Gagging pro-lifers in New York City
You can stand in front of a church yelling “Mormon scum,” but if you pray in front of a taxpayer-subsidized abortion clinic, watch out.
Emily L. e-mails:
I thought you might find this interesting. NYC is considering legislation to create a 15 foot buffer zone between abortion protestors and the clinics. The legislation would also enable the clinics to press harrassment charges against protestors, even if the patients don’t wish to pursue charges. This is one opinion piece about the proposal: link.
Even more interesting was the flurry of Letters to the Editor sent to the Daily News today. This is from Planned Parenthood:
Free choice protected
Manhattan: Let’s not confuse freedom of speech with blanket permission to harass, stalk, intimidate and verbally abuse. The Council’s Clinic Access Bill is an important piece of legislation that would not only protect health care centers’ rig ht to operate, but ensure the physical and emotional safety of all who walk through our doors. As one of the leading providers of reproductive health care in New York City, we see the daily impact of anti-abortion extremists blocking our clients’ and staff’s path.
Joan Malin, Planned Parenthood of N.Y.C.Perhaps the various businesses, restaurants, and churches in California could borrow the wording found in the NYC proposed legislation and use it to stop the Anti Proposition 8 terrorists who are using such violent tactics to get their point across. Surely no liberal would have a problem with this measure being used to protect the conservative members of our society as well as those who wish to exercise their right to choose? The people who contributed to the passing of Proposition 8 were also exercising their rights, after all.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Health Care Centers « Popgun’s World
- Pursuing Holiness
- JABbering Stooge :: The Force(TM) is not strong with this one :: November :: 2008
- Leaning Straight Up
- Double Standards « The Pugnacious Irishman
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftDoug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» OGreen Room
» Times Slimes Obamic Climes
Ah, yes, the old civil rights claim. Sorry, lgm, but Prop 8 had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. California already had a civil unions law, which gives anyone who doesn’t believe in marriage the way the rest of the world has for centuries the rights they need. If it was a civil rights, do you think the 70% of African Americans who voted for Prop 8 would have done so? I don’t think so.
And why does encouaging members to vote for an issue that is crucial to our society open them up to such displays of hate? I know that’s perfectly acceptble for
peopleliberals like you to whine and cry when people don’t agree with you, but why do they have fewer civil rights (the correct use of the term, by the way) just because they stood up for what they believe in?Does it strike anyone else as Orwellian that PP describes itself as such when its principal line of business is preventing reproduction?
Soap:
I was thinking more about competing nations overseas. It’s a moot point though. The ultra pro-life objection isn’t about failed science as I will attempt to demonstrate:
The extreme pro-life position that a fertilized egg is every bit a human being and worthy of equal protection under the law has several consequences. Those consequences are the following:
1) ESCR is tantamount to murder. Not just “failed science,” murder and scientists deserved to be imprisoned in the same fashion as a brutal child killer.
2) Culling during IVF is also murder, same things apply.
3) IUD, likewise.
4) Abortion, even in the case of rape; likewise.
It is these extreme positions where the ultra pro-life loses the main stream. As I said, I think even sensible pro-lifers can see the wisdom of my argument.
I don’t recall ever using those words to describe you. Please be fair here. I am trying my best.
I always love this lame excuse. So tell me, why should the baby pay the price with its life just because of the way it was conceived? Is there any more medical harm done to the mother in carrying a child conceived by rape than carrying a baby conceived by just having sex without proper birth control?
Nothing extreme in any of those posititions, except for the fact that you disagree with them.
ESCR was tried and produced no results, while ASCR has produced excellent results. So the money went to ASCR. But that was not good enough for the Liberals, because their precious abortion could not be furthered by testing on Adult Stem Cells. So they push a failed research to kill more babies and to demonize the Right.
Pathetic.
Oregon:
I have stated several times now I am merely making a realpolitik observation of fact. You can disagree with me, but I am not going to be goaded into (yet another) debate on this topic as emotions run awfully high.
