The pro-death movement (anti-life, pro-infanticide, etc) refuse to believe that the embryo is a living human being, even though all the qualifiers of life are present in the embryo. So they attempt to add one onto it, which is surviving outside the womb. However, if such a qualifier was added, children from the ages to 1-5 wouldn't qualify probably, nor would those who are incapable because of disability to provide food for themselves. I guess we could start murdering them too. Or the homeless, or anyone who can't sustain themselves.
42 comments
You know what Aaron? You're totally right. We should allow every single child that's conceived to be born, regardless of how the mother feels. Of course these children are going to need clothed and fed and educated and socialised correctly. It'll be a huge undertaking, but i'm sure you'll be happy to help contribute to the upbringing of these kids, won't you Aaron? ...Aaron? ...Hello?
let's see.. an embryo is capable of living outside its human gestation chamber, cut off from the umbilical cord that provides it nutrients and allows it to share the mother's blood supply?
It's sentient? Without even a BRAIN STEM?
It's capable of reproduction, despite having only rudimentary organs?
The Mighty Fek'lhr is anti-abortion AND pro-infanticide.
Just kidding!
Yeah, abortions are ok, too.
I admit it, I am anti-life. I eat meat and vegetables. In fact, sometimes I eat my vegetables while they're still alive.
I'm more concerned about sentience. Bugs, hobos, retards, and douchebags are all sentient.
Embryos are not, fetuses are ... not.
Too bad a fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Literally, it's a parasite, at least during the first portion of a pregnancy. If you want to give a fetus rights, you should start campaigning for the rights of tapeworms, ringworms, roundworms and pinworms. And how about all those millions of insects that are killed by humans every year? After all, those are probably CLOSER to being 'alive' in the same way humans are than an embryo is.
Now, I can understand being opposed to elective late-term abortions, as most of us can agree that a third trimester fetus IS a living creature... but to say that a mindless, vaguely human-shaped blob of cells with NO sentience, consciousness, thought, or comprehension is 'alive' in any meaningful way is ridiculous. As I said... a wasp has more thought and comprehension that a damn embryo does.
Last year my gallbladder developed stones and had to be removed. Since it was technically living flesh that was removed and died when it left my body, will you be campaigning for its rights too?
err..5 year olds are capable of surving outside the womb. It's true that they can't take care of themselves, but that's NOT the same as not being able to survive without being physically attached to their mothers which is what we are discussing.
And a lump of cells without a functioning brain, which is what it is for the first trimester, as well as the early part of the second trimester, does not qualify as a full human being and doesn't have any kind of rights because it is not capable of experiencing pain. A young child, or even a late-term fetus, is capable of experiencing pain, and thus it is wrong to kill them for the sake of our convenience. Abortions are A-OK until the end of the first trimester, then it starts to get iffy.
@ SWGM
Hahaha! The image of a homeless man who can't survive outside his mother's womb is one part amusing and three parts disturbing.
Or an otherwise homeless man who can't survive outside his mother's basement. (AK)
refuse to believe that the embryo is a living human being, even though all the qualifiers of life are present in the embryo.
All the qualifiers of life are also present in amoebae. What you're actually looking for is the presence of an intelligent, human consciousness, and you aren't going to find it in a week-old embryo.
I've never heard of a pro-death movement.
I am pro-choice and you have no understanding of what that means because you are an extremist. It is one or the other, black or white, to you.
It's a really dangerous, and sad, way to live.
The pro-death movement refuse to believe that the appendix is a living human being, even though all the qualifiers of life are present in the organ. So they attempt to add one onto it, which is surviving outside the colon.
Why is so hard for these people to understand the difference between "a life" and "a sentient human being"? Nearly every argument I've seen about abortion goes something like this:
Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong because you're killing a human being, and murder is always wrong.
And of course, they can't understand that "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion." Perhaps they should go back to school and learn some reading comprehension before they try to debate again.
Like most 'pro-lifers', I'll bet AaronK doesn't give a shit about what happens to the baby once it's born. Most 'pro-lifers' seem to be men, and they resent that women have the right to control their own bodies - it takes control away from their husbands and the (male) pastors/priests! People like Aaron do not care if the baby is born with FAS, born addicted to crack or heroin, or is diagnosed during pregnancy with some horrible genetic defect that is fatal. I suspect he does not care either if the baby is born into an abusive home (or is that one with a 'good' conservative 'Christian' who supports regular corporal punishment?), or a home where alcoholism & drug use are the norm, or where the child is sexually abused? Not a word from the smug 'pro-life' crowd. Perhaps one should call the fundies the 'pro-suffering' crowd.
Now, I can understand being opposed to elective late-term abortions
I can't. Because they don't exist. It's a strawman, that the wimminz are all fine with havin teh baybeez for 8 months and then BAM! planned parenthood rolls up in a pimp-ass stretch-hummer and is all like, "yo moms, let us take that bun out yo oven!" and the wimminz screams with joy and they traipse off to gat that little man in the uterus.
It just doesn't effing happen. The only thing remotely similar would be if a pregnant woman didn't want a child, and was given the run-around for 6 months with parental notification and pre-visits and ultrasound sessions and taking the bus to the one planned parenthood in the state three or four times just so you can have invasive surgery to not be pregnant any more and you can't get birth control at the pharmacy because of the kooks running the place and taking a day off work let alone 2 is impossible anyways.
Your jackass restrictions on a woman's ability to control her body are the only thing that could remotely cause a second-trimester abortion.
refuse to believe that the embryo is a living human being...
...even though all the qualifiers of life are present in the embryo.
...nor would those who are incapable because of disability to provide food for themselves. I guess we could start murdering them too.
Also:
image
Oh dear.
"even though all the qualifiers of life are present in the embryo"
Moving independently and feeling pain are in the embryo during pregnancy?*
*=ability to feel pain is aquired mid-2nd trimester and moving independently is aquired during the 3rd.
Pro-death is a better descriptor of the movement that calls it pro-choice (though it would be better termed anti-choice), as they reject abortions even if the fetus has no chance to survive and if it might put the mother at risk, yet they almost always support the death penalty, so clearly life starts at conception and ends at birth, since they're unwilling to adopt the children born because of a refusal of abortion and they also forget that two wrongs don't make a right and murder murderers.
> The pro-death movement (anti-life, pro-infanticide, etc)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
