This is what abortion has led to
Posted by ycandrea 5 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.
If a life has help, it does not mean that that life itself magically ceases to exist. Not unless the above stops. Rand’s definition seems right.
But the real question should be about human life.
When someone chooses to have sex with someone else, they know the possible consequences. Birth control measures are so common now that no one can reasonably claim that they cannot adequately protect themselves from such consequences.
The availability of contraception does not negate anyone's rights. The consequences of not using it are the possibility of more complex means required for an abortion, not a duty to have a child.
The intrinsic notion of rights for anything genetically "human" also implies a duty to not use 'artificial' means of birth control, which is why the Catholic Church lobbied to make and keep it illegal, and still damns it as "sin" now that their impositions are unconstitutional.
Having a right to abort an early term fetus is not equivalent to killing a newborn child.
Jan
He is a delightful child. He is loved by all in his family. He has some special talents as well as some special needs. I suppose that is similar to the Democratic fools minus the special talents.
They have also noted in a separate study on newborns that SIDS prevalence dropped significantly in hospitals where those in the neonatal care units took the simple step of picking up and holding the babies from time to time. It is no surprise that many delivery units are now encouraging the infant to stay with the mother as much as possible.
I know mine sure do. My youngest son (seven months) won't go to sleep unless either my wife nurses him or I cuddle him on my shoulder.
I know mothers who gave birth to Down's babies and they would not give them up for the world.
The sick mindset of the left knows no limits to "know better" and interfere where they have absolutely no business to do so.
Will cheat, lie and encourage violence. To them The end justifies the means. To them The end surly must mean the death of reason , sanity and civility.
An East German communist was asked what did he think of the 10 million plus people murdered by Stalin in the name of communism?
He answered: "It was worth the price".
What can you do with monsters like this? Most of the time I see people bringing up ethics, moral and other values that are nonexistent for the left. We won't defeat them by moralizing.
That does not denigrate life, it distinguishes between human and non-human life. Human life as a "person" is required for rights. Not the presence of dna in a clump of cells and not the alleged presence of a mystic "soul". That vicious nonsense replacing the basis of rights with mysticism is worse than a "slippery slope", it openly leads to the denial of human rights, starting with the right of a woman to her own choices for her own body.
Distinguishing between human life as the basis of rights and "clumps of cells" is not a "moving line". It makes it possible to stop the "slaughter" and "start in with the gas chambers and ethnic cleansing" that Blarman disgustingly attributes to Ayn Rand and a rational standard for human rights as the source of its opposite.
That represents far more than "opinion", in contrast to your assertions as admitted opinion with nothing to base it on and which does not even attempt to address what Ayn Rand explained. You can "recognize" or not recognize whatever you want to. Rational readers seeking explanation can judge accordingly.
"It is the anti-abortionists, who have no defense of the mystical notion of intrinsic 'rights' of the unborn who lack knowledge."
You also do not dictate what is appropriate when I may respond to posts in a backlog I have not yet seen.
On abortion in particular:
"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
"To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable".
"The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished".
That was Ayn Rand's position. That it was her position is not my "opinion", it is what she wrote in opposing the alleged 'rights of the unborn' over many years.
Your "opinion" that she would agree with you despite her explicitly and emphatically saying the opposite is false.
Abortion did not "lead to live killings of babies". A fetus in not a "baby" and abortion laws cover the period up to birth, not "infanticide". The article you linked to is, in the contemporary phraseology, fake news. It was intended to get you upset and it succeeded.
What you publicly post here is subject to response. Don't be surprised when anti-Ayn Rand, anti-reason, anti-rights emotionalism is rejected for what it is.
Repeatedly dismissing everything you don't like as just "opinion", with complete disregard for the reasons given, while clinging to your own repetitive baseless opinion as immune from criticism because it is your opinion, advocated to be rammed down our throats through the force of law, is not appropriate on a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism.
“If a mother is in labor...the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother"
Anti-abortion fanatics are hysterically trying to smear that as "killing babies" just because a mother doesn't want it. That is not what he said. The article is dishonest.
The Clinton administration would claim "it's for the children" as they did when they authorized the murders by the FBI at Waco.
You mean perform the killing of the baby?
I was asking it facetiously.
Reminds me of a line from Animal House.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTF2j...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtm...
It made me think of the colosseum in Rome .
We have sunk to the level of "Panem et circenses" of the Roman empire, as gladiators were killing each other or wild animals led into the Coliseum during the "games", for the immense delight and satisfaction of the mob.
That is the point we are at now.
Will not take long to reach the end, similar to the Roman empire.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/...
And he had the morals to pose with a grin.
What is a requirement the ability to render a verdict that the US was not that great country. It is important to make the left happy.
PP is more than quite $$$ enthusiastically ready to go to that level., Bank on it.
To clarify my support for abortion. I believe abortion should be Legal, Discouraged, Stigmatized and RARE. I only support it being legal because it is better to have it legal and done by medical professionals than illegal and done as it was years ago on the DL. Many women died from badly preformed procedures.
