Mother’s Day “Compassion and Hope”?
I know, it’s a long ways off. We’ve got, like, forever until we have to start worrying about Mother’s Day gifts and reservations, etc., etc. But, thanks to the folks over at the Elliot Institute, you’re covered! Oh, you don’t remember them, no worries. They’re the psycho lying bastards that perpetuate the evil myths of pro-choice legality. Yes, the same type of group that publishes pamphlets with dead babies (not fetuses) and tells made-up stories of how all these different women were forced (Forced they say!) to have abortions. Oh, the angst, the agony of fiction. Forced abortion has occurred in America, sure, what hasn’t occurred in America? But, it’s illegal to force a woman to get an abortion and many of the “forced” abortions they’re claiming are in other countries. Equating that to the lies against Planned Parenthood clinics is disingenuous at best. I would link to their site, but if you’re in the mood to lose your lunch then you can do the work yourself.
Here’s a chart from the CDC that shows rates and characteristics of women getting abortions.
You can see clearly that there is no targeting or bias based on color or ethnicity; there is a big difference between unmarried and married women, go figure… no, really go figure that out. I’ll give you a second to think about that. Secondly, if you notice above, the percentage of abortions taking place after 21 weeks is 1.5% or less. That’s right, the vast majority are in the first trimester, when only a fetus has developed. You can forget all those pictures groups like this show you saying that’s what abortion looks like. It doesn’t. And for those third trimester abortions, read a few of Dr. Tiller’s patients comments after his death.
So, back to Mother’s Day. That’s a good day, right? I mean, unless you don’t get a long with your mother and even then you could, hopefully, set that aside for one day. Then, of course, many people (like moi) tend to think of days like this as another Hallmark Holiday, created simply for more money/consumerism. Well, whatever way you go, hopefully you don’t take the helping hand the bitches at the Elliot Institute are giving you.
Mother’s Day Ads: A Message of Compassion and Hope That Also Educates the Public
Julie and others who have lost a loved one to abortion or it’s aftermath–along with countless mothers who grieve many losses; above all, the loss of their child–are often forgotten.
At the same time, others are being coerced into unwanted abortions while authorities in many sectors of society fail to offer needed support, information and resources, or at least doing proper screening to make sure that women and girls aren’t having abortions as a result of sexual assault, abuse, coercion or even force.
This Mother’s Day, you can acknowledge and remember those who have lost a mother, child, sister, daughter or friend to abortion or its aftermath. You can extend a hand, a heart and healing message on Mother’s Day with our healing ads, each featuring a rose … broken, yet restored, to represent hope and the journey to healing.
By sharing our ads and other materials, you’ll also educate the public and deter those who would fail to support a mother facing a challenging pregnancy or use pressure or coercion to get her to abort … plus raise awareness among those who are “on the fence” about the abortion issue because they don’t know about the injustices it causes and the risks it poses to unborn children their mothers.
Education is key. By documenting and exposing the risks and abuses women and girls face before, during and after abortion, we can save lives, change hearts, show compassion for those already hurt and open the door to healing.
Yes, I get their e-mail updates so that I can use their own material against them. You know, if they were solely concerned with advocating for the help and security of women that need it, then I’d support them. But, instead, they attack women’s rights. All this wasted effort could instead be going to helping homeless children, or helping single mothers, or twiddling their thumbs.
So, for Mother’s Day let’s send our mothers cards that remind them of the unfortunate, sometimes, but totally necessary medical procedure called abortion. Then let’s frighten them with myths and legends of how the evil liberal armies are coming out and forcing women to have abortions! Oh, you can just smell the flowers, can’t you? Here’s a blow-up of the card (pun intended for these sick jihadist Christians).
I love the mention of “Julie”; this bullshit woman that they make up fairy tale lies about. It’s always the same with the Christards and RWWs (Right Wing Wacko), they use bullshit stories about bullshit people making bullshit claims. It’s like them parading Norma L. McCorvey, the infamous Jane Roe, who has since Roe v Wade become a Born Again dumb-ass and is completely against abortion. Fine, her choice; but don’t forget that her “choice” to join the church’s minions was after a decade of abuse and emotional torture, hate mail, death threats, property damage, etc. was done to her by those same types of people. Come on psychology majors, isn’t there a name for that kind of behavior where the torturee gets to lovin’ the torturer?
Yeah, Mother’s Day. Doesn’t it suck for women that have had an abortion? Maybe for some, maybe not for others, and maybe it’s a sigh of relief for a few more. Abortion is a legal medical procedure, killing isn’t. A fetus is not a baby! You’re either pro-choice, or anti-choice. I know sciency stuff baffles a lot of people over there at the Elliot Institute (Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs walked with Adam and Eve, homosexuality is a choice, etc.) but I wish they’d just shut the hell up. Just because you’re ignorant and intolerant, doesn’t mean your opinion isn’t valid; it means you haven’t learned Rule #1: Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt (Abe Lincoln).
Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.
1Wow, you’re so angry. What makes a person like you get that way? I’m an Atheist and I’m not a bitter Christian hater like you.
2I don’t hate Christians; I’m sick of fundamentalist Christians that want to take away our rights. I’ll never support a law against their freedom yet they fight against everyone’s but their own.
This Mother’s Day card is disgusting. I’m tired of America being usurped by religious fundamentalism.
3Because you agree that you have the right to take (via proxy) the property of others and demand their actions conform to yours, you surrender your right as well to other peoples demands upon you.
Freedom exists when no man imposes upon another.
You want to impose upon men “over here”, but you do not want to be imposed upon men “over there”. But it never can work that way.
Once you agree you can impose – you will be imposed upon as well.
If you truly wish to be free, you must allow all others to be free too. Yes, that may disgust you – but that is what must be done.
Otherwise, you’ll have sold yourself into slavery by demanding other men slave to you.
4Your argument of what freedom is contains one glaringly inaccurate, perhaps based on inexperience, falsehood.
Allowing anyone to do anything isn’t freedom. It guarantees oppression of the masses by the few. Power would completely reign. As a society and as a national community we’ve progressed far past these profoundly primitive ideals of freedom. We do not allow murder, we do not allow theft, and we have created a government in which we, ideally, control which will regulate those actions among others.
HCR and massive regulatory changes concerning businesses are, to me and millions of others, as necessary as having a police force. Your ideals of freedom allow these companies to do anything they wish and to also have the same rights as humans; but they aren’t human, they’re corporations that have received the rights and privileges of person-hood while having none of the responsibility. We cannot put a company in prison for theft or murder; we must regulate them differently.
If you’d like to argue that we shouldn’t have a police force then save your time; you’ve gone bat-shit crazy and you’re, ignorantly perhaps, promoting slavery of the masses.
5But that is not what I said, Godless. Read carefully.
I said:
“Freedom exists when no man imposes upon another.”
Freedom is not an “allowing” – that is a grant, and you have no right to grant my freedom.
The Universe does not allow us – by Natural Law – to do “anything”. I cannot flap my arms and fly – the Universe says “Nope”. Therefore, Freedom cannot be defined as “doing anything I want”.
Yes. When you believe a man can impose upon another, you have created oppression.
Yet, government murders and steals at will, whim and without regard to humanity.
Government seizes the sole right to do so such evil.
As long as men believe government can do what no man has a right to do, human evil grows.
They can do what ever they wish as long as they do not impose upon another man.
All action is ultimately individual. Therefore, a company being nothing but individuals cannot do what an individual has no right to do.
Corporations are evil ghosts solely the creation of government writ.
I am always amused at those the apologize for government but decry governments own creation – corporations.
All human action is ultimately individual. There is no confusion when one remembers this.
6Arg. Sorry for some the mumble up there.
“Therefore, a company being nothing but individuals – cannot do what an individual has no right to do.”
7Are we not imposing our will on those that we deem it suitable? We lock a person up for life, or take their life in penalty, for crimes that we, as society, have deemed inappropriate. Why, therefore, should we allow corporations to have free reign over their actions while they continue to harm us. Like a criminal, don’t these entities also require society to decide what is inappropriate and then impose our will on them to keep them or penalize them for committing those actions? Should a company be allowed to lie, cheat or steal simply to keep from imposing on them?
You aren’t being honest with yourself. Imposing our will on others is what civilization does to keep order and promote growth; you support it in a myriad of ways, I’m sure, but remain belligerently against any type of regulation of the economy, corporations, etc.. These things are all part of this imposition; they are negotiated and changed, but only a fool would suggest that there shouldn’t be any at all.
A society doesn’t have to work for the benefit of everyone; a community, by it’s very nature, must work for the benefit of everyone. By leaving pieces of a community to falter, we only harm our own communities and, therefore, ourselves. Capitalism, in it’s purest form, in no way attempts to promote a community unless it is profitable. And there is it’s fatal flaw; it does not work in tandem with humanity if it is practiced purely and held as the highest ideal. Because, what does that ideal boil down to? Money is the most important thing in our lives. No, capitalism must be tempered with other forms of economic prosperity. Taxation achieves partly this, and it provides funding for agreed upon necessities. You may not agree, I may not agree, but we vote for those that we hope will support what we believe. Surely, this process could function better, not by erasing it but by reforming it.
