July 26, 2012

Rand Paul's anti-abortion campaign.

"Whereas: Science is clear that human life begins at conception...."

352 comments:

1 – 200 of 352   Newer›   Newest»
Dose of Sanity said...

Well phrased.

Ancient Egyptians began counting age from the moment of conception...

Andy R. said...

I'm not sure what is surprising or interesting about this.

Rabid right wing Republican is opposed to a women's right to choose. And?

Andy R. said...

end the slaughter now

lol

Rand Paul thinks this jar of red liquid is just like me and you?

Lem said...

"We have the most permissive abortion laws pretty much in the industrialized world. And I hope, but I have no confidence, that we won't make the same mistake again.

I'd like to think that one time, we could say: Oh, let's open this up. Let's talk about parental notification. Let's talk about ways in which we might reduce the chances that someone underage might get an abortion. And I'm just worried that we're going to revert right back to our usual sort of giving and saying, well, the pro-choice lobby controls Washington, so we can never do anything about things like this".

Curious George said...

Fuck science. It's all about the the heart of liberty".

"Andy R. said...
Rand Paul thinks this jar of red liquid is just like me and you?"

How's this asshole?

Rocketeer said...

Andy,

I'm really struggling to see you as anything other than a bitter, horrid person who hates life. I'm asking you to help me out here.

Please, show me something, anything about you that is positive, life affirming, and loving. Just a glimpse, that's all I'm hoping for.

Just one thing.

samanthasmom said...

While I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, Paul is right. Science does confirm that life begins at conception. Just as we package meat after removing all of the skin and bones to make it look as little like the animal it came from so it's more palatable for people to eat it, we also describe a fetus as "just mass of cells" to make it more acceptable to kill it. I have no problem with a woman choosing abortion when it appears to her to be her best option, but let's stop kidding ourselves about whether or not she's ending a life. The marinated chunks of boneless chicken breasts that are individually wrapped for convenience used to be a tiny, fluffy little ball of feathers that followed its mother around a henhouse. Removing the skin and the bones didn't make it a product of the supermarket fairy.

Andy R. said...

Please, show me something, anything about you that is positive, life affirming, and loving.

Let me know the next time you're in Atlanta and we can go to the park together on Sunday and feed homeless people with Food Not Bombs.

Palladian said...

Our dear friend Andy R does resemble another container of organic material— a big sack of shit.

harrogate said...

Where's the language about putting women who try to get abortions, in prison? Or for that matter, women who do not properly take care of themselves while pregnant? And where's the "prove miscarriage or else" language?

Only rarely does the mask come off and the language about incarcerating women leap forth. The rest of the time it is all focused on those scary doctors. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is?

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

I agree Samanthasmom, it's life from the moment of conception. My own personal belief is that it has a soul at that moment, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby. I think that it will be reckoned with in the afterlife.

LilyBart said...

The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period.

Now which is stranger - to call something 'life' based on medical science and knowledge, or on whether the mother is happy to discover she's pregnant?

Rocketeer said...

Let me know the next time you're in Atlanta and we can go to the park together on Sunday and feed homeless people with Food Not Bombs.

Do you feed the bigoted homeless people too? Seems like you might have a litmus test.

MadisonMan said...

What punishments does Paul suggest?

It strikes me rather as people who cut taxes without attacking spending, on the assumption that stuff like the spending cuts will just take care of themselves. They don't. They never do.

So, what are the penalties for having an abortion? Prison? How can you talk about banning abortion without talking about the penalties incurred if you do have (or facilitate) an abortion?

Lyssa said...

Andy R said: Rand Paul thinks this jar of red liquid is just like me and you?

That baby was 6 weeks old. I saw my unborn baby, on an ultrasound, at 6 weeks old. It was tiny enough that you wouldn't be able to see it in a far away, oddly angled picture. That doesn't mean that it didn't exist, or that it was only liquid. Even at that point, when I was first finding out that I was pregnant, it had a heard that was entirely visible and beating, a head and body, and brain. At the next ultrasound, a few weeks later, we could see the baby suck his or her thumb.

You have to pretend really, really hard to act as if that doesn't exist, just because some oddly angled far away picture didn't show it.

heyboom said...

It's always fascinated me to see folks who have won the life lottery standing so firmly against giving others a chance at the same.

damikesc said...

So, what are the penalties for having an abortion? Prison?

Lengthy prison terms for performers of abortion. Simple. When the supply of providers dries up, the number of abortions will reduce in kind.

Roe v Wade should be overturned and it should revert to being a state decision.

The Godfather said...

If a human life does NOT begin at conception, then when DOES it begin?

Lem said...

More people have died at the hands of Planned Parenthood than at the hands of all the gus in the history of the world..

I haven't looked this up.. but I'm inspired by this political climate to go bold ;)

Andy R. said...

Do you feed the bigoted homeless people too? Seems like you might have a litmus test.

I'm a big fan of real-world outreach. Talking to people in person about gay issues, and allowing people to get to know (out) gay people is why the gay equality movement has been so wildly successful. It's quite difficult to be friends with gay people or have gay family members and be opposed to gay equality. I'm well aware of that.

I don't usually attempt to do that here because I don't think any of the bigots in the Althouse Comment Crew are open to persuasion via the comment box here. Maybe some people here can be shamed out of their bigotry or be more self-conscious about pushing their bigotry in public.

chickelit said...

Andy R's red liquid could just as well be his own enema after a rough night with the homeless after feeding time.

Wouldn't put it past him...how do we know for sure?

Lem said...

I meant to say all the red goo.. insted of gus.

red goo in a jar.

rhhardin said...

What's surprising about the left is how bad their arguments are, given that there are perfectly good ones.

E.g. that a fetus is or is not a person.

Somewhere Goffman has an analysis of say-foring, where a parent speaks for a child, saying thank you and so forth. It's taken as the child saying thank you.

Or in Cavell, if we let a child pay for something (let me pay, the child takes the money and hands it to the clerk), did he pay?

It's not quite so much a special sense of paying as a case of taking it as paying, the habit of which is a form of teaching.

We take a fetus as a person, or not, for reasons other than some fact about the fetus.

The argument ought to be about what happens when words change as you argue with them.

This would involve thinking up anecdotes to try following them.

Fetuses are not in usual usage people, the distinction having followed interest.

But there are cases - I think best described as taking fetuses as people, not as a mistake but as part of something else, say being a future parent.

edutcher said...

In other words, Senator Paul understands when the science really is settled.

Unlike your average Lefty.

Andy R. said...

I'm not sure what is surprising or interesting about this.

Rabid right wing Republican is opposed to a women's right to choose. And?


More like thoughtful, Conservative Libertarian takes a stand on a baby's right to life*.

The woman's right to choose comes when he says, "Your place or mine?".

(Hatman desn't get this as anyplace is OK with him)

* Right to life is in the constitution, right to choose ain't.

garage mahal said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Erika said...

What Mr. Andy was asked for:

Please, show me something, anything about you that is positive, life affirming, and loving. Just a glimpse, that's all I'm hoping for.

What Mr. Andy gave:

Let me know the next time you're in Atlanta and we can go to the park together on Sunday and feed homeless people with Food Not Bombs.

Interesting that there's still a negative judgement in there. Feeding the needy--a noble endeavor--is yet still set in juxtaposition with something that Mr. Andy presumably opposes/mocks/judges/what have you.

Mr. Andy, can't you just complete a positive action without at the same time declaring what you're against?

Lem said...

... I don't think any of the bigots in the Althouse Comment Crew are open to persuasion via the comment box here.

When selling something is not recommended to call your prospects bigots.

Call me crazy.

Nathan Alexander said...

So, what are the penalties for having an abortion? Prison? How can you talk about banning abortion without talking about the penalties incurred if you do have (or facilitate) an abortion?

The sad thing is, you think you are being clever or profound.

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Why do we still use the word "solstice"? It's just an outdated metaphor for a solar standstill.

Andy R. said...

Interesting that there's still a negative judgement in there.

Are you referring to "Food Not Bombs" or something else in my comment?

Lem said...

Why is it that if a pregnant woman is struck by someone and she looses the baby that person can be charged with a felony?

Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Andy R. said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old?

Surely there are some pro-lifers that keep the charade going. Anyone know of any pro-lifers that have their kid's birthday party 3 months after it is born?

n.n said...

It's the only objective standard.

The legal standard has arisen for reasons of accommodating a minority need for instant gratification without perceived consequences and to control liability incurred by medical and pharmaceutical institutions when women elect to prematurely terminate a developing human life; and, unfortunately, as yet another political platform to purchase votes with promises of instant gratification.

