2 questions for Pro-Choicers

[jochoa]

A “surgical/medical rape” case. It is morally acceptable to allow natural death without excessive care, and in the scenario you shared, the doctors would be morally wrong as a rapists is morally wrong.

Yet, women/mothers who share love with those forced on them make our world a far greater place. And if my wife or daughter were the victim of such a rape, I’d hope they’'d have the strength and desire to love the child placed in their care.

 

[Pattylt]

Pattylt:

If first world nations continue on its current path of fewer and fewer births, my propositions will become more and more acceptable.

Many of your suggestions are already done by first world nations, so yes I think that’s reasonable. Paid parental leave is something I thought this outgoing administration might deliver on as there were rumblings about it early on, but it seemed to fall to the wayside.

I was hopeful, too. I think businesses gave too much push back. At some point in time, society will tell businesses that their profit margins will just have to adjust. Businesses were big drivers of women entering the workforce in large numbers during WW2, now, they may just have to accommodate the kerfuffle created in family life to keep their profits flowing. I’m not anti business but businesses haven’t been kind to the family structure either. A realignment is needed, imho.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

If first world nations continue on its current path of fewer and fewer births, my propositions will become more and more acceptable.

Many of your suggestions are already done by first world nations, so yes I think that’s reasonable. Paid parental leave is something I thought this outgoing administration might deliver on as there were rumblings about it early on, but it seemed to fall to the wayside.

Down here you get 12 weeks paid leave and 6 months off work unpaid (in addition to the 12 weeks). Having a baby in public hospitals is effectively free, unless you want to choose doctors, have a private room etc and then your (voluntary) medical insurance covers that.

I don’t know what the situation is regarding ease of adoption etc.

 

[Dan123]

Down here you get 12 weeks paid leave and 6 months off work unpaid (in addition to the 12 weeks). Having a baby in public hospitals is effectively free, unless you want to choose doctors, have a private room etc and then your (voluntary) medical insurance covers that.

Up here it’s a crapshoot. You get 12 weeks unpaid, you just can’t lose your job during that period. A lot of larger companies have some kind of paid leave but usually only for part of the 12 weeks. If you aren’t following the ‘traditional’ and have a stay-at-home-dad situation you’re even less likely to have paid leave, and if you do it’s usually for a shorter period. Medical costs in the US follow the typical route, if you have insurance you’ll get by with probably only a few thousand dollars out of pocket, if there’s any difficulty during the birth or recovery you’ll easily hit your out of pocket maximum.

 

[Pattylt]

In the US it’s often better than it used to be. When I had my children in the 70’s, my husbands insurance didn’t cover childbirth at all. However, the cost of having a child was actually quite low and reasonable…even in 1970 dollars. Later, it became mandatory to cover childbirth and there was much resistance to it from businesses that were almost exclusively male…as was our case…my husband was in the construction industry. It happened anyway and they adjusted.

Then, naturally, costs for delivery and prenatal care shot through the roof. Heavens, is there no balance?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Down here you get 12 weeks paid leave and 6 months off work unpaid (in addition to the 12 weeks). Having a baby in public hospitals is effectively free, unless you want to choose doctors, have a private room etc and then your (voluntary) medical insurance covers that.

Up here it’s a crapshoot. You get 12 weeks unpaid, you just can’t lose your job during that period. A lot of larger companies have some kind of paid leave but usually only for part of the 12 weeks. If you aren’t following the ‘traditional’ and have a stay-at-home-dad situation you’re even less likely to have paid leave, and if you do it’s usually for a shorter period. Medical costs in the US follow the typical route, if you have insurance you’ll get by with probably only a few thousand dollars out of pocket, if there’s any difficulty during the birth or recovery you’ll easily hit your out of pocket maximum.

Yikes…

And the times I mentioned are for either the husband or the wife.

 

[tootle_toot]

“Christian values?” One could just as easily say “Jewish values” or “Muslim values” or “Roman(pagan) values.” The idea that the prohibition on murder, theft, and assault are unique to Christianity is not correct. What is unique to a particular branch of Christianity is the obsession with making abortion illegal.

 

[jochoa]

At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is and a zygote obviously isn’t.

Since we disagree on what a person obviously is because I recognize that a fertilized egg is a person, please share the earliest age (post-fertilization) you recognize a human being is obviously a person.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is and a zygote obviously isn’t.