With this said however I would support Post Birth Abortions for High Level Democrats and Liberals....I am joking before anyone gets bent out of shape.
A forced breach is dangerous for the mother, so I suspect these bills are designed to do away with the fantasy that this kind of "abortion" isn't infanticide, by allowing the abortionist to kill the child without criminal charges. I hope someone takes this through the federal court system as an attempt to legalize murder.
Don't play the conservative game of trying to conflate the two, in order to reduce half the population to the level of cattle.
If abortion is murder, then so is not giving to charity, or not donating blood, etc.
The mother, by looking after the child creates and accepts her part in a Contract to undertake that care.
This Contract cannot be dissolved until the child is old enough to understand and approve the ending of the Contract.
Is such a Contract made by a woman before birth? Only if the woman intended to give birth and be a mother.
Without Contract, there is no obligation nor duty.
A government using Objectivist principles has the job of enforcing Contracts.
What it shall not do is enforce the views of outsiders however emotional and enraged.
On a re-read, I think the word 'Deed' fits the situation better than 'Contract'.
A Deed is an statement of obligation by one party intended to be legally enforceable.
http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/me...
"A baby’s heart begins to develop early and begins beating just 22 days after conception. Between days 22 and 24, the heart begins to bend to the right and fold itself into a loop. By day 28, the tube has a general heart-shaped form with the structures of the chambers and blood vessels in place."
Reading the article, there are many stumbling blocks to define with certainty when does life begin?
THE SAME People who are AGAINST the death penalty, and FOR Giving our rights to EVERY Living person who wants to sneak into the border...
Are AGAINST the rights of a newborn...
I always joke that Abortion should be legalized until 12 mos after the kid graduates from college (In case they go full libtard). But I WAS JOKING!
In this way, the anti-abortionists have just put forward socialism, but are too confused to see it.
What are the life-long mental health consequences to a woman who has her own child killed? Nobody ever asks that question.
Here, I'll say it for you again, just because I can: "Honestly, I don't think that's a good reason for abortion, myself."
Now you just TRY taking my thoughts about right and wrong away from me and see what that gets you.
Fortunately, there are more places that do restrict abortion to something that is much more reasonable than VA and NY, and many of those are not likely to change.
Oh, and at least 1/3 of the words in your last comment are NOT words I used. Stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to think a woman has a perfect right to kill whatever baby she wants, but you don't seem to think it's okay for me to use the words I want to use without you adding to them.
Boy oh boy, it sure looks like you guys are having fun in here. Let's take a down a notch though gharknees. You can do better than this. Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct and let's clean it up.
RE: "At least I pay my dues. I see you don't." ( from here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... )
We don't do this here either. Take a breath. Attack the argument, not the man.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
Every politics implies and presupposes an ethics. It matters to our rights when dogma is promoted as false ethics. False ethics have bad consequences. It does not matter, in logic, that you defiantly don't want people challenging your baseless emotional assertions. The quotes around your words are your words. Your public assertions here are always subject to challenge, even as you insist that you don't care what those who reject you think, if only so that others can read the response.
A baby must be born to be a baby. Emotional outbursts do not convert contradictions into facts by shouting them in capital letters. Running around shouting that people are "murderers" is not rational.
Rage,hahahah!
Oh, and while you are at it, hey, get me thrown off. At least I pay my dues. I see you don't.
'Sez you sez me' everything is nothing but opinion "We have a right to ours" does not justify a right to impose brutal use of government force under criminal law to enforce religious beliefs, which is theocracy, not a civilized free society. Repetitive, bald assertion of stark "opinion" is neither rational discussion nor a basis for government coercion to barbarically force a woman to bear a child.
Ycandrea's arbitrary 12 week deadline was decreed in the arrogant assertion, "If the mother's life is in danger or if the circumstances are such the mother feels a desperation (rape, etc) but NOT after twelve weeks! If it takes one longer than that to make up one's mind, they need help". The arrogantly authoritarian Ycandrea does not decide for another woman why and by when she needs an abortion. As originally stated, "You don't decide by when a woman decides not to bear a child for any reason she wants, including the accumulating knowledge of normal or abnormal progression of the potential birth." The accumulating medical knowledge over time does not imply that a woman needs Ycandrea's version of "help". Most late term abortions are for reasons of health, not inability to "make up one's mind". Nor is any of it any of Ycandrea's business at all to impose arbitrary "opinion" with theocratic force.
The "same organism", which is functioning vastly differently in a different context after birth than before, is not a person before birth. The differences have been described several times. A refusal to think conceptually in terms of rights, persons, morality, barbaric mistreatment of a woman forced to bear a child, the meaning of biologically parasitic dependence, the differences between pre and post birth, and the meaning of the entire process, cannot in logic stare perceptually at 'here now same organism' and demand we reach an alleged conceptual conclusion of an entitlement of the unborn to be born.
The entire process of grand larceny through bulk stolen concepts employing deliberate context dropping as a strategy is thought divorced from concepts and reality, not a 'scientific' approach.
