Here's why:
1) A study by scientists from the World Health Organization, and the Guttmacher Institute in New York have shown that instances of abortion declined the most where abortion was safe and legal.
2) This global study of abortion also 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.
The study showed that the result of outlawing abortion has been to endanger women's lives. 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.
The continued preoccupation with denying women reproductive rights is dangerous, irrational, and counterproductive. It is an example of pushing a religious agenda where it doesn't belong - into our laws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
The continued preoccupation with denying women reproductive rights is dangerous, irrational, and counterproductive. It is an example of pushing a religious agenda where it doesn't belong - into our laws.
Agreed 100%. Good post.
It's a perfectly safe procedure, unless you're the one being aborted.
I find it interesting that you're such an ardent supporter of science, Willy, and you're pro-choice. Given that biology has shown that every fertilized embryo is a human being with DNA distinct of their gamete donors, and that embryos belong to the race Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it would certainly seem that the voluntary termination of an embryo is the destruction of a living human.
And there is consensus that all humans start at fertilization, Willy.
So why shouldn't we follow the findings of biology in this case and prevent the needless slaughter of people?
Doc,
Your argument against abortion choice is based on the fact you are a religious conservative parent... the key word being 'religious.'
As the song goes: "Anti-choice agnostics, I can count 'em on one hand." You try to disguise your arguments with 'science' the same way you involk science to refute global warming, biogenesis, etc... to support a position that is either religious or political.
The science that determines human life from a legal perspective is that of brain waves, the standard by which we can remove a person that is 'brain dead' from life support.
Like 'global warming deniers' ... much anti-abortion psuedo science has spouted fallacies like "At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby's brain" as proof of life. Yes, it is proof of life but it is not a human being because it's brain is not fully formed.
For a thorough discussion on this subject see this link:
http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
From the article:
An EEG involves measuring varying electrical potentials across a dipole, or separated positive and negative charges. Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole, which explains why people have been able to put electrodes on plants, hook them up to EEG machines, and get "evidence" that plants have feelings. But this has nothing to do with "brain waves," which are a nontechnical term for a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don't even exist in an embryo and associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions.
To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story.
98% of all abortions are performed before the 20th week, before the fetal brain is fully functional.
Doc,
For your amusement and for a point you should take to heart, here's a fun music video. It pretty much sums up my complaints with your argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y
Are you suggesting that law supersedes science? You're leaving our politicians in charge of making scientific decisions? You sure you want people like Bush & Cheney determining what's good science and what's not?
Or, perhaps the law should be molded to match the science of the argument. In my statement above I didn't mention God or Soul because the argument is complete without a religious context. It's a logical context.
We all started from the same point, conception. At that point we are complete humans at that point in development. Simply because you kill a human who hasn't had a chance to develop brainwaves is nothing but a rationalization of the fact you are ending a human life-- a complete human life for that point in development.
Comparing brainwaves of adults to that of embryos is disingenuous because the adult who lost the brainwaves at least had a chance to have the brainwaves.
What is clear from a legal standpoint is that intent is key to defining a murder charge. If your intent with an abortion is to prevent the birth of a human, then what you are doing is illegal because your intent is to deny another person life. As all human life starts at conception, having an abortion to stop that human life is a conscious decision to end that life, and that's an illegal action.
Rationalizing human life as subhuman at different stages of development doesn't change the science that all embryos are human. In addition, redefining human life, and letting our government decide when we start and when we end, opens up a dangerous road where the government can decide that old people are beyond their use and can be served up as Soylent Green.
Oddly enough, the rationalization for abortion is more like Sharia law in Islam, where the kafir's life is worth 3/5 of that of a Muslim. Relegating the life of outsiders to a fraction of a "superior's" life is a dangerous precedent.
We all started from the same point, conception. At that point we are complete humans at that point in development.
"Complete" and "in development" is a contradiction.
Far from complete. A few cell divisions greater than the millions of sperm you kill everytime you jerk off.
Again, what gets me is that the same christian conservatives (like yourself Doc)that are so hyper sensitive about aborting a tiny group of cells have no problem supporting a war that is costing $330 million a day and has resulted in the deaths of over a half million people and vetoing health care for kids because it's too expensive. How's that for moral values?
As this post points out, women's reproductive rights are human rights, sorry, a blastula doesn't qualify as a human. Laws against abortion don't prevent it and only serve to endanger the lives of women.
