safely managed.
So what is it all of you death-culture geniuses?? Does an anencephalic baby feel pain and suffering or not? If not,as the research (which you apparently did not do)indicates, Which decision would contribute to more pain and suffering? Allowing your child to live out it's natural life (free of any sensation of pain or suffering), or knowing forever that it died by your decision?
As for your knowledge about anencephaly, "null" about describes it. Using subjective words like "grotesque" proves your indifference, insensitivity and ignorance (I know, the only choice that's the right choice is your choice....yeah, yeah....).
"and as far as I know cleft palate cannot be diagnosed from an ultrasound."
More evidence that "as far as [you] know" isn't a long trip (pssst....here's a hint for the layperson, and it's really easy.....google 'cleft palate on ultrasound')
Now, shall we start talking about aborting babies with Trisomy 21? Or maybe aborting babies because they are not the gender you want?
You talk a big talk, nullifidian. Your articulation and vocabulary slide nicely into the 'good bull-shitter' category. That lazy, snappy rejoinder land that fools some people into thinking that you really think. As for atheism - it is as faith based as true Christianity, but a lot more hopeless, and such an unhappy ending! Quit trying to convince people that you have proof that there is no God.
Nullifidian - besides being headed for hell, you are an idiot.
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot if you think that hell exists.
Here's the dialog between a OB and a woman carrying a baby newly diagnosed with anencephaly.
That you have just pulled out of your arse.
Doc (or the collective voice of abortion proponents) - "Why would you want to put your child through that kind of pain and suffering?"
Actually, the collective voice of abortion proponents would be that "You've made your decision." That's what pro-choice means, fool.
Does an anencephalic baby feel pain and suffering or not?
Irrelevant. The issue was the pain and suffering to the mother who would have gotten an abortion but for the intervention of anti-choicers who have forced her to carry her doomed fetus to term. I know you don't give a damn about the women in this equation, but to anyone who is not tied down by outmoded religious dogma, the women are the most important persons here.
Now, shall we start talking about aborting babies with Trisomy 21?
Sure. Why not? It is not up to you to determine what is an "acceptable" use of a woman's right to choose. That is up to the woman. Any other decision subordinates her rights to those of an abstraction. Because that's what the fetus is at that point. You talk about a "potential child". Well, it's equally possible that it will be a potential miscarriage. 50% of all pregnancies are estimated to end that way. So you're basically talking about an abstraction, while ignoring the real person and her rights.
As for atheism - it is as faith based as true Christianity, but a lot more hopeless, and such an unhappy ending!
What unhappy ending?
Quit trying to convince people that you have proof that there is no God.
I'll take "Complete Non-Sequiturs" for $1000, Alex.
YES, but it's up to them to take steps to protect themselves first.
ReplyDeleteObviously they have if they have taken birth control in the month they got pregnant. So now that we've established that they did take steps to protect themselves, and you've agreed that I'm within my rights to help protect the interests of women who want to get abortions, then where's the problem?
Nullifidian - (which is a misnomer)
ReplyDeleteOn a spiritual level, I hope you don't have to experience hell. On a human level, it's not really my problem, nor my fault if you do, so believe what you will.
I know the dialog exists, because it's part of what I do. I hear it every time the sonogram provides a diagnosis of anencephaly. So go ahead and stick that up YOUR ass so you can pull it out for future reference. After you do that, go research the ACOG recommendations for a diagnosis of anencephaly, and read up on the actual condition. Then maybe you can speak intelligently about neural tube defects. If you can't, you should shut up.
One more thing to address, because it's just fun to point out your glaring stupidity -
Here's what YOU said,
"birth defects that can cause the grossly misshapen fetuses to survive only for a few hours or days out of the womb, their short lives consisting of nothing but pain."
You, genius, are the one who gave relevance to the discussion about the pain experienced by the anencephalic fetus. Funny you should try to say otherwise when you're caught with your ass showing.
You're going to have to do better.
Jesus H. Christ,
ReplyDeleteYou actually work in a medical field? How in the hell do you manage to keep your job, given both your horrendous attitude and your complete functional illiteracy?
You, genius, are the one who gave relevance to the discussion about the pain experienced by the anencephalic fetus.