But that isn't where it stops. The same fallacy is typically expanded by anti-abortionists into a chain non sequitur to ague that they can't tell the difference from one infinitesimal moment to the next all the way back to conception so cells at conception must be a person with rights.
When an argument winds up in an absurdity it means in logic that something was wrong with the argument -- a reductio ad absurdum -- but the anti-abortionists demand that we accept the absurdity and throw out reality, including the women barbarically forced to bear children, sacrificed to the absurdity of clumps of cells at conception mystically imagined to be a person. It is argument devoid of concepts and reality, rationalizing verbal manipulations as if logic were the handmaiden for emotional dogma. It is not science and objectivity.
And you end with a word salad that speaks to none of the issues that I was talking about but those irrational anti-abortionists and barbarically forcing women to bear children, none of which I've mentioned.
Clearly you would rather argue with them than with me and that's fine. I've actually not expressed an opinion on abortion, just the nature of human development.
The "nature of human development" cannot be understood or discussed by appealing to 'here now same organism', without regard to concepts and context, in the name of science and objectivity. Nor is such a context-dropping assertion about the moments just before and just after birth a discussion of the "nature of human development" at all.
The dramatic difference between pre and post birth most certainly has already been discussed, both in this thread and previously. Also already discussed in this thread is the simple fact that before birth the fetus has developed the potential for the functionality it will begin to use after birth.
Understanding what a person is is a requirement for anything related to the topic of this thread, and cannot be banned as not "biological". It does not require technical biological concepts outside of general knowledge. And your "From conception on there is a continuity" does not mean that there is no difference between stages of development as if essential differences in attributes do not exist. It takes concepts to understand all of this, not staring at one event at a time out of context, ignoring the difference between functioning and its potential, then proclaiming from moment to moment: 'It's the same thing'.
To say nothing but "here now same organism" would be pointless by itself. To try to further conclude from that that it is "biologically identical before and after birth", in denying that a fetus is only a potential human being, is a non sequitur. The anti-conceptual, deliberately context-dropping perceptual argument of 'it's the same thing' has been refuted, not evaded as "tough going". In remaining on the anti-conceptual level of perceptual empiricism (as in Hume and the Positivists) you don't seem to know what you are missing.
The same nonsense just keeps getting regurgitated back at you, despite being thoroughly and repeatedly addressed.
Doctors consider third trimester premature births as deserving of preservation, so what are they? Is the ability to breathe oxygen what makes one human?
What do you suggest be done with a child that survives an abortion attempt? The mother has already made the decision that she doesn't want the baby, but by your own definition, it's now a breathing human being, and its death by instrument or dehydration is now murder. I'm just looking for consistency.
The ridiculous argument that the brain must be fully matured before being human only at the age of 25 is your own ridiculous argument. A person does not have to be mature to be a person and no one has said that.
Legally, once a child is born alive, the doctor involved risks charges of murder if the mother asks that the child be terminated. It is no longer a part of her body, but a human being with a right to life.
At what point does the right of a mother to demand the death of a child end? Abortion, by law, recognizes that right prior to birth, but to extend that right to end the life of a living, breathing human being beyond birth is stretching the legal bounds to breaking.
Neither is demanding "adoption" as a substitute for abortion. This has nothing to do with the excursions into "protecting identity" and "medical ancestry". There are many reasons why a woman may not want to bear a child, or not bear a child to put it up for adoption, or not want to put it up for adoption at all if it were to be born. None of those reasons are the proper concern of the anti-abortionists imposing their will on others in their barbaric forcing of women to bear children.
You are right to start with the known rights of women known to have them and why. The anti-abortionists do the exact opposite, with obsessive concern over "rights" of the unborn beginning with conception and no concern for the women. It started with church doctrine speculating about mystic souls and a contempt for human well being and happiness on earth. That has always been barbaric.
Doesn't it continue beyond birth?
"passively reacting to stimuli like a vacuum cleaner noises coming in from the outside as "soothing" is a very crude and low resolution "
I was not thinking of fetuses reacting to sounds but rather babies in their first three months. I'm saying newborns share traits with fetuses. Loud environments can wake up a one year old and can be disturbing to them. The same environment, maybe a loud restaurant, puts newborns to sleep.
Loud noise wakes you up, too, but that, or a loud boring TV program putting you to sleep, are not relevant to rights.
The fetus has some characteristics in common with persons -- it has to in order to develop in order to become a person, even though its development of organs, including the brain, is less mature and more limited in capacity. But it's functioning in a very limited environment, supported parasitically and blocked from the outside world, making human functioning like that of even an infant impossible, is essentially different.
We love to save the whales, bugs and anything other then Human babies......
https://mobile.twitter.com/Solmemes1/...
“Save a tree, kill a baby”
Vote Democrat 2020
Was that video sick or what?
Abortion is a moral right, because women have a right to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness (including living a life free of children). So when does the fetus gain that right to life? That's simple, when it is ready to live.