The rationalization to control a women's reproductive rights is more like Sharia law in Islam. Imagine a country where the 85% male congress (or supreme court) tells the female population what is appropriate for their body, as if women were worth 3/5 of that of a man.
""Complete" and "in development" is a contradiction. "
And that shows your total lack of critical thinking.
An embryo is complete for that particular stage in life. At conception,
it is one cell, but it shouldn't be any more than one cell because it
hasn't had any time to grow.
A child is "in development" to an adult. So is an embryo. However,
both are as complete as they are up to that point in their life. To
assign impossible standards for that life is semantics.
"Again, what gets me is that the same christian conservatives (like yourself Doc)that are so hyper sensitive about aborting a tiny group of cells have no problem supporting a war that is costing $330 million a day and has resulted in the deaths of over a half million people and vetoing health care for kids because it's too expensive."
And while you may harangue conservatives for vetoing health care for kids, you're solution of exterminating the kids before they're born is certainly not a better solution.
"As this post points out, women's reproductive rights are human rights, sorry, a blastula doesn't qualify as a human. Laws against abortion don't prevent it and only serve to endanger the lives of women."
When does the woman have her sex determined? At conception. So what's REALLY happening here is that one woman's rights are being totally subjugated to that of another. In fact, the life of male or female embryo is slain in abortion. Removing the "right to choose" allows life to all invovled, whereas implementing the "right to choose" enables the destruction of one party through the denial of fundamental rights.
Laws against "abortion" have always existed because people were ignorant of the biology. Now that the biology is known, choosing to deny the science is akin to teaching Intelligent Design as a science. In both cases, we know better.
"
The rationalization to control a women's reproductive rights is more like Sharia law in Islam. Imagine a country where the 85% male congress (or supreme court) tells the female population what is appropriate for their body, as if women were worth 3/5 of that of a man."
As opposed to our current society, where the youngest of all humans are worth 0/5 of a woman or a man.
And last time I checked, Willy, pre-meditated slaying of a woman carries the same penalty as that of a man.
William (may I, too, call you, "Willie"?)
docattheapocalypsie is obviously a faithetist. He believes in all scientifical stuff that advances his religiopothesis about the meaning of life. Like many other faithetists he believes that the 900' Jesus with death ray eyes could mop up the floor with all you GOD hating abortionists, but, apparently he would rather leave that up to his earthly representatives.
doc, by all means, raise as many children as you like. Do not have any abortions. When your kidaloos are well fleshed and properly trained please send them off to KKKristian KKKrusades c/o the neo-con priests.
Oh, btw, you didn't answer William's question about being pro-life and anti SCHIP and pro-Iraq war.
democommie
It's easier to dismiss me as religious. But the science still prevails.
As for questions, they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of what the BU$$$$$Hitler does or what the evil reTHUGliCONs do, it doesn't change any of my arguments. It just provides a tangent to get away from the core of the discussion.
Removing the "right to choose" allows life to all invovled, whereas implementing the "right to choose" enables the destruction of one party through the denial of fundamental rights.
This is an irrational and emotional response. You are confused. Again, blastuli are not people.
You obviously have no empathy for those who are born into circumstances of suffering and anguish and wish to force such scenarios to satisfy your religious agenda. Clearly Doc, you are showing your true colors, a person whose world-view is tainted with a religious agenda.
What I find fascinating about religious right wing authoritarians is that they can justify just about anything in the name of God. (i.e...supporting a president because he happens to be an anti-choice christian whose actions have killed a half million people.)
Any amount of human pain, anguish and suffering is completely acceptable under the guise of 'God's work'. Your self-righteousness is not satsfied by living under your own set of rules, you apparently want to force your set of rules on others.
Your anti-choice nuttery is counter to laws, ethics, and practices of most modern industrialized nations. The bottom line is this: America is solidly pro-choice by any poll ever taken, laws curtailing abortion have proven ineffective, and abortion has declined where safe and legal. Any further debate is moot.
I guess you're against all forms of birth control as well? Are you working on a quiverfull up there?
Also, have you noticed the pro-choice majority of people come from all demographics, both political parties, both married and single.
However, at least 90% of all anti-choicers are married religious people, most with kids. This goes to show that this is a select group, not reflective of a broad cross section of society.
"This is an irrational and emotional response. You are confused. Again, blastuli are not people. "
So if the blastuli are not people, then what species are they? Are they fish? Hammerhead sharks? Douglas fir? What is genetic structure? What species is defined by its biology?