8We have the right to remove the impositions placed upon us as no one had the right to place them upon us.
What “We” do you think you speak of? Do not automatically include me!
I think you do not read my replies.
The lack of honesty rests with you.
You do not appear to comprehend my post – if you read it at all.
Imposing upon another man creates human evil.
Creating human evil destroys order, and thus destroys civilization.
Nothing can apply to ‘everyone’, as no one holds the precisely the same needs or wants.
To believe one can organize by force some ‘everyone-benefit’ guarantees evil.
A profit occurs when a man produces good/services better and cheaper than you can do yourself or want to do yourself – and sells his goods/services lower than what you could do but a price higher than his cost.
You benefit by getting what you could not do or do not want to do or cannot do better or cannot do cheaper, and he benefits by profit.
If voluntary by both you and he, both benefit.
If you do not see benefit, walk away – because no one forces you to trade in a free market.
It works perfectly when free men voluntarily exchange.
It is perverted when men believe they can manage free man by impositions.
Money is not the most important thing.
Money enables you to obtain the resources you need to live, so you can find and enjoy those important things.
Those that wish to enslave others so they may obtain resources are called “slavers”.
Your ‘temper’ causes enslavement.
Those that justify theft from and violence upon non-violent men are as evil as the men who do the action.
It matters not how many hands wave in the air,their waving will never justify acts of evil.
Evil is undone when one does not act in evil.
You cannot create a good by an action of evil.
9Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.
Mohandas Gandhi
10Does it really seem angry? I was aiming for snarky, not angry.
11You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance.
Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.
-Mahatma Gandhi
12What a wonderfully circular argument Gandhi makes.
Evil? It’s funny, more and more you’re making less sense.
I’m bored now, you’re boring me.
13Your understanding of basic geometry appears to be as bizarre as your understanding of economics.
Where do you believe the “circular” argument of Gandhi exists?
Boredom easily overcomes simple minds.
Your dearest wish is for your belief system to hold merit because it allows you to achieve your goals by a means you would deny to others.
You want to do others that you would never want done to you.
You replace the Golden Rule with the Iron Rule.
For this to happen, you must find a way to convince other people that this is ‘the way’.
So you distort and pontificate, contradict and muddle all sorts of concepts, words and meanings to confuse the others – all the while presenting your conclusion “For me and not you, and it is right”.
But it doesn’t take much to dispel your smoke and mirrors and see the core of your belief – the use of violence upon non-violent men and it is evil.
14I see, you have very little sense of humor.
I have no simple solutions. I don’t believe in a Utopian world like you do. A free-market solves nothing, accomplishes nothing, accept make the wealthy richer, and the poor destitute. You ignorance in the real world is obvious. Stay in you little tower, kept from all the bad things of this world. You’ve never had to struggle with money, you were born with it, or it came easily to you. I guessing little to no hardships, and apparently never a time where you needed someone, but no one was there.
You style of economics and your inability to grasp the simplest of debating techniques shows what an thoroughly foolish young person you are. America is in the mess it’s in right now because we’ve followed the tactics of laissez-faire economics for thirty years. It doesn’t work, it destroys the middle class, and it allows the wealthy to impose their will unregulated on those of the masses.
Unfortunately, it might take something really awful to happen to you or a loved one before you see how a government system of regulations, checks and balances, and services provided saves lives and encourages/promotes small businesses and economic well-being.
15Oh, the circular argument is in the first two lines. It’s evil because it looks like it does things that look evil.
16“You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance.”
No where in these two lines does he describe what it evil.
17I do not laugh at tragedy.
In Chaotic systems -such as human action- no solutions are possible, only probabilities.
Within such probabilities, we know this.
1) Sometimes doing evil wins the day.
2) Most of the time doing evil destroys the day.
3) Sometimes doing good loses the day.
4) Most of the time doing good wins the day.
Therefore, in all action, do good. You might not win, but the odds are in your favor.
I laugh heartily at those that claim Utopia is my goal. It shows they are not learned.
It is obvious they have never read “Utopia” – written by St. Thomas More.
Utopia is a State with perfectly order, with communal ownership of land, where private property does not exist, men and women are educated alike, and there is almost complete religious toleration.
Utopia is, in fact, the world you effort for!
I do not effort for it – but against it, for its existence must require violence be applied upon non-violent men.
Utopia is evil and your most desired home.
Free market is free men in voluntary exchange of goods and services.
It solves all possible problems of men at the greatest optimum, provides the greatest prosperity for all, makes all people wealthier and lifts the poor, because the people are free to act in their own benefit free from coercion and violence of others.