The matter of abortion is a perfect candidate for society to discriminate among behaviors which should be normalized, can be tolerated, or should be rejected.

The elective abortion of developing human life should be rejected. However, as preservation of human rights in the face of men and women who place their need for personal, physical gratification first is, to say the least, challenging, it should be the preference of society to dissuade women from selecting this mitigating action for the outcome of their voluntary behavior. This does not preclude legal enforcement or imposing criminal sanctions on women who choose elective abortion of their voluntarily conceived child.

Individual development is influenced by their family, friends, community, and culture of the society they live in. It should be in the interest of all people who care about human rights that their influence engender positive progress for this fundamental right to life.

Fen said...

Andy is the archetype of minorities who clamour for tolerance, but would be worse than the most bigoted white hetero male if they ever held the reigns of power.

chickelit said...

Andy R wrote: Surely there are some pro-lifers that keep the charade going. Anyone know of any pro-lifers that have their kid's birthday party 3 months after it is born?

I'm not sure of the confusion here. It is called a birthday and not a lifeday. Please try to be consistent--as consistent as you seem to be for picking loser arguments.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Of course human life begins at conception. It is stupid to deny it.

But that doesn't mean we can't allow abortion within carefully considered conditions.

Nature aborts conceptions quite frequently, after all.

Erika said...

Food NOT Bombs

Why can't this organization just feed people, , instead of, apparently, feeding people while simultaneously being against bombs? What do they have to do with each other? It's weird. I feed people all the time and rarely think about bombs. If you weren't in the park feeding homeless people would you be bombing someone?

My point was that the other poster asked you for a viewpoint/action that is life affirming, positive, etc as opposed to, apparently, life denying and negative. You said, yeah, I'm a part of this organization that feeds people [positive!] while opposing [whoops, there we go with the negative] militarism. You still managed to include a negative position.

You're a big boy and can do whatever you want with your time and hold whatever viewpoints you want. The contrast just amused me.

Andy R. said...

Yeah, but do the parents say, "my child is one year old"? on its first birthday Isn't the kid one year and nine months old on their first birthday?

I'm guessing basically every single pro-lifer ever says their kid is x days old and they start the counting from when the kid is born and not when it is conceived.

And why celebrate the birthday anniversary anyway? Emerging from the womb seems a lot less consequential than when life began for a child.

Lem said...

Anyone know of any pro-lifers that have their kid's birthday party 3 months after it is born?

No, but I reckon a pro-choice birthday party.. at any time... its a pretty lucky one.

Erika said...

But that doesn't mean we can't allow abortion within carefully considered conditions.

Nature aborts conceptions quite frequently, after all.


But that doesn't mean we can't allow infanticide or six-year-old-icide within carefully considered conditions.

Nature kills infants and six-year-olds quite frequently, after all.

jimbino said...

And, more importantly, every fetus, like every child, is an atheist.

So abortion represents the killing of an atheist, just as circumcision represents sexual mutilation of an atheist baby, and it is often perpetrated by religious Jews and Muslims.

Andy R. said...

Why can't this organization just feed people, , instead of, apparently, feeding people while simultaneously being against bombs?

It could. I'm not sure how much you know about Food Not Bombs or if you have ever heard about them but there is much more to the group than simply giving people food. I don't want to seem like I'm talking down to you.

chickelit said...

Madison Man thought: So, what are the penalties for having an abortion? Prison? How can you talk about banning abortion without talking about the penalties incurred if you do have (or facilitate) an abortion?

In the bad old days, the "punishment" was the consequences of the back alley. What lefties fail to see and admit is that making them carefree and safe has also somehow made them more ubiquitous. They have the same problem with giving succor to the poor. They cannot admit of the imperfection of human nature.

chickelit said...

Why can't this organization just feed people, , instead of, apparently, feeding people while simultaneously being against bombs?

This how the AGW people discredit themselves too: along with a reduction in Western standards of life, there must be a concomitant elevation of the Third World. It's naked wealth transfer and it's documented.

OTOH, I'm glad they self-identify as nut cases: By their fruitcakes Ye shall know them.

heyboom said...

The age prior to birth is considered in utero. Two different human conditions. It's pretty simple.

I noticed that Garage qualifying his question as simply curiosity didn't prevent Andy from trying to make it into some nefarious attack on pro-lifers.

n.n said...

AllieOop:

Actually, it is your place. Just as it was the place of civil and human rights leaders to stand against slavery, to stand against unmerited discrimination, etc.

The challenge of preventing elective termination of developing human life in the womb is circumstantial; but, it does not change the fact that it is a developing human life, distinguishable from the mother.

It is incumbent upon people acting in good faith to recognize and promote the preservation of human and civil rights. The woman has several choices before conception and the right to choose should not be infringed. However, when the fate of another human life is subject to her whims, then it is the proper place of civilized society to intervene. This is the standard recognized by civilized society and individuals of conscience.

The priority should be to establish first principles at home, then influence others through leading by example. While there is legitimate question for interfering with the development of other societies, there is no legitimate question for setting and promoting superior standards in our own.

garage mahal said...

My question had nothing to do with the abortion debate, whatsoever.

Lem said...

Baby Food Not Suction Catheters.

Rocketeer said...

I don't usually attempt to do that here because I don't think any of the bigots in the Althouse Comment Crew are open to persuasion via the comment box here. Maybe some people here can be shamed out of their bigotry or be more self-conscious about pushing their bigotry in public.

I think you're lying, not least to yourself. I think you don't "attempt to do that here" because being a brittle screeching jackass spewing judgement and hate, even if it is just in the comments section of a moderately popular blog, makes you feel like the tough guy that you know you aren't in real life.

I think what we see here is the real you. I think the fake you is handing out sandwiches in a park in Atlanta, with the main goal not of helping the hungry and the homeless, but of being seen by other, genuinely nice people, as you do it.

Lem said...

My question had nothing to do with the abortion debate, whatsoever.

Then, that mean you need a titus wave..

titus is.. almost always off-topic.. at leat, I seem to remember he always used to be off topic.

Titus has mellowed.

Cedarford said...

One belief I share with Democrats is that there is some real void of science knowledge in Fundie Goobers or Catholic 19th century throwbacks like Santorum (Not that Democrats are that educated on science..the likes of Obama, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and most liberal arts lefty journalists are dirt ignorant as well.)

But Republican Fundies are prone to making loud, ignorant public statements, and being as proud of them as Democrats screaming about evil SUVs and Global Warming Deniers.

"Terri Schiavo is as aware as you or I are" (Tom DeLay)
"Life begins at conception when a sperm joins with an egg. That is God's truth."

Well, no.
Terri Schiavo was a rutabaga with no intact higher order brain.
And life does not begin with a gamete from sexual reproduction.

Funny the Goobers persist in this when so many are farmers that know hands on that they can use asexual reproduction in agriculture and in some species for animal husbandry. In their case, faith in Jewish fairy tales trumps what they know in front of their eyes.

Life also begins with a plant cutting making a new apple tree with telomeres reset back to go. With parthenogenis in plants and certain animals..either naturally or by using an electric shock or the right sequence of reducing and methylating chemicals.

Making parthenogenis happen in mammals is tougher than LIFE!! created without sperm, but we have been able to do it since the 1930s. In 2007, investigations into the rogue S Korean cloning scientist reveal he had inadvertently created several human fetuses with chemicals he applied to unfertilized human eggs retrieved from a Korean woman dead in a car accident.
Analysis of his "clone material" showed parthenogenesis had happened by DNA markers.

So we know it can be done.
We have also "conceived" by putting the right chemicals on adult master stem cells in mice...not cloning specialized tissue...but making fetuses.



Induced parthenogenesis in mice and monkeys often results in abnormal development. This is because mammals have imprinted genetic regions, where either the maternal or the paternal chromosome is inactivated in the offspring in order for development to proceed normally. A mammal created by parthenogenesis would have double doses of maternally imprinted genes and lack paternally imprinted genes, leading to developmental abnormalities.


So more research is needed to suppress undesired double imprints. But that is coming.

Bill said...

The most charitable reading of the pro-choice position that I'm capable of involves concern about how the pro-life advocate would respond to the recalcitrant mother. That is: concerns about incarceration or penalties if pro-lifers got their way.

Well, fair enough. I'm willing to have that debate and address those concerns. But individual life as we know it begins when the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's egg and both of those things stop being what they were and become a brand new self-directing organism. At that point we're not talking about matter with the same DNA as the mother or father, we're talking about a living entity with it's own DNA that, regardless of its stage of development, is a member of the human species.