Objective laws ought to be about protecting individual rights, and the mother is an individual, the fetus inside her is not. How do we know when the fetus becomes an individual? It's simple, the fetus becomes an individual when it makes its first individual "decision". That is, the fetus becomes an individual when it acts on its own for the first time, when it escapes the egg.
Mammals have eggs, just like every other animal, but the mammal egg is soft and is carried in the mother. But it is still an egg.
Life is a self-propagating system, life begets life. Life is "a distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond, adapt, and reproduce".
The purpose of an egg is to create life, and the thing inside the egg is ready to be alive when the development of the genetic code is done forming the non-living into the living, which begins with the process of hatching or water breaking.
One of the most important parts about being alive is metabolism, and one of the most important parts of metabolism and being a living being on a planet is the ability to breath the air. The process of an egg is to prepare the soon-to-be living for the world it evolved within. This brings us to human fetuses and the late stage of evolution in the human egg.
"Humans, like all mammals, need to put the finishing touches on lung development before being born. It’s this final stage that researchers have discovered holds the key to when labour begins. Fetal Lung Development: While in the uterus, babies are not breathing air. They receive oxygen via placental blood. While the lungs begin to develop early in pregnancy, the process continues all the way through the pregnancy gestation. Around 24 – 28 weeks of pregnancy, your baby’s lungs begin to produce a substance called surfactant. This substance is made of six types of fats and four proteins, and is critical for your baby to be able to breathe outside the uterus. Surfactant is a soapy-like substance. It coats the inside of the lungs and keeps the air sacs (alveoli) open. The alveoli is where gas exchange in the lungs occurs – oxygen is taken up by the blood and carbon dioxide is released and then exhaled. Without enough surfactant, the alveoli collapse and are almost impossible to open again in normal situations. If the alveoli collapse, they can also stick together and tear. The last stage of lung development begins around 36 weeks of pregnancy, and it continues until your child is about 8 years old. This is called the aveolar phase, when the lungs form millions of alveoli. During this last stage of pregnancy, surfactant production increases as well, preparing the lungs for life outside the uterus. What Causes Labor To Start? During late pregnancy, the uterus has an increased number of immune cells (macrophages). Macrophages help fight lung infection by effectively sweeping up any viruses or bacteria that might be present. A protein found in lung surfactant actives the macrophages, which begin to migrate to the uterus wall. Once there, a chemical reaction takes place, stimulating an inflammatory response in the uterus that begins the process of labour. The surfactant protein is called surfactant protein A (SP-A). Babies begin producing SP-A at around 32 weeks and levels increase for the remainder of the pregnancy, until the lungs are mature enough to breathe outside the uterus." (https://www.bellybelly.com.au/b…/what...)
Therefore a fetus in an egg is not-yet-ready to be alive, until it makes the individual, independent, evolved "choice" to join the world alive. Until that point, it is not-yet-living, not an individual, and not-yet-human. It will choose when it is alive when the process of creating it is finished. Until then, it is the mother's autonomy that matters. After that, it has taken for itself the inalienable right to life, which cannot be taken away for any reason.
The forum is also supposed to be for those with an interest in Ayn Rand's ideas and rational discussion, not militant religious conservatives emotionally pushing their feelings and repeating the same rationalizations over and over, which is not a basis for discussion at all.
There are many conservatives here who have at least some sense of life attraction to Atlas Shrugged and enough respect for reason that they do discuss ideas (sometimes with good knowledge). But there are a few who keep repeating the same emotional dogmas and rationalizations without regard to prior refutations and explanations, and who emotionally 'downvote' rational discussion (especially ideas of Ayn Rand) contrary to their feelings, or do so emotionally and rotely as part of the 'crusade' without any attempt at response at all, 'downvoting' posts in bulk based on who writes them. They obviously don't belong here.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fetus
It has only been recent revisionism which has attempted to render to the fetus any kind of recognition other than that of a human being...
The valid concept of a fetus is not a "recent revisionism". Conservative appeals to anti-conceptual, unprincipled traditionalism are even more peculiar in the light of the lack of any mention in the founding of this country of alleged constitutional "rights" of the unborn.
DNA? Is it human? Yup. Is it distinct and unique from the mother (or father)? Yup. Is it in the process of developing into a horse? Nope. Starfish? Nope. Anything but a human? No. It is simply building enough mass so as to specialize and fulfill all the coding in that DNA - a process which requires time and nutrients (and a host environment).
Is the female body specially equipped to provide the perfect nurturing environment for a developing human being? Yes. And is that same environment found in the male body? No. Therefore the division of the sexes fulfills a very specific role inimical to the propagation of the species - which also originates in one's DNA. Also, due to the inordinate complexity of pregnancy, it also can not be argued to be anything short of a fulfillment of the mother's DNA as well, as she certainly doesn't spend her time willing the development of the new child.
This being the case, the science of DNA most assuredly affirms that the fetus is entirely an individual human being.
