Posted on 11/07/2004 5:05:16 AM PST by conservativecorner
"They're going to be used against women,"....And ya know, its really mean to make a woman feel bad about killing her baby!
How far along will they actually allow an abortion? I don't think most people realize, and I don't know for sure, but it seems to me when this started in the seventies that it had to be done in the first 6 to 8 weeks or so, not that I agree to that either, but when did it stretch out to almost full term? How did that happen? I would bet that most people that have not been affected by such a thing even realize they will do this that far along.
It is not so much pleasure as their desire to make men and women equal. In the bad old days a man could always walk away from a pregnancy something most women could not do. This meant women couldn't be sexually promiscuous like men and the early abortion proponents saw pregnancy as a hinderance to professional growth for women. So making it easily possible for women to change that equation in their favor was a huge challenge. Well abortion does that. Now women can be promiscuous and they don't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy ruining their lives. It isn't so much a love of killing babies, though I am sure there is some of that at work with some of the feminazi, I think it is more about convenience. They just don't consider having babies and motherhood as a worthy use of a women life and abortion fits right into that worldview.
Sadly I have known way too many women who have made that decision and in almost all of the cases they did it because having a baby would have screwed up the plans they had for their life. Showing them ultrasounds won't visibly change their opinion. It isn't about the humanity of the unborn child it is about their own selfish desires. In some cases when these women got to a certain age they decided that having a baby fit their plans and they got pregnant. If you ask them about their abortion they will tell you it was just the wrong time to have a baby and it was the right thing to do at the time, and that they don't really give it much thought. Our side wastes a lot of time trying to make the argument about the humanity of the baby, often times to women who are aware of the facts but don't care, when we should be working harder to make women see motherhood as something that carries at least as much worth as being some anonymous middle manager at the local bank. Ultrasounds, regardless of how explicit they are, can't do that.
No offense but that paragraph from Sanger is not only ellipsed(meaning context is not provided at all) but it seems like the kind of urban myth of ideological movements used to undermine the opposition but NOT through truth. This is commonly done with evolutionary theory in biology and so I'm wary of that quote you provided.
No, what’s really funny is watching a doofus with an inferiority complex try to decide “when” his steak is done. “Gee, I don’t know. Maybe another couple of nanosec -- no, maybe more time -- I just can’t be sure it’s truly ready. (Then, after 20 minutes of hand-wringing: ) Oops, now it’s ruined.”
I am very impressed that you are so devoted to theory that you will not even attempt to answer fundamental questions. Very impressed indeed. I’m less impressed by your unwillingness to acknowledge that there are points along a continuum at which certain conditions can definitively be said to be true. I accept and agree with (and frankly, expected) your explanation of water turning to ice. But surely you would agree that, at some point, the water can be tested to determine whether it possesses the qualities of a solid. At some point, there is no question that a jet aircraft is traveling faster than the sound waves around it. Likewise, at some point, there is no question that the “organism” in a woman’s womb is a living entity with its own human genetic code.
So, seeing as you and I are not communicating well, how about if I put it this way: “If the organism has its own human genetic code and exhibits the characteristics of a living organism, ‘it’ is a living human and thus should have human rights.” Will that placate you? (And if not, will you agree your own rights are in jeopardy, given the apparent theoretical uncertainty of your own status as a human?) If you can accept that simple and non-arbitrary test, then your concerns about continua should evaporate. Other questions may arise, such as how you test for the stated condition, but those questions are more practical than theoretical, and not, as you may claim, “arbitrary”; and as science marches on, they become less daunting. Which is the original thrust of this thread.
PS: I thoroughly enjoyed the comment about “extraterrestrials.” The nerd-o-meter overheated when I read that one.
You've reached new limits of cranial density. You complain that I repeat myself and yet never seem to read any of the repeats. I have made it abundantly clear that "there are points along a continuum at which certain conditions can definitively be said to be true". However, there is no meaningful POINT along a continuum that divides significant differences. You STILL don't know what a contuum is, do you? Your mental block is very impressive.
But surely you would agree that, at some point, the water can be tested to determine whether it possesses the qualities of a solid. At some point, there is no question that a jet aircraft is traveling faster than the sound waves around it. Likewise, at some point, there is no question that the “organism” in a woman’s womb is a living entity with its own human genetic code.
Of course. Who would think otherwise? But, being a contiuum, there is no particular meaningful time point that separates water from ice, subsonic from supersonic, or gametes from baby.
Beat that straw man, dude. You almost look like your having fun with it.
“If the organism has its own human genetic code and exhibits the characteristics of a living organism, ‘it’ is a living human and thus should have human rights.”
So, to have rights then, a thing must
(1) be an organism
(2) be living
(3) have homo sapiens genetic code
So did rights not exist before Watson & Crick? Is there not even a single characteristic of a living human organism, observable to our less technologically savvy forebears, that can give meaning to "rights"? What in the world was John Locke talking about, since surely he did not know very much genetics (did one of your nerdy aliens whisper in his ear)? And why stipulate human DNA? If I gave you some human DNA, could you analyze it for rights? Is there a rights gene?
If you can accept that simple and non-arbitrary test, then your concerns about continua should evaporate.
But it is an arbitrary test. Where is the linkage between the meaning of rights and who you say it applies to? For that matter, just what do you think a right is? How do you know?
I will grant you that there may be an explanation of rights that does not depend upon your devoted falsehood of temporal discontinuities (at least there better be, or rights don't exist). But you are not explaining human rights, or how we know humans have rights. You're just stipulating "take rights (whatever the hell they are), and give them to, oh let's see, how about 'living homo sapiens'". So you've said nothing.
PS: I thoroughly enjoyed the comment about “extraterrestrials.” The nerd-o-meter overheated when I read that one.
It is interesting that you chose not to respond to the hypothetical. I suppose the answer, then, is "no", they would not have rights, no matter how human they behave. So, slaughter and eat them, what the hell.
Why would anyone want an abortion in their third trimester?
I'm pro choice. I'm against third trimester abortions ....unless the mothers life is in danger.
1. They care more for themselves than a baby's life.
2. It's convenient(sad, but that's how some feel).
3. Lazy and/or promiscuous.
4. Liberal society has desensitized our youth.(this one is my belief)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.