You wish to relieve your ignorance by doing evil upon other men. By such action, you create ‘bad things’.
I earned it.
You do not like that, so you want to steal it.
For me to gain, I provided benefit to others.
For my needs and wants that I could not or would not do for myself, I traded with with others for the goods and services of my capability in exchange for theirs.
Everyone wins.
Debating techniques of fallacies, distortions, perversion of meaning and definition and out right ignorance rarely wins the day.
America is in the mess its in because it has been actively replacing the action of freemen with the action of coercion by government for the last 150 years – if not longer.
Socialism does not work because it destroys all classes, and allows those with government violence to impose their will upon the masses by calling it regulation.
Government in the 20th Century killed over 200 million of their own citizens – not including the wars.
It killed more people than the combined deaths by natural disasters in the same time period.
How one can champion such evil upon humanity is mind boggling.
18You talk about “government” killing someone without any reference to which gov., what type, what country, etc. It’s as if, in you mind, any sort of government is ideologically evil in principle.
I don’t believe corporations or wealthy people are evil. I don’t believe in absolute evil or good. Society shapes governments to operate as best as possible in order to accomplish the most good; mistakes are made, progress takes time but society is still working towards that form of government that best serves the people. No government at all is ridiculous, anarchy is ridiculous. It serves nothing but the strongest and most privileged. I don’t want to live in a society that disregards the weak, the underprivileged, why do you?
19I just noticed the “communal” part about Utopia. I don’t think you’ve actually read it. There was no communal anything. There were slaves, and they were happy to be slaves. Just like your system.
20You “earned it”? Perhaps, but to not acknowledge society’s benefits towards you earning “it” and society’s detractors to other people earning “it” is willful ignorance, at best. We are not all born with the same resources nor do the same things happen to all of us in our lives. Achieving wealth is a factor that involves far more than simply earning it. Many have it that did not earn it, many earned it with a considerable amount of assistance. Think about the help you received while earning yours, and think about the resistance other people might face in earning theirs. No one is blaming you for what wealth you’ve “earned” yet you do blame people for the poverty that they didn’t earn but inherited.
I don’t subscribe to a socialistic system, nor capitalistic. I don’t think either work in their pure form. I do think that a balance between the two, which we have now in a smaller form, can benefit everyone in a more balanced way.
“Utopian” is in reference to the ideal of a perfect society. No one is claiming that you want what Moore penned in his book. You do seem to think that laissez-faire economics will create the perfect economy. That’s naive.
21All governments of all forms over all time have killed innocent and non-violent people.
All Government is evil from its core and root.
It holds that it has a right to inflict violence on non-violent people to enforce its edicts.
There is nothing more fundamental to government that this.
There is nothing more fundamentally evil then this action.
Corporations – whose sole existence is by writ of government – comes from the same evil core. A corporation exists to mitigate negative consequences away from those whose actions have caused poor outcomes.
Consequences are a zero-sum. That is, if I do you harm, but I am immune to the consequences, you as the innocent bear the full consequence of that harm, and not me – the actor.
Since mitigating and deflecting responsibility pushes such consequences onto innocent people, that is an act of evil. Corporations – by design and core – are evil.
Regarding people – all human action is ultimately individual – at that is where my judgment would be decided – that is, upon the action of the person and not because of some label others place upon them.
It is a matter of definition, not belief.
There are fundamental philosophies from which government is created.
In each and every one of the fundamentals requires the use of violence upon non-violent people – there are almost no exceptions (at least I have found none, but I cannot claim my search infinitely complete but I can say it has been extensive).
Society which depends on the use of evil to promote itself will eventually collapse into disorder and destruction. All governments have done so – and will do so as long as the fundamental core remains the same.
A society which embraces freedom is the best system by which the disadvantaged have hope.
Yes, that is what you do when you work and provide a service or create a good which benefits others.
Society did not do what I did.
I did it. Therefore I claim it.
If others in society trade with me to provide me services, they did such service. Society did not.
Punishing innocent men for what the Universe has done to you is evil.
If you wish to punish the Universe, go for it. But leave me and others alone.
Indeed. It means the ability to consume less than what I earn and invest my profit wisely. You should teach your children the same.
It is not your property to decide.
Keep your envious hands out of other people’s pockets. It is not yours to take nor to decide of its use.
Do with what is in your pocket.
There are those whose abilities I bought.
There are those whose abilities were given to me.
You are not among either of them.
You have no right to voice nor judge nor demand of them or me nor judge their decisions to sell or give their services to me, nor the right to judge the price I may or may not have paid.
You do not understand the word blame.
I do not blame people for the condition the Universe gives them.