Your arguments above don't actually address the issue of whether or not the fetus is human, they simply point out the physical deficiencies present at various stages of development. That can be said about just about anyone at any time (just look at leftists ;) but it is hardly a scientific measure of humanity itself. If one only judges someone to be "human" who is perfectly formed with all their proper functions, we tread on very dangerous grounds - the very grounds which have led to the proposal of this law. Because those very same people who propose infanticide rely on the very same arguments being used here: that a human being isn't a human being until they say so.
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".
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."
(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.
That we all "started out that way" is not "evidence" to the contrary. It is only consistent with the fact that every person had to go through a complete, specific process, in accordance with his dna, during which he was only a potential person. There are no virgin births.
Blarman's "putting his hands" to "feel movement" is not an observation of a person. 'Looky feely human' in the imagery of his mind as he ignores concepts and essentials is not rational understanding. Neither is his subjective feeling that "there is no question in my mind that a human being is in there doing its best to grow and develop". We are not human beings with rights because we twitch when poked and have a heart beat and 10 little fingers. The kind of growth required is as a potential human being, not yet a human being, progressing by an automatic process, not "doing it's best". His emotional projections are not observation. Emotions are not tools of cognition.
His "waiting" for proof that a "fetus is not a human being" is a demand for an impossible proof of a negative with his emotions as a primary -- the same emotions that he invokes to savagely deny the rights of women without waiting for "proof" of anything.
He already has proof of the essential differences between a person and a fetus; the "proof" he pretends to wait for is the impossibility of ever overcoming his emotional commitment to faith, which is not subject to rational argument at all.
The rest of his rationalizations are evasive misuse of science as the handmaiden of his faith, which is why we see so much repetitive irrelevancy in his posts: Going on at length, over and over and over, about about "human dna" and "abortionists harvesting organs and body parts for research" because they are "human" is all the same irrelevant equivocation-in-bulk between the concept of a 'human person' versus 'cells with human dna'. Organs with human dna are not human persons either.
The dramatic pitch of his 'conclusion' leaps to the non-sequitur: "We are 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." That is nothing more than the same fallacy of arbitrarily claiming "rights" of the unborn to be born by entitlement. No, it isn't "about the Right of Speech or Association". It's far more bizarre: an alleged right to "Freedom of Assembly".
Evolution created the egg to allow for the automatic process of creating life. When the fetus becomes an individual it leaves the egg, ready to live.
A human life requires the ability to breath, a major requirement of life, a human can response to the environment and can adapt, two other major requires of life, a human can metabolize, an other major requirement of life. A fetus cannot breath (when it can the water breaks), a fetus cannot respond or adapt to change, and a fetus cannot metabolize without the mother (metaboling requires breathing). A fetus is not-yet-living, and is not-yet-human. When the evolutionary process of individual life creation is done, the fetus becomes a human and leaves the womb.
A human being is not just his DNA, that drops the context of being a rational animal.
Are you aware of the Gulch Oath?
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.
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.
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."
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.
Rational use of concepts is required for human life and protection of the rights of the individual. It is not "arbitrary and capricious" and does not lead to "a debasement of human life and a justification of its termination based on anything one wants to dream up", and it does not lead to "willing to trample on the other Rights" through "slippery slope justifications whether that be choice of religion, choice of political affiliation, skin color, heritage, or just about anything else."
Mysticism, subjectivism, and irrationalism have savagely done just that throughout history, including the barbaric forcing of women to bear children they do not want. That "is the path which leads to destruction" and that is the choice the militant "anti-abortionists have made "to walk".
Blarman's ugly gratuitous accusations in his pompous "fairwell" histrionics that reason leads to such barbarism are disgusting. They are right down there with his previous repetitive -- and preposterous -- pronouncements that the Soviet Union was "based on atheism".
"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 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 is not "just opinion". The facts have been given here and elsewhere repeatedly, with patient explanation.
There is no "science" that "backs up" the claim that anything in the pre-birth process is a human being, i.e., a person, "long before birth" -- The presence of dna, a "heartbeat", and twitching when poked are not the defining characteristics of the concept 'human being' and are not why we require a moral code and have rights. Nor has an any anti-abortionist tried to explain why anything with human dna has "rights" -- other than subjective appeals to a mystic soul.
All of those appeals in the name of science are fallacious rationalizations of a mystical floating abstraction of an alleged entitlement to be born and the barbaric practice of forcing women to bear children they do not want. There is nothing civilized or friendly about any of that.
Your posts clearly demonstrate you have no understanding of the Oath and are not an Objectivist, but a religious conservative who supports vast violations of individual rights.
You continue to simply ignore the points that have been calmly, clearly and repeatedly explained to you over several days, demonstrating how utterly wrong your position is end-to-end.
This is pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.
If Scott is a moderator, then it is posters like ewv and me that should be putting forward our complaints as we have been mass-downvoted by religious leftists that seem to have overrun what is meant to be an Objectivist blog/forum.
You may notice that despite Blarman's complaints about reasoned rejection of his anti-Ayn Rand posts, several bulk-downvoters were trashing every comment posted by new member Peter Smith for posting his understanding favoring Ayn Rand's positions.
