I'm not sure you understood the content of the article. I never said we should "agree to disagree."
In fact, let me ask you this: Do you believe that we should be up in arms, literally, over abortion? Should pro-life people be buying guns, and storming abortion clinics by force? I would guess you would say no. And if you would say no, then you must accept that the abortion issue is not the same as a war (specifically, the Revolutionary War). The way you affect change in an issue like abortion is not the same way you affect change when it comes to literal warfare.
Excellent piece, Very well said!
For that matter, I don't understand how anyone can think that death threats are in any way pro-life.
If you abuse my daughters on their way to the women's clinic, I will take appropriate action. I have a permit to carry.
Like you said "The time for respectful handshake, "agree to disagree" b.s. is over."
It has been over as far as I am concerned since your ilk started assassinating medical personnel and committing arson.
I agree. Well written and conceived.
Sweet! I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights in the same way.
Unless your daughters are planning to abuse me or mine, no "abuse" will happen, since I only dish out what I am given.
You shoot forced birth cultist stalkers? Good for you.
I don't shoot anyone. I'm Pro-Life.
Are you for criminalizing abortion?
You are pro birth. If you are for criminalizing abortion, you are pro death.
I can prove that with one link. Want it?
I am pro life so naturally I am pro reproductive choice for women.
That's the funny thing, though. I'm also "pro reproductive choice for women". If a woman doesn't want to reproduce, she should have that right, and methods to avoid reproduction should be legally available to her. Same with the opposite-if she wants to reproduce, she should be allowed to go for it.
...It's just...the sticky wicket is...if a woman is pregnant, she has *ALREADY* reproduced! Whups! Abortion doesn't *prevent* reproduction-it kills the result of successful reproduction *AFTER* it has *ALREADY* occurred, the outcome being a dead offspring/child. No bueno.
the sticky wicket is...if a woman is pregnant, she has *ALREADY* reproduced!
How do you figure? I'm not the one claiming that travel through the birth canal or having *just* the right amount of synapses firing is the magical princess-kiss of humanity.
Yeah. What about anything I've said gives you the impression that this is the position I espouse?
An unborn human is a human that is under construction. That construction may or may not result in a complete, fully formed, autonomous individual. There is a reason for 40 weeks of gestation. It's to create an infant. You don't have an infant at the moment of conception. Women's bodies *make* babies - babies are not made the moment sperm meets egg.
"You use a few bigger words..."
Yes...bigger words that mean something different. Fancy that.
"An unborn human is a human that is under construction."
As is a toddler. We are *all* "under construction" until adulthood.
"That construction may or may not result in a complete, fully formed, autonomous individual."
2.) We are all also autonomous from our earliest stages of life. Our growth is self-directed and built into our genetic code. You don't have to be a "fully-formed adult" to be an autonomous human being.
"There is a reason for 40 weeks of gestation. It's to create an infant. You don't have an infant at the moment of conception. "
Great. I never disputed that. But a human being at a stage prior to "infant" or "neonate" is no less a valuable human being who should be treated with dignity and have a right to life.
"Women's bodies *make* babies - babies are not made the moment sperm meets egg."
"Babies"? No. However, OFFSPRING (otherwise known as "children") are. You're arguing against points I never made.
A newborn has all of the body parts and organs that it will ever have.
A zygote is just a snippet of DNA that may or may not result in a fully formed, autonomous individual.
"A newborn has all of the body parts and organs that it will ever have."
As does a human embryo by the end of the embryonic stage.
"A zygote is just a snippet of DNA..."
No they're not. They're the first cell of a new human being's body, and that DNA set is complete.
"...that may or may not result in a fully formed, autonomous individual."
No...as previously stated, they're "fully-formed" for their stage of life, and they may or may not survive past any given point. But that shouldn't somehow grant legitimacy to the decision to actively prematurely end their life.
Meaningless. You always repeat this as if it means something, and it doesn't.
The whole of gestation = a construction project, and there is no separate individual until birth, or very close to. Until it has proven that it can survive as a separate individual all that you have is potential.
hey're the first cell of a new human being's body, and that DNA set is complete.
Unless, of course, it isn't complete, and it's a hydatidiform mole.
Unless, of course, the ovum has defective polarity and it self-aborts at some point along the line.
Unless, of course, it has any one of many genetic defects that prevent it from continuing.
Unless, of course, various hormones, nutrition and bacteria are not available during the gestation period, at which point it will *not* result in a fully formed, complete human being.
Gestation is a crap shoot. A roll of the dice. A lot can go wrong along the way.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch, is the saying.
"Meaningless. You always repeat this as if it means something, and it doesn't."
"The whole of gestation = a construction project, and there is no separate individual until birth, or very close to. Until it has proven that it can survive as a separate individual all that you have is potential."
Says you. Back it up.
"Unless, of course, it isn't complete, and it's a hydatidiform mole."
"Unless, of course, the ovum has defective polarity and it self-aborts at some point along the line.
Unless, of course, various hormones, nutrition and bacteria are not available during the gestation period, at which point it will *not* result in a fully formed, complete human being."
Hmm...I'm pretty sure I've already discussed natural death vs. active killing, and how the former doesn't justify the latter. You should go re-read until it sinks in a bit better. You can get it! I know you can!
"Gestation is a crap shoot. A roll of the dice. A lot can go wrong along the way."
"Don't count your chickens before they hatch, is the saying."
Go eat a chicken egg that contains an embryo and compare it to one that wasn't fertilized, then get back to me on that.
Simple. It's a genetic blueprint. That blueprint has to be read, interpreted and expressed. Many many factors play a role in whether this even happens, and in how it happens - the presence or absence of certain hormones, maternal diet, even bacteria.
only "abortions" taking place are to terminate molar pregnancies.
We don't know which ones are genetic mistakes and which are not. You want to treat every single one as if it is already a fully formed infant. That's called putting the cart before the horse.
I'm pretty sure I've already discussed natural death vs. active killing, and how the former doesn't justify the latter.
And the ZEF dies naturally, indeed it does, because it cannot survive upon separation from the woman's body - a body that it has NO right to.
Same could be said about the continuance in life at any stage.
Sure it can, but by that time you already have a fully formed, complete, autonomous individual.
Not a genetic blueprint. Not a zef that can't survive without the placenta, it's *most* important organ. Every single organ in the ZEF is different from what is present in an infant. The lungs are nearly solid, the heart has holes etc. A zef can survive without functional organs only because the woman's body performs all of life's functions for it.
That means you've eaten a chicken embryo, nothing more.
Nope. No child until I make it.
As I mentioned elsewhere, your whole premise rides on the presumption that "Death is the worst possible fate, ever. Killing is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance"
This is a FALSE presumption, one you have yet to substantiate.
Now have you wondered WHY those destructive tactics are being used over & over instead of valid arguments? Maybe because there are NO valid arguments against abortion?
Let's start from your basic point: (P2) all human beings are deserving of protection.
-Why should anyone deserve protection just because they are human?
-And if everyone deserves protection just for being alive, why should this protection be limited to humans?
Furthermore, "protection" doesn't necessarily equate birth or life. In some cases life is what one needs protection FROM.