StanW:
Are scientists that carry out ESCR on the same moral plane as Josef Mengele?
On November 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, zeroangel said:
Making exceptions in the case of rape and for embryonic stem cell research is compromise and gives the opposite side ammunition to say that those who hold these beliefs are extremists and not to be taken seriously.
I am not an extremist, I am an absolutist. Life is worth protecting, regardless of its origin.
OC:
Similiar question. Is a woman that gets an abortion or a doctor that performs one on the same moral plane as a woman that drowns her newborn in a tub?
In fact, ALCON, to include Jvette.
If a fertilized egg is a full and complete human being. Is killing that egg the same thing as killing a newborn?
zero,
I use that tag for myself. Just letting you know you would not understand who I really am.
HAHAAAHAHHAHAAAA you can say that after this:
Cut me a break.
Soap:
Ah so, then you agree with me? A fertilized egg is not fully human?
OK, fine, look at this this way. I fail to see where not being able to abort a baby in the case of rape is a consequence. Aborting the baby just because of the way it was conceived is more of a consequence for the baby, wouldn’t you agree? At least the mother isn’t at risk for losing her life.
OC:
I was trying to make the point that abortion is not the same thing as murdering a newborn. Likewise with ESCR, IUD, and IVF. There are some in the pro-life movement that disagree. Are you one of those people?
The term ‘Pro-Choice’ is an anomaly. If they were truly pro-choice they would also offer women the choice of carrying the baby to term and offer adoption resources too. It would be interesting to see if that option was offered in these abortion clinics[yes, I call it by it's true name], what the statistics of women choosing abortion would be. In the interests of being inclusive, it would perhaps be a good idea for pro-lifers to offer to fund such services right there in the abortion clinics. But then, we all know how inclusive and tolerant the abortion crowd are.
Zero,
Funny you would come to that conclusion.
Like I said, you will never understand me nor even try.
flmom:
I think that sounds just fine.
zeroangel, I consider myself very conservative and I DO see your points. On the rape issue, in particular. One of my girlfriends dealt with a pregancy as a result of a rape. It’s such a complex issue and was so incredibly traumatizing on many levels, I do feel this option should be left open.
You and Omu have the same thing in common. You both debate like children.
Soap:
I wasn’t concluding. I was asking. It ties directly into my point about realpolitik. I am not sure why you are unwilling to answer.
If I thought a fertilized egg = a human life I would be all for imprisoning scientists, doctors, and yes, even the woman in question, after all, we send mothers that murder their newborns to jail.
Obviously, I think the debate is a bit more nuanced.
Redpeach:
Thank you.
StanW:
Back to name calling? Why not just call me a pissy little girl again?
Redpeach:
I hope your friend is doing well btw. That is horrible. A person close to me was once raped.
It would be very interesting. I can tell you that, according to the crisis pregnancy center being built in my city, nearly 90% of women who see an ultrasound of their child choose life and 100% of men who see an ultrasound of their child change their minds about abortion (although they have no power to stop it.)
An accurate description of your lack of debating skill is hardly name-calling.
And as far as you being a pissy little girl? Well, if the patent-leather shoe fits!
I’ve also always thought the question that needs to be settled is “when is it a person”. If you’re not talking about a person then you can do what you like, same as with wisdom teeth or an appendix. If what we’re talking about is a person though then rape, incest, “mental health” issues and such are all irrelevant. If it’s a person you can’t kill it.
Personally I think once there’s a functioning central nervous system it’s a human being.
Zero,
Sperm – living
egg – living
Human sperm + human egg = human.
As for punishment, you do not believe in god anyway so that is moot. I, on the other hand, will stand before my Creator and say, “They are babies” and never bat an eye. If I were an abortionist, I am sure I would have a hard time standing before the Creator of life and say, “It was never fully human.” I can also say 8 out of 8 of those girls deserve to live even though 7 their mothers were raped. I can put my arms around them, hug them and tell them they are loved and not punishments.
