No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control

September 15, 2011 | Filed under: Liberty Counsel,Personhood USA,Reproductive Rights | Posted by: Mike Daniels

Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November.

Anti-choice activists scored a big win last Thursday, when a majority of the justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court decided that they could not determine the constitutionality of Ballot Measure 26 until it was voted into law. The justices, in a 7-2 vote, rejected a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

“We cannot invade the territory of the legislature or the electorate to review the substantive validity of a proposed initiative, and thereby, we will honor the maxim embodied in the constitutional mandate of separation of powers,” said Justice Randy Pierce.

Liberty Counsel, attached to Christian Dominionist Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, defended the ballot measure before the court. Anti-choice activists hope the measure will pass, and then be appealed to the US Supreme Court — thus overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal.

A message the Yes on 26 crowd isn’t eagerly sharing is that the passage of this measure would also make the most common forms of birth control illegal. Birth control pills prevent fertilized eggs from attaching within the uterus; using the Pill would become equivalent to murder. Norplant, a birth control implant, works much like the Pill and would become illegal. Women with IUDs (intrauterine devices), implants which have as part of their action an anti-attaching effect, would have to leave the state or have the devices removed.

What about women trying to have children? Fertility clinics create many embryos from a couple’s eggs and sperm, and only implant a few. Such clinics would be forced to close, as it would be impossible to find a willing womb for every frozen embryo . . . and destroying them would be murder.

Personhood USA, the organization behind this measure and the twice-failed Colorado ballot measure, doesn’t mention these details on its website. Instead, they quote their Liberty Counsel attorney’s propaganda:

“Today we rejoice and celebrate this hard-won victory, but tomorrow we roll up our sleeves and return to work. Our opponents are discouraged, but not yet ultimately defeated. They will be back, spreading fear, confusion, and dire ‘sky-is-falling’ warnings about this simple Amendment, and we must be ready to rebut their baseless charges and set the record straight,” said Stephen Crampton, Liberty Counsel’s lead attorney for Personhood Mississippi in the case.

Twenty years ago, Bill Clinton explained that he thought abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. He meant that while it should always be available for those who feel they have no other choice, preventing unwanted pregnancies and helping those women who do want to bear their children should take priority.

Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support. At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids.

How is “personhood” going to save lives by outlawing common forms of birth control? It isn’t. It will instead push poor women further into poverty, dragging their existing children with them. It may well mean more children born addicted to drugs, or with AIDS, or into abusive or neglectful homes. An increasing rate of infant mortality? Probably.

So, since Personhood USA makes it clear that they’re not interested in helping children or their mothers, what is it they really want?

Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions in the name of their “ministry”. (Yes, they are a Christian ministry.) Women who can’t avoid pregnancy are women who stay home and raise children, as the men who created their god intended.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is working with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU to help voters get the facts before the November 8 election. Get more information HERE.

You can also follow @NoOnMS26 on Twitter, and check for hashtag #Personhood.

Update: Common sense prevailed in Mississippi, and Proposition 26 failed by a wide margin.

190 Responses to No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control

Gene Martin October 19, 2011 - 9:59 pm

I understand you are a secular organization, but I wish someone would take on the pro-life movement on their religious turf. Specifically using Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." The beginning of the Bible describes human life as beginning at birth with breathing. Religious scholars have speculated that this is when the soul enters the body.

Reply
- Mike Daniels October 30, 2011 - 3:24 pm
  
  Gene, you could go further and point out that the census instructions in the Bible do not count infants under one month of age, and suggest that they're not considered "people" until then.
  
  Reply
  - Kieres October 30, 2011 - 6:14 pm
    
    Well not to mention the fact that the Bible is rather clear that if, for example, a man comes up and punches an pregnant woman and she loses the baby…it's a property crime at worst.
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:38 am
      
      That's completely false. That argument is used by those who find a translation of the Bible that mis-translates a word as miscarriage — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/exodus-… . It is ironic that those who cling to this verse ignore scientific facts and sound biblical analysis of that passage, not to mention all the passages about not shedding innocent blood, protecting the week, individuals being recognized in the womb, etc.
      
      Reply
maroa October 23, 2011 - 8:17 am

Abortions are wrong if u don't want kids keep your legs closed

Reply
- Kieres November 5, 2011 - 3:59 pm
  
  I'm quite sure you know all about that, Maroa
  
  Reply
- Nancy November 8, 2011 - 9:41 am
  
  Are you judging others maroa? Or are you just expecting everyone to follow your religious beliefs?
  
  Reply
Angie Carnathan October 26, 2011 - 8:03 am

Please read my article from today's Starkville Daily News in Starkville, MS on this matter: "Local families, doctors say 26 is dangerous" http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/node/7898

Reply
Lucy October 30, 2011 - 3:20 pm

Listen to this beautiful song written by a man who was conceived by an act of rape: http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/portfolio-it…

Reply
- Mike Daniels October 30, 2011 - 3:22 pm
  
  Can you explain what that has to do with outlawing birth control, Lucy? Can you explain what that has to do with outlawing abortion in cases of ectopic pregnancies, which are never viable anyway and often result in the death of the mother?
  
  Reply
- Kieres October 30, 2011 - 6:13 pm
  
  So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term? Would you like to think that through or you going to stick to that claim? Or better yet..where exactly do you get off attempting to force others to abide by your beliefs? And let me know, Lucy, when you want to realize that no..women are not just baby factories.
  
  Reply
Brett Alexander October 31, 2011 - 3:38 am

GOD blessed you with a life! IF GOD found you worthy HE blessed you with a child. Whether by love or rape, that was laid upon you by the hand of GOD! A child is a miracle, the single most wonderful thing ever imaginable ON this planet. Who are you to be able to decide if that child lives or dies? It's not your choice! It's GOD'S! Now, I believe it is horrible to get raped but who are you to kill a child just because something bad happened to you! God has a reason for everything and a plan for everyone and if you truly believe that then how do you know that the baby you just killed b/c of your foolish pride was not the person that was gonna cure cancer, cure aids, bring a million people to Christ, and even put a thousand rapist behind bars! But was never given the chance of life!! God never gives you more than you can handle under any circumstances you should have faith in him and take the horrible thing that happened to you and turn it into the great miracle that you will have ever known… a child!! That loves you unconditionally and regardless of how they got here!

Reply
- Mike Daniels October 31, 2011 - 2:30 pm
  
  Amen, brother! And if GOD blesses your sister with an ectopic pregnancy — that's when the fertilized egg attaches in a Fallopian tubule instead of in the uterus — then HE WANTS HER AND THE FETUS TO BOTH DIE, it without ever knowing anything but your sister slowly and painfully and wholly preventably, and we should NOT interfere! (Am I doing this right?)
  
  Reply
- Kieres November 3, 2011 - 8:19 pm
  
  To quote: b/c of your foolish pride was not the person that was gonna cure cancer, cure aids, bring a million people to Christ, and even put a thousand rapist behind bars! But was never given the chance e or that baby was going to grow up to be the next Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler….. Sorry, Bret, dont use stupid logic. And don't presume that you get to force others to live by your religious beliefs. This is not Afghanistan and you are not the Taliban.
  
  Reply
- Kieres November 5, 2011 - 3:53 pm
  
  Congratulations, Brett, you're turning God into a morally depraved jackass and monster. Why you think that's a good idea I'm quite sure that not even God understands.
  
  Reply
- PROCHOICE November 6, 2011 - 5:20 pm
  
  Not everyone believes in god. I respect what you believe in, but I want you to know that people have different beliefs. Even people who believes in god interpret things differently. I also want you to know that god does not determine who gets pregnant and raped and who lives and dies.
  
  Reply
- Josh November 10, 2011 - 9:02 am
  
  only one problem Mr. Alexander, there's no god
  
  Reply
Shelia October 31, 2011 - 2:15 pm

I am the mother of 2 daughters, 28 and 8. My oldest suffered a miscarriage 8 yrs ago and my youngest is a special needs child. What would have happened to my oldest if 26 had been in effect? I understand that in these cases, the mother will be slapped with a misdemeanor. What if someone takes advantage of my special needs child without my knowledge and she gets pregnant? The government has NO RIGHT to tell any woman what she can do with her body. I am against abortion just like many others but certain occaisions should be left for the woman to decide or the parents of said special needs girl. I will be voting NO on 26!

Reply
beth November 3, 2011 - 1:57 am

Birth control pills work by inhibiting egg release, at least that is what I was taught in nursing school. That is also planned parenthood's explanation of how they work.

Reply
- Mike Daniels November 3, 2011 - 2:14 am
  
  You were given incomplete information, Beth. http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-cont…
  
  Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of synthetic estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.
  
  With the Pill, fewer eggs are released, and sperm have a more difficult time accessing those eggs that are released. But fertilized eggs are also "rejected" from implantation — which, if legal life begins at conception, would be considered infanticide. Thus, the Pill would become illegal, as would IUDs.
  
  Reply
Eileen November 3, 2011 - 7:07 pm

Maybe you can explain why even though the eagle is no longer an endangered species, its eggs are still federally protected while they’re still in the mother eagle; once they are laid; through the 35-day incubation period and beyond through hatching. In fact, even the nonliving eagle egg shell is protected by the federal law. We're talking a $100,000 fine! Shouldn't a human baby have at least the same protection under the law?

Reply
- Mike Daniels November 3, 2011 - 8:10 pm
  
  Can an eagle consent to having its eggs removed? Humans can. Is it legal to abduct a woman and forcibly remove her fetus against her will? I'm pretty sure that earns serious jail time, not fines. Are humans rare or threatened as a species? Are they subject to poaching? Last time I checked, there were 7 billion of them. Tell me, why do you think that birth control pills and IUDs should be illegal? Do you think we need MORE than 7 billion people?
  
  Reply
- Kieres November 3, 2011 - 8:17 pm
  
  Let me know, Eileen, when you and yours are going to be interested in protecting that human baby by making damn sure they have adequate health care. And then when you want to protect all human life by making sure that everyone has adequate healthcare, food, housing, and such.
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 11:03 am
    
    You are confusing positive "rights" (i.e., healthcare and housing that someone else must be forced to provide) with negative rights (the right to have your property protected, the right not to be crushed and dismembered because you were unwanted, etc.).
    
    Reply
    - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:27 am
      
      Yeah the funny thing is that the concepts of "positive" and "negative" are subjective terms. For example, to me it is a positive thing that if one of my cousins gets pregnant that she not be forced to carry a baby to term when she can't pay for the health care during the pregnancy, have to drop out of school because of it therefor ruining the rest of her life. And if one of my cousins gets raped it is positive to me that she not be forced to relive the trauma and being victimized over and over every day by her rapist because she got pregnant with her rapists kid. Or if one of my cousins gets pregnant and said pregnancy risks her life then it is positive to me that she not die because to be blunt the life that is already being lived, neil, is slightly more important then the life that may be born.
      
      Reply
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:27 am
        
        And it is positive to me that women not be treated like chattel and baby factories by morons like you who, because you're not a woman, have no damn clue and even less right to dictate what women do with their bodies. And as for your, at least I think it was your, bit about "God never gives you more then you can bear" congratulations..you just in effect justified the holocaust. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. BUt that is as far as your rights on the matter go, Neil.
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:29 am
        
        Let me know when you and your fellow "pro-life" crowd are going to pay the taxes necessary for health care for everyone, when you're going to pony up the money, no matter how much, for every kid's education, for their food, for their housing, for their clothes, for daycare and all the rest. Then and only then, Neil, will you even come close to having a right to object to abortion. Pay up or shut up.
    - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 4:07 pm
      
      Then figure out a way to transfer the baby to your uterus….oh wait..that's right…you don't have one. So you're presuming to dictate to women on what grounds again?By the way…don't go presuming that all Christians have a problem with abortion. I suspect that the number of Christians, especially Christian women, who have no problem with abortion is quite a bit larger then you want to pretend. Oh and also..don't go presuming that you're in a position to declare that 99% of the reasons for abortion are worthless. Unless you're saying you've talked to every single woman who has had an abortion? And who exactly appointed you the judge of that anyways?
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 6, 2011 - 6:15 am
        