Calling it a blastuli doesn't change the fact that it's human.
"You obviously have no empathy for those who are born into circumstances of suffering and anguish and wish to force such scenarios to satisfy your religious agenda."
Still you cannot argue the science without trying to label me as a religious nut because it's easier to dismiss me if you paint me with the religion brush.
I have empathy for all those who live in such circumstances. I also have empathy for humans who were reclassified as something subhuman so it was easier on the minds of those who killed them.
"Clearly Doc, you are showing your true colors, a person whose world-view is tainted with a religious agenda."
Hmmm. Good thing in Leviticus it says, "And God said the human zygote is formed from egg and sperm, and the genetic structure is distinct from its parents."
Who's injecting the emotion here, Willy? I'm just highlighting the biology which shreds the essence of your argument.
"Your anti-choice nuttery is counter to laws, ethics, and practices of most modern industrialized nations."
Aha. It's against the law. Sodomy was against the law in Texas. Well, we shouldn't have worked to change that law, should we? What about gay marriage? immigration laws? Certainly seems there are people who are challenging all of these stances in court because they think the law is wrong. You're an absolute idiot if you think the law here is settled.
"I guess you're against all forms of birth control as well?"
Wouldn't you like to know? I would answer, but let's not deviate from the topic here.
"Also, have you noticed the pro-choice majority of people come from all demographics, both political parties, both married and single."
Oh, well, in that case, I must be wrong. The embryo must not be human because a greater number of people are completely ignorant of biology. Yes, consensus rules science. I can see you're easily convinced of any viewpoint so long as you're happily marching along with others who are willing to totally ignore science.
Doc,
You are covering your religious connection with the issue, just as those advocates of intelligent design committed perjury by trying to cover their religious motivations in the Dover trial.
So if the blastuli are not people, then what species are they? Are they fish? Hammerhead sharks?
Interestingly, human blastuli are visibly indistinguishable from shark blastuli, and a host of others. Get over it Doc, it's not a person! It's a group of cells, forget about what the Pope says. (historically, popes were responsible for their share of death and violence in the name of god, btw...)
Perhaps you are the type of guy who sees women subservient to men as a biblical model and that women's paramount duty is to breed?
Hey, suggestion - come into the 21st century Doc. Abortion is legal in nearly every developed country on the planet. Just in recent years abortion laws have been relaxed in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Taiwan and Turkey. The world wide trend is to make abortion safe. Why is it that you authoritarians are so hell-bent on forcing your values and perceptions down other peoples throats when studies show that abortions are reduced where there are an availability of family planning options freely accessible?
I don't get it. You fight against policies that serve your ends - to reduce abortion.
The law is settled and so is American and world opinion. Welcome to planet Earth.
----------------------
Quinnipiac University Poll. Aug. 7-13, 2007. N=1,545 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.5.
"In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?"
62% Agree
32% Disagree
6% Unsure
"You are covering your religious connection with the issue, just as those advocates of intelligent design committed perjury by trying to cover their religious motivations in the Dover trial."
Geez, Willy. Your arguments really fail when you don't have the ability to label someone as a religious zealot.
"Interestingly, human blastuli are visibly indistinguishable from shark blastuli, and a host of others."
So what about all that DNA mumbo jumbo? Because we're virtually identical to the chimpanzee. But fortunately our DNA separates us quite readily. You do know about DNA, don't you Willy?
"Perhaps you are the type of guy who sees women subservient to men as a biblical model and that women's paramount duty is to breed?"
Perhaps you're the type of guy who's too busy trying to impress women about how sensitive he is by playing guitar and supporting "rights" that you're blinded to any actual intellectual pursuit? Perhaps you're so devoid of the ability to debate on scientific grounds you'd rather resort to ad hominem attacks?
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So long as you can explain how an embryo is not human, in scientific terms.
"I don't get it. You fight against policies that serve your ends - to reduce abortion."
So, a little infanticide that's condoned by society is better than the infanticide where it's not? Gotcha.
"The law is settled and so is American and world opinion."
Right. So keep sodomy illegal, keep burning witches, no gay marriage, drugs should be illegal. The law is settled. Can't change the law.
Right?
Perhaps you're the type of guy who's too busy trying to impress women about how sensitive he is by playing guitar and supporting "rights" that you're blinded to any actual intellectual pursuit?
Nice Doc,
Why don't we let women decide what they should do with their bodies, can we agree to not try and control women, or is that something you enjoy?
