GOP: Female body has natural defense against pregnancy in case of legitimate rape

It certainly could be "one and the same." You and I both don't know for sure. Will you admit that?

I think that linking the doomed Jew to the doomed "blastula" is more realistic than linking the "blastula" to an acorn or a hen egg or tadpoles as we know the Jews are human and the blastula is at least on it's way to becoming human.

 

This little story is really getting distorted. Reading his remarks he draws distinctions to the circumstances of the potential pregnancies. The comparison seems to be in his daughter's pro-Life position and nothing else....

 

I am as sure as I am sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is no doubt for me. I think the difference between us is you rely on faith, I rely on reason alone. You are asking me to admit to believing in god, which I don't.

Potential does not equal reality. A man has the potential to become criminal, but it does not make him one.

A Jew and a blastula are the same? I find that insulting to the Jew. I would not want anyone to compare me to a tiny mass of cells that hardly could be seen with the naked eye. I am much more than that.

By attempting to equivocate here....all you are doing is bringing down a living breathing human being and reducing them to a small blob of cells.


You see, you think human life is precious why? What makes a human being so much more than any other living entity?

What separates us is that we are the only life on this planet that is capable of questioning our world and our very own existence. We are the only animal that knows that inevitably we are mortal. It is our minds.

By saying a blastula is human, you reduce us to animals. Because what makes a human blastula any different from a chicken or sea urchin blastula?

To say consciousness doesn't matter in defining human life is to reduce us to just animals and machines, which is what we are without it.


So no, you are the one denigrating Jews here by saying they are only equal to a small clump of cells, not me. I elevate conscious human life as the highest order. Without consciousness, there is no life, just machinery.

 

I am generally against it. That is not to say that I think it should be illegal. It is a personal stance. I would not want somebody I was involved with to have an abortion. I would want the child, even if I had to raise that child all by myself. Other people may feel differently, and that is the benefit of freedom.

That being said, late term abortions pose a much different view for me.

 

A blastula will become a child barring a natural death. A man will not necessarily become a criminal barring his natural death. Your example is inherently flawed.

That being said, conjuring up images of Jews and the Holocaust in this (or any other) debate is just wrong.

 

It has NOTHING to do with belief in God. Since you don't know what you don't know (i.e. what your microscope cannot see) you don't know what you are literally not seeing because your technology is not sufficiently advanced to allow you to see what might be there and plausibly is.

I said linked. YOu said "the same." I'm elevating the child not demoting Jewish people.

"As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth."

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

As I said earlier I elevate the cells rather than bring anything down for we all were once that same kind of blob of cells and looky what happened! Another human. Not a toaster or a chicken breast or a lump of coal.

I want some fact-checking on all your claims about animal awareness or lack thereof. Not sure what you are driving at here. I'm not advocating abortions for chimpanzees but I do eat eggs.

It is beyond ironic the you find my elevating your beloved "blastula" I am reducing us to animals. You are the one saying that the human blastula has no more significance than the blastula of a wharf rat.

Consciousness does matter and all human blastula will get the kind that you can measure if they are protected through gestation and into the birth process. Even if you can't yet measure it, you can't PROVE it's not there. You just can't measure it. That must be frustrating for you!

Prove it. Oh, you can't... you just believe that beyond a shadow of a doubt. What lay in those shadows. You'll never know because you can't see it and you are only looking with your scientific eye for something to measure.

 

It is ugly but is it flawed?

We watched a movie "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." The other boy in the story is the son of the commandant of one of the German prisons where they disposed of Jews.

The boy has some curiosity about the Jews and asks one of the other men (I think it was his tutor) if there were any "nice Jews?" The tutor scoffs and says that there is no such thing as a nice Jew or something totally dismissive like that.

The fair comparison is that the Nazis treated the Jews like they were sub-humans-- which is the same treatment you see from some of the pro-Choice folks here. Another camp can admit they are human but there right to Life is secondary to the woman's right to Choice.

 

No.

I'm pro Gay Marriage. I'm pro Universal Healthcare. I want education returned to local control.

I'm all for the body of Americans pitching in to help those in needs, but I do think there needs to be some measure of effort made before help is given.

 

A sperm will become a blastula barring a natural death. Therefore killing sperm unnecessarily is murder right?

And should not every female egg be fertilized then? All those potential lives snuffed out each month.

A man with hair has genes that will make him go bald. He knows this through his relatives. But today he has hair. Over the natural course of time, he knows he will lose that hair.

Therefore, according to Giddy-ups logic, that man is already bald despite having a full set of hair.

 

giddyup, what do you think of the practice of fertilizing a bunch of embryos to implant several at a time in a woman with the hope that one takes hold and makes a baby? do you realize how many embryos are destroyed (not even implanted, mind you, just frozen and then disposed) in our current supposedly acceptable climate of helping people have children?

I actually have a problem with the practice, and I would say that's another story, but it's pretty relevant.

The practice I describe gets a pass, just because the end goal is a baby, even though it usually means a discarded and/or low odds bunch of embryos being sacrificed. I have yet to see the practice protested.

 

delete.

 

A noble intention wrought with an underlying ugliness. Our culture is disposing of babies; I don't see the need to destroy more young lives to satisfy the yearnings of a couple to make their "own" child.

Any money spent there would be better spent on disease prevention/amelioration of some kind.

 

You are really straining now, aren't you?

 

Thanks, giddyup -- we have found a little bit of agreement. And it's actually a controversial stance. Many wonderful parents have used these techniques, including good friends of mine.

 

A sperm will not necessarily become a child without a natural death. Even when sex results in conception, only one sperm makes it. On e conception has occurred, barring abortion or miscarriage, it will become a child...100 percent of the time.

You can try to quip it away, but the fact remains. All your examples are easily distinguishable.

 

If you cannot see why conjuring up those images in wrong in a debate, then I cannot make you see it.

 

I think people are failing to accept the truth here. Look I respect your beliefs as noble and in the best spirit. But no one has countered the simply notion that sperm, embryo's, blastula's - they are just machinery acting based on certain chemicals that are activating proteins which set in motion a series of processes that lead to the development of a human being.

You can define life as you like. But for me, the sanctity of life begins with consciousness.

 

Is it wrong because it is ugly? Is it inaccurate? Not sure what I'm conjuring. Sweet Lou has said what he has said about those beings not being human beings. Others have commented likewise in other ways. I consider rabbits sub-human while some consider fetuses in utero as sub-human. The Nazis considered Jews as sub-human. If I'm not just telling it like it is, tell me how-so....

 

I don't agree. I do, however, respect your opinion. On this, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree.