Pro-choice distortion

[carpedm9587]

Well, after doing some more research it seems like what I thought looked like the beginning of human facial features is not at all (or atleast not the facial features that I thought they were), so while I guessed correctly, I did so on mistaken assumptions.

But even after acknowledging that fact there's still something about the middle picture that makes me want to say that it's more humanlike than the other ones. Or perhaps it's more correct to say that the top and bottom pictures are more clearly non-human than the middle picture.

ETA: After thinking some more about it, isn't it more than a bit ironic that I fell victim to pareidolia while looking at a picture of a human fetus?

[carpedm9587]

As my Catholic friends would say:

The simple answer to all these related questions begins and ends with the irrefutable scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization two separate cells form one new life, genetically distinct in every way from every other human being on earth. The color of our eyes, the shape of our hands, even where we put on weight and when we will go bald was programmed into that one tiny cell that we all began our lives as.

That (IMOHBAO) is one of the bird-brained nuttiest things I've ever seen you say. Seriously.

In my experience, few people want to even consider that they might be part of the problem...

I don't just "think about it", Carpe, or "perpetuate the war" - I'm actually involved financially and materially over the past dozen years, investing actual time with women who had been contemplating abortion, are encouraged to carry the baby to birth, and make sure they have the support during and AFTER the pregnancy. And while you sanctimoniously condemn those who "perpetuate the war" --- here YOU are fighting the fight!

A person can work in soup kitchens all day, and then go out and participate in a mob and trash the local businesses in the evening. The good of the former does not obviate the ill of the latter.

In short, CP, you're like the person who runs out on the battlefield to bring in the wounded warriors, all the while screaming "kill those gooks!" I admire the former. I don't admire the latter.

I make the same observations on the other side - and their response is pretty much the same as yours. Surely THEY can't be part of the problem. It's the OTHER people that are perpetuating the war.

• Northern Ireland
• Israel
• South Sudan
• South Africa
• Rwanda
• Croatia
• Papua

It's always the other guy's fault... right?

And the "fight" I am "fighting" is to try to get BOTH sides to see that perpetuating the war is a pointless exercise, during which countless children will die. So long as each side is busily painting the other side as "evil" and "self centered" and "out to do harm" and "baby killers" and "murders" and "misogynists" and all of the rest that gets said by each side about the other, little attention is going to a systemic solution to the problem. It is rare but, every once in a while, someone on one side or the other listens - and makes a shift. They tone down their rhetoric and try listening. And they join me in advocating for an end to the hostilities and vitriolic language - and a start towards considering "what can we practically do at a systemic level." Frankly, I didn't even start this approach. I was myself a convert when someone convinced me that I was simply a contributor to the endless hostilities. I'm not better than anyone else. I heard the message later than some, and sooner than others.

[carpedm9587]

Even when those sides are making claims like the one this thread is based on?

Both sides make bogus claims, Roy - and both sides make good points. Accepting the latter is as important as rejecting the former. Focusing on the things we can agree on is a start. We agree life is precious. We agree freedom is precious. We agree unwanted pregnancies are not a good thing. Finding a way to work within the bounds of what we agree on has to be the starting place.

My evidence is 50+ years of screaming about the things we DON'T agree on - and the lack of progress in ending the high rate of abortions in the U.S.

[carpedm9587]

I'm really curious how fetal development looks in "it's just a blob" until birth.

I never said "until birth." Indeed, after 8 weeks (and sometimes even before) there is a clearly developing human child. By the time you get to 12 weeks, the humanness of the fetus is unquestionable, and I would not find the term "blob of tissue" to be accurate.

An amorphous acardiac twin? That could never develop into a baby due to not having a head or heart or anything but tissue and blood vessels? And poses a threat to the viable pump twin?

I am not sure how this applies.

[QuantaFille]

No. It is accurately described as a "blob of tissue." It is a "blob of tissue" with potential, but a "blob of tissue" nonetheless. Here...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36903[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36904[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36905[/ATTACH]

Which is human? No fair searching...

If you can't tell - then I suggest it's because it is a "blob of tissue" with no uniquely discernible features. You and I agree it is an individual human person - and will grow to have those discernible features. But "blob of tissue" is not an incorrect description, even if you don't particularly like it.

Each one of those, human or not, is a complex, functioning, well-ordered system, regardless of what it looks like. Why does it have to resemble a more developed version of itself to no longer be "just a clump of cells"?