Ask the Universe to why it set such conditions on them, and let me when it answers you back.
Socialist ideas work wonderful where the decisions of economics is irrational, because Socialism is wholly irrational.
Therefore, Socialist ideas work best where emotional attachments determine economic resources, such as within families and associations with friends.
Socialist systems fail where rational decisions are required to determine economic resources because Socialism – by its core – is irrational. Socialist systems fail in society as a whole and in parts where the emotional range of a person is exceeded.
Capitalism ideas work wonderful where rational economic decisions are required.
Capitalism works poorly where irrational (emotional) decisions are dominate.
Thus, I do not use capitalist decisions to determine my child’s dinner, I use Socialist irrationality – my love of my child – to make that decsion.
But I do use capitalist decisions to determine my economic relationship with you. I neither hate nor love you – you are merely you – and as such, I operate rationally with you.
Free market systems is such an optimum.
The action of free men, free of imposition by other men, is the optimum situation for all men.
22You: Government is evil because it’s soooo evil, and if your support government then you’re supporting eeevil, dirty government eviiil!
Me: Government is an organization created by people to help build institutes, provide for the common good, and provide defense for the people it represents. They can be corrupt or not depending on the strength of the people over their government.
You: No, they’re eeeevil in any form. No matter what a government does they’re totally evil. Corporations are evil too because they’re approved by the government. The road, the roads are evil too because government contracted someone to build them. Public school are eeeevil.
Are you done yet babbling?
You are completely delusional and live in some other dimension than I do. You are so completely naive about life and anything it involves.
I’m guessing that you’re a college student or a recent grad who has lived a very, very easy life. Someday you’ll grow up and see that the world and your ideology are just as foolish as you can get. You’re no better than those that wish for socialism.
And socialism doesn’t have jack to do with you giving into your daughter’s request, if you have a daughter. You need to look the word up.
We’ve completely gone off track for this post. I have no desire to continue this thread; if you’d like to continue you’ll have to wait until another post that goes against your utopian laissez faire ideology.
Be well, and try reading a few books that don’t all support your simple minded meme that “government” is eeeeevil, oooh, aaaah, eeeeevil (cue rattling shutters, thunder, and lightning).
23I have been perfectly clear to why it is evil. I have, repeatedly, provided my definitions.
If you cannot comprehend or do not understand, that is ok. I will try to use smaller words in the future.
But if you ignore my words – that is dishonest.
I repeat, Evil is inflicting violence on non-violent people.
As government requires inflicting violence on non-violent people to enforce its edicts, it is evil at its core.
Nothing good comes from evil.
If you think good comes from evil, you are deceived. You are deceived by your own envy or greed, or by the short term gain against the long term devastation.
Your definition is incomplete or a distortion.
You fail to include governments that destroy the common good, attack and enslave the people, and are tyrannical. Therefore, your definition cannot be the definition of government.
Government is defined by the entity that holds a monopoly on the initiation of violence within a geographical area.
To those that cannot comprehend or to those that refuse to comprehend, everything is babble.
You are a poor guesser.
The extent of your argument is a consistent ad hominem.
You have no reason, nor position, nor logic. You reach for emotionalism and irrationalism.
It is the condition of a man caught in the belief that you can do to others which you would never want done to you.
You rage against those that do to you while championing those that act in the same manner upon another group that does not include you as a member.
In other words, as long as it is not used on you, violence on others is ok.
Your hypocrisy is your undoing.
From a man who is confused by Utopia – believe me I hold no merit in your council.
Socialism as a philosophy is what I spoke. But as I am becoming ever more aware you are immune to comprehension and understanding.
Somewhere along your journey you became infected by an aberrant dictionary, and since then your world of understanding has been broadly distorted and twisted.
We have not gone off track.
We have penetrated to the core of your belief.
You cannot stand others imposing their will upon you like you demand to impose upon them.
You wish to inflict violence upon the innocent to repair what you see as a defect in the Universe.
You are enfeebled by your situation and refuse to accept its responsibly, therefore blame others who do not even know you are alive for your afflictions.
As above, I do not think I am the one needing the reading lessons. You have shown that you speak on topics that you have no – or worse, incorrect – understanding about.
I bid you well.
24So, are you pro-choice?
25It’s always a choice to kill or not to kill. It’s just not a right to kill.
26So you want to impose your will on women? Or are you subscribing to the religious belief that life begins at conception?
27It is the woman imposing upon her child.
And yes, life does begin at conception which happens to be a scientific fact (whether it is a religious belief (shrug))
28So, you’re also a religious ideologue. You can’t stand reality, can you?
29I’d suggest your question medical professional. Your medication is distorting your mind.