        “Then figure out a way to transfer the baby to your uterus….oh wait..that's right…you don't have one. “Sigh. Do you really think that qualifies as an argument? It is just another twist on your fallacious notion that you can’t object to an injustice without having to personally support its victims. Once again, I’ll point out that you have dodged my homeless hypothetical: Could you object to their destruction without having to personally house them? I know why you won’t answer, of course. If you say no, then you look like an idiot and know that nearly everything else you complain about would be hypocrisy. If you say yes, then you’ve admitted that you’ve used a silly argument against me over and over. “So you're presuming to dictate to women on what grounds again?”I’ll refute that again: Your argument, like nearly all arguments, ignores the human being that gets killed during the abortion. Here’s a tip: Before replying with another pro-abortion bumper sticker slogan, ask yourself if you have explained why unborn human beings can be destroyed simply because they are unwanted. If you have no answer, then your argument is invalid.“By the way…don't go presuming that all Christians have a problem with abortion. I suspect that the number of Christians, especially Christian women, who have no problem with abortion is quite a bit larger then you want to pretend.”That’s another straw man argument on your part. I never claimed that people claiming the name of Christ weren’t pro-abortion. Many are. Then again, there are many, many fake Christians who don’t know the first thing about Jesus, who mock his word, who think He isn’t capable of communicating with us in the Bible, etc. Some are “saved and confused,” in that they have an authentically saving faith in him but have some bad doctrine. Others just think they are Christians but haven’t read the Bible enough to realize that they aren’t. Some, hypothetically, pretend to have studied the Bible in detail and come up with pro-abortion arguments out of Exodus, when they are really just posers who read that sound bite off another site. “Oh and also..don't go presuming that you're in a position to declare that 99% of the reasons for abortion are worthless. Unless you're saying you've talked to every single woman who has had an abortion?”I’ve read the studies of why women have abortions. 1% are to save the woman’s life (e.g., ectopic pregnancies), and we don’t object to those because they are consistent with the pro-life ethic. The other 99% (education, career, economics, pressure from boyfriend or parents, etc.) would not justify murder outside the womb, so why should they justify it inside the womb?“And who exactly appointed you the judge of that anyways?”Ah, the “do not judge” canard. I know you get away with that when talking with fellow un-critical thinkers, but consider for a moment how you are judging me over and over. If either side can say the same thing, then it is probably a pointless argument. Your sound bite is designed to act like I’m a big meanie for saying you shouldn’t crush and dismember innocent human beings, but I won’t fall for it. As with most people using that claim, you don’t realize the hypocrisy: You are making the same judgments. It is just as judgmental to say that 99% of the reasons women have abortion are valid as it is to say they are invalid.
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 3:59 am
        
        By the way, Neil, no I wasn't being hypocritical when I said stop presuming that 99% of the reasons women have abortions aren't valid. See I wasn't judging their reasons one way or the other. I don't have that right. The one who decides whether a woman's reason to have an abortion is valid or not…is the woman herself. And noone else. As for your other question. Because women have this little thing called "right to privacy" Neil and have the right to do what they want with their bodies. And you dont have the right to turn them into baby factories. That is why abortion is legal. Sorry, women should be forced to do something because you say so why?
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:00 am
        
        But lets explore all the ways that your side actually isn't pro-life: 1: 50,000 people die every year in this country because of a lack of health care. The pro-life crowds response? To do nothing. In fact they object to the government doing anything about it. 2: A ten year old boy dies because his family's insurance company refuses to pay for his medical treatments. Your side's response? Again..nothing. Oh and he's not the only one. 3: Millions of kids in this country live in abject poverty and/or go hungry. Your sides response? Not only does your side do nothing your side kvetches and demands that government programs designed to help that be cut or eliminated altogether.
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:00 am
        
        4: medicaid helps the poor pay for health care. Your sides response? Demand to end it. Same goes for Social Security and medicare. 5: How many children don't have adequate health care? Your sides response? Again..nothing. 6: Does your side demand that every not yet born baby have the best pre-natal health care possible with the expectant mothers having the same? Again…no. 7: The process of in-vitro fertilization is only possible because a lot more embryos are conceived then are possibly used. What happens to the ones that aren't used? They're destroyed. And yet the pro-life crowd is as silent as church mice when it comes to that.
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:01 am
        
        8: The Republicans (i.e. the party that claims to be pro-life) believes wholeheartedly in capital punishment. If all life is precious shouldn't the pro-life crowd be protesting that? 9: The Republicans start a foolish war in Iraq killing near 5,000 US soldiers and several hundred thousand Iraqi's. And yet..again the pro-life crowd is silent. Oh and to top it off when those Republicans demand cuts to the social safety net in the United States to pay for their wars and their tax cuts to the rich not only is the pro-life crowd silent…well actually they're not silent..they're full throated supporters of what the Republicans want. 10: Most people in this country live paycheck to paycheck barely holding on and in more then a few cases not holding on while a lucky few grab all the wealth and the pro-life crowd is silent.
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:01 am
        
        10a: Every 80 seconds a US veteran returning from the two wars kills themself. Where is the outrage from the pro-life crowd and the demand that they get the treatment they need no matter the cost? 11: Thousands of kids are in the foster care system with no chance of ever being adopted. Does the pro-life crowd adopt them? Some, but not all, of them do..but yet kids remain. Oh and then to top it off the pro-life crowd demands cuts to the foster care system in the interest of lower taxes. 12: It's probably a safe assumption that most abortions are done out of economic hopelessness and poverty. Does the pro-life crowd spend as much energy focusing on eradicating the root causes of most abortions? Of course not..because the last thing they actually care about is life or saving it. If they actually cared a whit about life they'd do all the the things above that I said they don't do. What you and yours want isn't the end of abortion, because even you're smart enough to figure out you can't put that djinn back in the bottle.
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:07 am
        
        What you and yours actually want, Neil, is the right to dicate to others how they live..the right to control others..specifically the right to control women and punish them for having sex and taking responsibility for the consequences of it in a way that you don't approve of. Well I hate to break it to you, Neil, your approval or disapproval simply doesn't matter. Noone appointed you or anyone else the country's "moral guardian." As I said..if the pro-life crowd really wants to claim they're actually pro-life then they need to put up and pay up or shut up. Surely you don't mind your taxes being sky high to pay for all that right? Until they're willing to put their money where their mouth is, Neil, no matter the cost then they…and you are nothing more then a bunch of mealy mouthed hypocrites.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:16 am
        
        "Does the pro-life crowd adopt them? Some, but not all, of them do..but yet kids remain. " How many have you adopted? Michele Bachmann adopted a lot, so maybe you should vote for her. Again, do you see the difference here: 1. 100% innocent child crushed and dismembered for being unwanted 2. Unwanted or neglected foster children paid for with government funds. (I have no issue with costs of orphanages and foster care. I would object if you wanted to kill those children.) My church just had a big pro-adoption day yesterday.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:18 am
        
        "Does the pro-life crowd spend as much energy focusing on eradicating the root causes of most abortions? Of course not..because the last thing they actually care about is life or saving it. " Yes, they do all sorts of things to teach people the biblical model for parenting, marriage and families. If you follow God's design it is virtually impossible to have out-of-wedlock pregnancies, STDs, emotional trauma, etc. If people get high school diplomas and don't have sex outside of wedlock they are very, very unlikely to be poor. Do the opposite and they are almost certain to be poor. Those are facts that all kids should learn.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:13 am
        
        "8: The Republicans (i.e. the party that claims to be pro-life) believes wholeheartedly in capital punishment. If all life is precious shouldn't the pro-life crowd be protesting that? " That's because we can distinguish between the following: 1. 100% innocent human being that will be crushed and dismembered without anesthetic because she is unwanted. 2. Convicted 1st degree murderer who survived 10+ years of appeals. Hey, if you'll give the unborn 10 years of appeals I will stop complaining about abortion! Oh, and there is 1 capital punishment per week and 20,000 abortions.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:11 am
        
        You are confusing negative rights ("don't crush and dismember me because I am unwanted") with positive rights ("because I exist the government must force people to pay for my food, clothing, housing and world-class medical care"). Big difference. You see, you are forcing your beliefs on others. You think that everyone should have a certain level of care provided. But who will provide it? You force them to do so with the threat of loss of property or freedom.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:20 am
        
        You just made the same bad argument about 12 times. Aside from your hypocrisy in forcing your views on others, you ignore the root issue: It is immoral to kill innocent human beings because they are unwanted. Pro-lifers are consistent, but even if they weren't it doesn't mean their core argument is wrong. You are just changing the subject because you are on the wrong side of the scientific facts.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 4:41 am
        
        “The one who decides whether a woman's reason to have an abortion is valid or not…is the woman herself. And noone else. “What if the unborn is female? Why doesn’t she get a say? “As for your other question. Because women have this little thing called “right to privacy” Neil and have the right to do what they want with their bodies. And you dont have the right to turn them into baby factories”Do they have the right to kill their toddlers or boyfriends in private? Can they use their bodies to kill someone else outside the womb? Of course not. The only question is, “What is the unborn,” and I’ve demonstrated the scientific fact that they are human beings.Re. baby factories – that is fallacious because it implies that I am getting them pregnant or forcing them to get pregnant.
- Kieres November 3, 2011 - 8:17 pm
  
  Where, Eileen, in the US Constitution or the law does it say that you get to force people to abide by your beliefs regarding abortion or birth control?
  
  Reply
- Kieres November 5, 2011 - 2:58 pm
  
  Perhaps you can explain why 1: you have such an objection to contraception and 2: where does it say that you get to stick your nose, and pardon my crassness here, into someone elses bedroom, up another woman's vagina or in close proximity to any man's penis and tell them what to do with said things? If by the grace of God I get married I would like an active sex life with my wife. I'd like that active sex life without two things: 1: You presuming that you get to tell me and my wife what to do in our intimacy and 2: without ending up with the 15 kids that my uncle and his wife produced. Because raising 15 kids may have been affordable in the period of 1940-1980'ish…but it sure as hell isn't affordable now. Bith control, Eileen, is an act of responsibility.
  
  Reply
Neil November 4, 2011 - 4:05 am

"Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support. " "Anti-choice" for what? Oh, the choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings? Yes, we are glad to be anti-choice. "So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?" Said another way, so the daughter of a rapist can be destroyed because of his crime? Does the abortion un-do the rape? Hey, if you want to give the death penalty to the rapist I'd consider your arguments. But don't kill the innocent offspring. What kind of embryos are those? Human, of course, as in "human beings, at a particular stage of development."

Reply
- Kieres November 4, 2011 - 10:19 am
  
  So the woman who was traumatized and victimized by the rape should be…wait for it…traumatized and victimized again? Tell me, Neil, where do you get off telling others what to do with their own bodies?
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:26 am
    
    You should do some more research. The trauma of abortion is similar to the trauma of rape. Abortion doesn't undo the rape trauma, it compounds it. What if the woman has the child then decides she is too much of a reminder of the rape yet doesn't want to give it up for adoption? Can she kill the child then? If not, why not? It is the same child that was in the womb, just larger and in a different environment.
    
    Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:28 am
    
    "Tell me, Neil, where do you get off telling others what to do with their own bodies?" As usual, that pro-abortion canard ignores the body of the unborn. That's the body I'm trying to protect, and the body that you think can be crushed and dismembered just because she is unwanted. Your comment is about as logical as complaining that by being anti-rape that I'm telling the rapist what he can't do with his body. That would deliberately ignore the victim as well. Are you pro-capital punishment for the rapists?
    
    Reply
    - Josh November 10, 2011 - 9:06 am
      
      An embryo is a cluster of cells and lives only if the mother lives. It is not a human being, it is a fetus, an embryo, a zygote. I believe abortion shouldn't be used just because you can't use birth control and are irresponsible, but I also don't believe the government has any right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do to their body. And as long as it's an early term fetus, it is the body of the woman that is the concern.
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 10, 2011 - 9:17 am
        
        “An embryo is a cluster of cells and lives only if the mother lives. It is not a human being, it is a fetus, an embryo, a zygote.”Hi Josh – since the topic of abortion is so important I encourage you to research the scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception. This link http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq lists over 10 mainstream embryology textbooks plus concession from the pro-abortion camp on this key point.Yes, it is a fetus/embryo/zygote, but what kind? The unborn are live human beings at a particular stage of development, i.e, human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc.“I believe abortion shouldn't be used just because you can't use birth control and are irresponsible, but I also don't believe the government has any right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do to their body.”But the woman can’t use her body to kill her toddler or anyone else outside the womb. The government has all kinds of restrictions over what we can do with our bodies. The question is, “What is the unborn?” If it isn’t a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. If it is a human being, then no justification is valid (except to save the life of the mother). The unborn has a body that deserves protection.
Neil November 4, 2011 - 4:09 am

"At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids." That is one of the all-time bad pro-abortion arguments. Do you realize that unless you are requiring poor people to have abortions that you would have the same obligations to adopt these children that you are placing on pro-lifers? By "support Head Start," do you mean you support it with your own money, or "support" asking the government to take taxes by force to fund it? There is a big difference. Finally, what if the government was going to "solve" homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn't create. Having said that, pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help those outside the womb. There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and the pregnancy centers are almost always funded by donations and mostly staffed with volunteers. They give all their services for free, while the abortionists make incredible amounts of money.

Reply
- Kieres November 4, 2011 - 10:20 am
  
  ANd yet those same "pro-lifers" kvetch and moan at the thought of having to pay higher taxes to take care of all those kids. Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:23 am
    
    Wow, so you must really go nuts over the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice! It is a bunch of highly organized pro-abortion religious people trying to force their religious views on the unborn. So, are you consistent in blasting the pro-abortion religious left, who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Or do you just play the religion card when against pro-lifers?
    