If that is not clear enough, see post #115.
On November 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm, Jvette said:
And it’s not just leftwing liberals who
try to silence those who speak the truth.
Athiest Conservatives do it, too.
AthiestAtheist.Soap:
Whether or not I believe in god has no bearing on what I think the legal system should or should not do.
Honestly, I think its a fair question and deserves a fair answer (just like James Felix did above).
So then, you think killing a fertilized egg is equal to murder? If you do not want to answer that question, I understand why.
Yes.
Life begins when your unique DNA begins… at conception.
The egg and sperm do not divide and multiply until…conception.
Not every in-utero fertilized egg makes it to a full-term delivery, but most do, unless deliberately terminated.
In-vitro fertilization does not change the ethics of the issue.
Ever heard of “snowflake” babies?
ITookTheRedPill:
Thank you for an honest answer.
Yes, I have, and I understand your point of view. Based on your belief system though, would you say that a mother that aborts her child is on the same moral plane as one that drowns it in a bathtub after its birth?
Zero,
If it were up to me, Roe v Wade would be history. It is not up to me and what I think is legal is of no bearing. I think this whole deal started with a small compromise. It used to be life – human life. God knew us as we were being knitted in the womb. That is good enough for me. Then men, in order to ease their conscience dumbed life down to; “Not fully human”, “clump of cells”, “Has not taken a breath” (my personal favorite heard on this blog), “Not a baby until you take it home from the hospital” (Barbara Boxer)… My position is easy. It is human. Your position changes at ever whim to satisfy whatever happens to be the catch phrase de jour.
I will leave the earthly punishment up to you as I am not going to judge (which is what I believe) but you leave the eternal punishment up to the Creator. Personally, I would rather be on the side of the Creator.
Soap:
I can’t share your ambivalence about earthly punishment of people that kill children. I think those people should be dealt with on Earth. That said; the question is still a valid one in my mind.
Zero,
Fair enough. The system has made its decision and there is little I can do about it. YOU want me to say all abortionists should be jailed. I would not be surprised to find out they were at one time.
We are here but a flicker. You want me to say, “Punish them now.” I am concerned with their souls. I think I actually care more about them then you.
Well, I remember back in the very early 70s he was Al Sleet, The Hippy-Dippy Weatherman,…with all the hippy-dippy weather, man.
And, the forecast for tonight, was… dark.
At the time, that was somewhat funny.
Also, he was the sportscaster, who gave the baseball scores…scores alone, that is; no teams, such as:
5-4, 2-2, 7-3, 4-2; and a partial, after 5 innings…3.
This also was somewhat funny at that time.
Aside from these two examples from >35 years ago, you’re right!
Soap:
I don’t so much want you to say “punish them now” as just say something. Either they are child killers, or they are somehow slightly less than child killers. In any case, as to whether or not I am more or less concerned about their immortal souls is a moot point in my mind for obvious reasons.
I certainly do not think that women that have abortions should be sent to prison. Nor should the doctor that performed it, nor should scientists that conduct ESCR. Despite the fact that my individual vote will have little effect, I am still confident enough to state my opinion on the matter.
I think the point that Zero is trying to make is that by declaring a fertilized egg to be a human being you pretty much have to say you want women who use an IUD put in jail. Using your formultion they have unjustly ended a human life, just the same as if they had strangled an infant or shoved an adult out the window.
If you aren’t in favor of punishing them then you’re either A) assigning different values to different stages of life, which is exactly what the pro-choice lobby does or B) advocating that murder be legal.
Please note that I’m making no judgements about you or about the validity of your position. I’m merely examining the logical consequences of your stated belief.
James Felix:
Thank you; much more eloquently stated than I could have. Perhaps I should simply defer to you on this topic as I am trying desperately to avoid the debate itself and just focus on this issue of realpolitik.