[QuantaFille]

I never said "until birth." Indeed, after 8 weeks (and sometimes even before) there is a clearly developing human child. By the time you get to 12 weeks, the humanness of the fetus is unquestionable, and I would not find the term "blob of tissue" to be accurate.

I have heard some from the pro-abortion crowd make this argument. You didn't say it specifically, but that argument is out there.
On the other hand, I've also seen them argue:
...that a fetus is an invader with hostile intent
...that a fetus is not going to leave the woman's body eventually and must be forcibly removed,
...that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and functions like one of her organs
... and all kind of other truly bizarre misinformation. I honestly don't know how people come up with this stuff.

[carpedm9587]

Each one of those, human or not, is a complex, functioning, well-ordered system, regardless of what it looks like. Why does it have to resemble a more developed version of itself to no longer be "just a clump of cells"?

Nobody said it wasn't, Quanta. And it is also a "blob of tissue." Look - if you cannot tell what a thing is, then "a blob of X" is not an inappropriate descriptor.

And, at this point, I think we have spent far too much ink of what I consider to be a relatively minor issue. How someone describes a fetus/embryo is not exactly the most pressing issue confronting us. It is essentially an indicator of just how polarized this issue is when we have to bicker over this kind of nomenclature. If you don't want to say, "blob of tissue" then don't say it. If someone else says it, then so be it.

I'm moving on. Last word (on the "blob of tissue" issue) to you and others here.

[carpedm9587]

I have heard some from the pro-abortion crowd make this argument. You didn't say it specifically, but that argument is out there.
On the other hand, I've also seen them argue:
...that a fetus is an invader with hostile intent

Lacking a brain (at first) and any significant reasoning ability, it is hard to see how a fetus can have "intent."

...that a fetus is not going to leave the woman's body eventually and must be forcibly removed,

Presumably, the person articulating this position is not familiar with the birth process.

...that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and functions like one of her organs

Part of...there is some argument for that. They are clearly inextricably linked for a significant part of the development cycle. If a comparison were to be made, "parasite" would be a better descriptor than "organ." And note that not all parasites are harmful, so I am not using the term pejoratively. But it is the inextricable relationship between woman and child that creates the legal conundrum. The problem the two sides have, IMO, is that each focuses on the rights of one with little/no thought given to the rights of the other. Only when one accepts and respects the rights of BOTH does the problem become clear - and the need to find a way to avoid the conundrum become obvious.

... and all kind of other truly bizarre misinformation. I honestly don't know how people come up with this stuff.

Anyone sufficiently emotionally involved with the argument will come up with all sorts of stuff. The pro-life side continues to site debunked claims that abortion leads to depression and suicide (it can - but usually doesn't), that abortion causes cancer, that abortion reduces fertility, that the fetus feels pain at any stage of development, and that reducing access to abortion decreases the actual number of abortions. Much as you are doing, many of them scratch their heads and wonder "where do these people come up with this stuff?"

If we could set aside the hyperbole - and focus on the conflict of rights and how to address that issue, we might actually get somewhere.

[QuantaFille]

Nobody said it wasn't, Quanta. And it is also a "blob of tissue." Look - if you cannot tell what a thing is, then "a blob of X" is not an inappropriate descriptor.

And, at this point, I think we have spent far too much ink of what I consider to be a relatively minor issue. How someone describes a fetus/embryo is not exactly the most pressing issue confronting us. It is essentially an indicator of just how polarized this issue is when we have to bicker over this kind of nomenclature. If you don't want to say, "blob of tissue" then don't say it. If someone else says it, then so be it.

I'm moving on. Last word (on the "blob of tissue" issue) to you and others here.

Just because you haven't studied embryo development and therefore don't see how complex a system an embryo is, doesn't mean that "blob of tissue" is accurate. You calling it that means that you don't understand what you're looking at, a misunderstanding I attempted to clear up but you seem rather unwilling to consider.

[Cow Poke]

In my experience, few people want to even consider that they might be part of the problem...

Yeah, think about that yourself, eh?

Last word to you*!



*Carpein style

[QuantaFille]

Lacking a brain (at first) and any significant reasoning ability, it is hard to see how a fetus can have "intent."



Presumably, the person articulating this position is not familiar with the birth process.



Part of...there is some argument for that. They are clearly inextricably linked for a significant part of the development cycle. If a comparison were to be made, "parasite" would be a better descriptor than "organ." And note that not all parasites are harmful, so I am not using the term pejoratively. But it is the inextricable relationship between woman and child that creates the legal conundrum. The problem the two sides have, IMO, is that each focuses on the rights of one with little/no thought given to the rights of the other. Only when one accepts and respects the rights of BOTH does the problem become clear - and the need to find a way to avoid the conundrum become obvious.