    Reply
    - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:21 am
      
      You have no scientific facts. NOthing you've said is agreed upon by science. Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Which would be a valid point if I didn't have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don't like, Neil. Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion. You might want to bother to realize that Planned Parenthood, which is the federal funding you're bitching about, does other things then just provide abortions.
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 10:29 am
        
        "You have no scientific facts. NOthing you've said is agreed upon by science." Really? Got any sources for that? I see that you didn't read my link and have no interest in seeking the truth. That's your business. I will just offer this for those people who have the intellectual integrity to follow where the facts lead. Here's the link again — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . You'll find quotes from 10+ mainstream secular embryology textbooks that all point to the fact that a new human being is created at conception. And even without those resources, wouldn't common sense dictate that if two humans create something that it would be a human being? Also note the quotes from various pro-abortion people who concede that abortion kills innocent human beings. And for those too busy to make a single mouse click I'll paste some of the quotes here. "Human development begins 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 is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. "Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote." T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11. "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. "Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14. OLDER TEACHING TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY / PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30. "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops." "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii. GENERAL AUDIENCE TEXTS ON EMBRYOLOGY / PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT "Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother's egg… It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father's sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin." Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13. PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT VIDEOS "Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization." The Biology of Prenatal Develpment, National Geographic, 2006.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 10:29 am
        
        And here's a few more: "The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual's unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated." In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005. EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO LIFE'S BEGINNING In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981): "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth Harvard University Medical School "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception." Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome LeJeune Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon Mayo Clinic "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." Dr. Watson A. Bowes University of Colorado Medical School The official Senate report reached this conclusion: Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.10 The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance…that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” Why have all the teaching texts and so many medical experts come to this same conclusion? Because there are simple ways to measure whether something is alive and whether something is human. If Faye Wattleton is correct and everyone already knows that abortion kills a human being, they have come to that knowledge in spite of the information circulated by Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-rights community. The abortion section of the Planned Parenthood website explains abortion this way: "Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to end pregnancy."11 How's that for thorough? Maybe they just assume that the method for ending the pregnancy is so obvious (killing the human being living in the womb) that it hardly bears mentioning. More likely, Planned Parenthood is simply accommodating the general ignorance which believes abortion to be the mere removal of potential human life, rather than the actual killing of existing human life. Biologically speaking, every abortion at every point in the pregnancy ends the life of a genetically-distinct human being.
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:47 am
        
        Oh and that AMA one is particularly cute because since doctors are bound to obey the AMA's rules that would mean that no doctors should provide abortions…but oh wait…they do. You might want to keep that one in mind. What do you think you're really going to accomplish if you make abortion illegal? Other then killing off more babies and their mothers as well? Or did that thought never occur to you? Because it's not like abortion popped into existance with Roe v Wade. And you and the so called "pro-life crowd" can do whatever you want and I guarantee you that abortion will not go away and it will not *poof* disappear. You will replace a river of blood with an ocean of blood and think you've done a good job. Because apparently what your objection isn't "How dare those women kill those babies!" it's "How dare I not be allowed to kill those women."
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 10:52 am
        
        Nice try in changing the subject. No one is debating whether it is currently legal to kill innocent human beings. You are denying the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from conception. I can't help but notice that you keep dodging my question about protesting the hypothetical killing of homeless people. C'mon, why are you afraid to answer that? It is a simple question. Can you protest an injustice without having to be lifelong caretakers of its victims?
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 10:36 am
        
        "Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Which would be a valid point if I didn't have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don't like, Neil." I don't follow. If you oppose wars and the death penalty, then you are free to protest those. My point is simply that pro-legalized abortionists don't want abortions to be safe (they support the substandard conditions allowed by law) or rare (they want to force taxpayers to pay for abortions, which will only increase the number of abortions). You aren't pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. You want there to be more abortions, and you want others to pay for them. Why not just donate your own money to Planned Parenthood so you can sponsor more abortions? "Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion." Oh, they find ways to sneak it in — http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/201… . And the reason it isn't more rampant is that we have fought the pro-abortionists all the way on this. "You might want to bother to realize that Planned Parenthood, which is the federal funding you're bitching about, does other things then just provide abortions." Money is fungible. Just because they do other things doesn't mean the funds do help these abortionists do abortions. Planned Parenthood has been caught lying many times on many topics (they hide statutory rape, they don't do mammograms, etc.) — http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p .
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:43 am
        
        And yet, Neil, I still have to pay taxes that go to those wars and the death penalty. And sorry…your "prolifeblog" is hardly a credible source. Find an independent source that is unbiased. Preferbly one with the suffix .gov. And since you're the one that is claiming that life is scientifically proven to begin at conception..you should have absolutely no problem in finding the source that is a credible scientific journal that's gone through peer review. Of course the problem with your argument is still this: Technically the egg and the sperm, individually, are life. Going to ban women from having their periods? Sorry, you still don't have the right to dictate to others that they have to abide by your beliefs when it comes to abortion. By the way…for now on when you cite "sources" I'm going to dismiss any out of hand that are obviously biased and not independent. I'm not interested in your sides propaganda.
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:24 am
    
    Conservatives donate more of their own time, money and blood than liberals — http://tinyurl.com/yzautg2 . What we don't do is ask the gov't to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B and then claim it as generosity on our part.
    
    Reply
    - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:15 am
      
      In other words, Neil, you're not actually willing to pay for being "pro-life" because if you were actually pro-life you would have absolutely no problem in paying whatever taxes to accomplish it. Because you aren't stupid enough to think that there's enough charity to fix all the problems. So again..your movement will pay up or it will shut up. Which will it be? But I find it cute that you say "What we don't do is ask the gov't to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B…" but you want the government to force female neighbor A to give birth to a child not because she wants said child…but because you say she has to give birth to it. In case you don't know the term that applies to your position its "hypocrisy." I'm sure you can look it up. Thank you for proving what I said elsewhere, Neil, that what you really want is control and power.
      
      Reply
      - Kieres November 7, 2011 - 4:27 am
        
        And that asinine claim that "conservatives give more to charity" really only works because you jackasses are the ones who cause charity to be required in the damn first place. Oh and just so you know…want to know how much the "pro-life candidate" Rick Perry gave to charity last year? $100
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:27 am
        
        My understanding is that Rick Perry has not been very generous, but cherry-picking one conservative hardly proves anything. Oh, and how about a source for the $100 claim (I know he gave more; I'm just enjoying showing how once again you make up "facts" as you go with no shame). Re. "jackasses" — again, name-calling just shows how little confidence you have in your arguments. I stick to facts and logic. I probably shouldn't point that out because every time you call names it just makes my side look better. And are you seriously blaming conservatives for all poverty in all the world for all time? Have you ever studied world history, or even American history? And why is the claim asinine if it is true? And are you seriously saying that conservatives give more but only because they allegedly caused the problem?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 4:38 am
        
        “Thank you for proving what I said elsewhere, Neil, that what you really want is control and power.”Seems to me that you want the power to crush and dismember innocent but unwanted human beings — <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lvhttp://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv<br />I have always paid 100% of my taxes and will continue to do so. And my guess is that I pay a “little” more than you do.If the government didn’t encourage this behavior (“let’s give more money to unwed mothers who have more children, and take the money away if they get married”) we wouldn’t have so much of it.“But I find it cute that you say “What we don't do is ask the gov't to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B…” but you want the government to force female neighbor A to give birth to a child not because she wants said child…but because you say she has to give birth to it”That’s a non sequitur. It isn’t charity when you force someone to “give.” And once again you ignored the unborn who gets destroyed during abortion. Why are you forcing your beliefs on the unborn instead of protecting them?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 5:08 am
        
        Once again you’ve ignored my homeless hypothetical: Could you object to their destruction by the government without having to personally house them? I know you can’t answer it without looking foolish, because you’ll either have to say it would be OK for the gov’t to kill the homeless or you’d have to agree that you couldn’t complain about it without personally housing them. Since both options would make you look ridiculous it shows that your primary argument against pro-lifers fails (not to mention that we actually help those in need with our money and that you have the same obligation to raise babies to adulthood if their mothers choose not to have them killed them in the womb).You also haven’t answered whether you think murder and theft should be illegal. Again, if you agree that they should be illegal, are you forcing your views on others? Since the Bible says murder and theft are wrong, does that mean that as a “Christian” you would be forcing your religious beliefs on others in violation of the “separation of church and state?”I know why you are scared to answer those questions. But every time you repeat your “you are forcing your views on others” canard I’m going to remind you that are deliberately avoiding very simple questions that would demonstrate if you are consistent with your views. Since you obviously aren’t consistently applying your “forcing your beliefs” argument, perhaps you should give it up. Or I can just keep pointing out your hypocrisy. I’m fine either way.
      - Nancy November 8, 2011 - 10:19 am
        
        Neil until a baby is born and can survive outside of the mothers body it is not "alive". Can such a baby be kept alive by much care and medical help? Yes. Are many babies kept alive to live out lives of misery as not much more than vegetables? Yes. If I as the woman who must bear the responsibility for the care and nurturing of a baby who is not now nor will ever be able to care for itself do not have the right to decide wether or not I will carry that child to term than we are talking enforced slavery and the risk of medical complications that can permanantly injure the woman. This is slavery to the belief of men who cannot even begin to understand the feelings and emotions of women and slavery to the religious beliefs of others that should just mind their own business. If you don't believe in abortion fine don't have one but mind your own business and let other people get on with their own lives.
      - Nancy November 8, 2011 - 10:25 am
        
        Homeless people are alive and as such should have the right to be homeless if they want to. If you would like to help them by all means help them if they want help. If not just leave them alone.
      - Neil November 8, 2011 - 10:50 am
        
        That doesn't answer my question. I asked if you could protest what you saw as an injustice without being obligated to care for its victims. As an example, I asked if one could protest the destruction of the homeless without having to care for them yourself. You can use other examples as well. Can you call the police if your neighbor is beating his kids without having to raise them yourself? Etc. I posed this question to Kieres because he kept repeating the fallacy about pro-lifers don't help people outside the womb. P.S. The unborn are just as alive as the homeless. They are just smaller and in a different location.
      - Nancy November 9, 2011 - 7:15 am
        
        I can and will protest the injustice of men deciding what a woman can and can't do with some cells that until they are able to exist outside the human body cannot be considered alive. If you want to go with that theory than you should never have a cancer removed because it is made up of living tissue and a pregnancy can be just as deadly to a woman as cancer. To answer your question I can protest the destruction of the homeless without having to care for them myself and I will call the police if my neighbor is abusing his children without having to raise them myself because their are laws against abusing your fellow human beings. The point Kieres is making is that you are forcing your beliefs on others and then walking away as though it has nothing to do with you. Can you have your own set of morals without enforcing them upon others?
      - Neil November 9, 2011 - 9:10 am
        
        “I can and will protest the injustice of men deciding what a woman can and can't do with some cells that until they are able to exist outside the human body cannot be considered alive.”If you rationalize the murder of the unborn by claiming they are a just “some cells” then that could be used to justify killing anyone outside the womb. Babies can’t exist without care outside the womb, so you just rationalized the right to kill them as well.“ If you want to go with that theory than you should never have a cancer removed because it is made up of living tissue and a pregnancy can be just as deadly to a woman as cancer.”If you can’t see the logical and scientific differences between an unborn baby and a tumor then I’m not sure you understand this topic.“To answer your question I can protest the destruction of the homeless without having to care for them myself and I will call the police if my neighbor is abusing his children without having to raise them myself because their are laws against abusing your fellow human beings.”Right! And so are the unborn. It is a scientific fact. So you and Kieres shouldn’t protest spousal abuse unless you’ll care for all the women. Otherwise you’re juts forcing your views on others.“The point Kieres is making is that you are forcing your beliefs on others and then walking away as though it has nothing to do with you. Can you have your own set of morals without enforcing them upon others?”No, I’m advocating for the protection of innocent human beings.
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 7:31 am
        
        No Neil I did not justify the killing of babies I justified the removal of a fetus that is not yet born. You can try to twist it however you want but they are two very different matters. and No I am not forcing my views on others I am saying that on the matter of what goes on inside a womans body only she has the right to decide and as with cancer a pregnancy can be deadly to a woman.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:43 am
        
        “No Neil I did not justify the killing of babies I justified the removal of a fetus that is not yet born.”Hi Nancy – I am sure that you don’t support infanticide. But anyone who makes the arguments that you can kill unborn human beings because they are dependent and/or small and/or less developed has simultaneously made the argument for infanticide. They may not support infanticide, but their arguments do.“No I am not forcing my views on others I am saying that on the matter of what goes on inside a womans body only she has the right to decide and as with cancer a pregnancy can be deadly to a woman.”You are ignoring the body inside of the woman – the body that gets destroyed. What about her rights?Side note: Nearly all gender-selection abortions are performed to kill females for the sole reason that they are female. It is one of the bizarrely ironic twists of the alleged “pro-women” angle of abortion rights.I support the legality of abortions to save the life of the mother, as does every pro-lifer I know, so the cancer analogy doesn’t apply.
      - Neil November 8, 2011 - 10:40 am
        
