Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W:40]

[code1211]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Does everything containing human DNA have rights? If I rub one out over the toilet, have I committed genocide? Should there be a funeral for every menstrual cycle?

"Don't throw those toe nail clippings in the trash! Those things have rights and deserve a proper burial!"

"Don't scratch that itch! Don't you know you've just murdered thousands of skin cells!?"

Nice straw man!

 

[ellesdee]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Nice straw man!

How is a question a strawman?

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

How many average, every day Americans COULD "sustain its own life"?

How can you ask such an utterly moronic question?

 

[ellesdee]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Nice straw man!

So you don't believe that everything containing human DNA has rights?

 

[code1211]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

How is a question a strawman?

Sorry, I was continuing a thought from a previous sequence of posts.

However, your citation of those particular things with Human DNA does demonstrate the difference between life and the absence of life.

Obviously, those things that you cite are not alive. They do, however, have human DNA. A fully grown person who has died is not alive either although that corpse does contain Human DNA. Obviously, merely finding DNA on or in something does not make it alive. Murder weapons and kleenex often have DNA on or in them and are not usually alive.

When the product of your "rub out" combines with an egg during the menstrual cycle, there is DNA that is not identical either to yours or to your partner's. Alone, either half of the combination is just what it is and not capable of growing or developing. Then they get together. Suddenly a variety of changes occur which cannot happen when either the man or the woman is alone with their toilet.

Suddenly there is a thing that is growing and developing with unique DNA unlike any DNA ever present before and yet completely human. Your fingernail clipping will never be anything more than a fingernail clipping. It will most likely not eventually become a full grown finger with a job and a home and little fingers running around that look just like it. However, with medicine doing what it's doing, you never know. You may have forecast an entire new area of ethics to explore.

Given my understanding of current cloning technology's advances, your examples are so unlike a growing unique organism that it seemed to me as if you were simply deflecting and leaving the topic.

I apologize for not taking your thought seriously.

 

[code1211]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

How can you ask such an utterly moronic question?

Its easy. I move my fingers in close proximity to the keyboard.

It's fairly easy to understand the process.

You seem to have lost interest in the post after only the first sentence.

ADHD?

 

[ellesdee]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Sorry, I was continuing a thought from a previous sequence of posts.

However, your citation of those particular things with Human DNA does demonstrate the difference between life and the absence of life.

Obviously, those things that you cite are not alive. They do, however, have human DNA. A fully grown person who has died is not alive either although that corpse does contain Human DNA. Obviously, merely finding DNA on or in something does not make it alive. Murder weapons and kleenex often have DNA on or in them and are not usually alive.

When the product of your "rub out" combines with an egg during the menstrual cycle, there is DNA that is not identical either to yours or to your partner's. Alone, either half of the combination is just what it is and not capable of growing or developing. Then they get together. Suddenly a variety of changes occur which cannot happen when either the man or the woman is alone with their toilet.

Suddenly there is a thing that is growing and developing with unique DNA unlike any DNA ever present before and yet completely human. Your fingernail clipping will never be anything more than a fingernail clipping. It will most likely not eventually become a full grown finger with a job and a home and little fingers running around that look just like it. However, with medicine doing what it's doing, you never know. You may have forecast an entire new area of ethics to explore.

Given my understanding of current cloning technology's advances, your examples are so unlike a growing unique organism that it seemed to me as if you were simply deflecting and leaving the topic.

I apologize for not taking your thought seriously.

No, I was taking your reasoning to its logical extreme to question at what point do we consider organisms with human DNA as insignificant enough to deny it rights. Scratching your skin certainly kills many viable cells containing human DNA, probably more cells than the average abortion (assuming most abortions occur within the first month of pregnancy). I do believe that if we don't already have the capability, it won't be long before we have the technology to create a fully formed human being out of such individual cells.

I see your point about conception creating a unique individual, though, unlike cloning.

 

[code1211]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

No, I was taking your reasoning to its logical extreme to question at what point do we consider organisms with human DNA as insignificant enough to deny it rights. Scratching your skin certainly kills many viable cells containing human DNA, probably more cells than the average abortion (assuming most abortions occur within the first month of pregnancy). I do believe that if we don't already have the capability, it won't be long before we have the technology to create a fully formed human being out of such individual cells.

I see your point about conception creating a unique individual, though, unlike cloning.

That particular segment of the train of thought could lead you to that conclusion.

I apologized for not understanding you were starting in the middle of the consideration.

