"Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn’t that hard to point out the hypocrisy of the left and being " Pro-Choice"; the idea of being pro-choice is, or was at first, a womans’ right to choose what she does with her body an etc. YET, any woman who tells any other woman on the left that she chooses to have a standard of morals with her body, and does not agree with abortion on any level, ( an that is just taking the aspect of religion out of the debate ) all of a sudden that womans right to choose what she does is on the wrong side of being pro-choice.

Ever since New Yorks brilliant law that allows for flat out murder of a child once it is born, the narrative went from Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life, to Pro-Abortion Vs Pro-Life.

The hypocritical narrative of pro-choice is dead. Especially with hollywood and other hacks in the entertainment industry leaving states like Georgia that have a " Heartbeat bill * So if you are on the left, or support the democrat party, hypocrisy lives strong. Choose what we say or else. They respect you when you follow their narrative , and TRY to strong arm states that make changes; that use the system of governance we have in place in the correct manner to make choices for their state which is protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, to protect states rights of choice and the people of those states.

I am all for states rights, if states want to have legal abortion like New York, fine, that is on them not me. It isn’t my duty or job to stop every single act of stupidity and evil out in the world. An more over, if the left were so adamant about abortion, these hacks need to start paying for abortions out of their own pockets and stop demanding that the government charge the tax payers for them. Hollywood needs to set up their own abortion fund, paid by every single democrat voter and those that support abortions, and they can bus the loons to New York, pay for their food and lodging and bring em back home afterwards and pay for their psychological bill afterwards as well. That is what they would do if they really cared, on top of peaceably trying to convince states to change their laws instead of jack boot tactics .

Mean while the left wants the world to believe that there are women in droves here in America being " impregnated through rape and incest " that they are falling over themselves to get in line at abortion centers. Yet these same people who claim that , can not provide one reliable , fact checked source to back it up, and those in hollywood who have had an abortion did so out of their own lack of wanting to be a mother, not because of rape or incest.

The absolute irony of it all, is this " heartbeat bill " would not of ever came about, had New York not lead the way to legalize full blown abortion of a born child. The status quo would of stayed the same. The left created their own downfall. The same way Obama and the left attempted to dismantle the Second Amendment caused a strengthening of the Second Amendment.

The left and democrats do about 90% of the work to defeat themselves.
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
What I’m getting at is, if there can only be abortions or contraception to lessen abortions, shouldn’t we try to lessen it?
Click to expand...
False security leads to more premarital sex. When birth control “fails,” abortions are more likely to occur. When I get a little time I will post a link that shows the number of abortions where mom was using birth control at the time of conception. The numbers come from Planned Parenthood, so you can google that in the meantime. I am sure there are other sources that also show the rate of abortions that are due to birth control failures.
 
That one cell in the womb is a separate organism, so as for your arm, which has cells that are not separate organisms, no.
 
Last edited:
GospelOfMatthew said:
You are saying scratching my arm is murder??
Click to expand...
The time when cloning will be possible even from one cell is not just approaching, but it is here. The DNA of any living human cell is (pretty much) the same for every human being - regardless of the age. The only difference between a zygote and the other cells is that under certain natural circumstances the zygote can grow into an actual human being. While the other living cells need some artificial environment. Totally irrelevant.
 
No, that is not the cell you were referring to.

But since you kept your wording, if not the meaning, ambiguous I will give you points.
 
GospelOfMatthew said:
Can’t fight evil with evil but isn’t killing a baby more evil than at most killing a single cell? I can scratch my arm and kill a single cell
Click to expand...
Your arm cell is part of you. A zygote is a whole other human.

Abortions aren’t performed on zygotes, so it’s moot to a thread about elective, induced abortion.
 
It has to be cloned into a embryo and it would be deserving of protection when it becomes such.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Abortions aren’t performed on zygotes, so it’s moot to a thread about elective, induced abortion.
Click to expand...
What about the morning after pills, which prevent the zygote from embedding into the uterus wall? Those pills are called “abortifacients”.
VanitasVanitatum said:
It has to be cloned into a embryo and it would be deserving of protection when it becomes such.
Click to expand...
OK, let’s get down to the details. We have a living human cell. Using some technology we “nudge” that cell into splitting and starting to form a blastocyst, literally a bunch of human cells, nothing more. Then we can (but not required!) place those cells into an incubator, and grow some human tissue. We can direct the growth and the end result is a human heart (for example), to replace the donor’s damaged organ. That “blob” of cells, the blastocyst is NOT a human being by any stretch of imagination.