And at least one of them continues to bulk-trash posts based on who writes them (which is not new from the militant religious conservatives), including rotely 'downvoting' my straightforward "Openly encouraging emotional personal attacks is not civil." https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... That was in response to ycandrea supporting Blarman's more personal attacks right after, in the name of being "civil and friendly", she supported his previous attacks. They act like they're running a ruthless crusade. They can't stop the discussion of their anti-abortion activism, but no one should have to waste time putting up with this on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum for reasoned discussion.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner...
"The infant would be kept comfortable" waiting to be killed.
Very reassuring.
How can someone (I understand he is a physician, so that explains the matter-of fact narrative) elaborate with such nonchalance about the killing of an infant, even if he/she has deformity or other issues.
Harking back to the Nazi laboratories where they were experimenting with human lives.
And the left is calling the GOP Nazi!
Conservative commentators have routinely dropped the context in their 'interpretation', edited it out of videos they show, and left it out of their quotes, replacing it with their own insinuations and worse, such Ex adding his own "waiting to be killed". They then use their own additions and imagery as an excuse to crank up the hysteria full bore with demagogic accusations of "nazis" and "murder" while misrepresenting and smearing the bill, the doctors and everyone else defending the right of a woman to not bear a child. That is what the article referenced at the top of this thread does, but it is only one example. It is all demagoguery intended to provoke hysteria against all abortions, employing a false imagery to smear abortions at all stages.
Such pronouncements underscore the anti-abortionist utter contempt and lack of concern for other people's individual values and rights in their own lives, specifically those of the women they regard as cattle.
That man-hating attitude seeking and demanding sacrifice of women to mystic "rights" of the unborn is right out of its origins in the Catholic Church and its later expressions as discussed in Ayn Rand's article "Of Living Death", already referred to in this thread https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post.... "Of Living Death" is "an extended analysis of the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, laying bare the vicious motives behind the Catholic Church’s views on sex, contraception and abortion." https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1968...
"So, from your perspective" a woman's life has no value to herself when you decide a fetus has intrinsic value superseding her own life, which supposed intrinsic value supposedly makes it more important for her to bear a child she does not want?
You did not address anything I wrote, so let us review it.
You now say that "abortion should be legal, and it is the right of the mother to decide". You don't say why. It contradicts your opposite ethical premises expressed here. The moral principles are the more fundamental and ultimately lead to a politics reflecting them.
That a woman does not want the burden of bearing a child for any reason at some or all points of her life is not subject to your "inclinations", sarcastic demeaning as "crimping a social life", or claims of an intrinsic value of a fetus over her own values for her own life. There is no moral duty for what you misrepresent as merely "extending kindness" under penalty of forced sterilization and your stated desire for it. Appealing to altruistic sacrifice with "sterilization" is not "kindness" and not a proper ethics for man or anything a free society can be based on.
That morality is the fundamental issue: The abortion controversy in the country is a "grim testament to its moral state", but it is the opposite of what you wrote. It is the topic of Ayn Rand's "Of Living Death" referred to previously https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1968...
She concluded that article:
"Such is the tragic futility of attempting to fight the existential consequences of a philosophical issue, without facing and challenging the philosophy that produced them.
"This issue is not confined to the Catholic church, and it is deeper than the problem of contraception; it is a moral crisis approaching a climax. The core of the issue is Western civilization's view of man and of his life. The essence of that view depends on the answer to two interrelated questions: Is man (man the individual) an end in himself?—and: Does man have the right to be happy on this earth? [emphasis added]
"Throughout its history, the West has been torn by a profound ambivalence on these questions: all of its achievements came from those periods when men acted as if the answer were 'Yes'—but, with exceedingly rare exceptions, their spokesmen, the philosophers, kept proclaiming a thunderous 'No' in countless forms.
"Neither an individual nor an entire civilization can exist indefinitely with an unresolved conflict of that kind. Our age is paying the penalty for it. And it is our age that will have to resolve it."
The first purpose of this forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and rational egoism is described https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about "We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their propagation by engaging in some inspired conversation." Those who participate on this forum should at least know what those ideas are and not use the forum to promote the opposite.
Society is not "blessing and celebrating an execution of the innocent". Abortion is not "execution" and a fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty: Moral concepts do not apply to it at all -- other than by religionists harboring the anti-concept of "original sin".
"Society" is not "celebrating" any of this, any more than an individual "celebrates" having an appendix removed. An abortion is a temporary setback required so one can move on and continue to live and pursue value. One may "celebrate" that aspect -- like celebrating the end of World War II -- which is why the passage of the NY law was commemorated.
"Society" is not "blessing" anything; "blessing" is a religious ritual.
There is no law "insuring butchers like Gosnell can't be held accountable" and there is no "party atmosphere" around it.