Why don't you tell us something you know about like ... tell us about how we were created in god's image and that god must have been responsible for the "divine something" that overcame the entropy to start life on Earth?
"Why don't we let women decide what they should do with their bodies, can we agree to not try and control women, or is that something you enjoy?"
Women can do whatever they want with their bodies so long as it doesn't cause the death of another.
And don't think your evasions on the science of human reproduction haven't gone unnoticed. You can't dispute the humanity of embryo, so instead you try to steer the conversation away from there to law, or to the oppression of women, or to my religious leanings.
Face it, Willy. Your position is in opposition to existing scientific reasoning. And there is consensus in the scientific community that all people start at conception. Your attempts to dismiss the science for political rationalization is an illustration of the emotional illogic which saturates the pro-choice debate.
What's worse is you place science high on a pedestal for global warming where the science is far more nebulous, but when it definitively destroys your argument, you're perfectly happy to ignore it. All of which makes you a hypocrite who lets politics think for him.
Doc, Your fanaticism on this issue says more about you than it does the issue itself. You must be one of those fanatics we read about that are 'one issue voters.' It shows the lengths to which one will go to support a religious agenda and how you belong to the cult of moral absolutism and "absolute certainty" - as described here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3yb1g30Io
This about sums up Doc Tony's moral view and catholic values:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E
November 15, 2007 8:18 AM
Fine, Willy. Go ahead and lump me in a group of religious fanatics, although I didn't use God or Soul or anything but science to blow your arguments out of the water.
If you want to continue denying that a fertilized egg is something other than human that doesn't deserve basic human rights, then go right ahead. Live in your delusion and paint the religious fanatics as evil.
But just try and look yourself in the mirror and say, with a straight face, that conception isn't the start of all human lives. And then convince yourself that abortion isn't the killing of those human lives. And then say, outloud & proud, that killing people is OK so long as you ignore the fact they are people. And let that particular abject madness embrace you.
Just don't try to ever use science to prove any argument ever again, because you've proven you're more willing to accept political ideology than to accept basic, proven biology.
And any time in the future, if you post something from the world of science, I'll come into the comments, point to this comment thread, and label you a hypocrite for only accepting that science which you agree with.
Dude, you are an extremist. I'm glad we got to the bottom of your affliction. Now we know how to take your opinions on all matters. This explains alot of your zealotry regarding other issues.
If you want to continue denying that a fertilized egg is something other than human that doesn't deserve basic human rights, then go right ahead.
I'm absolutely not denying that a zygote is human, but it's not a person. You can torture logic all you want and base your arguments on semantics, but human rights are for human beings, zygotes aren't human beings anymoe than acorns are oaks trees.
I presented a valid scientific discussion of the legal definition of life as determined by brain waves. You present arguments based on emotion and semantics, trying to play gotcha with words.
Thanks for your participation in this thread, and I'm glad to get to know you, it gives readers some background on what you're all about.
Docywokkie:
"So what about all that DNA mumbo jumbo? Because we're virtually identical to the chimpanzee. But fortunately our DNA separates us quite readily. You do know about DNA, don't you Willy?"
The DNA in my postnasal drippings and toenail scrapings is the same as that which is contained in every other cell in my body. Berry bad science would say that DNA makes my mucus human.
You may think it's funny, but it's snot.
democommie
"I presented a valid scientific discussion of the legal definition of life as determined by brain waves"
Which I refuted as bogus.
Look, Willy, what defines you as a person is your DNA. You couldn't have the brainwaves if you didn't have the DNA to give you a brain. Ergo, if you have human DNA and you're an embryo, you've got all that's necessary to be who you are.
Let's use some logic here in the form of a problem. All people start their lives at conception. A zygote is the cell formed at conception. Therefore, all zygotes are people, just as all people started at zygote.
The problem you're encountering is not looking at the whole of human existence. We accept that a person who is brain dead is probably not coming back from that condition. Let's say 0.01% of all of those cases revert from brain death some reasonable capacity for brain activity. It's a rarity, so it's safe to say that, statistically, it's the right thing to do.
Now, barring miscarriage, all zygotes will be humans. There's a 100% certainty there. We know that 100% of them will have hearts, 100% will have brains in utero. We know that human is in a maturation cycle.
Now, if you consciously take steps to make sure that human stops living, what do you call that? Your intent is to end that life. Regardless of brain activity, what you are doing is a pre-meditated act bent on ending the life of that human.