That's funny. I don't see the word "anencephalic" anywhere in that passage.
You're going to have to do better.
On a spiritual level, I hope you don't have to experience hell. On a human level, it's not really my problem, nor my fault if you do, so believe what you will.
ReplyDeleteAnd in your case, your human level far outweighs the spiritual in your life, doesn't it? Or less euphemistically, you don't even believe your own bullshit. If pressed about it, you don't believe there's a spiritual realm. You just get off on the thought of other people going to hell so that you can show yourself, by contrast, as a paragon of rectitude. You're in it for the chances for attitudinizing and preening.
Quoting you from the comment thread:
ReplyDelete"I was thinking of something more like anencephaly"
You clearly stated that the deformity you were thinking of was anencephaly when MPCQ confronted you on the issue. You're a liar, and a poor one at that......or maybe you're just so functionally illiterate that you can't read the writing on the page.
Nice try.
You have absolutely no clue about spirituality or being human. Why would I get off because you're going to hell? I don't care. As a matter of fact you deserve it. You know how I know that? Because the bible says we all deserve it. You, me, everyone.....ever read the bible? ;)
Horrendous attitude? Functional illiteracy? I think you're out of your league, little one. Intellectually, and professionally.
Nope, you're the one who's functionally illiterate here. Something "more like" means an example of a fetal birth defect that is not survivable and will end in death within hours or days after birth. There are also other examples of fatal fetal birth defects that presumably cause pain, although I've never been able to interrogate a newborn about how much pain it's experiencing. That is not the point, however. The point, as I stated and restated it, is that a strict anti-choice position requires the woman who has just gotten this devastating news to keep on acting as an incubator for a fetus that will not survive and which she has to watch linger until its short life is over.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously didn't understand this angle from the very first, because you started babbling about the "only danger" to the mother being yadda yadda yadda. That is not the point. The point is that the anti-choice position is wantonly cruel merely for the satisfaction your lot get out of dictating morality to other people.
Now, that's as plain as I can make it.
You have absolutely no clue about spirituality or being human.
LMAO! Seems to me I've been human all my life.
Why would I get off because you're going to hell?
You get off on telling people they're going to hell because it fills you with an illusory sense of smug satisfaction.
As a matter of fact you deserve it. You know how I know that? Because the bible says we all deserve it.
Oh, well, if the Bible says it then what more argument is there? Of course, you don't point out where the Bible says it, because Original Sin is a theological construct that was created centuries after the Bible was written (although not centuries after it was composited from various sources).
You, me, everyone.....ever read the bible? ;)
More than you, I have no doubt.
Horrendous attitude? Functional illiteracy?
Yup, that about characterizes you. It's no wonder that you choose to remain Anonymous.
<3 Null!!!
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you only possess a very superficial knowledge about anencephaly (just enough to be offensive to any parent who has suffered the loss of an anencephalic child),and absolutely no knowledge of which birth defects can be diagnosed with sonography, the difference between constructed theology and the truth of the bible, or when you became a human being. As I said before, and what is clear from your other published ramblings, you are a (not so) skilled illusionist.
ReplyDeleteApparently you also know nothing about the basics of a logical argument. You are as predictable as every pro abortion sot I've ever talked with - right down to the inevitable ad hominem attack when you're cornered.
Why don't you go ahead and publish YOUR name, Nullifidian? I don't see any identifying information on anything you publish. Seems you wish to remain anonymous also, you're just not very straightforward about it....(duh).
Do you have a job?
PS - I didn't tell you you were going to hell - I merely said that [at this particular moment it appears as if] you are headed for hell. Also, that we all deserve hell. ;) If by God's grace he saves your soul, we'll have a good laugh about it in heaven. Entirely possible.
Quits. :)
You attack my alleged lack of knowledge and then complain about "ad hominem attack". Are you trying to kill me with irony, or are you completely unconscious of your egregious hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteAs for my identifying information being on things I publish, I have published under my name. You're just complaining because you can't link up my pseudonym to a real name, which is entirely your own lookout. I am not disposed to dole out details of my life, including my name and employment status, to someone who behaves like you do. You don't deserve any consideration at all.