        “Neil until a baby is born and can survive outside of the mothers body it is not “alive”. “Hi Nancy – I hope you’ll re-evaluate that opinion in light of scientific facts, because the embryology textbooks are clear that a living human being is created at conception. The science is overwhelmingly on this — <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lqhttp://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq<br />Even without the scientific evidence, if the human being in the womb wasn’t alive and growing then why have an abortion? Babies can’t survive by themselves outside the womb, so your position would justify infanticide and more (I’m sure that isn’t your intent; I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of the “survive outside the womb” argument).All your talk of “slavery” is just emotional arguments. There are no facts or logic behind them. What if a child becomes damaged outside the womb? Is it OK to kill her then if her existence results in “slavery” for the parents?Your anti-religious bigotry also doesn’t prove your point. I am not using religious arguments, just simple science (the unborn are unique human beings) and morality (we shouldn’t kill unwanted human beings). The Hippocratic Oath was strongly and clear anti-abortion for thousands of years and it was crafted by non-Christians (Jesus hadn’t even come to earth yet). “If you don't believe in abortion fine don't have one”That sound bite was used by slave owners as well: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.” It was equally meaningless for them, because it ignored the other human being in the equation. “but mind your own business and let other people get on with their own lives.”I can’t being to tell you how ironic that statement is. My goal is to let the unborn get on with their own lives. Would you make the same statement if someone was abusing their child or killing her outside the womb? I doubt it. Therefore, the question is, “What is the unborn?” and science has given us a clear answer.
      - Nancy November 9, 2011 - 7:32 am
        
        Until a baby is born it is not a human being but a growth inside the mother some of which are physically born only to die because they have no brain or no face or some other defect that causes them to be nonviable. You said "I can’t being to tell you how ironic that statement is. My goal is to let the unborn get on with their own lives." and if their own life is one of misery and poverty because you forced the mother to give birth. What then? What if you have caused that child to be born into a life of torture because you had to force your morals on the mother? If you are going to make others live up to your moral compass you had better be prepared to see to the wellbeing of the children you force others to bring into this world otherwise you are responsible for their suffering. Wouldn't your time be better spent helping the ones who are already here?
      - Neil November 9, 2011 - 9:06 am
        
        “Until a baby is born it is not a human being but a growth inside the mother some of which are physically born only to die because they have no brain or no face or some other defect that causes them to be nonviable.” You are in error. That is the opposite of what science says. You don’t just get to say the unborn isn’t a human being, you need to back it up. I offered quotes from 10+ mainstream embryology textbooks. If you have scientific data that proves me wrong, I’d love to see it. But you shouldn’t force your anti-scientific opinions on the unborn.Citing some tragic cases is no justification for unrestricted abortion.“if their own life is one of misery and poverty because you forced the mother to give birth. What then?”How do you know they will be poor? And even if they are poor, using your logic over 6 billion people on the planet should have been aborted. “What if you have caused that child to be born into a life of torture because you had to force your morals on the mother?”What about the torture you are forcing on the unborn by not protecting her?“Wouldn't your time be better spent helping the ones who are already here?”Who says I’m not helping them? Wouldn’t your time be better spent helping those already born rather than justifying why the unborn can be killed?The unborn are already “here.” They exist. Abortion kills them. Just because they are in a unique place – the womb, which used to be synonymous with a safe place but is now deadly – doesn’t mean they don’t deserve protection.
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 7:36 am
        
        I did not say over 6 billion should be aborted I said if you enforce your beliefs on women and cause children to be born to be tortured and abused then you are responsible because you do not know the facts of that womans life and what her situation is or how she became pregnant but you think you should get to decide what her choices should or should not be in regards to this pregnancy.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:47 am
        
        “I did not say over 6 billion should be aborted”I know you didn’t. I just pointed out that the “they might be poor” rationale for abortion would doom 90% of the world to destruction.“ I said if you enforce your beliefs on women and cause children to be born to be tortured and abused then you are responsible”I don’t think you thought that through very well. How can anyone know what life someone will have? People come out of poverty all the time. Rich kids get abused. Opposing the destruction of innocent but unwanted human beings doesn’t make one responsible for every bad thing that might happen to that person, any more than they would get credit for the good that person would do.“because you do not know the facts of that womans life and what her situation is or how she became pregnant but you think you should get to decide what her choices should or should not be in regards to this pregnancy.”I agree that I don’t know the facts of her life. I just don’t think those facts support killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb any more than those same facts would support killing people outside the womb.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:47 am
        
        “I did not say over 6 billion should be aborted”I know you didn’t. I just pointed out that the “they might be poor” rationale for abortion would doom 90% of the world to destruction.“ I said if you enforce your beliefs on women and cause children to be born to be tortured and abused then you are responsible”I don’t think you thought that through very well. How can anyone know what life someone will have? People come out of poverty all the time. Rich kids get abused. Opposing the destruction of innocent but unwanted human beings doesn’t make one responsible for every bad thing that might happen to that person, any more than they would get credit for the good that person would do.“because you do not know the facts of that womans life and what her situation is or how she became pregnant but you think you should get to decide what her choices should or should not be in regards to this pregnancy.”I agree that I don’t know the facts of her life. I just don’t think those facts support killing innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb any more than those same facts would support killing people outside the womb.
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 9:24 am
        
        Then Neil it comes down to what I believe as opposed to what you believe. Why should what you believe be more important than what I believe and why do you think you have the right to make my decisions for me? You are enforcing your morals and beliefs on others who may or may not share your views for the sake of some cells that may or may not be carried to term in the first place. Control.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 9:33 am
        
        “Then Neil it comes down to what I believe as opposed to what you believe.”Yes. I believe the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings, and in the moral truth that we shouldn’t kill innocent but unwanted human beings. “Why should what you believe be more important than what I believe and why do you think you have the right to make my decisions for me?”That argument proves nothing. I could say the same thing to you. Worse yet for you, your argument ignores the right of the unborn to make decisions to live. How about waiting until they are 10 or so and then ask them if they want to be destroyed? “You are enforcing your morals and beliefs on others who may or may not share your views for the sake of some cells that may or may not be carried to term in the first place.”Again, that proves too much. Using that logic you could justify infanticide, because those cells may or may not lead to them living to be toddlers. All laws enforce moral beliefs. Do you think murder and theft should be illegal? If so, aren’t you forcing your moral views on murderers and thieves who don’t share your views?
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 10:14 am
        
        "That argument proves nothing. I could say the same thing to you. Worse yet for you, your argument ignores the right of the unborn to make decisions to live. How about waiting until they are 10 or so and then ask them if they want to be destroyed? " It all boils down to wether or not we think those cells are indeed a seperate human life and I don't happen to believe that they are a seperate life until they are indeed seperate from the mother. You have your own beliefs and again you are speaking about what some cells might someday be. If I ever get pregnant again I will ask those cells what they want. What do you think I will get for an answer? After the birth of the fetus it is a person in its own right and subject to all the rights of the legal system. Most laws are because of majority rule and some of them are pretty awful because they are based on the morals of the lawmakers. We are just human after all and do get the oddest ideas. Do I happen to agree that murder and theft should be illegal? Yes for the most part, but like everything else in life there are exceptions to every rule.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 10:19 am
        
        Then you do force your views on others and are hypocritical for critiquing me for the same.Again, you are justifying infanticide. Babies couldn't defend their existence.Fact: your beliefs are the opposite of science.Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 10:53 am
        
        Fact: my beliefs are the opposite of the authors of the science books and Fact: I am not forcing my beliefs on others I am defendings others right to choose for themselves which this law was trying to take away. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine but I have no intention of forcing my beliefs on another woman and that is why I don't think this law will ever pass. Women know what it is like to be pregnant and yes there are wonders to it but there is also heartache and I believe most women will not force another woman to go through with a pregnancy. Do you really want to bring back coathanger abortions because if a woman really wants to have an abortion she will. Which is more important the life of a "mother" who for whatever reason cannot face another pregnancy or the cells that are growing inside her that might someday be born into another human being?
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 11:50 am
        
        “Fact: my beliefs are the opposite of the authors of the science books and Fact: I am not forcing my beliefs on others I am defendings others right to choose for themselves which this law was trying to take away.”You appear to be conceding that your views are the opposite of science, so I appreciate that.But your logic fails after that. You are only defending the right of the mother to choose to kill her unwanted child. You ignore the rights of the unborn human, which the morality you are forcing on them does. “Do you really want to bring back coathanger abortions because if a woman really wants to have an abortion she will.”Of course I don’t want people to injure themselves, even if they do so while trying to kill other human beings.However, your argument ignores the 3,000+ human beings that this happened to today — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv . It wasn’t done via coathanger, but with scalpels and the like. Does that make you feel better? This is the morality you are forcing on the unborn. Why don’t you stand up and protect them?“Which is more important the life of a “mother” who for whatever reason cannot face another pregnancy or the cells that are growing inside her that might someday be born into another human being?”That is a false dichotomy. I have said many times that abortions are acceptable in the 1% of cases where the life of the woman is at stake. To advance your pro-abortion agenda and force your pro-abortion morality on the unborn you have to repeat the falsehood that the unborn aren’t human beings. And you keep trying to dehumanize the unborn by referring to them as cells. Exactly how many cells does a unique human being have to have before you will protect her life? Since you have made that your criterion for when life is worth defending the burden is on you to define your limit, the rationale behind it and how you will measure it.Better yet, just give up that “just a bunch of cells” argument, because it proves nothing except that you will say almost anything to force your pro-abortion beliefs on the unborn.(Wow, isn’t that fun to use the “force your views” canard on others! I realize it is just as fallacious when I use it as when they do. I just point it out for grins to show the pro-aborts how meaningless it is.)
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 12:01 pm
        
        I did not say the scientist are right I said that I do not agree with the authors of the science books. I am defending the right of a woman to choose what her life will be. A pregnancy can hurt a woman in more ways than medically. There are limits to when an abortion can be performed by law. I respect that law. Till then the fetus is not viable and may never be viable. Neil do you have children?
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 12:09 pm
        
        Find one science book about the beginning of human life that you do agree with. Hint: you can't. Therefore, either you are right or all the embryologists are.You are forcing your morality on the unborn and denying her the right to house what her life will be.You respect the law? No problem. We want to change the law to save the unborn.Viability = bad argument. He unborn aren't viable without care. Viability varies by city and by child, so it is a lousy way to determine who can be legally killed.We were blessed with 2 children.Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 5:58 pm
        
        Why do I have to find a science book to agree with me? There are alot of opinions out there I don't agree with why do I have to have others agree with me? Is this supposed to make my argument better? Your examples talk about the beginning of, start of, initiation of, a human being. Not that it is a human being. But that it may become one. Even scientist know that many pregnancies are not viable and the outcome may be disasterous. You are trying to take a mothers right to choices away from her because you personally don't agree with them. You think you are qualified to determine what others should do because of your beliefs. Well I can't and won't make that decision for others and I will do my utmost to make sure that they are allowed to choose based on their own beliefs.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 6:08 pm
        
        You ignore science and common sense. What bring would two human beings create other than a human being?You take away the choices of the unborn. You ignore their right to life.You think that because of your beliefs that unwanted human beings can be crushed and dismembered.You are like most pro-aborts who blather about some vague choice but never finish the sentence: the choice to kill your child because you don't want her.Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 6:22 pm
        
        No Neil I did not kill my children. I did not even abort a fetus or kill the cells within me. That was not my choice. I just want to ensure that others have their own choices not based on someone elses beliefs. Because until a fetus far enough along to be kept alive with or without medical aid outside the womans body it is not a seperate human.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 6:26 pm
        
        You just approve of others killing unwanted children. You force your beliefs on the defenseless unborn. And your justifications would condone infanticide, whether you mean them to or not.Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 6:30 pm
        
        I do not approve or disapprove of others actions when it comes to legal abortions. A woman has the right to control what goes on in her own body and I am not going to judge her over her choice. Until a fetus far enough along to be kept alive with or without medical aid outside the womans body it is not a seperate human and not a child. It has not yet become.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 6:36 pm
        
        Bad science. Again.Worse morality. Again.Sent from my iPhone
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 6:36 pm
        
        Bad science. Again.Worse morality. Again.Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 6:51 pm
        
        It all depends on your point of view and luckily I like mine better than yours. It is not based on your science or on your morality. It is based on my view of humanity. Your plan makes woman slaves to your point of view and that is worse in my mind than getting rid of some cells that may never grow into another human being. Plus if it did and was another female than she would also not be free to choose what is right for her life. Goodnight Neal.
      - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:00 pm
        
        She couldn't choose what is right for her life because her mom didn't have the right to crush and dismember her in the womb?! Do you have any sense of irony?Sent from my iPhone
      - Nancy November 12, 2011 - 12:35 pm
        