The DNA cannot be the deciding factor, because that would render mutants “non-humans”.

So, when should the blob of cells be considered to become a human being? Carl Sagan suggested a good compromise: when the embryo develops a working brain, which happens approximately at the beginning of the second trimester. The reason is that any and all organs of a human can be replaced with a transplant or an artificial prosthesis, except the brain. Our frontal lobe is the actual place where our personality resides, if that part is separated - called lobotomy - the we as persons cease to exist, we simply become a vegetating “things”.

Scripturally speaking, God formed Adam from dirt, and blew into his nose the “soul” which animated him. That is why many cultures consider the first breath as the point when a new human being is formed. A stillborn is not considered to be a human.
 
Economist said:
What about the morning after pills, which prevent the zygote from embedding into the uterus wall? Those pills are called “abortifacients”.
Click to expand...
A zygote is a single-celled organism. By the time implantation is about to occur, the cells have already divided, resulting in a multicellular organism.

If you want to get super technical and impress your friends, at this point the developmental phase of the new human being is called morula. The blastocyst does the actual implanting, if not blocked off by artificial hormones or natural causes. Embryo is the umbrella term for any developmental phase between conception and eight weeks, so that could apply here, as well.

Remember that these terms - zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult - all refer to developmental phases of a human being.
 
What is worse, killing a single celled organism that will ultimately develop into a baby or killing a baby through abortion?

I would assume the worse of the two is killing the baby? And if this is the case, shouldn’t we try to lessen our killing of the baby? Which could be done by using contraceptives if you are gonna have sex outside marriage and such?
 
Last edited:
Economist said:
The DNA cannot be the deciding factor, because that would render mutants “non-humans”
Click to expand...
The definition of mutant I know means a change in genes or DNA, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.
 
Economist said:
OK, let’s get down to the details. We have a living human cell. Using some technology we “nudge” that cell into splitting and starting to form a blastocyst, literally a bunch of human cells, nothing more. Then we can (but not required!) place those cells into an incubator, and grow some human tissue. We can direct the growth and the end result is a human heart (for example), to replace the donor’s damaged organ. That “blob” of cells, the blastocyst is NOT a human being by any stretch of imagination.
Click to expand...
That’s a definition sure, but except for the last part (which is an assertion) it isn’t really an argument.
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
The definition of mutant I know means a change in genes or DNA, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Click to expand...
VanitasVanitatum said:
That’s a definition sure, but except for the last part (which is an assertion) it isn’t really an argument.
Click to expand...
Simple. The question is: what is the philosophical definition of a “human being”? Without a mutually acceptable definition we would always talk past each other.
 
Cruciferi said:
The Church believes that Life begins at Conception.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) GospelOfMatthew:
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, so does embryology.
Economist said:
Simple. The question is: what is the philosophical definition of a “human being”? Without a mutually acceptable definition we would always talk past each other.
Click to expand...
The more relevant question is what the biological difference is.

Philosophical definitions are a mere matter of preference, opinion, and personal prejudices. So given that competing viewpoints will likely never be reconciled, whose philosophies should have the upper hand? From a philosophical standpoint, I’d argue that our culture and practices should stand against bigotry and therefore line up with the pro-life position. Anything less involves able-ism, a form of bigotry, used to justify killing others based on their capacities and phases of development.
 
blackforest said:
The more relevant question is what the biological difference is.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Biology is (at best!) a descriptive science. It is based upon the arbitrary definition of “species”, which means that two entities belong to the same species, if they are (theoretically!) able to procreate with each other. Of course some minor mutation can produce a new entity, which is unable to procreate, due to some chromosomal incompatibility. (The species which do not use sexual reproduction are totally arbitrarily defined to be members of the same “species”.)

Suppose that in some hidden corner of the Earth we would discover a bunch of sapient Neanderthals, who are perfectly able to further their own species, but are unable to mate with the Homo Sapiens. Would they be considered “fully humans”?

Or due some radioactive radiation a group of people would develop some mutations, which would allow them to communicate telepathically, but would not be able to interbreed with “regular” humans? What about those hypothetical beings?

Without a clear cut definition of “who is a human being”, you don’t have a leg to stand on - when it comes to abortion. The theological approach is that “humans are rational animals”. Not very helpful. Fetuses are not rational, though they might have a potential to become rational… later - maybe! People under a certain level of intelligence will never be “rational”… and in that case, what?

And since Aquinas is held in such a high regard by the church, it might be useful to follow his thoughts about the difference between “potential” and “actual”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top