I seriously doubt that scratching one's skin kills more cells than an average abortion. Do you have a link for that?

I just scratched my arm and don't really see any change whatever.

That said, though, even cutting my arm off with proper care wouldn't cause the rest of me to die.

 

[ellesdee]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

I seriously doubt that scratching one's skin kills more cells than an average abortion. Do you have a link for that?

Nevermind... The cells making up the outer layer of your skin that you can see are already dead. My point is a bust.

Pretty gross, though, when you think about it.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Its easy. I move my fingers in close proximity to the keyboard.

Clearly the only thing moving...
Well at least you did not deny the sheer stupidity of your question.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Nice straw man!

How so? He was using your argument....

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

How many average, every day Americans COULD "sustain its own life"?

I was driving around in a truck yesterday with a couple other volunteers picking up furniture and appliances from those wishing to donate so they could be distributed to those in need.

I'm sure the donaters could have found some way to get rid of the items, the receivers might have been more challenged to find them without the distribution point.

That said, though, what about the entire societal infrastructure constructed by others including the electrical, sewage and transportation systems; road, rail, water and air? Without the fabric of society most would die. We all rely on each other. Without the cell phone to call ahead and the smart phone to map the route, we would have been severely crippled.

The commerce of society is based on the transfer of wealth. Who created this system? We all need it and use it daily. Money, credit, commerce, internet, communication and everything else.

How many of us would simply die if society is removed? Hillary said it takes a village to raise a child. Ironically, it takes a village to maintain a village. It might be that the village is there to care for the children. In this case, it takes a child to raise a village.

We work together because if we don't, we die.

Why should 'society' be more committed to preserving every unborn rather than committed to supporting every woman or family already contributing to society?

As discussed, unborn and born cannot be treated equally by society, so one must be subjected to being subordinate to the other.

Do you not realize that 'society' has already spoken on this issue?

Not to mention that more women, by far, still choose to have babies rather than abortions, and the abortion rate goes down every year.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

It just dawned on me today that we have a thread on Kim Davis who gets trashed and called a bigot for not being tolerant of gay people's rights and we have another thread where a judge ruled that a lesbian couple can't adopt their foster kid. The left even stands up for the kid's right to be raised by a lesbian couple but they wouldn't stand up for that very same kid's right to life if it hadn't been born yet, even though it is a living, viable human being. The left even stands up for the right of criminals not to be executed but seem to be OK with murdering unborn babies. This is as much of a contradiction to me as the right wing standing up for the right to life of an unborn baby but then they seem to be OK with murdering certain violent criminals. Both sides are nothing but hypocrites.

Because "unborn babies" are actually called fetuses. And the stage where fetuses are allowed to be aborted is a stage where there's no biological argument for calling them a person. There's no brain activity, no consciousness, and most importantly no ability to survive on its own outside of its host. Thus there isn't any obvious legal argument to say that they have rights anymore than your appendix has a constitutionally protected right to not be taken outside of your body independent of your desire for it to leave your body.

Look, if we want to talk about partial birth abortion or up to how late in the pregnancy we're willing to place limits, I'm fine with that conversation. That's probably a good conversation to have. But call all stages of a development of a fetus (including zygotes) as a "human" is just absurd.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Because "unborn babies" are actually called fetuses. And the stage where fetuses are allowed to be aborted is a stage where there's no biological argument for calling them a person. There's no brain activity, no consciousness, and most importantly no ability to survive on its own outside of its host. Thus there isn't any obvious legal argument to say that they have rights anymore than your appendix has a constitutionally protected right to not be taken outside of your body independent of your desire for it to leave your body.

Look, if we want to talk about partial birth abortion or up to how late in the pregnancy we're willing to place limits, I'm fine with that conversation. That's probably a good conversation to have. But call all stages of a development of a fetus (including zygotes) as a "human" is just absurd.

Well, if they aren't human then what are they? Aliens? Dogs? Cats? Zebras? Jellyfish? Amoeba?

A fetus is a fetus, even at nine months. There have been many in this thread who say that a fetus is not a baby and therefore has no right to life until born. Using that argument then anything not born has no right to life, no matter what the stage of development. It's disgusting to use abortion as a method of birth control because in most cases, that is exactly what it is being used for. You don't wear a condom, you don't take the pill, or whatever, you have a fetus growing inside you that you don't want, and you have an abortion as a method of birth control because you screwed up with the other methods available.