        Right the irony is that you think you have the right to make a live person carry cells that will MAYBE make another live person, MAYBE kill them both, MAYBE make them live a life of destitution because you say so. What gives you that right? I know what you believe well go ahead and believe it go ahead and live it in your life. Or do you have to control every woman in the country? If so why? When I weigh the rights of a live person against the rights of some cells that are only the beginning of a human the live one wins every time and has the right to choose what goes on in her body. NOT YOU!
      - Neil November 12, 2011 - 12:54 pm
        
        "When I weigh the rights of a live person against the rights of some cells that are only the beginning of a human the live one wins every time and has the right to choose what goes on in her body. " That argument may work on those ignorant of or hostile to science. For the rest of us, we know that the unborn are alive (that's a scientific fact, and besides why have an abortion if they human being isn't alive and growing?). And like most pro-abortion arguments, that one is self-refuting, because it denies the unborn the right to choose what goes on in her body — or more specifically, to her body, when the abortionist crushes her skull and rips her limbs off. The "control" argument is silly as well. Do you oppose the killing of toddlers by their mothers? If so, does that mean you have to control every woman in the country? Defeating pro-abortion logic is so easy. 99% of their arguments are anti-basic scientific facts and ignore the humanity of the unborn. To make up for their lack of logic the pro-aborts simply resort to name-calling, just like your typical 7 yr. old does.
      - Nancy November 13, 2011 - 11:39 am
        
        Neil you and I will never agree on this.! I don't remember calling you anything but your name and you did not defeat my logic you just tried to replace it with your own flawed logic. For the last time until a fetus can survive outside of the womb with or without the aid of medical science it is not yet another human being. Have a happy life Neil and try not to make too many woman unhappy by forcing your lopsided view of the world on them.
      - Neil November 13, 2011 - 11:59 am
        
        What is your grounding for your claim that it isn't a human being until it can survive on her own? Pity any infants in your care! I have all the science on my side. I'm too pro-science to be pro-choice.I hope you have a happy life and don't deprive too many human beings of the opportunity to lead their own lives.Sent from my iPhone
  - Kieres November 4, 2011 - 10:28 am
    
    So, Neil, you and the other pro-life crowd are willing to see your taxes jacked through the roof to pay for the children's health care, their homes, their food, their education, right? After all..if you're going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you're willing to pay for it, right? That means you pay for prenatal care, their health care as kids, teens, up to adults. If the mother is working lots you'll pay for the kids daycare right? And if the mother can't afford to send the kids to a good school you'll pay for that too? And you'll also agree to pay for welfare where necessary, right? Oh and college too..you'll be ponying up the money for that too right? Time for you and your fellow "pro-lifers" to actually prove that you give a damn about life after its born. So put up and pay up or shut up, Neil.
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:50 am
      
      "After all..if you're going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you're willing to pay for it, right? " Since you keep repeating the same fallacy, how about answering my question first: Again, what if the government was going to "solve" homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn't create. You see, your attempted logic is that if I don't raise the children to adulthood then I can't complain about the immorality of them being destroyed. But you have to live by your logic as well. Could you protest the destruction of toddlers without having to adopt them and raise them? Cute attempt at adding college to the mix. Now, are you going to keep repeating your fallacy or are you going to answer my question?
      
      Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:33 am
    
    "Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one." Please point out which religious argument I made that you are objecting to. Or do you not realize that your anti-religious bigotry and prejudices caused you to reflexively play your "theocracy" card even though my arguments were purely secular. My premise is simple: Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions. Therefore, those abortions are wrong. I'll be glad to discuss Jesus' views on the topic if you like, but I typically save those for those claiming to be Christians. And even if my religious views align with my secular views, that doesn't discount them in any way. Or do you think that stealing, murder, perjury, etc. have to be made legal because laws against them currently agree with the Bible?
    
    Reply
    - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:32 am
      
      The pro-life argument basicaly boils down, neil, to always "God doesn't like abortions." Sorry, as Christian as I am I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that the people have to live by a supposedly Christian set of beliefs. Oh and by the way…just so you know…the Bible treats abortion at best as a property crime. But lets just say that you're one of those "I object to abortion on religious grounds' types the question still is..where does it say that you get to force others to live by your beliefs?
      
      Reply
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:34 am
        
        Oh..and the fact that you defend "Personhood USA" is rather a clue And the next time you say "Abortion isn't about "reproductive health" then you might want to realize that you're screwing your own argument because your apparent objection to abortion is…on the grounds of reproduction. Sorry, Neil, you don't get to have it both ways. Which is it?
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:02 am
        
        Huh? My argument is that you shouldn't kill innocent human beings. Those human beings exist, so they have already been reproduced. I am not following your criticism.
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:47 am
        
        correction that should read "But lets just say that you're NOT one of those…"
      - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:49 am
        
        Neil, if one of my cousins got pregnant and she wanted an abortion and you objected about it to her face my reaction would boil down to either "**** you" or she wouldn't be the only one in the hospital. You don't have the right to force your beliefs down other people's throats. You don't have the right to legislate your beliefs and force others to live by them. Your rights, dimwit, start and end where you start and end.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:06 am
        
        I think you should oppose having your cousin's son or daughter killed just because he or she is unwanted. I'm not sure how threatening me with angry words or violent acts supports your argument. Again, your "forcing your beliefs" theme is fallacious. What do you think legislation is, anyway? It is the beliefs of those who crafted and approved it, and as citizens we can influence that. Again, unless you are proposing that all laws be taken off the books and we live in anarchy, then you favor "forcing your beliefs" on others. So how about if you stop embarrassing yourself by repeating that fallacious bumper sticker slogan? Oh noes! You called me a dimwit, so you must be right.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:30 am
        
        If your cousin, or anyone else you know, wants an abortion I hope you'll try to persuade them otherwise. A friend was just relating to me this morning how his wife's friend still is haunted by an abortion she had decades ago. She is the rule, not the exception. I urge people to find a crisis pregnancy center in their area. There is a lot of free help and advice they can get. If they still want to get an abortion somewhere else, no one will stop them. In fact, if they go have an abortion and feel guilty about it later (which they will), they can come to the pregnancy center for free, loving post abortion trauma counseling. If you are skeptical of pregnancy centers or have believed what the 90%+ wildly pro-abortion media tells you about them, then I encourage you to use your investigative skills and go see for yourself. Call one up and ask for a tour. I think you'll be surprised at what you find. I've volunteered and been on the board of directors of one for almost 10 years and the feedback from the clients is universally positive.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:01 am
        
        "The pro-life argument basicaly boils down, neil, to always "God doesn't like abortions."" Only in the minds of people like you who ignore scientific facts. Oh, and tell that to the pro-life atheists I know. And was the anti-abortion Hippocratic Oath oath written by Christians or Jews? Hint: No. You call yourself a Christian??!! Wow. Just wow. "Oh and by the way…just so you know…the Bible treats abortion at best as a property crime. " Oh, I would love some Bible lessons from you! You appear to know as much about it as you do science. Remember, you are the one making religious arguments, not me. This is a secular site so I was sticking to science and logic. You deliberately ignore science, then try to make bad religious arguments. Sad. The Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion. It says not to murder, but it doesn't list all the possible ways of murdering and shedding innocent blood. Jesus is the author of life, and abortion takes that life. If you claim the name of Christ you should read all these verses and responses to bad pro-abortion arguments — http://tinyurl.com/4prolife . And you miss the obvious self-refutation in your comment: All laws are about someone's beliefs about right and wrong. Any time you vote for or against something you are "forcing your beliefs" (using your definition).
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:02 am
        
        The Bible says not to steal or murder. Do you support laws against theft and murder? If so, why are you trying to force others to live by your religious beliefs?
    - Kieres November 5, 2011 - 10:57 am
      
      I am Christian, child. I just happen to be one of those Christians who agrees that I have no right to force my religion's beliefs down other people's throats using the law. In other words..I'm not a dimwitted theocrat. You can argue that abortion is a moral depravity all you want, Neil, but you are trying to change one moral depravity for another moral depravity. And don't even pretend that you know what Jesus or God wants. The Bible, child, was written by humans. In fact the Bible specifically says that if a man assaults a woman causing her to lose her yet unborn baby its' nothing more then a property crime. Ever read Exodus 21: 22-25? Oh and by the way, and I'll say this in all caps for you: THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT ANSWER TO THE BIBLE. And as for "Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings' I hate it to break it to you..nature kills a lot more innocent not yet born human beings. I have four siblings that were stillborn to prove that. Or are you going to say that God is guilty of murder?
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:10 am
        
        "And don't even pretend that you know what Jesus or God wants. The Bible, child, was written by humans." It claims to speak for God over 3,000 times, not to mention several claims that all of it was inspired by God. That's the view that Christians hold. And Jesus supported every last letter of the Old Testament. If you are really a Christian — that is, saved by trusting in Jesus, fully man and fully God — then you should agree with him. "Ever read Exodus 21: 22-25? " Yes, I have, and I've written about it — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/exodus-… . I already noted in a comment at the top of the thread how people like you ignore 99% of what the Bible says about life, then you latch on to a mistranslation in Exodus 21 (as if you cared what the rest of Exodus said or believed that God really wrote it) because you want to support abortion.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:13 am
        
        "And as for "Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings' I hate it to break it to you..nature kills a lot more innocent not yet born human beings. I have four siblings that were stillborn to prove that. Or are you going to say that God is guilty of murder?" I am sincerely sorry to hear about the stillbirths. My wife had 5 miscarriages aside from the two living children we were blessed with. The Bible is quite clear: God does not apologize for being responsible for life and death. But please carefully consider your argument. Do you honestly not see the difference between these two: 1. Innocent person outside the womb dies of natural causes. 2. Innocent person outside the womb is crushed and dismembered by another person. Most people would realize that the first is the result of a fallen world and the second is murder. Now let's compare that to abortion: 1. Innocent person inside the womb dies of natural causes. 2. Innocent person inside the womb is crushed and dismembered by another person. I see a big difference. Using your logic, just because people die naturally inside or outside the womb that murder isn't wrong. I doubt that you really believe that.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:15 am
        
        "Oh and by the way, and I'll say this in all caps for you: THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT ANSWER TO THE BIBLE. " Well, gee, since you used all caps. Remind me again who brought the Bible into this, please. Oh, it was you. I'm using secular reasoning. You are making a straw man argument that I am saying that the laws have to answer to the Bible. It seems to me that if you were a Christian and really believed that Jesus was God and your eternal Savior that you'd think his ideas would be good ones by which to run your family and society.
      - Neil November 5, 2011 - 11:32 am
        
        "And don't even pretend that you know what Jesus or God wants." I don't want to get off-topic here, but feel free to contact me at my blog if you want to discuss that further. I'm confused as to how someone could claim to be a Christian if they don't know enough about Jesus to know what He wants. I'm not saying that Christians don't make errors in interpreting the Bible. But if you thought it was impossible to know key truths about Jesus then I'm not sure why you would follow him.
- Shane November 10, 2011 - 12:42 pm
  
  Your argument comparing the killing of homeless people to abortion is flawed. At conception the cells do not have a brain, they do not have nerves, nor do they have hearts. They cannot feel, think, or survive without the mother. They are a cluster of cells that will EVENTUALLY be a human being. Homeless people on the other hand can think, do feel, and are surviving independent of their mothers.
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 10, 2011 - 12:55 pm
    
    “Your argument comparing the killing of homeless people to abortion is flawed. At conception the cells do not have a brain, they do not have nerves, nor do they have hearts. They cannot feel, think, or survive without the mother. They are a cluster of cells that will EVENTUALLY be a human being. Homeless people on the other hand can think, do feel, and are surviving independent of their mothers.”Hi Shane – I think you missed the point of my homeless argument. Kieres and others are quick to repeat the fallacy that pro-lifers are obligated to care for the un-aborted children. In Keires’ example, he insisted that I would have to even fund a college education for all of them!So I used the homeless example to demonstrate what should be obvious: Protesting a moral wrong doesn’t obligate you to care for its victims.In the homeless example, it is obviously wrong to kill the homeless (at least I hope it is obvious!), so my question is simple: Can you object to that moral wrong without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? If so, then people shouldn’t use that bad argument against pro-lifers.I also go on to point out that pro-lifers do plenty to help people with their own time and money (much more so than the pro-legalized abortion crowd) and that based on their own reasoning, the pro-aborts are also obligated to help those not aborted.Re. your “dependency” claim – I’m not sure you want to go down that path. Newborns are fully dependent on others, so we can’t kill them. And many others in society are dependent on others and they shouldn’t be killed over that. So dependency is not a good argument to use to support abortion.At conception there is a unique human being at a particular stage of development. Their worth of the human is inherent in her nature, not her size of level of development.
    
