Wen Does Life Begin?

[Jennifer123]

The failure of the pro-life movement has everything to do with the message. I include presentation as an integral part of the message. The presentation has been awful; the name-calling juvenile; the spurious accusations easily dismissed; and the general impression left with the public one of emotional and religious extremists. My general impression is the tatics of the pro-life movement are designed for members to demonstrate their commitment to each other.

You are making false assumptions of the pro-life movement. I argue they are ones based on what the “consensus” wants you to believe. The pro-life movement is disparate, not united behind well-funded PR machines and manufactured “facts”.

 

[Jennifer123]

You asked why you can’t abort me. That’s the reason. It will be effective even if you don’t approve.

But it isn’t good enough of a reason for pro-lifers, who aren’t “credible” in your opinion, so I’m not sure where you’ll get these “others” who will fight for your own life.

 

[HoppityRedux]

You are making false assumptions of the pro-life movement. I argue they are ones based on what the “consensus” wants you to believe. The pro-life movement is disparate, not united behind well-funded PR machines and manufactured “facts”.

If there are asumptions the consensus wants us to believe, then I’d hardly say the same tactics will work where they have failed for 35 years.

So, in 35 years the pro-life movement has been incapable becoming united? Are the pro-choice folks smarter? Maybe pro-lifers can’t unite because they haven’t chosen to employ that successful tactic.

No movement that sees itself as victims will ever succeed.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Jennifer123:
I don’t care if pro-lifers don’t like my reason. It will still be effective against them. I presume anyone who wants to abort me has little concern for my reasons.

[Your responses can’t be quoted when providing an answer. Move your answer down an inch, and it will be picked up by the software as an independent post. This might make things a bit easier to follow in a crowded field.]

 

[Jennifer123]

The DNA in the skin cell is identical and equivalent to the DNA in the fertilized egg. If one says the fertilized egg represents a whole human being because it contains DNA, then one can also observe the skin cell contains the same DNA and ask if it, too, represents the whole human being.

**If you don’t know the difference between a part and a whole then I’m afraid there’s not much I can say to you. **

 

[HoppityRedux]

Jennifer123:
There is a difference between the part and the whole. That is a very different argument than the presence of DNA. The DNA argument is open to attack from several directions.

 

[Jennifer123]

If there are asumptions the consensus wants us to believe, then I’d hardly say the same tactics will work where they have failed for 35 years.

So, in 35 years the pro-life movement has been incapable becoming united? Are the pro-choice folks smarter? Maybe pro-lifers can’t unite because they haven’t chosen to employ that successful tactic.

No movement that sees itself as victims will ever succeed.

Pro-choicers have many more resources. No vicitmization was stated or implied.

 

[Jennifer123]

There is a difference between the part and the whole. That is a very different argument than the presence of DNA. The DNA argument is open to attack from several directions.

What makes us human rather than goats or cats?

 

[Jennifer123]

The consensus defines the morality for the society.

No it doesn’t.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Pro-choicers have many more resources. No vicitmization was stated or implied.

Sure they have more resources. But they stared with nothing. They worked hard, and they worked smart.

 

[HoppityRedux]

What makes us human rather than goats or cats?

We display taxonomic characteristics that place us in the species labeled human. We do not display those that would place us in the classification of goats or cats. Similarly, cats display taxonomic characteristics that place them in the species cat. And 99% of our DNA is shared with chimps, and 95% is shared with mice. So, 1% distinguishes us from chimps, and 5% from mice. (I don’t have the figures for goats or cats.)

 

[mosher]

Sure they have more resources. But they stared with nothing. They worked hard, and they worked smart.

Smart and deceitful are not coequal terms. The end can only be achieved through ethical means and the pro-life movement is not willing to use indoctrination, spin or dishonesty to bring its point home. Rather it is focused on facts and reality. It is a slower and harder road to take but it has greater long term effects.

 

[HoppityRedux]

No it doesn’t.