Abortion isn't an accident. It's not a minor undertaking. It's a position where one person has willfully decided to take the life of another human.
Now, to soften the moral blow to this unmistakable truth, some people have redefined that it takes to be a human. Now it's not good enough to have basic human rights, now you need basic Human Being rights, or Person rights. (See how ridiculous this argument of your sounds?) In order to justify the destruction of a human for a political agenda, a group of humans were redefined so they no longer fit the profile of humans!
And if you can't understand how abominable such an undertaking was, just go and read about anyone who suffered the indignities of being reduced in value compared to a "superior" sect, and how they were reclassified as humans without basic human rights. In the most recent history, they were called "slaves".
In order to justify the destruction of a human for a political agenda, a group of humans were redefined so they no longer fit the profile of humans!
Political agenda? Specify that, please. Redefined? By whom?
Anyway, the proper forum for you to argue your case would be before a grand jury on a case by case basis.
just go and read about anyone who suffered the indignities of being reduced in value compared to a "superior" sect, and how they were reclassified as humans without basic human rights. In the most recent history, they were called "slaves".
Thanks for proving my point again Doc. Slaves were enslaved because they were people who were used by slave masters, the operative word here being "people"... you can not enslave a zygote because it is not a person.
Now, barring miscarriage, all zygotes will be humans. There's a 100% certainty there. We know that 100% of them will have hearts, 100% will have brains in utero. We know that human is in a maturation cycle.
This view offers no compassion for a zygote destined to be born in circumstances that would cause human suffering, whether it is a birth defect, a heroin addicted AIDS mother, or other circumstances. Again, you prove that compassionate conservatism is only for people who agree with you, in essence, an oxymoron.
So tell us Doc, ssuming everything you say is correct and abortion is murder, what should be the penalty for the several hundred thousand women in the US that have abortions every year?
One thing this thread clearly shows was that I was 100% right when I pegged 'Doc' a conservative religious right wing authoritarian from day 1. A GW Bush ass-kisser to the core.
"Slaves were enslaved because they were people who were used by slave masters, the operative word here being "people""
But you're missing the point, Willy. Those people were not considered people by those who "owned them, and to get away from moral responsibility for mistreatment of those people, they reclassified them as slaves-- something less than human. You do the same thing when you take something that's clearly human and put into a non-human classification, or by demanding it meet your qualifications before being considered a "person". Before emancipation, that qualification was skin color. Now with the abortion movement, it's age.
"This view offers no compassion for a zygote destined to be born in circumstances that would cause human suffering, whether it is a birth defect, a heroin addicted AIDS mother, or other circumstances."
Aha, the "compassion" stance. Better they die than be forced to live in such bad circumstances. Just how many babies are aborted because of a birth defect? Or aborted because their mother is an addict? Very few, and even then, that's a death that's caused by unfortunate circumstances. by your reasoning, if you want to spare the child from living in those circumstances, why not kill the woman who's in those circumstances? That will prevent her from even conceiving, right? And it will lessen the burden on society.
But there's that nagging in the back of your head. That nagging is hope. You can't possibly think of killing that woman because you hope she'll recover. We love to hear success stories of people overcoming adversity. But when it comes to someone just trying to be born, it's an oppression of women. It's a double standard. You can't bear the child in poor circumstances, so it's better they die. But for someone in those circumstances, you can't bear to kill them. The entire premise is inconsistent, Willy.
"So tell us Doc, ssuming everything you say is correct and abortion is murder, what should be the penalty for the several hundred thousand women in the US that have abortions every year?"
And just what is the punishment for women who kill their own children, Willy?
Perhaps less of them would do so if the abortion movement dropped its facade and actually explained to them what they were doing instead of painting it as some kind of societal right.
"One thing this thread clearly shows was that I was 100% right when I pegged 'Doc' a conservative religious right wing authoritarian from day 1. A GW Bush ass-kisser to the core."
You can't argue this point without labeling me, can you? I'm a Bushnazi for Jesus. Good thing I got the fax from Karl Rove or I wouldn't know what to think today.
Idiot. Learn how to debate instead of slandering your opponents. You're not 100% right on anything you know about me, which I find amusing to the core. You're a man of higher learning who can't learn.
docatthehop,hop,hop:
"Idiot. Learn how to debate instead of slandering your opponents."
delicious.