Since we disagree on what a person obviously is because I recognize that a fertilized egg is a person, please share the earliest age (post-fertilization) you recognize a human being is obviously a person.

See post 10 which answers everything. And which you must have read because it was in respo se to one of your posts. Why ask questions that have already been answered?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Because fetal cells are self replicating, what scientists are using are the cloned cells from a product of a legal abortion performed years and years ago. Because it is human tissue, it’s an excellent medium for testing protein activity. It’s a useful tool. Because these self replicating cells have been distributed all over the world and isn’t a single blob of cells anymore, it has little relationship to its origin. Many vaccine makers are aware of conflict in using fetal cells and avoid them if they can. Some vaccines still can’t be manufactured without using them and Catholics may decide to still take these specific vaccines since there aren’t alternatives. Individual choices may vary.

It may have been on CAF, or in another forum — I’ve been around quite a bit lately, trying to find some “safe haven” that is similar to CAF in light of its imminent sunsetting — but I would liken the use of long-ago-derived fetal cells, while regrettable, to be more in the nature of being able to derive some good from a murder victim’s death, assuming the person wasn’t murdered for the purpose of extracting something from their body.

Think of it this way — if someone had been murdered, and if I could save my life from having one of their organs transplanted into my body to replace a diseased one of mine, sure, I’d accept the organ. Now, if they had been murdered with the express purpose of harvesting their organs — and I know, that’s pretty twisted, I hope no one will think the less of me, for having such a scenario in my mind (but ultimately, people are going to think what they want to, “haters gonna hate”) — that would be a problem, but my scenario doesn’t anticipate that.

 

[Pattylt]

Think of it this way — if someone had been murdered, and if I could save my life from having one of their organs transplanted into my body to replace a diseased one of mine, sure, I’d accept the organ. Now, if they had been murdered with the express purpose of harvesting their organs — and I know, that’s pretty twisted, I hope no one will think the less of me, for having such a scenario in my mind (but ultimately, people are going to think what they want to, “haters gonna hate”) — that would be a problem, but my scenario doesn’t anticipate that.

No, I know exactly what you mean and it’s a good point. If I recall, we still use some of the knowledge gained from the Nazi experiments on Jews. Of course, it’s a horrendous way to gain knowledge but should we not use it now that we have it? Especially if it saves lives. It might be the only good that came out of that horror. Condemning how it was acquired is mandatory but if the knowledge only saves one life later, then a spark of goodness came from it. To me, an exJew that lost an Uncle in the camps, I would want the knowledge used, not hidden away because of how it was obtained.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Freddy:

At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is and a zygote obviously isn’t.

Since we disagree on what a person obviously is because I recognize that a fertilized egg is a person, please share the earliest age (post-fertilization) you recognize a human being is obviously a person.

See post 10 which answers everything. And which you must have read because it was in respo se to one of your posts. Why ask questions that have already been answered?

According to your response you say that a child is obviously a person, and that what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person, yet “to be with child” means to be pregnant, therefore being pregnant means to be carrying a person.

Also, if unfertilized sperm and egg are supposedly equally human to a fertilized egg, are scientists using unfertilized sperm and eggs to test vaccines?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

jochoa:

Freddy:

At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is and a zygote obviously isn’t.

Since we disagree on what a person obviously is because I recognize that a fertilized egg is a person, please share the earliest age (post-fertilization) you recognize a human being is obviously a person.

See post 10 which answers everything. And which you must have read because it was in respo se to one of your posts. Why ask questions that have already been answered?

According to your response you say that a child is obviously a person, and that what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person…

No, I didn’t. What is the point of my trying to explain my position if you cannot follow what I write?

 

[jochoa]

A better question might be: At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is [a person] and a zygote obviously isn’t [a person].

I would suggest that just as there is no point at which a baby becomes a woman then there is no point at which what a woman is carrying becomes a person.

Please explain how the bold text does not equate to “…what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person…”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A better question might be: At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is [a person] and a zygote obviously isn’t [a person].

I would suggest that just as there is no point at which a baby becomes a woman then there is no point at which what a woman is carrying becomes a person.

Please explain how the bold text does not equate to “…what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person…”

The second statement means that there is no single, definite bright line when it happens. If that was causing confusion that that clarification should clear it. Otherwise I see no problem.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Freddy:

A better question might be: At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is [a person] and a zygote obviously isn’t [a person].