What religious ideologue?
What part of scientific fact fails your reality?
30??????????
Uh, what? Are you pro-choice or anti-choice. You don’t answer questions directly; I think you have the impression that sounding as abstract and profound as possible makes you seem more intelligent when it only makes your message less clear.
Pro-choice?
31Anti-choice?
I think I was clear.
We all have a choice. But that doesn’t make it a RIGHT.
I can chose to kill you or not. The choice is not a right – it is an ABILITY.
—-
You have a label gun stuck in your head. Everything needs labels for you.
Because of that, you often present false dichotomies.
32Yeah, so you’re against a women having the right to choose to have an abortion.
33I’m against killing innocent human beings.
What you just argued is that women have a right to kill innocent life.
How did they get that right?
34So to help you a bit, consider and answer this question.
Who has the right to kill an innocent human being?
35What a terribly loaded question. No one has the right. But that question has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
36Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
37Aaaaand here comes the religious looney part of you. I’m sorry little guy, science disagrees with you. Run along now.
38It has nothing to do with religion – it is science and there is no questions about it.
…except from the those that, of course, are unlearned.
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome.
Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.”
He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
39Any sources? Primary mind you, not some secondary news. Show me the essay so that I can reads their words in their entirety instead of cut up and cherry picked like you’ve done.
A beginning does not a life make. A single cell, dead or alive, is the beginning to a new life.
I’ll be waiting for sources.
40Use google – you can pick and chose amount the 3,500,000 hits.
The cell is alive, and fundamental.
It changes from a ‘they’ to an ‘it’ at the moment of conception. <- kinda the definition.
41“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
“Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
“Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus.”
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
“Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term ‘embryo’ is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy.”
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
“I would say that among most scientists, the word ‘embryo’ includes the time from after fertilization…”
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum…. But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down.”
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….
42“[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
“The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena — where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation — as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. ‘Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, ‘it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.’”
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
That should, at least, end your bizarre anti-religious ad hominems
43Lots of confusion. An embryo is not a human being. It’s an embryo. A fetus is not a human being. It’s a fetus. A human being is a human being. The only references I’ve heard of where people ARE saying that an embryo/fetus is a human being originated in religious schools
of thought.Am I completely off? You’re not religious? Welcome fellow atheist/agnostic, it’s nice to have you.
Let me guess, if I wrote a post about Global Warming you’d tell me it’s a hoax. If I write another post on creationism you’ll claim that it’s just as valid as evolution.
I read a lot, really I do. I haven’t seen anything about the scientific community up in arms because they think that abortion is the murder of human beings. I have heard a lot of religious wackos saying it though.
44So how do tell this “not a human” embyro from a dog’s?
Gee, we call it a HUMAN embryo.
it is a STAGE of DEVELOPMENT – like child, adult, etc.
Review this and then come back and discuss.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg/700px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png
45Sorry it took so long to respond, it’s been a busy day.
A human embryo is not a human being. I disregard your assertion that morality derives from spirituality and/or religion. I understand that you don’t like to associate yourself with any specific institution; that seems to be all the rave with you Righties. Can’t stand the Republican party and sure don’t like the Democrats, you’re just real sure that things aren’t going how you’ve been brainwashed to think things should be going.
Morality is not a derivative of religion or spirituality, necessarily. Morality can, and arguably should, be derived through scientific means. And you’re wrong about scientists not reacting in moral outrage; it’s been done aplenty.
An example,
46http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/22physicists07.asp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1836222/
and one of my favorite guys,
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
No sweat.
What is it then, a dog?
Of course it is a human being. Embryonic stage is a stage of human development, like fetal, child, adult, etc.
I know your position is in contradiction.
You can’t justify killing innocent human life. As typical to many on the “Left”, you therefore have to change the definition of something to break out of your loop instead of ending your contradiction. It’s called “Revolution within the means”.
So you need to either redefine “killing” – which I’m sure will come up in the future, or redefine “human” or deny human from something.
Same old disease of Progressives. That’s how they justified genocide in the past, and how it will be justified in the future.
Disregard all you wish, but that won’t change fact.
Not ALL morality derives from it, but to deny that it is significant in derviving morality and ethics is simply mental.
You and the labeler in your brain. Everything to you has to be labeled!
No, it’s just me. There exists nothing inside any label you have that offers a complete understanding of my position and point of view.
You obviously have no understanding of philosophy of science. Morality cannot be derived by scientific means. You are asking a paint brush to be a gun.
Science can tell you why the ignition of a mixture of sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal in an enclosed space will propel a lead slug at 1200 feet per second. It cannot tell you where to point the gun.