That's not me imposing my religious beliefs on anyone, that's every science textbook I've had since grade school. That's as sciencey as you get.

Before we debate society's proper roll in addressing the problem of unwanted pregnancies, can we at least acknowledge this basic fact and go from there?

Terry said...

At some time in their lives, most women will possess two hearts, two brains, and two nervous systems. This condition will cease, at least temporarily, either naturally or with medical intervention.
To believe otherwise is to take part in the conservative "war on science", and its "war on women" as well.

Q said...

it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby.


How interesting. Is it your place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their spouse?

Is it your place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill some random strangers?

Exactly when is it your business to convince other people of the wrongness of their actions?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old?

Surely there are some pro-lifers that keep the charade going. Anyone know of any pro-lifers that have their kid's birthday party 3 months after it is born?


The concept of "out of the womb" eludes Hatman.

PS I guess "breeders" has a bad sound to it.

Call them anti-abortion or, in the case of parents, parents.

Or does Hatman think all parents are "pro-life bigots"?

Just like his parents.

jimbino said...

And, more importantly, every fetus, like every child, is an atheist.

And jimbino knows this, how? At what point does the baby say, "Hey, I'm an atheist, but, just to please mom and dad, I'll do it their way"?

So abortion represents the killing of an atheist, just as circumcision represents sexual mutilation of an atheist baby, and it is often perpetrated by religious Jews and Muslims.

And a great many Christians. It's a nice, healthy practice although people like jimbino, who like the Euros' sexual practices, are more concerned with getting off than being healthy.

Or smart.

(I swear, whatever Choom's got, it catching; all the Lefties have it)

Leland said...

So my wife, having worked as a neonatel RN, has given me a few opportunities to see a 23 week old baby. And yeah Andy, ask any nursery nurse and they'll discuss the babies age in terms of development in weeks, not how many days it has been out of the womb. 23 weeks is barely viable out of the womb, and certainly wouldn't be without modern medicine. Then again a 40 weeker wouldn't last long without care either.

To this day, I don't how someone can abort a child, particularly at this late stage. You see a 23 weeker, you're looking at a human with formed arms and legs. If you pay careful attention, you'll note a beating heart, working lungs, and there's even a brain in there. Unfortunately, this person doesn't have the means to communicate that it wants food not bombs nor some cocktail of drugs that kill it in the womb.

Q said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

My own personal belief is that it has a soul at that moment, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby.

Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Kulaks, Montagnards.

No, it's not our place to take a moral stand.

Until the Rangers march us past the rotting bodies in the camp to make sure we understand what happened because "it wasn't our place".

Superdad said...

For the pro-choice folks here, I have a question for you:

Would you favor a change to child support laws to allow a man to opt out of his rights and also responsibilities if he decided he did not want to be a father?

The conversation is always about the women's right to decide if being is something she wants/is ready for, etc. But if the women chooses life the father is stuck paying for that dang kid for the next 18 years (or more).

Q said...

Science is on the side of those who say that human life begins at conception.

It's those who want to argue that a fetus somehow magically transforms into a human being as it travels through the birth canal who have to engage in mystical hocus-pocus.

ndspinelli said...

Andy, If you believe your tactics will shame or change anyone you are delusional. Of course, your delusion is corroborated by your support for a president that has treated gays like indentured servants; which of course, they are. He knows he has your vote and the black vote in a "lockbox." You have consistently run away from this FACT. "The truth shall make you free."

Nathan Alexander said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Birthday is a celebration of the day of birth. Your 1st birthday celebration happens 1 year after your birth, then your 2nd, and on and on, sequentially.

To say that you are 35 years old is verbal/conceptual shorthand for indicating you have passed your 35th birthday but not yet arrived at your 36th.

So you have been alive 9 months when you are 1 day past your birth, and 21 months on your 1st birthday celebration.

But Conception Day is not known with 100% certainty even now, much less centuries ago. So folks celebrate the distinct moment more readily than the ambiguous one.

In just the same manner that you are, say, 22 years old when you get married, but thereafter you celebrate the anniversary each year...but you don't celebrate the moment you truly became fully committed in your heart, because how can anyone know exactly what that moment is?

Andy R. said...

treated gays like indentured servants

The President got Don't Ask Don't Tell overturned, refuses to defend DOMA in court, and put out a statement in support of marriage equality.

Am I supposed to be upset with him regarding gay issues? What else am I supposed to want him to do?

edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

treated gays like indentured servants

The President got Don't Ask Don't Tell overturned


Actually, he did nothing of the kind. Congress did that without any urging from him.

refuses to defend DOMA in court, and put out a statement in support of marriage equality.

Wow! A statement.

That means he really lurves you guys.

Until it becomes necessary to actually win the election and then you're going to join Grandma and Rev Wright under the bus.

chickelit said...

Notice how Andy R never trades information--just insults. That's why I consider him a bad faith commmenter and tend to prejudge him.

Andy R. said...

without any urging from him

What?

Andy R. said...

Andy, If you believe your tactics will shame or change anyone you are delusional.

There are lots of people who would like to be more homophobic than they can get away with. They wish they could call gay people "faggots". Or tell them not to hold hands in public. Or say they don't want them teaching their kids.

Now there are still, in rare circumstances, people who actually do this. Some people yell slurs at gay people or physically attack them. Or give sermons about how gay people should be put in camps. Or about how gay kids should be beaten by their parents. But this is becoming rarer and rarer and the reaction from society is becoming more and more judgmental.

The reason that some people don't say what they wish they could or do what they wish they could regarding gay people is because they know society will judge them for their bigotry. There are people out there who stopped saying faggot, not because they think it's inherently a bad thing to do, but because they know their friends and family will judge them.

I would love it if everyone supported gay equality because it's the right thing to do, but that's not going to happen. Creating a norm that you can't be a bigot against gay people without others thinking less of you is also a way to advance the case of gay equality.

Most of the people here are smart enough to see how this is changing in society. They see that the acceptable ways to oppose gay equality is shrinking every year. While bigots are legally welcome to say whatever they want, the shame and embarrassment of publicly identifying as a bigot is having an impact.

Lem said...

... and put out a statement in support... What else am I supposed to want him to do?

I dont know..

Put out with republicans?

omg.. WV = 149 Buthore.. kid you not.

chickelit said...

What's most offensive about Andy R is his threadjacking.

He comes in, lobs a few pro-abortion bombs and then changes the topic to his favorite masturbatory topic.

Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Triangle Man said...

@Patrick

Most of the people who post comments here aren't nearly the assholes in real life that they seem to be based on their comments.

MadisonMan said...

Lengthy prison terms for performers of abortion. Simple.

Does the women who is having the abortion get punished? If not, why not? Isn't she an accomplice?

For the pro-choice folks here, I have a question for you:

Would you favor a change to child support laws to allow a man to opt out of his rights and also responsibilities if he decided he did not want to be a father?

I'm a squishy pro-choicer. For example, I want women to have the option to have a safe abortion (safe for her) is they have to. In some cases, I am very disappointed in their choice. But to answer your question: No. If you aren't going to put on a raincoat -- or if your raincoat leaks -- the deluge of child support will soak you.

You may think this viewpoint is inconsistent. I have never claimed to be consistent in anything except in my dislike of incumbent politicians.

Patrick said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

You've got kids, so you likely know (not that it takes kids to really know), but it's a lot easier establishing a "birthday" than a "conception day," unless the parents are paying close attention and trying to get pregnant.

Dose of Sanity said...

Aww, I was expecting to have a fair discussion since one of the liberals here (re: me) took a different viewpoint that many of you might guessed.

It didn't even last one post.

I think we should probably stop fighting over abortions. It's terrible for children that never were, and it's terrible for women who are only half the equition and often face the full responsibility alone.

Instead - why not focus on preventing women from being in that worst-moment-of-her-life positon?

More access to birth control, more responsibility on the fathers, more access to better health care, and less stigma on women who have to make that choice (re: rape/threat to her life/pain of the unborn)

Really America, we could do better here. We should have a long time ago.

MadisonMan said...

Most of the people who post comments here aren't nearly the assholes in real life that they seem to be based on their comments.

That's something to remember every single day.

Andy R. said...

Most of the people who post comments here aren't nearly the assholes in real life that they seem to be based on their comments.

Of course. Was this unclear to anyone?

chickelit said...

One last thing I've noticed about Andy R is that he seldom follows-up in threads. It's very much a "hit early, hit rudely, and then duck out" style. This is probably the time when he tends to his tumescent needs. Then he refracts for a while over what he's done & waits for another "threadjack."