Anyone sufficiently emotionally involved with the argument will come up with all sorts of stuff. The pro-life side continues to site debunked claims that abortion leads to depression and suicide (it can - but usually doesn't), that abortion causes cancer, that abortion reduces fertility, that the fetus feels pain at any stage of development, and that reducing access to abortion decreases the actual number of abortions. Much as you are doing, many of them scratch their heads and wonder "where do these people come up with this stuff?"

If we could set aside the hyperbole - and focus on the conflict of rights and how to address that issue, we might actually get somewhere.

A lot of the problem is that the pro-choice crowd consider only the rights of the woman, and not her responsibilities. The pro-life crowd want to consider the rights of both the woman and the child, while simultaneously recognising that a woman has responsibilities toward the child, i.e. that she has the right to not raise a child she does not want, and has the responsibility of leaving the child with people who will place him or her in a loving home instead of allowing the child to be killed. Whether she gives birth or has an abortion, either way she is not left with a child she doesn't want, so why not go with the option that involves less death? The outcome is the same and her right to not keep the child is respected. Women also have the right (and responsibility!) to not get pregnant in the first place if they can't/don't want to keep the child, but I've rarely (if ever) heard the pro-choice crowd even mention that one. They talk as if pregnancy is always a spontaneous thing that can't be avoided.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that the talk from the pro-choice crowd regarding pro-lifers not respecting women's rights is pure slander.

[Cow Poke]

A person can work in soup kitchens all day, and then go out and participate in a mob and trash the local businesses in the evening.

I think you're like the guy in the bar who won't fight, but is constantly egging others on ... "hey, did you hear what he said about your momma?"

Carpe - you REALLY think that somebody who works in a soup kitchen all day is going to go out and trash local businesses in the evening???? Did you actually think before you typed?

So, I volunteer and support a pregnancy center, but in the evening I go bomb abortion clinics, right?

You gripe about "the war", and pretend to be Switzerland, but you really seem to enjoy the battle --- and with great verbosity.

Last word to you.

[Christianbookworm]

If the human fetus/embryo is human and all living human organisms are persons, then the human fetus/embryo is a person. Should persons be killed for being inconvenient?

[Sparko]

The entire reason for using a term like "blob of tissue" is to dehumanize the fetus. It is no different than calling blacks "niggers" or Mexicans "wetbacks" or Muslims "ragheads" - it is what people do to dehumanize a group they don't like for some reason or want to feel guiltless about killing. Humans are good at dehumanizing people they don't like. If "it" isn't a person then you can do or say what you want without guilt.

[Cow Poke]

A lot of the problem is that the pro-choice crowd consider only the rights of the woman, and not her responsibilities. The pro-life crowd want to consider the rights of both the woman and the child, while simultaneously recognising that a woman has responsibilities toward the child, i.e. that she has the right to not raise a child she does not want, and has the responsibility of leaving the child with people who will place him or her in a loving home instead of allowing the child to be killed. Whether she gives birth or has an abortion, either way she is not left with a child she doesn't want, so why not go with the option that involves less death? The outcome is the same and her right to not keep the child is respected. Women also have the right (and responsibility!) to not get pregnant in the first place if they can't/don't want to keep the child, but I've rarely (if ever) heard the pro-choice crowd even mention that one. They talk as if pregnancy is always a spontaneous thing that can't be avoided.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that the talk from the pro-choice crowd regarding pro-lifers not respecting women's rights is pure slander.

Not only do we (the pro-life crowd) want the rights of BOTH parties (mother and child) considered, but another way we get slandered is by accusations that all we care about is stopping abortion, and we don't give a !%^!^! about the woman after that. Every pregnancy center I know of is all about free healthcare for the woman, prenatal care for the child, and assistance AFTER birth. I'll have to hunt it down again, but there was a claim from the pro-abortion crowd that they care, too, and their "clients" don't always end up aborting - that they often make referrals for adoption. I think the person who made that claim had to admit there were only 2 such cases in the previous 7 years.

The woman who carries the baby to term is inconvenienced for 9 months.
The baby that is terminated is dead forever*.
The woman who has the abortion is often tortured for life by her own conscience.
My wife and I have personally counseled 13 women in the last 3 years who were suffering emotionally from having aborted.
(two of those women now volunteer in the pregnancy center, and are eager to share their stories)

*then there's the sick pro-abortion crowd who says things like "you should be happy those babies are aborted, because they all get to go to Heaven!"