    Reply
    - "B" November 14, 2011 - 4:45 am
      
      I wonder if you would force someone to have another person grafted to them, in order to use their heart,lungs, etc for 9 months. Would you force someone to accept that burden? And would they be free to have the other person removed? After all, since you so sincerely believe that a mere cluster of cells, beginning to develop is equivilent to a full grown self aware human being, this should be a no-brainer. Your starting down a slippery slope, one that ends with the rights of a woman's control over her body being trumped by those of a zygote/embryo/baby that is incapable of surviving without her complete biological support. And stop trying to convolute the argument by comparing social dependence to biological. Even abandoned children have a chance if someone else is willing and able to care for them. They don't need their mothers, the way an early term pregnancy does. And while we're on the subject of biological dependence… What's your thoughts on siamese twins? Should one die to make sure the other has a chance to live? Oh, and I called you a troll since you posted about 100 different times so far, and your obviously trying to bait us back to your site to bring up traffic. Its a pity Kieres was foolish enough to give you the attention your craving.
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 14, 2011 - 5:33 am
        
        “I wonder if you would force someone to have another person grafted to them, in order to use their heart,lungs, etc for 9 months. Would you force someone to accept that burden? And would they be free to have the other person removed?”Let’s narrate what you are trying to do here. You have created what is known as a straw-man argument, a logical fallacy used to misstate my views so that you can attempt to make me look like I’m in the wrong. It is a subtle method of cheating.Your example ignores how the other person got there. The mother has an inherent obligation to care for that person.Just for grins, I’ll answer your question: No, I wouldn’t force someone to do that, because the person being grafted on forced themselves on the woman and is not the child of the woman. So even though your question was a logical fallacy, I still have a sound answer to it.Now let me ask you some questions which aren’t fallacies.Would you crush and dismember an innocent human being just because she was unwanted?In anticipation of questions about the 1% of abortions done in the case of rape, let me ask you these questions: Would you kill a completely innocent human being just because she was the child of a rapist? Would you approve of capital punishment for the rapist?
      - Neil November 14, 2011 - 5:43 am
        
        “After all, since you so sincerely believe that a mere cluster of cells, beginning to develop is equivilent to a full grown self aware human being, this should be a no-brainer.”You have once again misstated my argument. I didn’t say those are equivalent. They obviously are not. I merely stated the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings, and I provided ample evidence for my views. In return, I got all sort of anti-scientific, unsubstantiated opinions.Calling the unborn a “mere cluster of cells” demonstrates scientific ignorance. And I could play that game and call you a mere cluster of cells. That term proves nothing; it is just a sad attempt to dehumanize the unborn.Babies don’t meet the definition of self-awareness and are obviously not full grown adults. Do you think it should be ok to kill them if they are unwanted?“Your starting down a slippery slope, one that ends with the rights of a woman's control over her body being trumped by those of a zygote/embryo/baby that is incapable of surviving without her complete biological support.”Babies can’t survive without support, either. Do you think it should be ok to kill them if they are unwanted?When appealing to the right of the woman to control her body you have ignored the right of the unborn’s body. “And stop trying to convolute the argument by comparing social dependence to biological. Even abandoned children have a chance if someone else is willing and able to care for them. They don't need their mothers, the way an early term pregnancy does.”So you are totally OK with an abortion where the baby has been delivered yet is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord? “Oh, and I called you a troll since you posted about 100 different times so far, and your obviously trying to bait us back to your site to bring up traffic. Its a pity Kieres was foolish enough to give you the attention your craving.”I don’t see how that qualifies as trolling. I don’t care if you visit my site or not. I was merely answering questions and objections to my views. If you would not have commented, I would not have commented again.Yes, it is a pity that Kieres was foolish, but not for the reason you cited. He was foolish for not answering my very simple questions that exposed his faulty arguments. When he ignored those and just repeated fallacious personal attacks he just showed how empty his views were. If I were a pro-abort I would not want people like him on my side. I could argue the pro-abortion positions better than he could. Oh, and even if I was trolling, you have an odd morality. You think trolling is bad and worthy of public condemnation (my, how judgmental of you!) yet you think that innocent human beings can be killed if they are unwanted.So if you don’t want me to “troll,” then just don’t reply. I’m fine with that. I just don’t want to be rude and not respond to people who pose questions or who say things that are illogical and/or anti-science.
Neil November 4, 2011 - 5:02 am

"Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November." You don't need to vote to decide that. It is a firmly established scientific fact — http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony…

Reply
- Kieres November 4, 2011 - 10:18 am
  
  Oh really? Then pray tell why does Judaism say otherwise?
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 4, 2011 - 10:41 am
    
    Uh, because Judaism is wrong on a scientific fact? (Did I really have to type that?). It is amusing to see (bad) religious arguments made on a secular site. It is almost as if you really, really like abortion and will use any argument you can, even if faulty and religious. I hope people read the link and realize how explicitly clear science is on the topic. So sad to see all these anti-science people out there wondering when life begins, when the facts couldn't be more clear.
    
    Reply
Neil November 4, 2011 - 9:44 am

"Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions" Sorry to be repetitive, but I must point back to scientific facts here. Abortion isn't about "reproductive health." The mother and father have already reproduced! If they hadn't, there would be no abortion to consider.

Reply
- Mike Daniels November 4, 2011 - 10:51 am
  
  Neil, as repeatedly noted, this Personhood measure would outlaw most forms of birth control. Do you think that is a good thing?
  
  Reply
- Nancy November 11, 2011 - 7:42 am
  
  The mother and father have not reproduced until the child is actually breathing on their own until that time it is not a seperate living entity. Yes when two cells join they create a new cell and the parents have produced that new cell but until the fetus is able to exist outside the mothers body it is just that a fetus.
  
  Reply
  - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 7:45 am
    
    Sorry I misspoke the mother and father have not reproduced until the child is actually outside of the mothers body and then it is up to nature whether or not that child survives.
    
    Reply
  - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:52 am
    
    “The mother and father have not reproduced until the child is actually breathing on their own until that time it is not a seperate living entity.”You can say that, but I can also say that I have a square circle. That doesn’t make the statement true.If a new human being hasn’t been reproduced then abortion wouldn’t be desired. There would be nothing to abort. But abortion kills a human being that has been reproduced (that’s why the term “reproductive rights” should never be used to describe abortion rights).“Yes when two cells join they create a new cell and the parents have produced that new cell but until the fetus is able to exist outside the mothers body it is just that a fetus.”What kind of a fetus? A human fetus. A human being at a particular stage of development.Again, babies can’t exist outside the womb without care. If you neglect the baby and she dies then the government will take issue with that, and rightly so. Your justification for abortion proves too much, as it would simultaneously justify infanticide. I doubt that you support infanticide, so you should give up the “dependency” argument when trying to justify abortion.
    
    Reply
Neil November 5, 2011 - 10:25 am

To the blog owner / moderator: Many thanks for providing a forum where opposing views can be shared. I have tried to respect the secular nature of the site by offering secular pro-life reasoning. The only times I made any mention of religion was in response to others who brought it up. I trust that those who sincerely appreciate scientific facts and logic will follow the truth where it leads. Peace, Neil

Reply
- Kieres November 5, 2011 - 3:52 pm
  
  The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn't get to force others how to live. But since you're so interested, Neil, in science and science fact…you might want to look up this term in science: Parasite.
  
  Reply
  - Neil November 6, 2011 - 6:17 am
    
    “The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn't get to force others how to live.”Yes, and that was said by someone who has conveniently ignored it when I asked if you think it should be illegal to steal and murder. So I’ll ask again: Do you think it should be illegal to steal and murder? If so, are you forcing others how to live? Are you forcing your religion on them because the Bible says not to steal and murder?Here’s a challenge: Answer the questions without changing the subject again. I appreciate you playing along. Having a pro-abort make all these bad arguments on a secular site is like gold to me. I just hope lots of authentically middle ground people read the thread and realize how you have dodged all my simple questions and just responded with hypocritical personal attacks.
    
    Reply
  - Neil November 6, 2011 - 6:21 am
    
    Ah, the parasite argument. Right on queue! I just wrote about that this week: <a href="http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/are-unborn-human-beings-parasites/http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/are-unb… />I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.Of course those who use this argument ignore pure scientific facts about the unborn being unique human beings so they can take an overly broad definition of the term “parasite” to dehumanize the unborn. It smacks of desperation.This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. Or even kill the child as she is breast feeding, since that would fit their loose definition of parasite. They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking. People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).
    
    Reply
  - Neil November 6, 2011 - 6:28 am
    
    And here’s a response to the “parasite” argument by a female atheist (so have fun using your anti-women, judgmental, anti-religion arguments on this one):“By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date. That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally).While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.”
    
    Reply
    - Mike Daniels November 6, 2011 - 5:39 pm
      
      While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you.
      
      How is the 11-year-old girl raped by her father, or the 20-year-old woman drugged and date-raped, responsible for creating the situation?
      
      Reply
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 4:32 am
        
        Those represent 1% of abortions, and another 1% of abortions are to save the life of the mother, which pro-lifers don't take issue with (they are consistent with the pro-life ethic). I'll be glad to explain why the rape/incest abortions are also immoral. First, are you conceding the argument above for the 98% of abortions where the women did create the situation for dependency?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 11:16 am
        
        There are many responses to the "parasite" argument. You identified a 1% exception to that specific response, so I assume that you'll concede that all the other pregnancies wouldn't qualify as parasites because of that? Parasites are always parasites. They don't magically turn into human beings worthy of protection at some point in their growth.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 11:31 am
        
        I'm neither supporting nor rejecting the "parasite" argument. I responded directly and solely to your assertion that pregnant women are responsible for creating an embryo. How is a woman denied access to birth control (perhaps by it being made illegal through a Personhood law) but expected to perform sexually for her husband (as many churches demand) "responsible" for creating the situation? I suppose she could get a divorce and lose custody of her children, right? Oh, and by her faith, also condemn herself to hell should she choose to remarry someday, because she'd be an adulteress. Does that make her "responsible"?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 11:38 am
        
        It is a straw man to say that all birth control will be illegal. Done.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 11:40 am
        
        Nobody said it would. I said a woman denied access to birth control. Either her husband or parents deny her access, or her insurance won't cover it and it's not affordable, or in the case of Personhood passing, the most reliable forms (IUDs and the Pill) are made illegal and she must rely on condoms — which requires her husband's consent. Meanwhile, it is a straw man to say that "denied access to birth control" means "all possible forms of birth control made illegal".
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 12:04 pm
        
        Those reasons wouldn't justify killing a toddler conceived under those circumstances, so they also will never justify killing the unborn.Sent from my iPhone
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 2:26 pm
        
        That's not what I asked you. Are you unable to respond to the question? How are the women in those situations — rape, no access to birth control, etc. — "responsible" for creating an embryo? Your entire argument hinges upon the woman being responsible for creating the situation; how are these women responsible?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:11 pm
        
        I answered that, but you didn’t see it. I said that rape was a 1% exception to the “responsibility” claim. Here is exactly what I said: “You identified a 1% exception to that specific response, so I assume that you'll concede that all the other pregnancies wouldn't qualify as parasites because of that?” That means I agreed with your claim about the woman not being responsible for rape. So I am able to respond to your question, and I just responded again. I hope that helps.I also pointed out that there are plenty of other arguments against the “parasite” argument to still nullify it. Father / daughter incest might as well be called rape. In fact, those abortions are typically to hide the crime.If husbands rape their wives, then that is rape as well and they wouldn’t be responsible in that sense (though it would still be immoral to destroy a human life for the sins of the father). Aside from non-consensual sex (i.e., rape or incest), if you have sex without birth control, with no access to birth control, or with birth control that fails, you are responsible.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:15 pm
        
        "Your entire argument hinges upon the woman being responsible for creating the situation" I assume by "entire argument" you just mean one of my arguments against the "parasite" silliness. My primary (not entire) argument is that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it is immoral to do so for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 3:19 pm
        
        In other words, you are unable to respond to the question. Instead of explaining how women are always responsible for being pregnant, you instead yammer about "well, 99% of abortions are immoral". Upon what you base that statistic, I have no idea. Now answer the simple question, how are the women who are raped or are unable to obtain adequate birth control "responsible" for being pregnant?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:24 pm
        
        If you'll approve the comment that I sent via email and posted here that gave me an "in moderation" message, then you'll have your answer. If they get raped, they aren't responsible. If they didn't get "adequate" birth control but had sex anyway, they are responsible. Actions involve risks (did I really just have to type that?). The 99% figure is simple: 1% of abortions are to save the life of the mother. Those are consistent with the pro-life ethic. The other 99% kill an innocent human being just because she is unwanted.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 3:28 pm
        
        Upon what are you basing that statistic? And I've approved your comment twice already, the system is lagged. You did NOT answer it. If a woman is unable to get birth control because your Prop 26 passes and MAKES IT ILLEGAL, beyond condoms which require her husband's consent at each use, yet she is expected to perform sexually because of her religion and to retain custody of her children, how is she responsible? Do you think a woman who wants no more children should walk out on her husband and children to avoid bearing more kids because your Prop 26 passed and she can no longer use the Pill or an IUD?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:35 pm
        