Telling me that it looks as if I'm going to hell is as meaningless as telling me that it looks like I'm about to start off on a journey to Neverland or Oz. As to your claim that we all deserve hell, that is sheer nonsense, and shows the fundamental wickedness of your theology (which is, admittedly, not to be equated with all of Christian theology). For punishing crimes, we do not resort to torture (except, arguably for the death penalty). We certainly don't torture people for eternity. But that's exactly what you claim that is coming my way simply because I do not believe in something for which there has never been any adequate evidence. It's asinine.
Lastly, if there is a god, a heaven, and a soul, and mine winds up being "saved", I doubt very much if we will be doing anything together in heaven, because my idea of heaven is a place where you won't be there.
hmmmmmm.....are you "getting off" by telling me I won't be in the same kind of heaven you would be in? Do I sense "an illusory sense of smug satisfaction"? ROFLMAO doesn't even come close to capturing the sense of the gargantuan laugh you are giving me! You are such an amusement, I'm really starting to like you.
ReplyDeleteBut let's keep it honest. You were the one making the snide remarks about anonymity. I don't care if you remain anonymous....what's the big deal? Would it make you feel better if I called myself Skippy the Wonder Lizard? Or Hank? Or Myrtle? I don't see where that detracts from my credibility any more than the obvious misnomer of 'Nullifidian' adds to yours.
And if God decides to save you, you will be right there in heaven with me, and you'll be loving every minute of it.....forever, and ever, and ever, and ever,...
You are too cute. :D
Good night!
Null - "Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, , while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use" 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently
ReplyDeleteThat quote is from Guttmacher.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
What does it mean? If you can get past the first sentence, you'll see that it means that of women who have abortions:
54% used some form of birth control in the month they got pregnant, WHICH MEANS 46% used NONE. Further, of the 54% who did, "76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently".
What part of that don't you understand? The vast majority of abortions are performed on women who didn't use birth control at all, or used it haphazardly.
Actually, Anonymous, I don't think that you'll be in Heaven and neither do I. But I was pointing out that the most hellish aspect of 'Heaven' is rubbing shoulders with the people who are most convinced that they'll be winding up there.
ReplyDeleteHow many times do I have to explain what is already in plain English to you?
TAAG,
ReplyDeleteThat's rather irrelevant since you've already conceded that even women who do not use birth control have interests that need protecting.
It also seems rather hypocritical for the Religious Right to oppose sex education and then use the predictable results of sex education (i.e. pregnancy without using birth control or using it inconsistently because one doesn't know any better) as an excuse for denying women access to abortions.
How many of you are in there, Nullifidian? :)
ReplyDeleteLet me lay this on you, in your own "plain English".....When you talk about heaven, I don't think you know what you're talking about, and neither do I. :D :D :D
"...the predictable results of sex education (i.e. pregnancy without using birth control or using it inconsistently because one doesn't know any better)"
So you concede that in spite of sex education, women first shun the personal responsibility of the correct use of contraception, and then shun the responsibility for the consequences of their actions (i.e. the natural function of their bodies in reprduction) by killing the human being they have conceived.
Oh, that's right, you don't believe a human conceives a human.
I just wish they would stop taking my hard earned money to subsidize sex education programs that perform so miserably.
Null - The lack of consistant use of bc is not irrelevant. And it's also not due to the lack of sex ed. What it is due to, is neglect. The majority of women who abort, are in their 20's, past the high school sexed age. i.e. We pay mega bucks for sexed for high school students, and they throw it out the window when they get to college. Open your eyes, and maybe your mind.
ReplyDeleteHow many of you are in there, Nullifidian? :)
ReplyDeleteTypo. Should have been "and neither will I".
So congratulations. You've found a typo.
So you concede that in spite of sex education, women first shun the personal responsibility of the correct use of contraception,
Actually, I concede nothing of the kind. Nor did I say anything of the kind. But egregious misrepresentation is pretty much your only argument at this point.
Again, for the benefit of the hard-of-reading: creating the conditions (i.e. opposition to proper sex education in the schools) whereby one would expect to see inconsistent or absent use of contraception, and then exploit it to argue that women are just too goddamn dumb to be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies. Because that's what this fundamentally comes down to: misogyny.
