This is what abortion has led to
Posted by ycandrea 6 years, 2 months ago to Government
OK. I just vomited and I am still very shaken up when I heard that the governors of Virginia and New York want to kill babies after they are born in the name of abortion rights. I am really upset. I have always believed a baby is a human being with the right to live from the point of conception. Yes, a woman has a right to make choices about her body, but she does not have the right to kill another human being. She can give it up for adoption if she doesn’t want the baby. But now they can kill the child after it is born. Isn’t that murder? So, how do all of you who think it's OK to kill humans inside the womb think about killing them outside the womb feel? To me, there is no difference but some of you rationalize it. So did Ayn Rand. This is one issue I did not agree with her about and this is why. This is where your rights to abortion/murder have led. There should be a category for morality.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
A fetus is not a person. The concept of moral rights does not apply to a fetus, let alone the even more primitive earlier stages of pre-birth. The anti-abortionists misappropriating the concept of 'rights' as a floating abstrction to pre-birth also do not know how to justify the concept of rights for human beings, and gladly violate them for the women they abuse.
No one said that "humanity doesn't begin until one can understand the Oath", and it is false that "You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be 'not worthy'". His refusal to "countenance" such a "subjective judgment" -- as he sniffs from his phony high horse -- is a dishonest straw man.
The article doesn't "demonstrate" anyone else doing what he falsely accuses either. It misrepresents third trimester abortions as "infanticide". Worse than that are the anti-abortionists' reckless accusations of "murder" for abortions of even the earliest pre-embryo stages.
Abortion does not "lead to the debasement of humanity itself". Blarman's authoritarian theocracy demanding submission to his dogma as he denies and misrepresents evolution and dna science is worse than a debasement of humanity. It is nihilistic destruction.
"This equivocation between human cells and a human person is the stock pretense to "science" from the anti-abortionists. It is in fact a subjectivist, religious argument.
The concepts and principles of morality and the rights of man are objectively based on the nature and requirements of a human being, a person, who must use his mind to make choices in order to live, not the presence of dna regardless of anything else. Dropping that context and misappropriating "rights" as a floating abstraction is at best a logical error.
Human dna is required for a clump of cells or a zygote to eventually become a human being; it does not create "rights of cells" by itself. The dna in a zygote, and ultimately in the pre-birth process the fetus, determines characteristics of a potential person -- if and when it is born and becomes a human being. The "science of dna" certainly does not "affirm that the fetus is entirely an individual human being" -- any more than affirming that a single cell or a zygote is a human being -- and that science says nothing at all about requirements for morality and rights of human beings.
The notion of "human because it has human dna" is a typically religious argument subjectively pronouncing "rights" somehow intrinsic to biological humaness without regard to the source and meaning of rights as a moral concept pertaining to people, not cells. Religionists begin with faith in "rights" of human cells as a meaningless floating abstraction, subjectively decreed as somehow intrinsic to human cells, then in the name of science point to dna in the cells to rationalize their prior faith, as if we didn't already know that human zygotes don't become giraffes, and as if this mental processes had any connection to the objectivity and clarity of thinking required in real science. It's a phony, dishonest appeal to science to put over a subjectivist religious dogma.
Contrary to Blarman, an objective conceptual basis for the moral rights of people based on their nature does not lead to "infanticide" and no one with such an understanding has advocated that. The state bill pertaining to third trimester abortions doesn't either -- it's misrepresented that way by anti-abortionists who don't know the difference themselves. They are the ones ascribing their floating abstraction of "rights" to anything with dna "because they say so"."
No, sadly, it doesn't. It is still an argument not of absolutes (an objective argument), but of degrees (a subjective argument). Every single one of your arguments relies on the slippery slope fallacy of "until it can do this..." The qualifications for life itself are met: the cells reproduce in pursuit of their programming, they respirate, they can certainly react with their environment and those reactions get more and more complex as the fetus develops. The qualifications for it being human are met: the fetus has uniquely identifiable DNA pertaining to the genus and species of homo sapiens. Is a fetus a human life? Yes. It fulfills all the necessary criteria.
To argue that the protection and defense of its rights require some other requirement is arbitrary and capricious and leads to exactly the same kind of results pointed out in this article: a debasement of human life and a justification of its termination based on anything one wants to dream up. To me, this is an abhorrent abridgment of the fundamental Right to Life that must precede the expression of any other Right. Those who are not willing to stand up for the Right of Life are willing to trample on the other Rights as well through exactly the same slippery slope justifications whether that be choice of religion, choice of political affiliation, skin color, heritage, or just about anything else. That is the path which leads to destruction. It is your choice to walk it - or not. Farewell.
Marco-evolution is a thing and despite your religious scepticism of it, it doesn't change the nature of my argument. If you want to replace evolution with god, it still stands, the not-yet-living is not ready to survive on "god's" planned out earth. It is still being baked by god.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...