Science, science, science. Under very well settled law, murder is murder. Under your delusional KKKristian KKKoncept of moral righteousness, abortion is murder. NOBODY, not one single individual has ever been convicted of murder re: abortion. But, hey, there's always the RICO statutes, that way you get the MD's, nurses, clinic administrators and all of those heathen bitches who MURDER their babies.
democommie
Doc,
Your slave argument doesn't work. Zygotes can't pick cotton.
I wonder if how your views might change if you find yourself in the position to be a grandfather because your daughter got raped by some scumbag crack dealer with AIDS.
Oh, and by the way, I get by your previous response that you are in favor of prosecuting nearly a million women a year for murder because they had abortions, is that correct, Doc?
That seems to be congruent with your need to control women.
"I wonder if how your views might change if you find yourself in the position to be a grandfather because your daughter got raped by some scumbag crack dealer with AIDS."
Way to channel Bernard Shaw there, Willy.
As for zygotes not being able to pick cotton, you're totally missing the analogy, which isn't surprising. Had you been able to read and comprehend what I was stating, I was saying that slaves and zygotes share a common thread as both were/are treated as something less than a common human. I don't know why I'm explaining again. You'll just misunderstand again...
As for my positions on rape & abortion, I believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion in the case of rape and incest, so long as rape and incest charges are brought against a subject. At that point, the abortion counts as murder for the rapist as it's a continuation of the previous crime. In addition, if the woman chooses to have the child, the rapist would provide for 18 years of that child's life through any income, where the criminal pays the state and the state then pays the woman and the child support.
As for women being charged with murder-- it does vary from case to case. But if we had 1 million women throwing babies into blenders, you'd bet your life those women would be prosecuted. So why would abortion be any different?
Answer: it's only different to you, because you value some humans more than others.
Doc, you're absolutely right. I do value humans differently. For example, I value the life of a teenager, who is a son or daughter, brother or sister or nephew who has matured into a young adult and is getting his legs blown off in Iraq far more than I value a group of cells that has no brain, no memory, no emotions and is the size of a peanut. I value the life of a young pregnant mother who is struggling to feed her 4 kids in poverty far more than I value a group of cells that has no brain, no memory, no emotions and is the size of a peanut.
Yes I value humans differently because some are people and some are undeveloped groups of cells. Murder is punishable for killing people. Groups of cells are not people.
Is that clear enough?
"Groups of cells are not people. "
So you're not a "people"? You are nothing but a collection of cells as well, Willy.
And strangely enough, the group of cells that is you originated from the group of cells that isn't big enough to be a peanut. So, effectively, you were not you back when you were an embryo. You were only you when you could think? Given that Media Matters does all your thinking for you, that sets you up for viable for abortion.
This entire line of thinking is inconsistent. You, Willy, were you at conception, at 5 months in utero, at 12 years, and now. Never in this progression were you someone else or something else.
"Doc, you're absolutely right. I do value humans differently."
That much is obvious. I see all human life as equal. Our military members see that as well. That's why they volunteer, knowing they'll go to Iraq, to try and improve the life of Iraqis through their sacrifice.
You're not happy, Willy, unless you can pigeonhole people into various preconceived categories. If we spend time redefining humans into various categories and assigning values to one life or another, then we lose sight of what human life is worth.
Glad you cleared that up Doc. That is where your beliefs cross over from the pragmatic and practical to the irrational/religious/dogmatic. The same people who freak out about killing a minute group of stem cells or blastula, are the same people who think killing a half million people in Iraq is acceptable, because our christian president is killing muslims. They're going to hell anyway, right? Such beliefs are confined to a small percentage of society, the hard core catholics/christian/conservatives whose 'moral absolutism' is non negotiable and whose authoritarian psychological makeup allows them to surrender their rights to a leader who can not do any wrong because he is a christian anti-abortion rights president. Crazy world isn't it? Thankfully, Madison and Jefferson drew up our constitution to prevent theocrats like you and your wife from controlling American politics, and forcing your beliefs into our laws, although that won't stop you from trying.
"They're going to hell anyway, right? Such beliefs are confined to a small percentage of society, the hard core catholics/christian/conservatives whose 'moral absolutism' is non negotiable and whose authoritarian psychological makeup allows them to surrender their rights to a leader who can not do any wrong because he is a christian anti-abortion rights president."
Wow, Willy. You've gone from making little sense to making no sense at all. If you're going to rant like this, there's no real point in continuing this dialogue.
William:
I'da sworn I posted this already:
It appears that dickattheauto-da-fe has run out of talking points.
democommie
Post a Comment