Morals and ethics can be derived by reason and logic. I probably won’t be asking you, however, do to that task as I sense it will be impossible for you.
I will review your links and comment later.
Cheers!
47Ok, response for your links (except for TED – haven’t got time right now for it – but later…)
All of them do not claim “Science” can create or discover “morals”.
All of them are MEN who are judging their human action whether it is moral or not.
You see the difference?
I can do science. I watch human beings being ripped apart limb by limb and record their nervous system responses.
My study is scientific. My human action is immoral.
(Strangely, my replies pop up under older posts…. hmmm)
48So, the TED video is quite good – much of what he presents aligns with my position as well. You’ve already faced a few arguments from that aligned position from me.
However, the call that Science determines morality is still a huge stretch and he didn’t shorten it by much.
His call was to Reason, not Science, for help. Using reason is a tool of Sciences, but its a tool of philosophy and math and understanding, too. And that all doesn’t make it “Science”.
But his message is very good and I would agree with much of it – that there is exists an infinite number of right answers to any problem – and, from my position, there exists a way and a means to discover these right answers OBJECTIVELY.
As we chat more – this will argument will be offered by me.
Good video, though – I like TED too!
49Yes, the links do speak more specifically about reason and rationale as guidance for morality vice science, but the authors also make the connection between those traits and science. I don’t believe that religious institutions have ever been guided by reason or rationale, and therefore lack in ability compared to science to help make decisions of morality. It’s not specifically that science helps create morality but as we develop those same traits, but as we enhance those traits I think we make more moral decisions. Morality changes, as does science, because both are open to new and evolved data.
I think you’ve stated clearly that you don’t subscribe to any institutional religion or spirituality, but I’m asserting that spirituality also keeps itself free of the bonds of rationale and reason. It is precisely by staying away from practicing those traits, that spirituality exists. Spirituality and religion both demand feeling, instead of thinking. The ultimate crux is over-thinking something. Therefore religion and spirituality, both, are lacking.
Definitions are important. No, a human embryo is not a dog/cat/frog, it’s a human embryo. It’s the beginning stage after fertilization and covers roughly 8-12 weeks, or the first trimester. It’s also when the majority of abortions take place, look at the chart above. An embryo has the potential to become a human being, but it is far from it. If an embryo is a human being, then should authorities investigate/prosecute mothers for having a miscarriage? Could agencies offer women life insurance for their newly fertilized eggs?
There are many reasons, moral reasons, to have an abortion as well in the second and third trimesters. I believe I’ve included a link above in the article which links to Dr. Tiller’s patients’ testimony after his murder by a fanatical anti-choicer.
Abortion is a respected medical procedure within the medical, a.k.a. scientific, field. The only institutions that fight against its use are doing so for religious purposes and beliefs. You may not subscribe to those institutions, but you do share some of their beliefs. The reason more doctors don’t perform abortions isn’t because of a moral dilemma, it’s because doctors have been terrorized by religious nutjobs shooting and killing clinicians and doctors, bombing clinics, and openly organizing and plotting abortion providers’ deaths. It’s a small part of the American Christian Jihad; you seem to share their beliefs that abortion providers are killers.
50Replies, jumping…. arrrggg…
Oh, the most certainly have!
Theology is such a study – where the mind of God is reasoned and rationalized. It is very reasoned – once you accept the core premise of Godly existence.
There is nothing less in religion than anything else that makes it worse in articulating morals.
Morality doesn’t change – people’s opinions change.
And that is the problem – people confuse their opinions to be the same as their morals. But they are not.
I do not agree. There is nothing nonspiritual in using reason. Spirituality can be reasoned. It can be unreasoned, too – but that is the nature of that person’s own failure. The same man can be unreasoned regarding politics, or nature.
There is nothing wrong with feeling – it is perfectly reasonable. It is because of feeling we make choices.
Not all problems of man requires reason to solve. I do not use reason to solve the problem of what color my car should be, for example.
Correct. It is a stage of development of a human being – just like fetus, child, adolescent, adult, etc.
That may be true, but that does not disprove its not human.
By such logic, an adult has a potential to become a human being, but is far from it, too.
If you a stage of development as a subjective choice of humanity, any stage of development can be used too.
Whether or not the law acts or not does not disprove humanity.
They could, if they saw profit.
There are many reasons, but none moral.
Killing innocent human life so to improve another human life is an act of evil.
Because some men murder other men who murder does not disprove humanity.
Freezing prisoners to death to study hypothermia is a procedure too – and it was respected way to study by many doctors.
I care not why institutions may or may not act or their reasons.
The fight against it is by me because is it evil.
You share many beliefs of Christians – I do not think you feel you are Christian, right?