The VA state law under consideration, and the NY law now in effect, pertain to third trimester abortions, not infanticide. The NY law previously banned abortions after 6 months unless the woman's life was in danger; it now includes the woman's "health" in addition to her "life", which is what Ayn Rand supported 50 years ago, as discussed here on his forum: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Anti-abortion propagandists made the rest up, in part because they don't themselves know the difference between abortion and infanticide, and in part because they realize that others do know they are different, and want to incite hysteria with false claims of legalizing real infanticide falsely tied to abortion. Some anti-abortionists are hysterical over it because, lacking objectivity, they are gullible and believed it. They were gullible because they want to believe it as confirmation of their ideological and religious beliefs and speculations.
I guess we should ignore the cheering and clapping, and all the happy faces in the New York legislature with the passage of the law legalizing third trimester abortion. It sure looked like a celebration to me.
Gosnell benefited from a lack of interest in what was occurring in his abortion clinic. His abortions butchered children and mothers alike, resulting in the death of at least one woman, and serious injury to a number of others. With abortion now legal under any conditions, what would motivate New York law enforcement to carry out even the sloppy inspection protocol that allowed Gosnell to operate for so many years? When a woman pays to have her child aborted, how many abortionists will feel duty bound to make sure a surviving infant is terminated? Gosnell made sure any baby that took a breath was quickly finished off with a scissors to the brain, and he was operating in an environment that had some small risk of prosecution.
I do feel strongly that all forms of contraception should be readily available, to avoid a situation that can result in an abortion. I also feel that amniocentesis should be covered for any mother who wants it, so that developing infants with severe genetic disorders can be terminated early.
Euthanasia is a dangerous proposition, whether performed early or late in life. It creates societal approval for a disregard for human life. It fits in well for authoritarian rule, which can set standards for termination of the "unfit."
Abortion is not "terminating" people's lives, and the common practice of not taking extraordinary measures to keep the suffering, terminally ill alive is on behalf of the value of human life, not "disregard for human life", "terminating the unfit" and "authoritarian rule".
These repetitious conservative mantras trying to frighten people out of supporting abortion with hyperbole about "murder", "infanticide", "nazis", "euthanasia", "terminating the unfit", "authoritarian rule" and the rest of it are all hysterical nonsense.
He previously wrote, "When a society blesses and celebrates an execution of the innocent, it's a grim testament to its moral state", which premise is false and makes no sense at all. It is offensive. No one, let alone "society", is "blessing and celebrating" "execution" of anything, and the typical emotional appeals to "innocent" fetuses is a contradiction in terms now rationalized into a legal argument.
That is an offensively false and hysterical attempt to inculcate guilt, but more on that later because as it is too important to overlook. First look at the underlying cognitive dissonance underlying the false imagery.
There is no such thing as "by default legally innocent" for entities that cannot make choices. A fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty of anything; it does not have the ability to morally choose, let alone commit crimes or choose to -- or choose not to.
That lack of ability to make such choices does not make it "innocent by default". Concepts of morality, let alone crime, do not apply to a fetus. "Innocent fetus" is a stolen concept, ignoring and contradicting the facts and concepts on which the concept 'innocent' depends. There is no such thing as a "default" use of a concept that is inapplicable. The concept 'color' does not apply to sound, which does not have a "default color" either, nor is it "innocent by default" until proven guilty of "criminal intent". Appeal to such floating abstractions as "default innocence" of a fetus is only a default on the rational use of concepts.
A fetus' "intent under the law" is another stolen concept. A fetus cannot have either lawful or unlawful intent. There is no such thing as fetus being innocent under the law; it does not make choices and take actions under the law at all. There can no such things as "criminal intent" of a fetus, or its opposite. Law does not apply to actions by fetuses; law does not apply to fantasy. Yet the contradiction is exploited to rationalize conjuring a false imagery of an innocent victim unjustly "executed".
I did not say that these conceptual fallacies are "religion", but religion is a common instance and source of it. I wrote that "moral concepts do not apply to a [fetus] at all -- other than by religionists harboring the anti-concept of 'original sin'", the last as a qualification on the misuse of moral terms.
An anti-concept is an "artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept". The religious anti-concept 'original sin' -- being born guilty -- makes no more sense than "innocent fetus" that anti-abortionists invoke constantly in emotional appeals.
The factual basis of a proper morality, let alone law, is not religion, but invocations of the anti-concept 'original sin' is historically seen as an illogical concept of morality explicitly buried deep into religious doctrine for centuries, in contrast with run of the mill emotional stolen concepts like "innocent fetus". 'Original sin' and 'innocent fetus' are two sides of the same illogical coin.
Yet here we see the non applicable concept of "innocence" strained into the fantasy of alleged legal argument -- in a transparent attempt to pretend the contradictions of a false morality are merely a matter of law -- just as the anti-abortionists bizarrely invoke the "Constitution" for alleged "rights of the unborn".
None of it makes any sense. As Ellsworth Toohey said, "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes". We have examined it, but what is it intended to accomplish? The same game as the Catholic church for centuries instilling guilt into innocent people for not following an impossible anti-man dogma at the root of the anti-abortionists' barbaric demands on women to bear children they don't want. The impossibility of following such dogma, by a populace that believes in it, guarantees a populace with head bowed in perpetual guilt, ready to be manipulated and kept in permanent tortured sense of life on earth.