Oh, that's right, you don't believe a human conceives a human.
Again, for the hard-of-reading, I have already said that the fetus is human: human tissue. It is not a human being because it is not individuated from the mother. See the issue here? The distinction is being, not "human".
I just wish they would stop taking my hard earned money to subsidize sex education programs that perform so miserably.
See what I mean about creating the conditions?
And whatever you do to earn your money can't be that hard if you're doing it.
The lack of consistant use of bc is not irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAlright. So tell me why.
"The sluts are too stupid to use contraception correctly, therefore we must force them to raise children" doesn't strike me as a very sound position.
And it's also not due to the lack of sex ed. What it is due to, is neglect.
Neglect of what? You can't just throw out buzzwords and expect them to accepted as arguments.
The majority of women who abort, are in their 20's, past the high school sexed age.
This is relevant how?
If anything, it gives more color to my point: the longer they've been outside of whatever half-assed compromise sex ed has been foisted on them, if they get it at all, the more there is to forget.
i.e. We pay mega bucks for sexed for high school students, and they throw it out the window when they get to college. Open your eyes, and maybe your mind.
I don't know where you're living, but where I live "we" don't do anything of the kind. On a per student basis, my state's K-12 spending is below the national average. I went to high school in this state too, and I never had sex ed. education until I took a health class in college.
Why? Because it sends the message that you don't have to be personally responsible for anything. Do as you please and to hell with everyone else, including the fetus that will die because you didn't bother to use a rubber.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you have a high regard for womem by the way you speak of them. /sarcasm
Neglect? Neglecting to take your birth control to prevent pregnancy from occuring in the first place.
Did you know how pregnancy occurs before you went to college? Yeah, so did they. Why is it important? Because people like you use sexed as an excuse to CYA.
Your state sucks! I had sexed in 6th grade, and health every year in high school.
So basically you have no other argument than "let the sluts give birth because they were too stupid or irresponsible to use contraception". Never mind that seeking out an abortion is taking responsibility. And let's not even think about the logic whereby people you deem to be irresponsible will now be given the responsibility of caring for infants. I'm sure that won't be a problem at all!
ReplyDeleteThat's your thought process Null, not mine. As I said, I can tell you think a lot of women by restating it.
ReplyDeleteJust because you're irresponsible when it comes to pregnancy prevention, doesn't mean you would be irresponsible with a baby. But to hear it from you, people have no chance of growing up and doing the right thing. But you have no faith, so it doesn't in the least surprise me.
"The sluts are too stupid to use contraception correctly,..."
ReplyDeleteNever heard TAAG call anyone a slut. Could you please provide evidence?
"You can't just throw out buzzwords and expect them to accepted as arguments."
Like your supercilious use of the word "individuated"?
The mere definition of the word "individuated" contradicts the ignorant way you try to use it to support extermination of a human being. At the moment of fertilization a complete, distinct, and individual genetic code of an individual human being is created, which continues to develop as a distinct and separate individual human being. If a fetus was not individuated then how do you account for males in a female uterus? Individuality has nothing to do with how one's life is sustained. I have to breathe air to live.....that doesn't mean I'm not individuated from the atmosphere.
Well, Nullifidian, you've demonstrated your bigotry and ignorance. Every now and then for the sake of those looking on, I like to call out those of your ilk, on their bigotry and ignorance. You have name called, insulted the faith of others, argued illogically, misquoted, misconstrued, contradicted yourself in your own arguments, and then tried to convince otherwise. You have been insulting, insensitive, and intolerant. Personally, I think any comments you make from here forward should be viewed for what they are, and ignored completely. You add nothing to the discussion but the same tired responses every pro abort generates. Do you guys have a manual or something? You trot through your paces like you're going step by step through a playbook. Come up with some new material, eh? Here's something you might begin with....is it moral for one human being to kill another? Who/what do you look to for moral authority, anyway, Nullifidian? It's funny/sad how you have to exercise more faith to support your belief system than I do for mine, and you're left so hollow and hateful in the process. As for me, I'd much rather worship the creator than the created.