        You can come up with all the hypotheticals you like, especially since you know that many forms of BC besides condoms will really still be available. But the fact is that if people have consensual sex their is the risk of getting pregnant. If you think that you can make life risk-free you are in a fantasy world. And remember, this segment of the debate is just about the silly "parasite" argument, to which there are many other rebuttals. Even in cases of rape the unborn shouldn't be crushed and dismembered. If you want to suggest capital punishment for the father I'd be glad to consider your case. But not for the innocent child. The 99% statistic is readily available. Just search for abortion stats. Roughly 1% of abortions are for the life of the mother (e.g., ectopic pregnancies). The others are for one or more reasons such as family or boyfriend pressures, economic issues, careers, "not ready for a baby," etc.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 3:42 pm
        
        I'm not at all interested in the "parasite" argument, and have said repeatedly I'm not responding to that, but to your assertion that all women are responsible for being pregnant. You know as well as I do that the Pill and IUDs are the most effective birth control available short of sterilization, and that both would be made illegal by Prop 26. As would in-vitro fertilization. And you have the odd — truly odd, to me — apparent belief that if a woman (or 12-year-old girl) is not "responsible enough" to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, or not "tough enough" to divorce her husband, she should be forced to bear and raise an unwanted child. As though a baby is a punishment, or something.
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:59 pm
        
        Babies are a logical consequence of sex (again, did I really just have to type that?).What you are missing is what your argument is all about: “I can imagine unpleasant hypothetical scenarios that will be made better if it is legal to crush and dismember innocent human beings.” I concede that the situations are unpleasant. I don’t concede that killing innocent human beings is the solution.Yes, I think that if women get pregnant and their lives are not at stake, then they should not pay someone to do this — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv They can give the baby up for adoption if they like. But every reason you’ve given for killing the unborn would apply to killing those outside the womb as well.
      - veez November 8, 2011 - 4:33 am
        
        "Babies are a logical consequence of sex (again, did I really just have to type that?)." This is the shining argument that makes most pro-lifers lose all credibility in my eyes. By calling a baby a "consequence" you are showing your obvious belief that its a punishment for an action, which would be sexual intercourse. You on the other hand, being both male and christian have no sympathy for situations that spiral out of control for the women involved, and think only of your beliefs that something that might turn into a human is worth more than every single life it would effect. Your refusal to respond to Mike's questions also shows your bias. You offer nothing in the way of reducing the need of abortions through education, legislation, and empowerment, but sit here in judgment of people you do not know.
      - Neil November 8, 2011 - 5:06 am
        
        “By calling a baby a “consequence” you are showing your obvious belief that its a punishment for an action, which would be sexual intercourse.”Since your indictment of me trades on the word “consequence,” I encourage you to examine the definition of that word: “the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.” Consequences can be positive or negative. I was using it in a neutral way, simply noting that the biological purpose of sex is to produce children. There are other elements of sex, of course, but that is the biological purpose.Oddly, it was the radically pro-abortion President of the U.S. that wants abortion available for his teenaged daughters so they wouldn’t be “punished” by a pregnancy. I’m the one saying that life is valuable and not a punishment.I hope you reconsider your assessment in light of the definition of the word in question.“your beliefs that something that might turn into a human is worth more than every single life it would effect”That isn’t my belief. My belief is that it is human from conception, and every major embryology textbook agrees with me (or more accurately, I agree with those scientists) — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq So you are on the wrong side of science on this crucial issue. The fetus is a human fetus, at a particular stage of development. It isn’t that she “might” turn into a human, she is a human.I am very familiar with the other lives affected. But my position is simple: Regardless of the potential effects on those other people, we shouldn’t crush and dismember an innocent human being in a vain attempt to “improve” those lives. The same logic applies outside the womb. “You on the other hand, being both male and christian have no sympathy for situations that spiral out of control for the women involved, and think only of your beliefs that something that might turn into a human is worth more than every single life it would effect. You offer nothing in the way of reducing the need of abortions through education, legislation, and empowerment, but sit here in judgment of people you do not know.”That’s odd – do you have direct access to my calendar and checkbook? If so, tell me how many years I’ve volunteered at Care Net Pregnancy Center, counseling the men who come in with their wives / girlfriends? How many tens of thousands of dollars have I donated to help these people in need? How many tens of thousands of dollars have I donated to help children in need around the world? How do you know that I offer nothing to reduce abortions? I try to stay focused on the specific topic at hand. “but sit here in judgment of people you do not know”That seems rather hypocritical of you. You seem very judgmental and are forming opinions without facts. “Your refusal to respond to Mike's questions also shows your bias”Mike’s non sequitur on the “parasite” portion of the thread caused some confusion, but I answered his questions several times. I teach classes in pro-life reasoning and am familiar with all the pro-abortion arguments and how to refute them.Is it possible that your fact-free, anti-scientific personal attacks are showing your bias?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:26 pm
        
        4th try — this doesn't appear to like it when I copy and paste from the email . . . If husbands rape their wives, then that is rape as well and they wouldn’t be responsible in that sense (though it would still be immoral to destroy a human life for the sins of the father). Aside from non-consensual sex (i.e., rape or incest), if you have sex without birth control, with no access to birth control, or with birth control that fails, you are responsible.
      - Mike Daniels November 7, 2011 - 3:30 pm
        
        So when your Prop 26 passes and women can’t get birth control, you recommend that they get divorced and become celibate or lesbians if they wish to avoid bearing children? After all, Catholic hospitals are doing their level best to eliminate voluntary sterilization (Catholic hospitals won’t perform them, and they are merging with public hospitals left and right). You do realize that the passage of Prop 26 will result in MORE unintended pregnancies, and thus MORE abortions, right? With MORE back-alley dangerous abortions which lead to dead women?
      - Neil November 7, 2011 - 3:19 pm
        
        ** sorry if this ends up posting twice — I replied via email but is hasn't shown up yet ** I answered that, but you didn’t see it. I said that rape was a 1% exception to the “responsibility” claim. Here is exactly what I said: “You identified a 1% exception to that specific response, so I assume that you'll concede that all the other pregnancies wouldn't qualify as parasites because of that?” That means I agreed with your claim about the woman not being responsible for rape. So I am able to respond to your question, and I just responded again. I hope that helps. I also pointed out that there are plenty of other arguments against the “parasite” argument to still nullify it. Father / daughter incest might as well be called rape. In fact, those abortions are typically to hide the crime. If husbands rape their wives, then that is rape as well and they wouldn’t be responsible in that sense (though it would still be immoral to destroy a human life for the sins of the father). Aside from non-consensual sex (i.e., rape or incest), if you have sex without birth control, with no access to birth control, or with birth control that fails, you are responsible.
Kat November 5, 2011 - 11:20 am

"These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors." PREVENTED.. PREVENTED…PREVENTED.. there was NO LIFE to kill. It was PREVENTED from happening. Just like a lock on my front door PREVENTS a person from just walking in by using a combination of factors. The slot for the key, the correct key, insertion of said key, the proper turning of the knob, the pushing to open the door…

Reply
- Mike Daniels November 6, 2011 - 5:40 pm
  
  Kat, if life is legally defined as beginning at conception (the moment the sperm meets the egg), then birth control pills, by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg, are ending that life. Likewise, fertilizing a dozen eggs for implantation means you have created a dozen lives. Throwing unwanted frozen embryos away is then legally murder.
  
  Reply
- Nancy November 9, 2011 - 7:59 am
  
  This is not a good example because although having a lock may prevent someone from entering your home it by no means ensures that it will not happen.
  
  Reply
Pingback: The usual pro-life debate thread | Eternity Matters
Amanda November 7, 2011 - 6:45 pm

And what will be the man's role in all of this? Will he be forced to stay with the girl he helped get pregnant? Will he be obligated to give 50% or more of his pay check to her for this baby? Will he have to drop out of school as well to be there for his child? Hmmm. Please someone tell me, after all it does take 2.

Reply
- Neil November 8, 2011 - 10:57 am
  
  Good points, Amanda. It does take two. He will be required to pay child support, but unfortunately the law can't make him be a good dad. That is why so many guys heavily pressure their girlfriends to have abortions. They get to have sex without (perceived) consequences that way. Most of the burden falls on the woman.
  
  Reply
  - Kieres November 8, 2011 - 4:30 pm
    
    So Neil, if a woman has a stillbirth are they going to be charged with murder? Oh and by the way..just ask Congressman Joe Walsh what Republicans think of "child support." And when are you going to support your taxes being increased enough to pay for all those unborn babies and their mothers having the best health care possible? Oh and the best health care after they're born too? Or do you simply not give a damn about life, Neil, after it's born?
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 8, 2011 - 5:09 pm
      
      “So Neil, if a woman has a stillbirth are they going to be charged with murder? “Kieres, I can’t thank you enough. This is like gold to me, to be able to come to a secular site and have someone like you come up with one ridiculous fallacy after another. Name calling, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, etc. It is a pure fallacy-fest. How one could twist anything I’ve written to think that stillbirths would result in murder charges is beyond me. Are you saying that you find these two to be equivalent?1. Person outside the womb dies of natural causes.2. Person outside the womb is crush and dismembered because she is unwanted.Hopefully you see the difference. The same thing applies inside the womb or stillbirths. Miscarriages and stillbirths are not abortions.“Oh and by the way..just ask Congressman Joe Walsh what Republicans think of “child support.” “I have no idea what you are talking about, but my inference is that you found some exception somewhere and are extrapolating that to all Republicans, everywhere. Gee, using that logic we just need to find one Democrat who did something then we can assume you completely agree with them.Logic: You’re doin’ it wrong.“And when are you going to support your taxes being increased enough to pay for all those unborn babies and their mothers having the best health care possible? Oh and the best health care after they're born too? Or do you simply not give a damn about life, Neil, after it's born?”Mr. Short Term memory, I’ve addressed that canard many times, but thanks for the opportunity to enlighten any new readers here and to expose your evasiveness and cowardice in answering simple questions. 1. I’m still waiting for you to explain if you are forcing your views on others by insisting that murder and theft be illegal (not to mention that as an alleged Christian those are your religious views that you are forcing on others).2. Also, can one protest immoral acts without being obligated to care for the victims? If the government planned to eradicate homelessness by killing the homeless could you protest that without having to personally house them?Why are you unwilling to answer such simple questions? Why do you keep changing the subject? Are you afraid? I answer all your questions. You could at least give some answers to these very simple queries.Oh, and Pregnancy Resource Centers are staffed mostly by volunteers and nearly all are supported 100% by donations, so unlike abortion clinics that profit from the death of the unborn we help people for freeP.S. I’m sure you are setting a good example for others by donating out of your own pocket so the mothers who choose to keep their children can have the best possible health care, housing, etc. Please share the details with us. I mean, you want the government to force others to pay for this regardless of whether they think it is good public policy, so surely you aren’t hypocritical by waiting for the tax increases to come. You’re paying now, out of your own pocket, right? And you donate your time as well, I’m sure, just like I donate my time and money to Pregnancy Resource Centers (among other charities). Please inspire is with your tales of generosity. Or are you just generous with other people’s money?
      
      Reply
    - Neil November 8, 2011 - 5:20 pm
      
      I'm surprised that no Liberals have done an intervention with Kieres. If I had the pro-life equivalent of Kieres making serial ridiculous statements on my blog I'd immediately coach him, and if that didn't work I'd shut him down. Both sides have people that make bad arguments. I wouldn't give them a forum on my blog or stand by and watch them hurt the movement on other blogs. Kieres is so bad that I'm surprised no one has accused the pro-life side of pretending to be him. I mean, how many times can he dodge the questions? I realize it is possible that the Liberal readers here think Kieres is making sense, but I seriously doubt it.
      
      Reply
      - "B" November 9, 2011 - 4:45 am
        
        Why am I smelling troll….? Hey Neil, you know this bill failed, right? And for someone who volunteers and works so much, you certainly spend a lot of time on this site. Sorry, I'm calling BS.
      - Neil November 9, 2011 - 4:57 am
        
        “Why am I smelling troll….? “Probably because you can’t address my arguments based on science and reason so you have to resort to personal attacks. “Hey Neil, you know this bill failed, right?”Yes, I watch the news. That just proves that the voters of Mississippi, on average, know as much science as you do, and that some pro-lifers were concerned with some of the language in the bill.“And for someone who volunteers and works so much, you certainly spend a lot of time on this site. Sorry, I'm calling BS.”Consistency check: I would have stopped long ago, but have merely been responding to the fallacy-fest offered by Kieres and others. Now, if you were consistent, you’d call out Kieres for how much time he spent here. But you didn’t, so you are just using that lame accusation against me because you have nothing of substance. That’s what I call BS. I’ve heard lots of lame pro-abortion excuses over the years, but the “You wrote too much here so you must not really volunteer for a Pregnancy Resource Center” avoidance technique belongs in the Hall of Fame. Are you saying I don’t really have a job?
  - Nancy November 9, 2011 - 8:03 am
    
    So you are admitting that ultimately the consequences are the womans responsibility and you still think that she should have no say in what happens inside her body.
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 9, 2011 - 8:44 am
      
      “So you are admitting that ultimately the consequences are the womans responsibility and you still think that she should have no say in what happens inside her body.”I am saying that the unborn are innocent human beings and should not be killed just because they are unwanted
      
      Reply
Amanda November 7, 2011 - 6:50 pm

and since we want to consider sperm meets egg the beginning of life, Said man will have to assume his role as dad as soon as the 2 pink lines appear on the test strip, right? It would be considered child neglect if he didn't . Since if she miscarries she will face criminal charges, it would only be fair.