Observation shows us that the consensus does define morality for a society. We see differences among various societies on morality. These differences are a function of social consensus.

 

[mosher]

Observation shows us that the consensus does define morality for a society. We see differences among various societies on morality. These differences are a function of social consensus.

Practically speaking you are correct in a pluralistic society but this is a problem that must be fixed not embraced.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Smart and deceitful are not coequal terms. The end can only be achieved through ethical means and the pro-life movement is not willing to use indoctrination, spin or dishonesty to bring its point home. Rather it is focused on facts and reality. It is a slower and harder road to take but it has greater long term effects.

I agree smart and deceitful are not coequal.

Are all ethical tactics ineffective? Perhaps “smart” is the operative word.

 

[Jennifer123]

Sure they have more resources. But they stared with nothing. They worked hard, and they worked smart.

They have hardly come from “nothing”. They are the progeny of a ideology that had been building from some time, most recently in the 20th Century from Margaret Sanger, et al, who were well funded by the richest American families.

As for the legal “triumph” in 1973, that was a legal manipulation which was aided by the contraceptive mentality created by Planned Parenthood and Bernard Nathanson, who cynically created the “choice” slogan to market abortion to a trusting public.

Hardly an “underdog” story.

 

[HoppityRedux]

Practically speaking you are correct in a pluralistic society but this is a problem that must be fixed not embraced.

There are good arguments for that idea. I simply observe that’s how things work. Even fixing it would simply be a substitution of one social consensus for another. And each consensus insists it is correct.

 

[HoppityRedux]

They have hardly come from “nothing”. They are the progeny of a ideology that had been building from some time, most recently in the 20th Century from Margaret Sanger, et al, who were well funded by the richest American families.

As for the legal “triumph” in 1973, that was a legal manipulation which was aided by the contraceptive mentality created by Planned Parenthood and Bernard Nathanson, who cynically created the “choice” slogan to market abortion to a trusting public.

Hardly an “underdog” story.

When the pro-choice people started, they were opposed by all the Christian churches, governments, and people. That was a very strong opposition, and dwarfed the support of some rich families. Face it. They started with nothing and have succeeded in changing the social consensus to the degree that abortions are freely available…

Were I a pro-life organizer, I would be studying their success instead of making excuses for failure. I would be paying even more attention to the tactics of the gay marriage forces. The first article supporting gay mariage to appear in a mainstream US magazine was in 1989. Things have sure changed in 17 years.

 

[Jennifer123]

We display taxonomic characteristics that place us in the species labeled human. We do not display those that would place us in the classification of goats or cats. Similarly, cats display taxonomic characteristics that place them in the species cat. And 99% of our DNA is shared with chimps, and 95% is shared with mice. So, 1% distinguishes us from chimps, and 5% from mice. (I don’t have the figures for goats or cats.)

Sharing DNA is not relevant. Human DNA has only the correct amount of chromosomes present to be a human being.

DNA from a skin cell does not equate to a human being - a skin cell can only be a skin cell. Human DNA in an embryo has everything in it to be a human being, including making the skin cell DNA activate to be a skin cell.

 

[Jennifer123]

When the pro-choice people started, they were opposed by all the Christian churches, governments, and people. That was a very strong opposition, and dwarfed the support of some rich families. Face it. They started with nothing and have succeeded in changing the socila consensus to the degree that abortiona sre freely available…

…Using means that aren’t ethical or moral. If that equates to success to you, then you are making moral judgements that you pretend here to avoid.

Were I a pro-life organizer, I would be studying their success instead of making excuses for failure. I would be paying even more attention to the tactics of the gay marriage forces. The first article supporting gay mariage to appear in a mainstream US magazine was in 1989. Things have sure changed in 17 years.

I’ve advocated the same thing but you have to understand they are not equivalent forces and therefore IMHO the pro-choicers will always have the upper-hand in terms of resources. And I’m not sure why you equate stating truth with labeling our efforts as failure because I have never stated that or left that impression. Curious.