 

[sangha]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Well, if they aren't human then what are they? Aliens? Dogs? Cats? Zebras? Jellyfish? Amoeba?

Using the adjective and noun form of the word person (ie "human" vs "a human") is dishonestly fallacious. A fetus is human but it is not "a human"

A fetus is a fetus, even at nine months. There have been many in this thread who say that a fetus is not a baby and therefore has no right to life until born. Using that argument then anything not born has no right to life, no matter what the stage of development. It's disgusting to use abortion as a method of birth control because in most cases, that is exactly what it is being used for. You don't wear a condom, you don't take the pill, or whatever, you have a fetus growing inside you that you don't want, and you have an abortion as a method of birth control because you screwed up with the other methods available.

All abortions are a form of birth control. If you're pregnant and you don't have one, you give birth. If you have an abortion, you don't give birth.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Well, if they aren't human then what are they? Aliens? Dogs? Cats? Zebras? Jellyfish? Amoeba?

A fetus is a fetus, even at nine months. There have been many in this thread who say that a fetus is not a baby and therefore has no right to life until born. Using that argument then anything not born has no right to life, no matter what the stage of development. It's disgusting to use abortion as a method of birth control because in most cases, that is exactly what it is being used for. You don't wear a condom, you don't take the pill, or whatever, you have a fetus growing inside you that you don't want, and you have an abortion as a method of birth control because you screwed up with the other methods available.

A fetus is NOT a baby. A fetus is biologically dependent on a mother the way a parasite depends on a host. A baby is not so dependent, as any human being (such as adoptive parents) can care for a baby. No such thing can be said of the fetus. The fetus MUST be carried by the mother.

If you want to spend money researching how to save aborted fetuses, be my guest. I fully support you. But don't hold your breath.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

A fetus is NOT a baby. A fetus is biologically dependent on a mother the way a parasite depends on a host. A baby is not so dependent, as any human being (such as adoptive parents) can care for a baby. No such thing can be said of the fetus. The fetus MUST be carried by the mother.

If you want to spend money researching how to save aborted fetuses, be my guest. I fully support you. But don't hold your breath.

According to your logic then it would be ok to abort a nine month old fetus.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

According to your logic then it would be ok to abort a nine month old fetus.

Is that happening? Are there elective abortions occuring at 9 months?

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Why don't you go on record instead of dodging the issue. Does a nine month old fetus have rights or not?

 

[prometeus]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Why don't you go on record instead of dodging the issue. Does a nine month old fetus have rights or not?

Under current law it does not, nor did it ever. That however does not mean it has no protection by the state along the line of the interests of the state.

 

[code1211]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

Clearly the only thing moving...
Well at least you did not deny the sheer stupidity of your question.

And you did not deny yours.

i suppose that makes us even.

You haven't understood a single thing I've written and you think that makes me stupid.

Yours is an interesting derangement.

 

[David_N]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

According to your logic then it would be ok to abort a nine month old fetus.

Please show me these elective abortions happening at 9 months. :roll:

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

I'm just asking a question. How many are willing to go on record as saying that a nine month old fetus has no right to life? If you are trying to turn the question around on me then I'll take that as an admission that at some point a fetus is viable and has a right to life, otherwise, "man up" and just say that a nine month old fetus has no right to life.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

I'm just asking a question. How many are willing to go on record as saying that a nine month old fetus has no right to life? If you are trying to turn the question around on me then I'll take that as an admission that at some point a fetus is viable and has a right to life, otherwise, "man up" and just say that a nine month old fetus has no right to life.

I'm willing to go on the record and tell you that YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE - much less a 9 month old unborn fetus...in the United States of America. Where in the Constitution does it say ANY PERSON has a right to life?

It is against the law in the USA to terminate any fetus that is medically considered to be viable...NO MATTER what the age of the fetus. That's the law. The S.C. declared such in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs Casey. The S.C. stated if technology prevails that allows a fetuses from the womb early than current day survival age...then that is the new viability stage/age.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Why does the left stand up for the rights of everyone except for unborn babies?[W

I'm just asking a question. How many are willing to go on record as saying that a nine month old fetus has no right to life? If you are trying to turn the question around on me then I'll take that as an admission that at some point a fetus is viable and has a right to life, otherwise, "man up" and just say that a nine month old fetus has no right to life.

The state has a right to proscribe ( ban ) abortions at viability unless the woman's life/irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function would occur if the pregnancy continued.