That may or may not be true.
But it is irrelevant.
By definition, that is what they are doing – killing.
51I didn’t get any further than “Godly existence” before I was thoroughly convinced that you are, indeed, bat-shit crazy.
When your imaginary friend talks to you, what does it say?
52Religion is merely institutionalized spirituality.
I’m not much into “institutions” of any sort.
I’m also not hung up on other people’s belief systems – almost all of it is harmless and if it makes them feel better about themselves, so be it.
But when anyone’s belief system -religious or political – imposes upon me, that’s when the problem starts.
No, the Global Warms and Cools all the time. We see that every year.
But any claim that is it Anthropologically caused- yeah, that’s the hoax.
Definitions, man, definitions.
I’ve found that people have a conflict of definition more often then they have a conflict of ideas.
I can see you do not understand science. Science does not create morals or ethics. It seeks knowledge.
It says an human embryo is human. It says it is a stage of human development along with fetus, child, adult, etc. It is a human being.
It does not, will not and should not ever claim an ethical stand on the actions of man. It is in its proper role perfectly amoral.
All religions and spirituality teachings offer parables on morals and ethics. Their general goal is to establish common norms of interpersonal human action which best sustains humanity.
It is probably incompatible to demand science fulfill the areas of religion, and of religion to fulfill the areas of science.
But a human can hold do both if he wishes – that is, be a scientist and be spiritual (or religious too).
They are not exclusive.
53Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “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…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
54Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”
55Here’s Princeton for ya, with lots of references for you to review.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
56No sweat.
What is it then, a dog?
Of course it is a human being. Embryonic stage is a stage of human development, like fetal, child, adult, etc.
I know your position is in contradiction.
You can’t justify killing innocent human life. As typical to many on the “Left”, you therefore have to change the definition of something to break out of your loop instead of ending your contradiction. It’s called “Revolution within the means”.
So you need to either redefine “killing” – which I’m sure will come up in the future, or redefine “human” or deny human from something.
Same old disease of Progressives. That’s how they justified genocide in the past, and how it will be justified in the future.
57Ok, response for your links (except for TED – haven’t got time right now for it – but later…)
All of them do not claim “Science” can create or discover “morals”.
All of them are MEN who are judging their human action whether it is moral or not.
You see the difference?
I can do science. I watch human beings being ripped apart limb by limb and record their nervous system responses.
My study is scientific. My human action is immoral.
58So, the TED video is quite good – much of what he presents aligns with my position as well. You’ve already faced a few arguments from that aligned position from me.
However, the call that Science determines morality is still a huge stretch and he didn’t shorten it by much.
His call was to Reason, not Science, for help. Using reason is a tool of Sciences, but its a tool of philosophy and math and understanding, too. And that all doesn’t make it “Science”.
But his message is very good and I would agree with much of it – that there is exists an infinite number of right answers to any problem – and, from my position, there exists a way and a means to discover these right answers OBJECTIVELY.
As we chat more – this will argument will be offered by me.
Good video, though – I like TED too!
59Oh, the most certainly have!
Theology is such a study – where the mind of God is reasoned and rationalized. It is very reasoned – once you accept the core premise of Godly existence.
There is nothing less in religion than anything else that makes it worse in articulating morals.
Morality doesn’t change – people’s opinions change.
And that is the problem – people confuse their opinions to be the same as their morals. But they are not.
I do not agree. There is nothing nonspiritual in using reason. Spirituality can be reasoned. It can be unreasoned, too – but that is the nature of that person’s own failure. The same man can be unreasoned regarding politics, or nature.
There is nothing wrong with feeling – it is perfectly reasonable. It is because of feeling we make choices.
Not all problems of man requires reason to solve. I do not use reason to solve the problem of what color my car should be, for example.
Correct. It is a stage of development of a human being – just like fetus, child, adolescent, adult, etc.
That may be true, but that does not disprove its not human.
By such logic, an adult has a potential to become a human being, but is far from it, too.
If you a stage of development as a subjective choice of humanity, any stage of development can be used too.
Whether or not the law acts or not does not disprove humanity.
They could, if they saw profit.
There are many reasons, but none moral.
Killing innocent human life so to improve another human life is an act of evil.
Because some men murder other men who murder does not disprove humanity.
Freezing prisoners to death to study hypothermia is a procedure too – and it was respected way to study by many doctors.
I care not why institutions may or may not act or their reasons.
The fight against it is by me because is it evil.
You share many beliefs of Christians – I do not think you feel you are Christian, right?
That may or may not be true.
But it is irrelevant.
By definition, that is what they are doing – killing.
60Happy Mother’s Day to all.”"~
61