…and how many times do you want me to say it is human? Now, to satisfy you I have to say everybody goes to jail? Nope. Like I said, I am not in that position. I do not decide how much tax we are supposed to pay. I prefer none (as I am sure you do too). If I choose that route, there are consequences (here on earth and later during judgment).
Personally, we all fall short and are guilty. Our system makes no account for such guilt but our Creator does. For me, I could not be an abortionist as I believe it to be murder. Others have no problem taking the same life I hold sacred. It may be “legal” but when faced with eternity, the abortionist will be found lacking. I will call it a baby every time I am asked. I will pray for those who take the life of these babies. Again, I still see that I care more (for the babies and the “killers”). Alas, I said it in post #115 and it still holds true.
Felix,
No, I do not want to put anybody in jail. I am not here to change the law – nor can I. I speak for myself. It is human. I could not kill it. Others have no problem with calling it what they need to call it in order to avoid calling it murder. Eternity is a long time to be wrong about this matter.
Soap:
I wouldn’t say NO TAX. I support and understand the need for things like Police, Military, infrastructure, limited welfare, and a whole host of other important government functions.
In any case; this horse is dead. Have a nice day.
It could be reasoned that if it were legally defined that a fertilized egg was a human being, IUDs would no longer be manufactured or legal, so this might be a false crisis, although I understand the point that is being made.
Still, it seems a little bit illogical to argue about a consequence of one side as a means of justification for a position. Conversely, someone could also paint a picture of what a million aborted babies might have to say on the subject were they alive today. Would they also find the distinction of IUDs versus clinical abortions significant?
The assumption here, I believe, is that most pro-life supporters are not anti-IUD enough and therefore damage their credibility by not staging protests against IUDs. That’s a big assumption, I think. Right now they are focused on abortion as a medical practice. I bet that if they were to win on that front, they would then turn their attention to other forms.
Plus, there’s something to be said for the fact that most people do not understand how IUDs work. I, admittedly, thought they worked more to prevent conception rather than implantation until recently.
True, but I’m sure it won’t be the last time it resurrects itself in these parts.
The horse is a bit of a zombie.
Zero –
If your mother had you aborted at 6 weeks, would you exist? She could have had another child carryed it to term and it wouldn’t have been you.
Each person is an individual from fertilization. Ending a pregnancy in the womb, ends the life of a distinct individual.
If a person kills another after planning and for the sake of convenience or profit, it is murder. Many women are sold a bill of goods that they are not carrying individual humans in their wombs and that aborting them not ending an individual life. The lack of understanding, on the part of the mothers, may mitigate their guilt and definitely fuels the abortion industry. Abortionists fully know they are killing individual humans, so in my mind they are serial killers.
Before the civil war, many folks, including the esteemed Supreme Court, thought slaves were not persons and didn’t have rights. The abolitionist who opposed the mainstream were hounded just like the pro-lifers are now. Thank God some people are willing to stand up for those who have no voice. Enslaving or killing others for the sake of convenience or profit is immoral.
Slavery was once fine in this society, but it isn’t anymore. That institution and practice was deemed immoral and not tolerated anymore. I want abortion to go the way of slavery because I believe firmly in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals — no matter what they look like, their age, intelligence or how convenient they are.
Zero,
Yup, because taxes have not been abused either. Dead is dead is it not (horse and all).
AMEN
First of all, that wasn’t polite at all. You levied false charges (lied) about the actions of those who go there to try and save the baby by saving the mother from making the worst decision in her life.
Second of all, the right to life (as written about in our Declaration of Independence) IS a “BFD” (as you say).
Third… and what if the “clinic” is only 10′ from the street? Isn’t that an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech?
Just an observation here… But it seems that most liberals try to make their lies and nastiness more palatable by saying idiotic things like “I’ll try say this as politely as possible”. Judging by your statement and the words you used after it, you must not be a very nice person.
schmanz:
I answered this question before in another thread. My personal feeling is that what later became “me” at six weeks wasn’t “me.”