"My sperm as DNA, should I self-regulate my ejaculate?"
Sperm and Eggs have DNA, they just unzip and mix "half" of their codes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...
"The fetus gets this through the amniotic fluids and the food it receives from the mother."
Yes, as it is not ready to be a life that breaths and eats individually.
" Is a fish alive, even though it does not breath air?" Yes a fish is alive, when it left the egg it was the ready to live a fish life. It was not alive in the fish egg. "Aside from the extremely poor rationale here" I'll forgive your extremely poor rationale.
"You will admit however that being human is key and DNA is indicative of species."
Yes, being human is key, a fetus is not-yet-human. DNA is different for each species, fish breath oxygen from gills, humans breath oxygen from lungs, neither breath inside an egg, because the DNA is not done forming the life (not-yet-living).
"you justify terminating the lives of the autistic, those with Asperger's or Down's Syndrome, those with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, or any number of other conditions".
No, they are individuals with full inalienable rights to life (once they are born)
"You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be "not worthy"."
No, infants are individuals and there is no such thing as the "not worthy", not worthy according to whom?
Religion "leads to the debasement of humanity itself."
(Even the abortionists which are harvesting organs and body parts for research are doing so because they are researching human conditions - not animal ones. Thus even those performing the abortions know that they are dealing with human life. The parts would not be profitable otherwise.)
Not that any of this has anything to do with the legal argument, which is about rights, not "DNA."
Half true. Rights are dependent upon being human, however. DNA is a positive, scientific affirmation of genus and species which can - without any doubt whatsoever - identify a human being. What is more, DNA is unique to a single human being (even in the case of identical twins). Does that mean that all instances of human DNA can express all Rights uniformly? Of course not. But we aren't talking about the Right of Speech or Association. We're talking about the cardinal right to Life itself, without which no other Rights may be expressed. The expression of the Right to Life is continuance - a continuance that abortion abrogates in violation of that Right.
So many problems with this statement. First, there has been no proof of macro-evolution. The second, evolution is not one of the requirements for identifying life.
"My sperm as DNA, should I self-regulate my ejaculate?"
Incorrect. Both spermatozoa and unfertilized eggs contain only half the necessary DNA to be termed "life". Please review your biology.
"Evolution created the egg..."
Your science here is pretty rusty to say the least. Even my high school biology knows the difference between a fertilized egg/zygote and an unfertilized one. Your "science" leaves me shaking my head. There is also the unspoken chicken v egg conundrum inherent in this rather poor argument.
"A human life requires the ability to breath"
Life requires a method of respiration in order to collect the necessary oxygen for energy production (though there are certain bacteria which use a non-oxygen based respiration method). The fetus gets this through the amniotic fluids and the food it receives from the mother. It only takes its first breath outside the womb as it transitions to a less dependent state. That in no way detracts from a status as a living being, however. Is a fish alive, even though it does not breath air? Aside from the extremely poor rationale here, I will point out once again that you are making an argument of degrees (a slippery slope argument), which is precisely what leads to the legislation in the article.
"A human being is not just his DNA, that drops the context of being a rational animal."
I don't disagree. Are there any other rational animals than humans? I wasn't aware of any. You will admit however that being human is key and DNA is indicative of species.
"Are you aware of the Gulch Oath?"
Yes. But if you want to argue that humanity doesn't begin until one can understand the Oath, you justify terminating the lives of the autistic, those with Asperger's or Down's Syndrome, those with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, or any number of other conditions. You would also use that to justify not only the killing of infants, but pretty much anyone else you deem to be "not worthy". That is the definition of a subjective judgment and not one I'm going to countenance for precisely the reasons this article demonstrates. It leads to the debasement of humanity itself.
You can verify this simply through observation.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the legal argument, which is about rights, not "DNA."
An action that can cause disaster. So should there be a limit on free speech?
A good question.
Answer- With free speech you may shout FIRE anywhere,
but, a government with Objectivist principles would have legislation on these lines-
When you are in court you will face charges of Causing panic, Acting in a malicious manner so as to cause damage or injury, Resisting theatre staff who do have the right to remove you fast as others' rights are threatened by you. You may be sued for disruption, and for interfering with the obligations of management to perform a contract with patrons, etc.
Similar, driving a car, firing a rifle.
blarman- thanks for the question, it made me think, and I note the word theatre, I had to look it up, your usage is correct.
Duty is an injunction to do what you are told because it is your duty to obey an alleged higher authority, not a "boundary inherent" in rights -- as in the fallacies promoted here to destroy the right of abortion in the name of an arbitrary "duty" to bear a child.
It is immoral to pursue self-delusion, which is the opposite of rationality. "Reality" is not the duties you want to impose to prohibit personal moral choice.
Load more comments...