Hillary Clinton Roundly Criticized for Referring to the Unborn as a ‘Person’

[JayDubya]

That's a stupid lie.

Wow, how easy this is when I can just scream, "That's a lie!"


Come back when you have something to say.

I did.

The stupid lie in question, which you have parroted uncritically, is based entirely on the fact that rightists oppose socialism while many rightists are also anti-abortion. You have it in your head that this is somehow "hypocrisy."

Which of course also conveys your lack of knowledge of the meaning of that word, too.


In reality of course these are disparate issues. There are anti-abortion leftists and pro-abortion rightists. Each issue has its own arguments.


Of course, all of this involves thinking on your part and based on your crassness earlier, I don't anticipate much of that.

 

[Phys251]

Oh look, someone else that believes an acorn is comparable to the unborn. Maybe you should realize that the acorn is more like the human egg.

The last six words of that picture are self-evident.

 

[Phys251]

No, I don't think we should be 'playing God' in any sense....

So then why don't prolifers harass and attack IVF clinics like they do family planning clinics? What triggers the distinction?

Women who are unable to conceive, as regrettable, and sad as that is have other options open to them....

In other words, women's reproductive choices should be expanded. I agree.

 

[Henrin]

The last six words of that picture are self-evident.

The whole thing is a false equivalence.

 

[Phys251]

The whole thing is a false equivalence.

So you believe that eggs are chickens, acorns are trees, silk balls are dresses, and fertilized eggs are people?

 

[chuckiechan]

True. It reduces us to eggs, thread, and nuts.

I feel we are better than that.

 

[Henrin]

So you believe that eggs are chickens, acorns are trees, silk balls are dresses, and fertilized eggs are people?

Read my posts instead of just responding. Again, acorns are more like human eggs, not a developing human being. You're comparing things that are not even close to comparable in order to make your argument.

Frankly though, comparing a plant to a mammal is just ****ing stupid to begin with.

 

[minnie616]

Here is an interesting article about acorns , a pre viable unborn , and a living being.

In fact if we wish to talk about living being than it is even more questionable to refer to an embryo or pre viable fetus as a living being since the embryo or pre viable fetus is incapable of sustaining its life without the woman and her body's systems.

From:

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors.
A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman.
As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role.
Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

Read more:

http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637

 

[Phys251]

Read my posts instead of just responding.

You don't get to tell me how to post, son.

Again, acorns are more like human eggs, not a developing human being. You're comparing things that are not even close to comparable in order to make your argument.

Frankly though, comparing a plant to a mammal is just ****ing stupid to begin with.

This is not a valid criticism of the analogy. This is a valid criticism of your willingness or ability to understand the analogy.

It is not a difficult concept.

 

[Henrin]

You don't get to tell me how to post, son.



This is not a valid criticism of the analogy. This is a valid criticism of your willingness or ability to understand the analogy.

It is not a difficult concept.

It is of course a valid criticism of the analogy. The analogy is trying to claim that because an acorn is not a tree that the unborn is not a human. It's a bull**** comparison because it's forgetting completely about germination that hasn't even begun yet. If it stays an acorn, then yeah, it will never be a tree and isn't a tree, but germination changes everything, which I suppose is similar to how fertilization changes everything for humans. Still, I find comparing mammals to plants pretty freaking ignorant.

 

[Phys251]

It is of course a valid criticism of the analogy.

No. Either by choice or by inability, you don't get it.

The analogy is trying to claim that because an acorn is not a tree that the unborn is not a human. It's a bull**** comparison because it's forgetting completely about germination that hasn't even begun yet. If it stays an acorn, then yeah, it will never be a tree and isn't a tree, but germination changes everything, which is I suppose similar to how fertilization changes everything for humans. Still, I find comparing mammals to plants pretty freaking ignorant.

Oh so a *fertilized* acorn is a tree! Okay, by that logic, the seeds in one of the apples in my fridge had begun to sprout, which clearly required them to have been fertilized. Therefore, by your logic, I had an apple tree in my refrigerator.

P.S. Yes, I ate the apple, and no, I didn't get sick. The sprout was only a few millimeters long.

 

[JayDubya]

The last six words of that picture are self-evident.

It is clearly a difficult concept to you, mired as you are in ignorance on his matter.

 

[nota bene]

Well, it's my opinion. It's the sense I get from pro-lifers and why I disassociated myself from that movement.

So at one point you were active in the pro-life movement? Which group(s)?

 

[JayDubya]

So you believe that eggs are chickens, acorns are trees, silk balls are dresses, and fertilized eggs are people?

Please do go on pretending your idiotic image macro hasn't been thoroughly debunked.

In the meantime, respectively:
* the chicken eggs we crack open and eat typically aren't fertilized; even if they were, we own and kill and eat chickens anyway
* an acorn contains within it a living member of the species of tree it comes from - a young Quercus alba is still a Quercus alba.
* comparing embryology to manufacturing is pure derp
* person has no meaning outside of law, so stop framing it as a scientific claim. At best you people can say that you do not want the unborn to be people.