*I* did not develop until some time later; certainly sometime after the growth of a CNS. Before that time, the embryo was no more “me” than one of my skin cells constitutes a clone or identical twin of me (something that is fast becoming possible).
Fortunately for “me,” my mother allowed what became me to grow.
If that didn’t happen *I* don’t think she should have gone to jail.
In any case, my point was really about realpolitik, James, Salt and redpeach understand me and I am glad I got my point across to at least three people.
dominigan:
Forgive me for butting in, but it that case they can walk 10’ from the entrance and then several steps down the street so that they are diagonal from the clinic at a distance of 15’. *smile*
Zero,
I got your point. I just did not agree and said you would not understand me. Remember?
4
Zero –
I do get you. You are talking about abortion in terms of a political game, and I am talking about it in terms of life & death. It is a lot more fun being Ceasar observing a gladitor match then being a combatant the ring.
Academic musings are so amusing….
We can’t have a conversation – I guess.
schmanz:
Ahh, good OK, make that at least 4 people.
We can certainly have a conversation about this. I do think it’s a serious topic.
James Felix said it best in #135. You are either A), B), or you come up with a C), though I really don’t think there is a C) except maybe as a clarification of A) or B).
That is, of course, if you aren’t in favor of punishing. My guess is you are.
Thanks zeroangel, she has come to terms with it. It was a long time ago and we rarely speak of it now…she was only 16 when it happened. Her parents were divided on what they thought she should do as far as having an abortion, and she later had to face her rapist in court. It was just a horrible situation all around.
Angel –
I am glad you see this as a serious issue. I’m a bit limited on the time I can commit now to this thread but didn’t want to leave the conversation hanging.
I see a parallel between abortion and suicide. Both being a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Neither should be promoted by society and neither can be completely controlled either. Suicide is seen a a grave sin by most religions and an extremely sad event by most persons of goodwill. We don’t want to encourage either action, society intervenes on the side of life.
Attempted suicide is a crime, not because society seeks to punish the individual, but because it seeks to intervene in favor of life. Most often people who attempt suicide are counselled to help them with whatever situation has made them go to the length of trying to kill themselves. We do this because we value life and we see each life as important to society as a whole.
People who help others kill themselves, for money or convenience are not treated the same as the attempters themselves. Why? Because they are profiting from a harmful act, taking advantage of others’ weakness and crossing a line. While some states may have passed laws about assisted suicide, it is still deemed by society as scary and dangerous issue. The many issues around helping someone kill themselves is serious business; we generally don’t want people to profit from killing others.
This is the long way around of saying that as a society we either value life or we don’t. Advocating for the unborn outside of clinics; encouraging the mothers to see ultrasounds and receiving aid during crisis is what a caring society does. We should intervene for life because it is valuable.
Abortionists seek to limit protesters because they don’t want informed or counselled patients — they just want money. Pro-abortion folks want no limits on the procedure, much as good old Dr. Krevokian didn’t want limits on his actions.
I don’t want punishment for mothers who abort, I want a society that discourages the practice by outlawing the profit and offering compassion and help to individuals in crisis.
By the way, I really don’t understand your response about your pre-born state. What went into making you can’t be duplicated and wouldn’t be the same if anything had interfered with it. Your DNA was going to produce you, not Fred Flinstone or Barney Frank — just you or an identical sibling.
Finally, just so you know that I’m not some phoney just sitting here condemning others; I’m not. I am a woman who had a crisis pregnancy and walked in the shoes of many of these going into clinic. I’m thankful I had a bit of time, information and a little counseling at that time. My child is now 17 and a great member of society.
Woman gets windpipe from her own stem cells
To beat a dead horse (news from London BTW).
P.S. Look at the wording of the poll.
“What’s your take on stem cell research?” Avoid “Embryonic”.
My take. Adult cells work (but not a choice in that poll).
schmanz:
Unfortunately the time I have for this topic has come to an end. I will be brief.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with you. But then, I never wanted to delve into the debate in the first place as my point was mainly about realpolitik.
Corrrect, I still don’t think my mom should have gone to jail if she made the unfortunate choice (for “me”) to abort. Interestingly, ref. identical twins I certainly think there is more to me than my DNA, the sum of my memories and experiences for example.
Soap:
What is neglected in the article is the fact that adult stem cells can only be used for certain kinds of structures. The ability to (for example) re-grow an arm can only come from either ESCR or dedifferentiating adult cells, which basically makes them effectively embryonic stem cells. The objection to ESCR that it is “failed research” is a red herring.
I will leave it at this. Have a nice day.
Sorry I misread you. I actually think we do agree, just perhaps disagree that abortion is equal to murder or suicide.
Bravo! Great choice and thank god there was someone there to inform you. Your post is wonderful.
As a man who could not have children of his own, I will never understand why people cannot embrace life for what it is – a gift. I also have yet to run into a pro-abortion person who wished they had been aborted. If I had to guess, I would bet 100% of pro-abortion persons would choose life and, at the same time, 100% of the babies killed would choose life as well. Guess who chooses for the babies! That is the unbalanced problem, the pro-abortion person chooses in both instances. Also, I do not know why it is so important for some people to persist that I HAVE to feel the need to condemn others for what I believe to be a wrong decision. Conversely, there are plenty of people out there who would condemn you for making the “wrong” choice. I believe you chose well!
Wow – just wow. You said you did not know this area and then you come out and make a bold statement like that.
Have a nice day as well.
Outstanding post.
God bless both of you.
That’s the point.
It’s a “personal feeling”, not a demonstrable fact.
It is my belief that
Etc.
There.
Fixed that.
None of us knows for sure when we became “ourselves”.
That’s why, if we are honest, we preface statements about this topic with “I believe”.
And, if we really do not know absolutely, shouldn’t we err on the side of life, rather than on the side of convenience?
Oh, drat…there’s that problem of irreconcilably opposed worldviews again.
Dedifferentiating adult stem cells is not equivalent to embryonic stem cells. They may function like them, but the SOURCE matters. One comes from the same host that needs a cure, and the other comes from killing inconvenient humans.
After World War II, moral debates raged whether medical research obtained from Nazi eugenics experiments should be used. The same can be said for embryonic stem cells… except that the experiments haven’t ended… and some groups are even pushing for extended money for even more research…
…barbaric
And ask yourself, why are people still pushing for embryonic stem cell research when a viable substitute in dedifferentiated adult stem cells exist? Because it justifies the flawed ideology of reducing humans to just clumps of meat, which is…
…truly barbaric
Soap / dominigan:
Alright, I am compelled to post one last time for the benefit of all.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stem-cells/CA00081
…and of course wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell
all after Potential method for new cell line derivation.
This was my point about differentiating adult cells.
I don’t make “bold” statements without any knowledge or reading of my own.
The current breakthroughs only avoid controversies de jure, not de facto. If a stem cell behaves like an embryonic stem cell there is no reason it should not also be considered a “life.”
The experts I defer to seem to agree that embryonic stem cell research is not worthless, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue.
granite:
If that’s your thoughts then fine, I just don’t see abandoning certain kinds of research as an “inconvenience.” So, let’s agree to disagree.
Since we’re discussing abortion, I should also mention that my 2nd daughter was a premie. She came in at 2 lbs 1 1/4 oz. Life was hard for us. I was working full time and going to college full time. My wife worked retail full time. We lived with my parents, 45 minutes away from school and the hospital. Most weekdays I got less than 4 hours of sleep. Work… school… go to NICU… drive… sleep for a few… repeat.
She is now 18 and a senior that we homeschool. Her plans are to go into law enforcement, specifically she wants to train police dogs and work for the ASPCA.
I state all this because for 2 1/2 months of her life, the only difference between many abortion victims and herself was that she was on the outside, not the inside. Think about that deep and long…
dominigan:
Then I should state I am against late-term abortions. In fact anything after the 1st trimester is incredibly questionable in my mind.