Patrick said...

Erika said Why can't this organization just feed people, , instead of, apparently, feeding people while simultaneously being against bombs?

This phrasing allows simpletons to believe that is the only choice, either you're paying for food for homeless people, or bombs. Nothing else to do with the money. Perhaps they'd be successful if the called themselves Food Not Bureaucrats. then, maybe someone would have heard of them.

Andy R. said...

One last thing I've noticed about Andy R is that he seldom follows-up in threads.

Yesterday, I spent six hours in the Bain/stimulus thread. What is the appropriate amount of time I should spend in a thread? How do I know when it is ok to call it a day? Further, yesterday I was accused of commenting too much in a thread. Today, the accusation is not enough. And it's doubly weird that it's happening here, in a thread when I'm hanging out taking part in the conversation.

And I probably shouldn't have taken Rocketeer's bait about how I might not give food to the bigoted homeless people. That was my bad.

Ken said...

Allie,

My own personal belief is that it has a soul at that moment, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby.

Are you serious with this? Taking an innocent human life is wrong, but it's not your place to condemn those who decide to kill innocent humans? The lefty mind is truly warped.

How about this: it's wrong to kill older women who are annoying, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill these annoying older women.

Still agree?

garage mahal said...

I'm a squishy pro-choicer

Me too.

Cedarford said...

I don't engage Hatboy - but I do notice he has wads and wads of time to post.
It seems to be his main daily activity.
He claims he is young.
Does he even have a job?
Or is he a rent boy waiting all day for his Old Gay Queen sugar daddy to return from work, so he has nothing better to do until "Daddy" arrives??

ndspinelli said...

Great observation chickelit! I now dub Andy the Gay Guerilla. He is however, an army of one w/ very little ammo.

I Callahan said...

Most of the people who post comments here aren't nearly the assholes in real life that they seem to be based on their comments.

No, they're just more honest about their beliefs anonymously on the internet than they would be if they were all sitting in a room together.

Hatman and his "red liquid" link, or Cedarford and his "rutabaga" comment, for a couple of examples. They were made to piss people off to an extreme.

So I have to disagree - those actions are the hallmarks of someone being an asshole.

Lem said...

That's something to remember every single day.

MadisonMan stalks the MeadeHouse ;)

Michael said...

AndyR:

As a pro gay marriage conservative As a friend of many many gays. I have to tell you. That you are as obnoxious a "representative" of your cause as your cause could conjure. You do more every day to incite homophobia than if you were to commit mass murder in the name of gayness. God, you are a piece of work dude and a self important one at that.

Andy R. said...

No, they're just more honest about their beliefs anonymously on the internet than they would be if they were all sitting in a room together.

I posted the red liquid link on my facebook page. Does that count as not being anonymous about it?

chickelit said...

Yesterday, I spent six hours in the Bain/stimulus thread.

That wasn't even a Bain/stimulus thread. It was an "I'm Andy and I'm stimulated by Bain" threadjack.

Seriously Andy, from whom do you take your orders? From Sullivan or from beyond?

I Callahan said...

I posted the red liquid link on my facebook page. Does that count as not being anonymous about it?

No - it stands to reason that you are an even bigger asshole, if you'd post something like that and be proud of it.

Erika said...

More access to birth control, more responsibility on the fathers, more access to better health care, and less stigma on women who have to make that choice (re: rape/threat to her life/pain of the unborn)

Really America, we could do better here. We should have a long time ago.


Yeah, I used to believe that too. But then I started pondering that we've had forty years of readily available birth control (if you can't get it, you ain't trying), legions of bureaucrats squeezing money out of deadbeat dads (they sometimes can get some money, but can never make a man become the father every child deserves), free Medicaid and state health programs for the poor no matter how stupid the choices that cause many of their medical woes, and a social ethos whose determination has been to rid people of any shame/remorse/responsiblity for their choices.

In other words, we've *been* doing exactly what you're advocating for decades, and yet we have had no reduction in poverty, child abuse, illegitimacy, poor physical health, abortion, substance abuse and assorted other social ills.

You'll have to forgive those of us who are skeptical of the notion that more social spending/engineering will do anything worthwhile.

Patrick said...

Most of the people who post comments here aren't nearly the assholes in real life that they seem to be based on their comments.

You are right Triangle Man. I regret my comment, and I apologize to Andy R.

I am removing the comment.

Nathan Alexander said...

More access to birth control, more responsibility on the fathers, more access to better health care, and less stigma on women who have to make that choice (re: rape/threat to her life/pain of the unborn)

All that will do is encourage more abortions.

No.

Women need to be responsible for their own actions at least as much as men are.

They aren't held to anything near that standard right now.

Gahrie said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Why do we still use the word "solstice"? It's just an outdated metaphor for a solar standstill.



Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?

AllieOop said...

Ken, would it be wrong to kill pompous asses named Ken?

WV, no kidding, "loudtimi".

I Callahan said...

Women need to be responsible for their own actions at least as much as men are.

Yes, but when the following way of thinking is prevalent, consistency and fairness cannot exist.

No. If you aren't going to put on a raincoat -- or if your raincoat leaks -- the deluge of child support will soak you. You may think this viewpoint is inconsistent

Colonel Angus said...

I'm not sure what is surprising.....Rabid right wing Republican is opposed to a women's right to choose. And?

I never understood the right to choose argument. Unless one has no idea where babies come from, the act of sexual intercourse typically results in pregnancy. Ergo, the choice is to use contraception or not. I'm not aware of a GOP movement to ban contraception.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Professor-- thanks for the link! (If you look, you'll see a Martin Fox is president of NPLA-- that is me.)

About penalties: there are no penalties in the Life at Conception Act. It doesnt criminalize abortion, it simply overturns Roe by establishing the unborn child is a person under the 14th Amendment. So, it creates a predicate for criminalizing abortion, but that requires separate legislation.

Garage: I think someone answered already, but a persons date of conception cannot easily be determined, so marking its anniversary would be tricky. And where legal matters would be at stake, that is obviously a problem. We've always known there was a conception, but not always just when, or how.

That's why the pro-legal abortion advocates' arguments keying on the ambiguity of Aristotle or Aquinas about the moment of life's beginning are so absurd--because Aquinas himself was simply working within the scope of experiential knowledge of his time. He was being scientific--not dogmatic. To limit our approach to the same issue to the knowledge of the 12th century seems more dogmatic than scientific.

garage mahal said...

Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?

That is a damn good question!

Dose of Sanity said...

I'm a squishy pro-choicer

Me too.


Me three.

Gahrie said...

Instead - why not focus on preventing women from being in that worst-moment-of-her-life positon?

More access to birth control, more responsibility on the fathers, more access to better health care, and less stigma on women who have to make that choice (re: rape/threat to her life/pain of the unborn)


Just out of curiosity, why didn't you include "and stop rutting like beasts in a field at the drop of a hat?"

Why is it that we refuse to demand better behavior from people acting irresponsibly?

Colonel Angus said...

I agree Samanthasmom, it's life from the moment of conception. My own personal belief is that it has a soul at that moment, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby. I think that it will be reckoned with in the afterlife.

Fascinating. Most people have little problem pointing out that killing a baby is wrong.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

fairness cannot exist.

Child: It's not fair!!!

Adult: Life isn't fair.

Shanna said...

The age prior to birth is considered in utero.

And people routinely refer to the 'age' of their baby in utero, ie 30 weeks, etc...

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colonel Angus said...

More access to birth control

Can you expound on this? I ask because you can find a wide variety of birth control in your local supermarket or Walgreens.

Smilin' Jack said...

"Whereas: Science is clear that human life begins at conception...."

Gosh, I guess I missed hearing about the experiments that established that. Maybe it was lost in all the Higgs hoopla. Can someone post a reference?

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

Andy, If you believe your tactics will shame or change anyone you are delusional.

There are lots of people who would like to be more homophobic than they can get away with. They wish they could call gay people "faggots". Or tell them not to hold hands in public. Or say they don't want them teaching their kids.


Hatman takes the same tack people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do on race - that the others spend every waking moment plotting against, in this case, homosexuals.

And, no, most people don't spend their time wishing they could call them "faggots". If they feel that strongly, they'll do it.

A lot of people don't want them teaching their kids because of the scandals in the Catholic Church and at Penn State.

They don't like seeing men holding hands with men or women holding hands with women because they think it's unnatural. And some will say something about it.

But they don't spend their lives angry about it. Hatman does, but they don't. They have better things to do, like live their lives.