.....back to you..... :D
Anon - Thank you! It's funny how we're referred to as bigots for holding on to our beliefs, and 'they' are not, for holding on to theirs.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment of fertilization a complete, distinct, and individual genetic code of an individual human being is created,
ReplyDeleteFalse. The sperm and the egg are at least as distinct and complete unto themselves. They are, after all, haploid. So by this standard, you'd bar masturbation as murder, which is perhaps an admissible idea but one that's not going to attract a lot of support.
which continues to develop as a distinct and separate individual human being.
Except that the fetus is not distinct and separate from the mother, because it's physically hooked into the uterus and relies on the mother for circulation, respiration, and waste disposal up to the moment of birth.
If a fetus was not individuated then how do you account for males in a female uterus?
LOL! This is like asking "Why are there still monkeys?"
I account for males in a female uterus by pointing out that the determination of anatomical sex doesn't happen until week seven, when the SRY gene (in males) begins transcription and releases a testis determining factor.
Individuality has nothing to do with how one's life is sustained.
It does when you're physically plugged into a human being.
I have to breathe air to live.....that doesn't mean I'm not individuated from the atmosphere.
More stupidity. The atmosphere is not a person. The fetus' mother is, no matter how much you want to deny the personhood of actually living and breathing adult women. Do you really think these bush-league rhetorical tricks are impressive?
insulted the faith of others
Oh horrors! Your theocratic beliefs should be insulted; they are a blight upon humanity.
Come up with some new material, eh? Here's something you might begin with....is it moral for one human being to kill another?
I don't know. I do know however that nearly every religious system does accept that it is moral for one human being to kill another. Whether you call it jihad or "just war" or self-defense or whatever, there are always exceptions to any proscription against killing people. So then the issue for you is not whether it's moral to kill people, but merely how many people you can kill before you tip the balance.
Who/what do you look to for moral authority, anyway, Nullifidian?
Nobody. That's one advantage of not being a theocrat. I don't have to subsume my own judgment under the rules of some arbitrary 'authority figure' who claims to speak for a universe-spanning deity that is somehow intensely interested in what women do with their bodies.
It's funny/sad how you have to exercise more faith to support your belief system than I do for mine
Yes, that is funny... because what you just said is an absurdity. Are you a fan of Ionesco perhaps?
As for me, I'd much rather worship the creator than the created.
I don't bow down and worship anything... least of all the "created" if you count yourself among them.
Anti-choice activists remind me of animal rights activists. Both of them prefer their abstracted moralizing to the lives of real living and breathing people. They're soppy, sentimental, and yet with an undercurrent of nihilistic brutality that justifies bombings and assassinations of clinic workers on the one hand or firebombings and intimidation of scientific researchers on the other. They're both of them a blot on the landscape and ought to be treated with the scorn they have earned.
ReplyDeleteTAAG wins.
ReplyDeleteBecause if you can't trust in the judgment of someone who goes by the pseudonym "Maranatha Kim", who can you trust?
DeleteI know that I as a pro-lifer sees the dilemmas women face when facing an unplanned pregnancy, I just don't think it is reason enough to deprive a human of life. Seeing the comments of one person here it becomes clear, in the pro-choice mind, there is no other than the woman. The baby is nothing and has absolutely no moral or practical value, even late-term. It is really scary
ReplyDeleteI'm agog to know what you think the practical value of a fetus is as a fetus.
DeleteAs for the moral value, the fetus is part of the mother. Until birth, it is intimately physiologically connected to the mother, with the basic alimentary, circulatory, and respiratory functions being fulfilled for the fetus by the mother's body. The placenta is a combination of fetal and maternal tissue. Ergo, the fetus is part of the woman's body. When evaluating what is moral for the fetus, we must ask ourselves what rules we want to impose on women's bodies. My view here is for personal autonomy: it is between the woman herself and her doctor, and no other, to decide what she may do with her own body. Otherwise, at some level you must assert that women, by virtue of their ability to become pregnant (i.e. by their very status as women) have a subordinate status to the fetus that's developing inside of her. Her own identity as a woman is being used to deny her full capacity to make her own medical decisions. I consider that scary.