Also, you are as much an "egg" as a Homo sapiens in the zygote stage of life is. We humans do not lay eggs. So when you say the nonsense phrase "fertilized egg" and claim that "fertilized eggs" aren't people, I wonder if you realize that you are denying your own personhood as well as the personhood of every other human on the planet?

Probably not. Realization isn't your strong suit.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

I suppose you are an expert on when exactly a human life begins? Please, share with us that information, complete with your peer-reviewed research.

I'm pro choice on the matter and would be glad to share with you information from the embryology textbooks I have. Some old some new written in my notebook off to the side here.

1. ''The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human from the time of fertilization because of it's human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human.''

Keith L. Moore, T.V.N Persaud, Mark G. Torchia, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 8th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2013. p.327

2. “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct human individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

3. “A Human begins to exist at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote a new human'' (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

4. “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

5. “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.''

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

That about wraps it up. No need to be dishonest to our opponents in the abortion debate anymore. Even without dipping into embryology, we known by the basic law of biogenesis taught in elementary school that the offspring of two humans must be of the human species. It can't be a cat or a dog or a monkey or something. It has to be a human and nothing else.

Your Size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, does not determine what species you belong to. So no matter how much some pro choicers on our side want to compare construction to development is not going to magically defeat the 40+ year scientific fact that the unborn are humans throughout all stages of development. It's done and settled. Nothing more nothing less.

If you're pro choice, you support killing humans on demand. The discussion is mainly about personhood now which I'm not going to get into here. You can't get to that point if both debate participants deny what it is that is killed in abortion every time.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

.comparing embryology to manufacturing is pure derp.

You can usually tell if a pro choicer does that by saying stuff like ''fully developed babies.'' :roll:

 

[ellesdee]

I did.

The stupid lie in question, which you have parroted uncritically, is based entirely on the fact that rightists oppose socialism while many rightists are also anti-abortion. You have it in your head that this is somehow "hypocrisy."

Which of course also conveys your lack of knowledge of the meaning of that word, too.


In reality of course these are disparate issues. There are anti-abortion leftists and pro-abortion rightists. Each issue has its own arguments.


Of course, all of this involves thinking on your part and based on your crassness earlier, I don't anticipate much of that.

It's an opinion, my opinion. You understand that, I'm sure. An opinion can't be a lie. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't make it a lie.

So please, keep screaming about how my opinions are lies if you point is to say nothing.

 

[blackjack50]

It's Hillary. She's roundly criticized for everything, probably even the way she brushes her teeth. Haters gonna hate.

She brings it on herself for laying out criticism for the way others brush their teeth and then brushing her teeth that way and then saying she does it the other way while supporting mouth wash and flossing for some and not for all.

If she wants to reduce the criticism...pick a side lol.

 

[ellesdee]

So at one point you were active in the pro-life movement?

Back when I was writing editorials about the culture of selfishness and irresponsibility in regards to abortion.

Which group(s)?

I was involved with the Pro-life Liberals organization for a while, not that I'd consider being involved with some official pro-life groups necessary to be a pro-life supporter.

 

[ellesdee]

If a baby is unwanted at the time the answer to that is yes....Tell the truth.



Are you trying to seriously tell me that girls don't know that the act of unprotected sexual intercourse could end up in a pregnancy? The naivety stems from when the girl enters these so called "Family planning centers" and is bombarded with propaganda on how this baby will ruin their lives.

No, I'm countering your emotionally-based stereotypes implying that only unprotected sex leads to abortion and only naive young girls get abortions.

Nothing about my responses to your silly arguments is emotionally based...I am simply arguing that life is precious, and using the practice of snuffing it out simply because the woman won't be able to fulfill her dreams on life when she makes the decision to commit an act that she knows damned well will, or could at the least result in creating a baby is using this for contraception, and it is horrifyingly wrong.

That's an argument based in emotion.

All of these should be considered BEFORE having sex.

Are you saying that the poor and physically handicapped shouldn't have sex?

Today you can't show me one highschool in America that hasn't had a pregnant teen....It's about values, not convenience.

Back this up with facts ti support it, or admit that your argument against abortion is based on emotions and exaggerated claims.

The choice is made in committing the act that starts the pregnancy, not, or shouldn't be after the fact.

That's certainly one way of making the choice. I prefer as many choices as possible.

I don't think anything about death of an innocent is laudable, or laughable, that may be a touch of projection on your part concerning your views on abortion...

I wasn't writing about abortion when I states laughable and laudable. I was referring to the death penalty and warfare.

But, If you want to take an honest look at your statement, then put it to the test of the inverse....Why is it that you are so enamored with keeping alive criminals who kill others, or enemies that would surely kill you, but find it perfectly acceptable to kill a totally defenseless child in the womb for the selfish convenience of not disrupting your life...It is cold, callous, and IMHO borders on true evil.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty or warfare.