Phatose on 19/5/2022 at 13:36

---

The ability to develop enough to live independently wasn't actually part of your justification. I doubt that's a simple oversight, since relying on it would open the discussion to the fact that even if zero abortions were ever performed, considerable numbers of zygotes don't successfully develop to the point of living independently. That leads to a discussion about viability, and a line far different from the one you're proposing.

rachel on 20/5/2022 at 09:33

---

Oblig. Carlin

[video=youtube;M-bLf4F0PM4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bLf4F0PM4[/video]

Tocky on 20/5/2022 at 16:48

---

I tend to stay out of these because I just piss both sides off a little. I think the just fertilized egg can't be called human, however the baby the day before birth can, so the difference is in the between time and I wish medical science would find the point at which the mental links have been established to call the embryo human. I understand how fraught with controversy that is and why they do not want to be more definite over the fuzzy period it is now. It sure as hell isn't when the heart beats as the bible thumpers say nor is it all the way through pregnancy as the more strident supporters say. In any event I'm happy to leave this one to women alone to decide. I trust their judgement over those who don't have to carry the burden.

To send us all the way back to the Patriarchal fifties is just political hogwash though so repeal is smooth brain nonsense. It amazes me how many hypocritical Karens screech about it when I know exactly how hypersexual and amoral they were as teens and twenty somethings. Near as I can figure the reason most go all fire and brimstone is because they scared the crap out of themselves with what they were capable of. I always had a measure of morality and consideration in my hedonism so I never had that particular problem. My generation preaching sexual morality is mind boggling in light of my observations. Maybe they are afraid their children will be as bad as they were but going to some dichotomy of good and evil over a reasoned and honest approach and acceptance of our sexuality is madness. I never thought my generation would swing all the way back to some unenlightened emotional burn the witch crap but we are much worse than our own parents were.

Nicker on 21/5/2022 at 00:29

---

"Non profit"? - At 200K a year, Catherine Foster certainly profits.


Here's an interesting video about how the Pro-Fetus movement got started and the founding doctrines behind it.

[video=youtube;4NAM2IcX8Pw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NAM2IcX8Pw[/video]

SPOILER: It's racism.

Draxil on 24/5/2022 at 15:07

---

It's fascinating to me that you think human exceptionalism is a myth. Such a belief certainly is consistent with supporting abortion, but is also consistent with supporting so much more than abortion. If a species is killing the planet, , for instance, it makes sense to cull them. I would think that, if humans are no more exceptional that cows or dogs or crows, that you would approve of war, famine, pestilence, and destruction--especially when it focused on the offending species. Covid, for instance-- I'd imagine that you're all for it if you truly believe human exceptionalism is a myth.

I think the sentence "Human exceptionalism is myth." is self-disproving. We are the only species on the planet that can think that sentence, have the ability to infer more from it, can develop over 7,100 languages to express it, and have become technologically advanced enough to invent machines that can control electrical currents (generated, controlled, and transmitted by more machines) to make them show up on a screen and transmit them thousands of miles away in a fraction of a second. We're the cruelest and most beneficent species on the planet, the only species responsible for putting other species on the endangered list and the only species that cares that another is on the endangered list.



Pregnancy no now way equals slavery, and saying such minimizes both a pregnant woman and victims of slavery. Get to that in a minute.

Biologically, a zygote is human life and, if nature and chance smiles on it, it will become an independent individual in the world. Abortion supporters have to rely on abstract and arbitrary metaphysical definitions to defend abortion. There is no consensus, even among supporters of abortion, of when the human life in the womb becomes a "person" that deserves human rights, and most of those definitions would deny human rights to living and developed human beings. It's magical thinking--at some point, an undefined point you know when you see, a human being becomes a person--until then it's a clump of cells. I find it revealing that not a single supporter of abortion in this thread is willing to say at what point an abortion is acceptable. The reflects the general populace, too--80%+ of people in the country think abortion should be restricted in the third trimester, 60%+ think restricted in the second trimester (those numbers are from memory). Tocky is appreciably honest--he says he doesn't know at which point "mental links" are established to support person-hood, but they're there at birth or some point before. Those mental links aren't there for newborns, though, nor are they there for any number of people in comas or under anesthesia.

Hard core "pro-life" people, like myself, are consistent--human life is valuable and should be protected and preserved at every opportunity because it is inherently valuable. To answer other points from other posters in this thread: even as a libertarian-minded conservative I wholeheartedly support spending tax payer dollars to support and raise infants and children, and support even harsher laws and penalties to enforce paternal support. The right to life is the fundamental right, to which all other rights are subservient. Healthcare providers in an emergency room have no right to deny life-saving care based on ability to pay: this violates their right to liberty. I see nothing morally objectionable to a starving man stealing food--his right to life trumps your right to ownership (assuming you're not starving yourself). Only regarding abortion do progressives champion a right to individual autonomy. They are fine passing laws that deny conscientious objections to providing abortion. They are fine passing laws that seize wealth or property or individual autonomy in almost every other instance, but not abortion. That's perhaps overly broad, but mainly true. In regards to reproduction, the pro-choice position would pro-slavery side of the flawed analogy--the unborn child is property, chattel to be disposed of in accordance to its owner's desire or whim. Pregnancy may be uncomfortable, inconvenient, hampering, disfiguring, and generally a "bad thing", but the child's right to life supersedes a woman's right to "liberty" (liberty to kill?) in that regard. To head off an objection: If a woman's life is endangered by her pregnancy, then whatever medical intervention is necessary to preserve her life is justifiable, regardless of effect on the child. The principle of double effect applies--the intervention is done to save a life, not with the intention of ending one--surgery that the unborn can't survive, taking chemotherapy to treat cancer, a hysterectomy or salpingectomy for an ectopic pregnancy, etc.

In regards to other responses that I won't bother to quote:

*The number of zygotes and embryos whose development is terminated by nature has no bearing on the debate. "100,000 x died under these circumstances" is hardly justification for killing an additional x or an additional 63,000,000x.

*I never brought God into this conversation and don't intend to. Opposition to abortion doesn't rely on faith, contrary to what proponents of abortion believe. The secular justification for defending human life is quite strong enough, and there are many pro-life atheists.

I would still love to know at what point, if any, the pro-abortion crowd here supports limiting abortion. Give me a number and a reason--it should be pretty easy if it's so clear cut.



She makes far less than the executives at Planned Parenthood, another non-profit. Leanna Wen got $1.2 million as PP's president. Your video doesn't pass the stink test for multiple reasons. It's from MSNBC, which is a red flag, and it asks its viewers to believe that anti-abortion advocates are racist while Planned Parenthood is on the side of the angels, despite the fact that its abortion patients are more than 2/3 non-white, 80% of it's abortion providing clinics are in minority neighborhoods, its founder was a racist eugenicist who has been broadly disowned by the organization, and it is admittedly racist in its (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/black-employees-planned-parenthood-racism) business practice. But it's the right-to-life crowd that are the racists segregationists. Hmmm...