Poor little Hatman needs to get out in the world.

Colonel Angus said...

Allieoop, a 6 month year old baby is equally dependent on its mother (or father) for survival. Would you also not pass judgment on a mother who just chose to cease providing care and sustenance because that was her choice?

If you think abortion is a mother killing her baby as you stated earlier, I fail to see how the above scenario is any different.

Roger J. said...

Well, count me in with Madison Man, Garage, and DOS--squishy on pro choice. Sometimes, it seems to me that abortion is a medical necessity. And assuming parents are in some loving relationship, it is, IMO, not a woman's choice alone. There is a father involved as well and the father has the same rights involved. Sometimes a penumbra is just a penumbra.

edutcher said...

AllieOop said...

This is not the Holocaust, in which adults and children already born were being rounded up and killed

It's not?

14 million were murdered creating the New Order.

It's estimated 50 million babies have been killed in the womb from '73 to '09 (the last year we have figures).

No, it's not the New Order.

It's about 4 times worse.

AllieOop said...

It's not my place to be anyone's inquisitor, jury and judge. If the woman is a relative or close friend, I would try to convince her to not have an abortion. It's not my place to tell strangers how to live their lives, they either know right from wrong or they don't.

This is not the Holocaust, in which adults and children already born were being rounded up and killed. The fetus is dependent on her mother's body to survive until a certain stage of development. It is a question of the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the baby. Does the mother's rights trump of those of the unborn baby? Who should choose who's rights reign? I guess the Supreme Court did.

I suspect most pro choice people are squishy, as it should be, since we are dealing with human life.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Blogger Erika said...

I said . . . But that doesn't mean we can't allow abortion within carefully considered conditions.

Nature aborts conceptions quite frequently, after all.

Blogger Erika said . . But that doesn't mean we can't allow infanticide or six-year-old-icide within carefully considered conditions.

Nature kills infants and six-year-olds quite frequently, after all.


I suppose I better respond to this or Erika will think she has made a point.

'Carefully considered conditions' means early enough in the gestation process to be pretty sure there is no consciousness involved, and little if any pain.

Sort of like when Nature aborts a fetus early , and the woman doesn't even know.

That's what I meant. That's where a discussion can start. NO need to waste time on "when does human life begin. At conception. So?

And Erika, if you can't do a better job of assuming someone's intent, think about not posting.

Lem said...

"[L]ook, if you got pregnant, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so pretty. There are a lot of pretty women out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking women out there. (Applause.)

If you got knocked up, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to work it. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a pimp — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the sex trade could make money off the Internet."

Shanna said...

Perhaps they'd be successful if the called themselves Food Not Bureaucrats. then, maybe someone would have heard of them.

You would probably get more donations if you don't work hard to offend potential donors.

Instead, I'll keep donating to the food bank.

Shanna said...

I suspect most pro choice people are squishy

If they were mostly squishy they wouldn't get so angry at the pro-life side's opinion.

A friend of a friend had 3 abortions within a few years. My ex-SIL 'accidentally' got pregnant multiple times. Birth control is available, you can't make people use it properly.

AllieOop said...

As Madison Man said, yes it's inconsistent.

Ken said...

Allie,

Ken, would it be wrong to kill pompous asses named Ken?

Well? Would it?

Ken said...

Allie,

And if it is wrong is it still not your place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill pompous asses named Ken?

Pogo said...

Eli: [Eli slams Martz's head on the bar railing] "I know who you are. Murderer of innocent travelers on the road. You're going to be held to account for the things you've done, do you know that? Do you?"

There's no useful argument against abortion sans a belief in God. If we are not held to account, anything is possible, anything may become permissible.

From fetus to old man to the disabled, for the undesirable or useless, for the weak and the lame, for those who argue, say, against gay marriage, nihilism and death are advocated.

Without a final accounting, the goalposts are ever moveable. None are safe, but the powerful, and even that is transitory.

Ken said...

Or is it totally okay to kill pompous asses named Ken because they are your political opponent?

Basically, do you value human life? Do you take the proposition that human life has dignity seriously? Because from what you wrote, you seem to think it's just an intellectual exercise without any real meaning.

jr565 said...

Gay Andy with his dumb hat wrote:
Rand Paul thinks this jar of red liquid is just like me and you?"


Aren't the left saying that the right is anti science? If you weren't then you'd know that the DNA of said jar of red liquid is EXACTLY like you and me.

Cedarford said...

Cedarford and his "rutabaga" comment, for a couple of examples. They were made to piss people off to an extreme.

===================
The Right to Lifers made fools of themselves in the Schiavo case. The autopsy showed what was left was a vegetable.
That poor woman died when all her brain save the stem died from lack of oxygen from the initial heart attack.
"It" was no more alive than a brain-dead patient with doctors calmly waiting for the family to consent to pull the tubes and pull the plug.
We have the technology to keep the tissues in a corpse viable a long, long time (decades) at a cost of 100s of thousands a year.
Even Right to Lifers come around when they realize "precious life" at ANY COST - does have a cost - to them directly- if Gummint and Insurance companies won't pay and hospitals and doctors won't absorb the folly of spending 100s of thousands a year to keep the corpse warm out of religious sentiments.

Ken said...

Allie,

This is not the Holocaust

That's right. In the holocaust only 5,000,000 were killed. American abortion is responsible for killing 10 times that number.

jr565 said...

Allieoop wrote:
agree Samanthasmom, it's life from the moment of conception. My own personal belief is that it has a soul at that moment, but it's not my place to convince anyone of the wrongness of the choice they make to kill their baby. I think that it will be reckoned with in the afterlife.

that makes no sense, since the act is killing someone with a soul. How is it not your place to convince anyone of the wrongness of their choice?
Back in the days of slavery you may have felt that blacks were more than 3/5ths human, but would you make the argument "I personally think that blacks are fully human and as such entitled to protection, WHo am I to make that choice for others who are enslaving them"

Ken said...

Allie,

The fetus is dependent on her mother's body to survive

You are dependent on the wider community to survive. After all, if you were picked up and dropped in any remote area without tools, help, or any other tools other humans make to make your life easier, I'm sure you would die of exposure or dehydration within a weak.

If all the sudden a majority of people decided that it's more convenient to kill you, not because you've committed any crime, but just because not being allowed to restricts their "choice", should they still be allowed to kill you?

AllieOop said...

Ken quit trying to make assumptions about me based on what youTHINK I believe regarding human dignity and the value of human life. I didn't spend over 30 years of my life as a nurse not honoring and valuing human life.

And Pogo is right, I believe there will be a reckoning of how we have lived our lives, after we die, but that is my personal belief system, it's not my place to force it upon anyone else.

Erika said...

'Carefully considered conditions' means early enough in the gestation process to be pretty sure there is no consciousness involved, and little if any pain..

You're assuming that A. consciousness and pain should be/are determining factors and B. you are capable of evaluating them from the fetus' point of view. I don't accept either claim.

Sort of like when Nature aborts a fetus early , and the woman doesn't even know.

What does this have to do with anything? How does the fact that zygotes/fetuses sometimes die in utero with or without their mothers being aware of their existence have anything to do with the fact that sometimes their mothers deliberately kill them?

That's what I meant. That's where a discussion can start. NO need to waste time on "when does human life begin. At conception. So?

Sorry dude, I have no idea what you're talking about here, and it's not my responsibility to "assume your intent;" it's your responsibility to communicate clearly.

Holmes said...

After two miscarriages, just saw the little baby's beating heart at 6 weeks. 6 weeks and a beating heart.
If it's not a human, it's to a human as the mathematical equivalent of .9999repeating is to the number 1.

Lem said...

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life

Shoot.. I cant believe I mist that.

Terry said...

Cedarford wrote:
"It" was no more alive than a brain-dead patient
But Schiavo was not brain dead. If a person is not physically dead -- he or she has a heartbeat, etc. -- and he or she is not brain dead, we have a word for their condition: "alive".
If you mean "Lebensunwertes Leben" please use the correct term.

edutcher said...

Elementary, my dear Holmes.

Too bad it's so compellingly simple all those intellectually superior Lefties like Hatman and Oop can't see it.

Ken said...

Allie,

Ken quit trying to make assumptions about me based on what youTHINK I believe regarding human dignity and the value of human life.

I'm not make any assumptions. You explicitly said that it's fine to kill an innocent person. I'm just throwing it your face that you're a bad person for being unwilling to stop someone killing an innocent human being.

I didn't spend over 30 years of my life as a nurse not honoring and valuing human life.