Reply
- Neil November 8, 2011 - 5:08 am
  
  Are you saying that you find these two to be equivalent? 1. Person outside the womb dies of natural causes. 2. Person outside the womb is crush and dismembered because she is unwanted. Hopefully you see the difference. The same thing applies inside the womb. Miscarriage is not abortion.
  
  Reply
Nancy November 9, 2011 - 8:08 am

Miscarriage is an abortion. It is natures way of saying that for some reason or other this fetus is not fated to be born. What the mother says when she aborts a fetus is that for some reason or other this fetus is not fated to be born. She is the one who is in control of all the facts about her life and circumstances.

Reply
- Neil November 9, 2011 - 12:02 pm
  
  Let's take your argument to its logical conclusions. You are saying there is no difference between a miscarriage and an abortion, morally speaking, even though one happens with no actions from the mother and the other happens when a doctor is paid to perform a procedure, that if successful, kills the unborn human being (they are obviously two different things hence the two distinct words, but that's another problem with your argument). I think that merely spelling out your argument exposes its flaws, but let's try the same line of thinking outside the womb. 1. Old woman dies of natural causes. It is "nature's way of saying that for some reason or other this" human being is not fated to live any longer. 2. Old woman dies by having her skull crushed and her limbs ripped off by a caretaker who doesn't want her to live. The caretaker is "the one who is in control of all the facts about her life and circumstances." See the difference?
  
  Reply
  - Kieres November 9, 2011 - 4:50 pm
    
    That is what that law you so wanted said, Neil. That if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby is stillborn that woman has to be investigated for murder. And it would have government poking its nose into people's bedrooms to see whether or not they're using contraception. You know that claim that government is too big and too powerful that you conservatives love to make? That law would turn government into the biggest big brother possible. And all to "save a life" that you don't actually give a damn about.
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 9, 2011 - 6:14 pm
      
      “That is what that law you so wanted said, Neil. That if a woman has a miscarriage and the baby is stillborn that woman has to be investigated for murder. “Actually, that isn’t what the law said. For those with access to a site called “Google” you could see how it would have been applied.What is really funny is imagining how you all would react if they made those exceptions even more clear. In theory, you’d be on board with the law, eh?“And it would have government poking its nose into people's bedrooms to see whether or not they're using contraception.”The government’s role is to investigate crimes where they occur. If you kill a toddler in a bedroom, they have no problem going there. BTW, if you are so keen on keeping government out of bedrooms then you must go nuts over having Planned Parenthood in schools. What could be a more specific example of the gov’t getting involved in people’s sex lives?!“You know that claim that government is too big and too powerful that you conservatives love to make? That law would turn government into the biggest big brother possible.”One of the primary roles of government is to protect negative rights, which anti-abortion laws would do: Protect the lives of unborn human beings. We aren’t anarchists. We just don’t think the gov’t should do things like tax Christmas tree sales.“And all to “save a life” that you don't actually give a damn about.”There’s that canard again, though I can’t help but notice that you are too much of a coward to answer these simple questions. 1. I’m still waiting for you to explain if you are forcing your views on others by insisting that murder and theft be illegal (not to mention that as an alleged Christian those are your religious views that you are forcing on others).2. Also, can one protest immoral acts without being obligated to care for the victims? If the government planned to eradicate homelessness by killing the homeless could you protest that without having to personally house them?Why are you unwilling to answer such simple questions? Why do you keep changing the subject? Are you afraid? I answer all your questions. You could at least give some answers to these very simple queries.Oh, and Pregnancy Resource Centers are staffed mostly by volunteers and nearly all are supported 100% by donations, so unlike abortion clinics that profit from the death of the unborn we help people for freeP.S. I’m sure you are setting a good example for others by donating out of your own pocket so the mothers who choose to keep their children can have the best possible health care, housing, etc. Please share the details with us. I mean, you want the government to force others to pay for this regardless of whether they think it is good public policy, so surely you aren’t hypocritical by waiting for the tax increases to come. You’re paying now, out of your own pocket, right? And you donate your time as well, I’m sure, just like I donate my time and money to Pregnancy Resource Centers (among other charities). Please inspire us with your tales of generosity. Or are you just “generous” with other people’s money?
      
      Reply
  - Nancy November 11, 2011 - 7:52 am
    
    I see the difference in your example because you are talking about a woman who is alive. There is in my mind no comparing this to a collection of cells that while they are on their way to becoming are not yet a seperate living entity.
    
    Reply
    - Neil November 11, 2011 - 7:59 am
      
      “I see the difference in your example because you are talking about a woman who is alive. There is in my mind no comparing this to a collection of cells that while they are on their way to becoming are not yet a seperate living entity.”I’m just going with what science and common sense say: the unborn are human beings at conception with unique DNA. While attached to the mother, they are still unique human beings. Their proximity and dependency in no way diminish their nature or right to life.I know it is a common practice to de-humanize the unborn by calling them a “collection of cells,” but by that word play so are babies, you and me. Shaquille O’Neal has more cells than we do, but that doesn’t make him more human.
      
      Reply
      - Nancy November 14, 2011 - 6:57 am
        
        Neil the dna is unique but the cells are not yet a human being because they cannot yet survive outside the womb of the mother with or without medical intervention. I insist on calling it a collection of cells because that is all that it is. Shaquille O'Neal is so much more than just a colletion of cells and so is a baby and so are you and me. A collection of cells cannot work to have a law passed to take away the rights of women to control what effect men have on their bodies. See the difference.
      - Neil November 14, 2011 - 7:19 am
        
        “Neil the dna is unique but the cells are not yet a human being because they cannot yet survive outside the womb of the mother with or without medical intervention.”That is the opposite of what embryology textbooks say. You’ve repeated that anti-scientific claim many times. Perhaps you can share why anyone else should share your opinion, other than rationalizing a desire to be able to kill innocent human beings?Again, your rationale for abortion could condemn infants as well. “A collection of cells cannot work to have a law passed to take away the rights of women to control what effect men have on their bodies. See the difference.”Why yes, I do see the difference. Let’s try your argument this way and see how it works: A toddler cannot work to have a law passed to take away the rights of women to control what effect men have on their bodies. Therefore, in Nancy’s world, it is ok to destroy toddlers if they are unwanted.I doubt that you really mean to make that argument. I’m just showing how meaningless it is to dehumanize the unborn by calling them a “collection of cells” so you can rationalize their destruction.Shouldn’t laws help weak and defenseless human beings rather than justify their destruction? By definition, they are rarely in a position to make the laws themselves.Also, your argument, as always, ignores the right of the unborn to control their bodies. If a friend has a miscarriage, do you comfort her by reminding her of the “fact” that is was just a collection of cells?I realize I shouldn’t help pro-aborts with their arguments, but here are some free tips. Before you type another pro-abortion argument:1. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb. If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb. If so, you might want to try another angle.3. Ask yourself what the science textbooks say. Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view. If you don’t believe that fact of science then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science. And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion. They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.4. Learn if professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make. If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide): “Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book,Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” See http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq for more examples.I realize you won’t have much left to say, but at least you won’t embarrass yourself by repeating the same fallacies over and over and you won’t make me look so good by comparison
      - Nancy November 14, 2011 - 9:41 am
        
        Neil you and I are not talking about the same thing. I have said nothing about killing infants or toddlers. I am talking about the removal of cells that have not yet become either. The scientists you keep harping on do not say that at conception a new human being is created. They say that at conception it is started, initiated, begins. Not that it is. I don't have anything left to say because I have more to do with my life than try to reason with someone who has been so indoctrinated into a way of thinking that he can see no other.
      - Neil November 14, 2011 - 9:57 am
        
        “Neil you and I are not talking about the same thing. I have said nothing about killing infants or toddlers. I am talking about the removal of cells that have not yet become either. “Hi Nancy – I know exactly what you said. I realize you didn’t mean to justify infanticide. I’m just pointing out that many of your arguments do just that. When you arbitrarily choose viability or dependency to rationalize killing unwanted human beings, then that would also justify infanticide. “The scientists you keep harping on do not say that at conception a new human being is created.”You are mistaken. Here’s an example: “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.“I don't have anything left to say because I have more to do with my life than try to reason with someone who has been so indoctrinated into a way of thinking that he can see no other.”Can you see how I could say the same thing about you and the other pro-legalized abortionists here? But I don’t use arguments like that. I stick to facts and logic.Thanks for the dialogue and I hope you reconsider your views.
Linds November 9, 2011 - 9:56 am

this by far is the most biased piece of crap I have ever read. Stupid liberals. What's more important to protect? an animal, or a human? Guess the majority rules in favor of the animals…

Reply
- Mike Daniels November 9, 2011 - 10:27 am
  
  Who said anything about animals? That's an awfully random comment, Linda. Why do you think that the most common forms of birth control should be illegal? Why do you think in-vitro fertilization should be illegal? Why do you think it should be the law that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy — which always will fail (fetus will die), and often kills the mother — should be allowed to die instead of having an abortion to save her life?
  
  Reply
- Kieres November 9, 2011 - 4:50 pm
  
  So you're willing to pony up the money to pay for all those unborn babies and their mothers to have the best health care possible? No? Apparently, Linds, you really don't give a damn about life whatsoever. You, like Neil, just want the power to tell people what to do.
  
  Reply
Nancy November 14, 2011 - 6:50 am

Neil my husband asked me to ask you this question: If your wife or daughter was brutally raped and by consequence became pregnant would you by your rules force her to carry the rapists seed to term. Would you force her to have to live through that day after day as the cells divide within her until it was too late to abort the fetus? My question to you: If the science was available to allow men to carry a fetus within their bodies would you give the use of your body to someone who could not medically carry their fetus to carry it for them so that it would not have to be destroyed?

Reply
- Nancy November 14, 2011 - 9:45 am
  
  Don't bother answering this Neil I already know your answer and will not be here to read your reply. I will meet you on the battlefield to defend the truth. Cells in a womb that cannot survive outside of the womans body even with medical intervention are not yet a human being.
  
  Reply
vagina rejuvenation January 22, 2012 - 8:55 am

What’s up, this weekend is nice in support of me, for the reason that this occasion i am reading this great informative post here at my home.

Reply
Pingback: Homepage
Pingback: cheap is my main Keyword.
Pingback: my url
Pingback: Stand Up Pouch

Discuss

John McCready on Atheist TeenI wish I had been as smart as this teen has proved herself to be at 15!
sheldon archer on Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate?Yes but not as developed as the apes
Byron James Wallin on Thought-powered bionic arm ‘like something from space’fascinating
Stan on Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate?Are humans just another primate? Yes. Next question.
Simon Andrew Smith on Census analysis shows Christianity in dramatic decline, and a youthful Muslim population on the risewhat about atheist numbers how are they fairing.

Our Latest

Morning Read for May 22, 2013: General Wolf Blitzer Asks Atheist Tornado Survivor if she 'Thanks the Lord' (Video-Huffington Post) Wolf Blitzer put his foot in his mouth for a moment on Tuesday while...
SCA's Morning Read for 5/21/13: SCA in the News Secular Coalition: Daily Caller editor sent ‘Here’s a Dick pic’ email to spokeswoman (Raw Story) The Secular Coalition for America on Monday dubbed Tuck...
Family Research Council Misrepresents Our Military:
After adopting military cast-off and anti-Muslim crusader retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, the Family Research Council is taking special interest in publishing...
Atheists Say IRS Not Doing Enough to Hold Churches Accountable: WASHINGTON, DC—The Secular Coalition for America today sent a letter to the White House, pointing out additional Internal Revenue Service failings, including negl...
SCA's Morning Read 5/17/13: Herb Silverman: To life, not martyrdom (SCA via WashPo) I can respect, if not agree with, those who believe their suicide will save additional lives and increase the hap...
To life, not martyrdom: Recently, I read two articles about dying for a cause. The first, on these pages, by Sally Quinn, addressed the Dalai Lama’s lack of compassion for not criticizing ...
SCA's Morning Read for 5/16/13: General Good Boy Scouts don't need God: Column (USA Today) Depending on what happens at the Boy Scouts' national meeting this month, gay Scouts might soon be accepted i...
Atheists Grade Massachusetts Senate Candidates: Washington, DC-- The Secular Coalition for America today released its 2013 Massachusetts Senate Candidate Scorecard for the upcoming special election —a guide for s...

No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control

190 Responses to No on 26: Mississippi “Personhood” measure would outlaw most birth control

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Connect

Discuss

Our Latest

Secular Resources

Secular News Daily

secular.org