Such is the nature of the offensive attempts to impose guilt for the 'crime' of a woman choosing to live her own life with her own happiness as an end it itself, with the false guilt inculcated through the tortured logic of moral intimidation (all from Dr. Z): hysterical accusations of "execution" and "murder" of the "innocent" in a "party atmosphere" with "society" allegedly celebrating "butchers like Gosnell" -- sarcastic demeaning of a woman's life and values as nothing more than "crimping a social life" -- a desire for "sterilization" of women who don't submit -- and demanding altruistic sacrifice in the name of "kindness". Those who are attracted to at least the sense of life in Atlas Shrugged should know better than to accept that kind of thinking.
DrZ's "I guess we should ignore the cheering and clapping, and all the happy faces in the New York legislature with the passage of the law legalizing third trimester abortion" is non-responsive.
I don't speak for the general sense of life of Cuomo and NY Democrats, but celebrating a reform of some remnants of the abortion restrictions imposed by the Catholic church since the 19th century is a rational response. The essence of the reform is what Ayn Rand advocated in the 1960s https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Because they are Democrats and generally welfare statists, however, the reform was package-dealed with other provisions such as more requirements for insurance companies.
Gosnell has nothing to do with any of this. Ideologues constantly demagogue abortion with hysterical propaganda misrepresenting abortion as "Gosnell", "murder" and "infanticide".
Gosnel did not got away with actual murder and harm because of an alleged "lack of interest". Anti-abortionists are notorious for their "interest" in lobbying and controls, and in stalking, harassing and threatening doctors across the country to the point that state laws were needed to prohibit them from accosting patients and doctors.
Monitoring and controlling doctors, requiring them to limit their practice and act only under state intrusion and permission is a statist premise, along with the anarchist mob mentality. The possibility of some violation of a law is not an excuse to prevent legal and moral activity, including abortions.
It's not different to death-bed care for adults.
At no point did he suggest anything remotely relating to infanticide.
What this guy is proposing is indeed infanticide, but that's not what those of us who are pro-choice are advocating.
Conservatives are dishonestly trying to conflate infanticide with abortion, in order to ban the latter, even in the first trimester.
They are basically religious versions of democrats.
Don't buy into their game.
They were also shamefully supported by both the catholic and protestant churches for this reason and for being anti-homosexual.
Whether you think the state can force you to carry to term, or force you to have certain abortions, you're on the SAME side.
Those of us who support rights protecting government, oppose any government involvement in the matter.
I'm not against choice, I'm against trying to divest choice from consequence.
If that's what you think the matter is about, then why bring up abortion at all?
You are a religious leftist, that wants to regulate peoples sex lives.
Just be honest about it.
I assume people have their own opinion they have consciously developed and which is called "adulthood". You may not have heard of it.
As for "conservatives dishonestly trying to conflate infanticide with abortion" - no, they don't.
What Tran proposed and Northam spelled out with deadly accuracy only a former medical professional is able, is indeed infanticide. Check the details and don't buy into the propaganda of the left.
I know this isn't the mainstream view, but it's high time Objectivists start putting forward the proper political definitions, based on the fundamental issue of individualism vs collectivism.
It's like saying, "free markets lead to corruption."
It's nonsense.
There are no "unborn human beings."
Words have meaning and you are using them all incorrectly, with an agenda of reducing half the population to the level of cattle.
This makes Bernie Bro's seem reasonable by comparison.
That distinction has been explained many times and you continue to not acknowledge it. It is why the repeated assertions invoking the equivocation -- long after this has been discussed -- do not contribute to the discussion. It's not a matter of "Just because you say that does not make it so". This has all been explained, not just "said so".
Humans are not mindless cells, nor would opposition to abortion make any sense, if they were.
That's a contradiction.
Either this conversation is about the first sentence or the second one. It can't be both. Make up your mind.
But Northop did not "propose infanticide" of babies well after birth, which is not abortion and not what proponents of the right of abortion mean by it or advocate. The hysterical article linked at the top of this thread is not honest. "Infanticide" has been added as 'interpretation' by those who don't know the difference and want him to have said it as "proof" "confirming" their own confusion over abortion.
As you wrote, they want to ban all abortion (and often contraception), and constantly and dishonestly conflate it with "infanticide", "killing babies" and, at best, late term abortions they can emotionally demagogue through imagery as if it were "babies". Mark Levin shouts himself hoarse with this demagoguery all the time on his radio show.
As the latest in the pattern, the anti-abortion movement hysterically latched onto the recently released video of Northam, 'interpeting' it to mean real babies being "killed" to try to make their own confused slogans sound plausible to those with actual concern for human rights. The article cited by this thread does this with fabricated misrepresentations as to what he 'must have meant' because they can't imagine it meaning anything else. It's all picked up as it goes hysterically 'viral' -- including on this forum where people should know better -- and picks up more and more misrepresentation, like a snowball rolling downhill, parroted and expanded as truth as the shrieking hysteria grows.
Load more comments...