Nurses regularly assist in the killing of human beings. Being one doesn't mean that you honor or value human life. In fact, your unwillingness to prevent that human killing demonstrates clearly that you don't honor or value human life. Simply stating that you honor or value something doesn't make it so. All values are revealed through actions. Your actions speak loudly and clearly: you do not value or honor human life.

it's not my place to force it upon anyone else.

Of course, you don't really believe this. Or do you think there should be no police or legal system to impose judgement on others?

And as you have stated many times on this site how you use your vote to impose your personal belief system, particularly the taking of wealth from people you don't like politically to give to your political favorites. Since you don't value the dignity or honor of another's labor, I'm not really surprised that you don't honor or value his life either.

LoafingOaf said...

So, Rand Paul doesn't want to just see Roe overturned and the abortion controversy being left to the states to work out democratically. He wants abortion banned under an activist interpretation of the 14 Amendment. So, Paul favors an activist court. Even Justice Scalia has stated that he believes that interpretation of the constitution is every bit as wrong as Roe was. Turns out Rand Paul isn't so libertarian after all.

I did like his suggestion, however, of sending professors to Iran rather than bombs!

edutcher said...

PS Just to ruin Hatman's day, we have a homosexual who doesn't care about Chick-Fil-A's stand on anything. He likes their food.

PPS To ruin all the other Lefties' day, we have the latest tracking poll from Ras - Romster up by 4.

What was it garage said, "Hahahaha. You couldn't be stuck with a worse candidate, and you know it."?

Tell me all about it.

Terry said...

Scalia is a Libertarian?

AllieOop said...

Ken, abortion is LEGAL, did you miss that tiny little detail? It's wrong, it's killing, but it's legal. Neither I nor YOU have a right to take the law into our hands, no matter how much we hate it or disagree with it.

Ken you cannot legislate morality, I'm sure you've heard that one before.

There are inconsistencies in being a squishy pro choicer, I admit it, as Madison Man admitted it. I guess you will simply have to deal with it.

Smilin' Jack said...

Holmes said...
After two miscarriages, just saw the little baby's beating heart at 6 weeks. 6 weeks and a beating heart.
If it's not a human, it's to a human as the mathematical equivalent of .9999repeating is to the number 1.


Congratulations. However, if they'd shown you a six-week-old chimp fetus, you wouldn't have known the difference.

Gahrie said...


Congratulations. However, if they'd shown you a six-week-old chimp fetus, you wouldn't have known the difference.


I might not be able to tell the difference, but the difference would still exist.

Now to turn your argument around on you...how do you think most "pro-choice"ers would react to a story about an organization that was responsible for aborting millions of chimp babies?

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
And Pogo is right, I believe there will be a reckoning of how we have lived our lives, after we die, but that is my personal belief system, it's not my place to force it upon anyone else.

Allie, Would you take the pro choice position on things like slavery? Infanticide? Murder?
i.e if we were debating slavery when blacks were still considered 3/5ths human would you have such a nuanced (read cowardly, amoral) position when it came slaves?
Please explain. Becuase your position sounds even worse than a pro choicers. At least there, they think, like Andy, that a fetus is just some red goop in a jar.
But he's just a buffoon with no concept of the developmental process of babies. (not to mention a true asshole).
YOu however, not only acknowledge that a fetus is alive but even has a soul. At the very least it's a completely inconsistent position, but more troubling one. It's actually like the Catholic churches position on covering up for child molesters, as in, yes you recognize it's wrong, but who are you to hold anyone to account for it.

BarryD said...

"However, if they'd shown you a six-week-old chimp fetus, you wouldn't have known the difference."

We also know about DNA, though, so that difference could be demonstrated quite easily.

You obviously have never had the experience, Smilin' Jack. You see the thing right then and there, with modern equipment.

Now I oppose laws banning abortion because the only way to enforce them is to make a woman the slave of the state, and her body the property of the state. To make it a legal requirement that she must gestate, is its own form of evil.
There's no good way to resolve this, at least during the long period when the fetus requires the mother's body to survive.

That doesn't mean I have to lie to myself about what a human fetus is.

Cedarford said...

Terry said...
Cedarford wrote:
"It" was no more alive than a brain-dead patient
But Schiavo was not brain dead. If a person is not physically dead -- he or she has a heartbeat, etc. -- and he or she is not brain dead, we have a word for their condition: "alive".
If you mean "Lebensunwertes Leben" please use the correct term.

=================
Old legal definitions of brain death are outmoded with technology. Same with the "beating heart" thing.
Doctors can now take patients down to 40DEG by removing and chilling blood and reinstalling it. Then shut down heart lung machines for up to 35-40 minutes to do artery repairs. No brain activity then, either.

For shits and giggles, and to advance knowledge, med researchers are now using electronic substitutes to brain stems in research animals..then short circuiting blood vessels to the animal brain, cutting the head off...leaving the animal alive. The tricky part is not getting the Japanese and Chinese circuit boards to take over heartbeat and breathing...but hormone regulation.
They have kept headless monkeys as "alive as Terri Schiavo" but have not been able to figure out or patch into nerves that do the homones.
They can keep the husk going weeks, months with hormone blockers and replacement hormones injected...but they want to have it all done eventually with a 9V battery and a microprocessor.

They also can get a lot of valuable research done knowing what nerve pathways do what motor functions...goal of course being restoring functions to a paralyzed person...perhaps one day doing head transplants that take...on...err...monkeys.
Not billionaires with pancreatic cancer eying a fresh 18 year old body!!

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
There are inconsistencies in being a squishy pro choicer, I admit it, as Madison Man admitted it. I guess you will simply have to deal with it.


Translated -Pro choicers really have no moral basis for their arguments and when pressed fall back on inanity.

Lem said...

...it's so compellingly simple

Put it this way..

In our American System of Jurisprudence the burden of proving guilt in a criminal trial is upon "the people" as represented by the DA.. and the burden is "beyond a reasonable dout"... (i dont know if I have that correctly but thats how LA Law taught it to me)

There is an ocean of doubt as to when exactly life begins. And yet... the Supremes have chosen (in their limited wisdom) to err on the side of permission to terminate w/o prejudice.

AllieOop said...

Jr565, no I won't try to explain it.

Althouse commented extensively on a thread a couple of weeks ago in which she expressed her views on Roe v. Wade and her views on abortion, she feels it is murder. I'll look for a link to that discussion, she explained it far better than I could.

Foobarista said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jr565 said...

Barry D wrote:
Now I oppose laws banning abortion because the only way to enforce them is to make a woman the slave of the state, and her body the property of the state. To make it a legal requirement that she must gestate, is its own form of evil.
There's no good way to resolve this, at least during the long period when the fetus requires the mother's body to survive.

Requiring someone not commit infanticide would simllarly make one a slave to the state, as would making someone pay for child support of a baby they don't want.

Lem said...

Congratulations. However, if they'd shown you a six-week-old chimp fetus, you wouldn't have known the difference.

Isn't sex with a chimp illegal in all 57 states?

I'm asking because I'm not sure about the Roving Roberts court.

AReasonableMan said...

Life began with the first cell, approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and has continued in an unbroken stream ever since. Both egg and sperm cells are alive, as are fertilized eggs. Life does not begin at conception and no biological scientist believes this. If one wishes to believe that upon fertilization an egg also gains a soul that is obviously up to the individual but it has no basis in science.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Here

jr565 said...

Allie Oop wrote:
Jr565, no I won't try to explain it.

Althouse commented extensively on a thread a couple of weeks ago in which she expressed her views on Roe v. Wade and her views on abortion, she feels it is murder. I'll look for a link to that discussion, she explained it far better than I could.


Allie, you wont try to explain it because you CAN'T. And I don't mean because you are dumb, but because your position is logically inconsistent. Althouse's reasoning was similarly dumb.
If you take Andy's position then what you are doing is not murder. It's just red goop in a jar. Your position though is far more amoral. Would you take the same position on a mother who commits infanticide on a new born baby because she, in retrostpect realizes she doens't want to deal with a baby. Would you take the pro choice position on that?

Lem said...

The comment that Allie linked to took place at 9:50 am.. i think.

.. just helping find the needle in the haystack.

Not saying nobody needs any help.

Terry said...

Life does not begin at conception and no biological scientist believes this.

Human life, dear fellow. A specific human life.
"No biological scientist"? Really? You sound very sure that of the millions of "biological scientists" none believe that human life begins at conception. I would assume this includes the biological scientists who are Jesuits?

Roger J. said...