I would suggest that just as there is no point at which a baby becomes a woman then there is no point at which what a woman is carrying becomes a person.

Please explain how the bold text does not equate to “…what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person…”

The second statement means that there is no single, definite bright line when it happens. If that was causing confusion that that clarification should clear it. Otherwise I see no problem.

The problem is the deceit. If there is no definition of being a person, then one cannot know that a zygote obviously isn’t a person.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

jochoa:

Freddy:

A better question might be: At what point does the fertilised egg become a person? A child obviously is [a person] and a zygote obviously isn’t [a person].

I would suggest that just as there is no point at which a baby becomes a woman then there is no point at which what a woman is carrying becomes a person.

Please explain how the bold text does not equate to “…what a woman is pregnant with isn’t a person…”

The second statement means that there is no single, definite bright line when it happens. If that was causing confusion that that clarification should clear it. Otherwise I see no problem.

The problem is the deceit. If there is no definition of being a person, then one cannot know that a zygote obviously isn’t a person.

Who said there wasn’t a definition? If you can you give some definition to which we can both agree then that will take us some way to solving the problem.

 

[NuntioBusiness]

2 Questions for Pro-Choicers

Ok. Yet, I do not like the phrasing, as I am not what persons call “Pro-Choice”. It is merely a Hegalian propagandistic term (the other being “Pro-Life”). I am Pro-Holy Writ.

1. Do you recognize aborted cells are human persons?

No. DNA, which is in cells, whether it is ‘aborted’, or even removed from, cut away from, extracted, such as fingernails (and their clippings), hair chopped off, flakes of skin that slough off in shower or just in daily living, bone replacement internally, going to the restroom, (1 or 2, potentially 3, vomitous), is not an actual human person (a legal term, “person”) in which internal DNA is shed. The material spoken of is simply human genetic material, which was either once associated with an actual “person” (born, living, etc), or was “potentially” a “person”, but never came to be (see Job 3:16, etc) formed, or born (whether uteral or c-section, or other (lab)).

The living human “person” sheds DNA all of the time. It is not “the person” that is shed. It is simply that which was once part of the genetic make-up of the “person”.

Think also of the copulatory and/or reproductive function of both male and female, in which both male (sperm) and female (ovum/ova) are tremendous amounts of loss (more so for the male) of un-realized DNA, that could potentially have become “persons”. Only a tiny fraction of sperm impregnate, and the rest ‘die’, and the same goes for the female in her “flowers” (flow-ers) or monthly cycles.

Should we run around to every man and woman and attempt to ‘save’ all the ‘potential’ “persons” (meaning unused sperm, and unused eggs)???

Not attempting to be funny, or derogatory, but making a logical case, and reasoning unto the end.

2a. If not, why do you think some vaccine researchers use aborted fetal tissue to test their vaccine, rather than using other cells, such as saliva?

There is the devil in the world, and as I Tim 6:10 says, the “love of money is the root of all evil”, and science without God is science falsely so-called (I Tim 6:20), same chapter (interesting huh?).

Ultimately their reasoning is flawed, whether from just a scientific perspective or from an economic one.

2b. If yes, why do you find killing an innocent person as acceptable?

The logic is incongruent. It was not demonstrated that “aborted cells” are “human persons”. Potentiality is not actuality. Thus to ascribe “innocence” to an object which is undemonstrated to be an actual “human person”, such as fingernails, hair, sloughed skin, or even ‘aborted cells’, etc is the same as attempting to ascribe ‘innocence’ to non-personal things, like protein, or a rock.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The living human “person” sheds DNA all of the time. It is not “the person” that is shed. It is simply that which was once part of the genetic make-up of the “person”.

The thing that makes your argument fall flat is that none of these cells will follow the normal course of human development in the proper environment. A zygote will. They are human and grow like ones.

 

[NuntioBusiness]

The thing that makes your argument fall flat is that none of these cells will follow the normal course of human development in the proper environment. A zygote will. They are human and grow like ones.

It is why I said “potential”. There is always the possibility of failure (whether intentful or unintentional). We live in a fallen world.

My argument stands. The DNA in those items, has all of the DNA to “potentially” be a “clone” (genetically, not characteristically) of me.