And does this blastocyst have DNA? Does it change over time?
Riddle me this…
What is the difference between blastocyst, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult and senior?
Answer: Age.
Yes, they are the same. Bascially, the unborn are different from the newborn in four different ways:
Size or Physical Appearance – the unborn doesn’t look like a person.
Level of Development -the unborn doesn’t have the same abilities as real persons
Environment – the unborn isn’t located in the right place as real persons.
Degree of Dependency – the unborn is too physically dependent on others to be a person; he is not viable and can’t survive outside the womb.
Do any of these differences disqualify them as a person? They shouldn’t. You wouldn’t say a person already born should not be allowed to live because they are too small, less developed, in a different location, or more dependent on others, would you? Why should it be any different for the unborn?
Yes, they are the same. Bascially, the unborn are different from the newborn in four different ways:
Size or Physical Appearance – the unborn doesn’t look like a person.
Level of Development -the unborn doesn’t have the same abilities as real persons
Environment – the unborn isn’t located in the right place as real persons.
Degree of Dependency – the unborn is too physically dependent on others to be a person; he is not viable and can’t survive outside the womb.
Do any of these differences disqualify them as a person? They shouldn’t. You wouldn’t say a person already born should not be allowed to live because they are too small, less developed, in a different location, or more dependent on others, would you? Why should it be any different for the unborn?
My point is made. If those of you that believe a fertilized egg is equal to a human life also think that IUD, culling during IVF, ESCR, various forms of altering adult stem cells, and (of course) abortion should be illegal and subject to the same punishments as murder then at least you are consistent.
This was my whole point about realpolitik from the beginning.
Thank you for stating this.
I was actually where you are until I became a Christian several years back, and a fellow believer challenged me. He made me look at it scientifically and follow my conclusions back.
In the end, I had to concede DNA identifies us as unique. It acts within the body as a library for cellular forces to build and repair the body. This library is replicated to every cell. It never changes from the day we are conceived, to the day we die.
The various medical terms used… blastocyst, fetus… those are just stages in development of a human being.
Like I said, I was in your place once also…
Hey zeroangel Have you found the courage to take the final jump off the cliff of humanism?
Don’t be scared. There is much to see if your brave enough.
I have no problem with anything done with adult stem cells. In fact, I look forward to getting the debate away from embryonic stem cell research… its just a drain on good research resources that could be used on adult stem cells.
Your welcome. Though I must admit, I was really only trying to make the point about realpolitik.
The unstated implication being that I will grow up and change my mind over time. Unfortunately, I could say the same thing to you. *smile* That said, I am happy to agree to disagree.
What about the idea that an adult stem cell manipulated to behave like an embryonic stem cell and possibly grow into a fetus? Why should such an adult stem cell not be considered a life as well?
An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell It can renew itself but it can’t form a unique human. A stem cell derived from an unborn child is only a part of the child.
FamilyMan:
Do we know for a fact that these cells, under certain conditions cannot grow into a fetus? I do not think that we do. I am searching for any relevant sources but its slow going.
Oh, come on. The meaning of FamilyMan’s statement is clear:
1) Embryonic stem cells have yielded no results.
2) Doctors have been able to create – with ADULT stem cells – the treatments they claim would come from embryonic stem cells.
He’s not implying – and neither is anyone else – that adult stem cells become a fetus.
That’s not the point, so don’t obfuscate.
…we’re drifting into cloning arguments now?
I found my answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluripotent
This begs the question, if they are brought into contact with, or are implanted in some way with extraembryonic tissue or a trophoblast, COULD they?
englishqueen:
It doesn’t really matter though, since the whole red herring that ESCR is worthless is simply not true, at least according to the Mayo Clinic (experts I am willing to defer to).
Salt:
Heh. I really need to get of this website.
*off
Scientific advancements becomes irrelevant because of the social need to protect all human life. All discoveries will need to be weighted in favor of protecting human life. The historical dangers of the state determining the arbitrary point between life and death on any level can not be denied. The moment of conception is the only non-arbitrary point in time.