As one of the "squishy pro-choicers" I readily admit my philosophy ends up being incosistent. But sometimes, it seems to me, that a consistent philosophy is in general a good thing, but it doesnt work all the time. And the question of abortion is one of those instances for me. I have to live with my values and sometimes they are, frankly, inconsistent. No one said life is fair.

jr565 said...

Andy, I'm going to take a provocative poisition here for Ally Oop. Lets suppose that we were able to find the "gay" gene. Then we'd have a choice as to whether to give birth to a baby that will be ultimately be born gay.

In that case, and assuming I'm a mother, then lets say
I'm pro abortion since it would mean that people like Andy could be killed at birth. I recognize that yes he is a living being and has a soul,but I just hate gays. That would be a valid "Choice" for an abortion right Allie Oop?

AllieOop said...

AReasonableMan, I don't think anyone here who believes a fertilized human egg has a soul thinks its based in science, it's a belief system, and speaking only for myself, one in which I don't claim to be correct in or have any proof of.

AllieOop said...

Jr565, oh no I'm not even going to fall into that trap, I have before and it just brings up yet more inconsistencies, I believe we may have exploding heads if anymore are introduced at this point.

BarryD said...

"I'm pro abortion since it would mean that people like Andy could be killed at birth."

Me, too!

That has nothing to do with his being gay, though.

jr565 said...

Roger J wrote:
As one of the "squishy pro-choicers" I readily admit my philosophy ends up being incosistent. But sometimes, it seems to me, that a consistent philosophy is in general a good thing, but it doesnt work all the time. And the question of abortion is one of those instances for me. I have to live with my values and sometimes they are, frankly, inconsistent. No one said life is fair.

We could be logically inconsistent about all positions Roger, if that makes you feel better. Why judge those who kept slaves then, if they took the same position as you? If someone kills someone in your family, I suppose the murderer could make the same argument and we could similarly invoke the pro choice position that "yes it sucks that your family was murdered, but who are we to make judgements about it. Life is just unfair. Sucks to be you".
That is one major cop out of an argument. You're going to blame your lack of consistency on "life is unfair". Really? Life may be unfair, but that doesn't mean that your reasoning should be gobbledygook. And if it is, then on what other issues are you also so incosistent. Should people maybe not shake your hand and go into business with you, since your lack of consistency on whether it's ok to steal from them, means that your word is worth less than shit?

BarryD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terry said...

The shorter Cedarford:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NBmN44ow1c&feature=player_detailpage

You realize that "Lebensunwertes Leben" was a medical designation, don't you? Based on the latest social and physiological science? Embrace what you are , Cedarford. It's not as though anyone will be shocked.

AReasonableMan said...

Terry:

Every one of the cells in your body is alive. It is now technically possible to take almost any one of those cells and produce a new human. Are you killing literally thousands of potential humans each time you slough off skin cells in the shower? All those cells are alive with the potential to create a human. Cells are the fundamental unit of life and we now know that most of them have the potential to create a new individual, soul or no soul. A fertilized egg does not represent a clear bright line between life and non-life. These days it does not even represent the only way to create a new individual human. To drag science into what is essentially a theological discussion does not seem wise to me.

jr565 said...

Life does not begin at conception and no biological scientist believes this.


When else would it begin? Conception literally means "Origin". so why would life not begin at the origin of that life. Does life begin in medias res?
Describing when we give protection to said life through law may be debatable, but when else would you define the start of life, but at it's beginning?

BarryD said...

"Requiring someone not commit infanticide would simllarly make one a slave to the state, as would making someone pay for child support of a baby they don't want."

No, you can typically turn in a newborn baby with no questions asked.

Regarding number two, that's pretty much where I come from, but even that doesn't involve the same ownership of someone's body that I'm talking about.

I understand that "pro-life" people don't want to deal with that reality, any more than "pro-choice" people want to deal with the reality of what a fetus actually is.

Both sides are unwilling to deal with the full reality or implications of what they support. Both sides recast their view in a stupid two-word slogan that does a poor job of hiding these realities, at least to people who actually think (okay, probably far too few).

Lem said...

Once people start aborting because the fetus is gay... Andy will change his tune and become a pro lifer quicker than mating flies.

jr565 said...

Cells are the fundamental unit of life and we now know that most of them have the potential to create a new individual, soul or no soul.

Even if there is that potential, it's simply raw material. A fetus is a new entity created through the combination of sperm and an egg from two different individuals (unless of course we are talking about an immaculate conception) creating another unique entity with its own DNA and all that makes up what it means to be a person. So talking about our own individual cells as if they are equivalent is a red herring.

Lem said...

Unless you cook like Chip..

Consistency is overrated.

jr565 said...

BarryD wrote:
Regarding number two, that's pretty much where I come from, but even that doesn't involve the same ownership of someone's body that I'm talking about.

Sure it does, you are required to work and pay what you make to another person for the continuation of a life that you don't necessarily want to care for, at gunpoint.
Also, if you can simply give your child away no questions. Why can't someone not pay child support, no questions? (i.e. give up all rights to said child)

THere are a lot of people made to be slaves because of a womans sole right to choose. The child dying certainly has it's very life slave to a womans choice. But a man who want the same right to choose to not raise kids, is similarly slave to a womans right to choose if she chooses to keep it.

Lem said...

Think of the revenue that is being deprived to the treasury... specially after the mandate takes effect.

Even when I put on my Obama hat...

I still come out pro life.

Cedarford said...

Terry said...
The shorter Cedarford:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NBmN44ow1c&feature=player_detailpage

You realize that "Lebensunwertes Leben" was a medical designation, don't you? Based on the latest social and physiological science? Embrace what you are , Cedarford. It's not as though anyone will be shocked.

=================
Whatever, Randolph Terry.

Reducing it to anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi just shows how weak your argument is.

One of the problems Romney has with younger women, independents, college educated people, Jews voting Republican is so many were lost to easy Republican reach by the Right to Lifers. Who were on odious full public display in the Terri Schiavo Fiasco. And all the RTLr theocrat state dream list follow-ons about arresting women that had abortions for murder and pushing the "ensoulment at conception" argument as biological fact.

You ignorant Goobers cost the Republicans dearly in 2006 and in 2008.

AReasonableMan said...

jr565:

This is not particularly counterintuitive. The sperm cell is alive, the egg cell is alive, as is the fertilized egg. The skin cells in the adult are alive and can be taken, put in a dish and used to make a new adult. To say that the fertilized egg is the beginning of life makes no sense biologically. It may make perfect sense theologically but this has nothing to do with biology and Rand Paul is wrong to imply that it does. There is no clear line here scientifically. All living cells have a living cell as a precursor.

BarryD said...

"But a man who want the same right to choose to not raise kids, is similarly slave to a womans right to choose if she chooses to keep it."

I agree. He should not be so enslaved. It is morally wrong and indefensible.

The fact that our laws make slaves of us all (including income tax, which makes us x% slaves of the state) does not make enslaving a woman at conception, moral.

You are using an immoral system to try to justify your morality. That's silly. Like I said, neither side tends to thing much.

The fact is, you aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Why bother typing all this sophomoric stuff? Do you get points by the word, in your religion, or something?

Cedarford said...

jr565 said...
Cells are the fundamental unit of life and we now know that most of them have the potential to create a new individual, soul or no soul.

Even if there is that potential, it's simply raw material. A fetus is a new entity created through the combination of sperm and an egg from two different individuals (unless of course we are talking about an immaculate conception) creating another unique entity with its own DNA and all that makes up what it means to be a person. So talking about our own individual cells as if they are equivalent is a red herring.

================
Not really. Parthenogenesis is common in the plant and fungi kingdom and not unusual in the animal kingdom.
Some is easy, like flipping a switch to send Jesus and a few milliamps in to make unfertilized frog or lizard eggs into blessed little babies.
Mammals require the right chemicals to convert eggs, or embryonic cells into blessed little babies if no sperm is used, or no eggs even are handy.
(Or revert adult cells into embryonic cells 1st)

Lem said...

Just to recap.. I need to leave soon.

I'm always kidding around.. except when you think I'm not..

See.. its impossible for me to affect your thinking if you dont comment.

jr565 said...

This is not particularly counterintuitive. The sperm cell is alive, the egg cell is alive, as is the fertilized egg. The skin cells in the adult are alive and can be taken, put in a dish and used to make a new adult.

Again it's a non argument. The world is made up of matter, and matter cannot be created or destroyed. And all life is made up of building blocks that are made up of said matter. What of it? When did YOU start as an individual. An individuals life as an unique idividual begins at his/her conception.

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Allie,

Ken, abortion is LEGAL, did you miss that tiny little detail?

Not at all. And the nurses the participate in the killing of innocent people CHOSE to do this. No one forced them.

Additionally, slavery was legal at one point as well. Or do you think the imposition of the personal belief that ALL have the right to LIFE and liberty through Lincoln and the republicans should not have happened? Do you think that slavery should have remained legal, despite the fact that it was and is abominably wrong?

Ken you cannot legislate morality

You absolutely can and is the very POINT of legislation: to prevent people from performing immoral acts. Or do you think that murder is simply a legal construct with no moral implications? How about rape? Robbery maybe?

There are inconsistencies in being a squishy pro choicer, I admit it, as Madison Man admitted it. I guess you will simply have to deal with it.

Inconsistency is the foundation upon which tyranny is built. Inconsistency is what allows tyrants to say it's okay for this group to dominate that group, despite recognizing that both groups consist of human beings.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Characteristics of life:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction

Which of these apply to embryos at all stages post-conception that do not also apply to sperm and egg cells? I count one (#4). Both lack #5 and #7.

I realize that the hallmark of modern conservatism is a disgust for empiric reality, but at some point you can only dismiss so much biology while attempting to define "life".

jr565 said...

Parthenogenesis ( /ˌpærθənoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs/) is a form of asexual reproduction where growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization. I'm not aware of too many humans who can make a baby absent that fertilization, but even if we are talking about a baby created in a test tube there is a starting point whereby that individual begins developing. That starting point is when it's life begins.

AJ Lynch said...

Anyone notice that today Time had a list of the 20 Americans who had the largest historical impact and the list included Margaret Sanger?

Terry said...

Cedarford wrote:
Whatever, Randolph Terry.

Reducing it to anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi just shows how weak your argument is.

Jesus, Cedarford, your the one who started writing about life unworthy of life, and how the resources used to keep some people alive could serve society better used some other way.
Look in the mirror, old chap.

Terry said...

Segundo, Paul used the term "human life", not "life".
I realize that liberals have disgust for empiric reality, but I used to think that they at least knew how to read.

rhhardin said...

An individuals life as an unique idividual begins at his/her conception.

Levinas makes the point that uniqueness, as opposed to inchangeability, starts when you're addressed and called out, in his example by the suffering of another.

That addressing creates you.

(Something like: Who takes on the suffering of another but the being that says Me. All persons are the Messiah. Thus he makes sense of the meaning of the messiah within religions as well. [_Difficult Freedom_])

But he's doing phenomenology and you're doing theology. Science falls into theological modes, what Nietzsche called the dogmatic philosopher.

AReasonableMan said...

jr565 said...

Again it's a non argument. The world is made up of matter, and matter cannot be created or destroyed. And all life is made up of building blocks that are made up of said matter. What of it? When did YOU start as an individual. An individuals life as an unique idividual begins at his/her conception.
......................................

It is not meant to be an argument, it is an observable fact. Rand Paul is wrong on the facts and he is wrong to claim scientific support for his claim. From a biological point of view nothing particularly unique occurs at conception. The progenitor cells were alive, as was the daughter cell. Much the same thing happens all the time when you regenerate the lining of your gut.

Obviously we care about the generation of a fertilized egg cell more than we do about a new gut cell but to imbue it with some metaphysical meaning requires a metaphysics that has nothing to do with either biology or science. I am not trying to argue against your metaphysics I am just pointing out that it has no basis in science.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

5:56 comment is one of the few reasonable and relevant ones.

This vexes jr. But biological reality does not exist to confirm theological ideas. Whether we can have identities and psyches distinct from a biological, DNA-based pattern is quite easily resolved. We can. A genetic identity is not the same thing as the consciousness, ability to perceive - and react to and affect - pleasure and pain, and to flourish and contribute, that defines "a human life" to most normal people. And that's why words like "soul" have meaning.

But then, conservatives seem to be not so normal when it comes to their resistance to seeing those attributes as characteristics of a life worth living. Instead, they embrace status and privilege, and having "human DNA" is as close to a definition of human life that people as narrow as that need.

Ultimately, (and this embarrasses the hell out of them), conservatives don't believe in a "soul". That would be too complex for them. Instead, they believe in biological, material, theological and social identities alone as the end-all, be-all of who and what we are. Human psychology, the most important part, might as well not even exist for all that they care.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Segundo, Paul used the term "human life", not "life".

I realize that liberals have disgust for empiric reality, but I used to think that they at least knew how to read.


Thank you for implying that you see human sperm and eggs as less human than merely alive. Believing that all species' gametes are interchangeable would explain the reptilian form that your chosen avatar seems to resemble.

jr565 said...

O Ritmo wrote:
Which of these apply to embryos at all stages post-conception that do not also apply to sperm and egg cells? I count one (#4). Both lack #5 and #7.

I realize that the hallmark of modern conservatism is a disgust for empiric reality, but at some point you can only dismiss so much biology while attempting to define "life".

HUMAN LIFE. Both sperm and eggs only contain half of the genetic material needed to create a fetus/human/person.

jr565 said...

Ultimately, (and this embarrasses the hell out of them), conservatives don't believe in a "soul". That would be too complex for them. Instead, they believe in biological, material, theological and social identities alone as the end-all, be-all of who and what we are. Human psychology, the most important part, might as well not even exist for all that they care.

And liberals, like Andy believe its' RED STUFF IN A JAR.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

HUMAN LIFE. Both sperm and eggs only contain half of the genetic material needed to create a fetus/human/person.

So again, we have another one confirming that HUMAN sperm and egg cells are just like any other species' sperm and egg cells.

Perhaps he was himself produced from a transgenic experiment utilizing freshly squozen reptile spooge.

You guys are embarrassingly funny.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And liberals, like Andy believe its' RED STUFF IN A JAR.

Maybe so.

But at least he is not so stupid and foolish as to believe that material form alone defines life. Others could probably be duped to bestow the definition upon mannequins, corpses and the brain-dead. Oh, wait...

Quaestor said...

askewhatguy wrote:
Rabid right wing Republican is opposed to a women's right to choose...

Choose, what? Choose is a transitive verb. I challenge you to complete that sentence.

jr565 said...

t is not meant to be an argument, it is an observable fact. Rand Paul is wrong on the facts and he is wrong to claim scientific support for his claim. From a biological point of view nothing particularly unique occurs at conception. The progenitor cells were alive, as was the daughter cell. Much the same thing happens all the time when you regenerate the lining of your gut.

Humans men do not produce eggs, and human women do not produce sperm. But for their combining, no baby would be produced. So, yes something unique does occur at conception.
That eggs and sperm may be alive as well, is immaterial to the question as to when we begin as individuals.
Actually, do you think we even are individuals? Perhaps we are simply billions of cells that are living inside of us, and not an actual distinct person made up of living material? Is that what youre' arguing?

jeff said...

"Surely there are some pro-lifers that keep the charade going. Anyone know of any pro-lifers that have their kid's BIRTHday party 3 months after it is BORN?"

Sigh


"I don't usually attempt to do that here because I don't think any of the bigots in the Althouse Comment Crew are open to persuasion via the comment box here"
I agree with this idiot on gay marriage, but every time he posts on her I have to wonder about my stance if this moron has the same one.

jr565 said...

So again, we have another one confirming that HUMAN sperm and egg cells are just like any other species' sperm and egg cells.

Who said that? You inferred that? Frankly the uniqueness of human sperm to non human sperm is simply a dodge. YOu're trying to not answer the questions by deflecting to tangential issues that noone argued. What do I care if human spermi is just like any other animals sperm. That is certainly fascinating to look into, but completely irrelevant.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

So, yes something unique does occur at conception.

So FUCKING what? That "unique" thing is a diploid human DNA pattern, and a cell membrane to house it. Nothing special as far as lab experiments and petri dishes are concerned.

That eggs and sperm may be alive as well, is immaterial to the question as to when we begin as individuals.

Individually distinct DNA is not the same thing as an individually distinct person. Cells are not people.

Actually, do you think we even are individuals? Perhaps we are simply billions of cells that are living inside of us, and not an actual distinct person made up of living material? Is that what youre' arguing?

It's an interesting question, and the perspective is helpful, but no. That's not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing for some fricking respect for the psychological identities that define who we are, as well.

Those are the most important, "parts", if you will.

Terry said...

Others could probably be duped to bestow the definition upon mannequins, corpses and the brain-dead.
Schiavo was not brain dead. Segundo, your struggle to engage empirical reality is not going well.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Neither is your struggle to engage a sense of humanity.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 352   Newer› Newest»