FamilyMan:
I understand your position and you restate it awfully well. My position is that the entire question of “when life begins” and in addition “what life is worthy of protection” IS arbitrary.
This debate can easily lead into an animal rights debate (at the very least for chimpanzees). I am reluctant to go further though.
You all have made your case very well and for those that have remained civil and consistent, thank you. I actually learned something new about pluripotent cells today since I was compelled to read more into it. That alone has made this exchange worthwhile for me.
I am so shocked how society has slipped on this slope in the last thirty five years. I will not be surprized at all and I expect fully that the NOW gang and other like minded supporteres will insist on post birth abortions or deaths for the convienence of the mother. The reasons will be of course “choice” for the woman plus if the baby is not perfect or its the wrong sex then it would be easy to put the baby out in next weeks garbage can. I will not be surprized at all.
Sorry for posting two times in a row but those who say that abortion should be rare, safe, and legal should use the same terms about slavery. Wasn’t slavery legal in the USA once? After all didn’t the slave owner deserve the opportunity of having a choice in owning slaves? Lets be reasonable and and give these butchers a choice.
Double standard. Amazing!
So its okay for Gay Activists to shout, curse, assault, etc. in front of Churches, but the moment we protest in from of clinics… thats wrong. amazing.
Of course it’s hypocrisy… it’s liberals we’re talking about here
Although if any of these anti-prop 8 fools come into my church pulling a stunt like I heard about on Way of the Master Radio yesterday I will firmly plant my boot into them just before I escort them from the building. Being in the infantry previously has its advantages when providing security in your church
HEY alaska I was checking the web site of Way of the Master Radio and it says this country has had the honor of killing 44 million babies. That’s more humans murdered than by Stalin, Hitler or Po Pot combined. I’ve argued against abortion for years, but I had no idea the number was that high. The left must be so proud.
Did you see their math equation for how many square miles of 2′ by 3′ caskets side by side 44 million murdered babies would be? That’s one big graveyard…
You have got to be kidding. Tell me again what life is destroyed when using adult stem cells?
Enjoy the death cult, don’t you?
So is the child less dead?
To drive the point home further still:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3486000/Transplant-of-windpipe-grown-from-stem-cells-heralds-new-era-in-medicine.html
OC:
I am quite serious. Please refer to #176.
The fact is the definition of what is life is becoming quite blurred in the 21st century. Salt correctly observed I am speaking of cloning and just exactly what constitutes a human life. If you say: “it’s when the egg meets the sperm,” you will then have the problem of defining exactly what a nucleus transplanted from a skin cell into a gutted egg cell is. If it’s the point at which it starts dividing then you have the problem of defining what an embryonic stem cell dividing outside a trophoblast is as well as, the aforementioned dedifferentiated adult stem cell doing the same. If it’s the point that a dividing clump of cells will start to differentiate and eventually become a fetus then you have the problem of naturally occurring and naturally aborted fetuses with severe genetic deformities such that they could never grow into a “human.” On top of that you have things like this:
http://scienceline.org/2007/08/31/bio_anderson_chimera/
To take it a step even further, there is the issue of perhaps actual human-chimpanzee hybrids such that Stalin attempted to create. Rest assured, at some point in the future, some truly bizarre and unscrupulous individual could be successful at such a thing. What then? Do we grant these beings the status of “human?” Do they have a full human “soul” or just part of one? What about just plain old chimpanzees?
No one should be surprised that liberals are actually enemies of the Constitution and freedom in general. So there can be no “loyal opposition” to the Obama regime because it is opposed to the Constitution itself. There can only be resistence.
Oxy-Moron alert, (or just moron alert), double-speak engaged:
“leading providers of reproductive health care”: translation – we kill more babies than Toys R Us sells toys
“Planned Parenthood”: translation – we kill the baby so the parents don’t have to actually be parents