Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

BREAKING: Sex May Result in Children

In a culture which lauds hook-ups and promotes abortion, sex has been irrationally detached from its natural consequence – parenthood.

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

June 23, 2013 - 1:00 pm

110755788

Ayn Rand bore no children. If she had, and if they had grown to an appropriate age, she presumably would have sat them down for “the talk.” On such an occasion, she might have explained the birds and the bees like this:

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

Upon taking in the lecture, Rand’s offspring might have been left with profound insight into romantic love, but wouldn’t necessarily know where babies come from. Take what you will from Rand’s unique views on sex, she appears to have divorced the act from its reproductive function.

So it seems with the culture at large. An act which epitomizes connection has become detached from its vital moorings, divorced from marriage, divorced from love, and – most consequentially – divorced from parenthood.

It's not a child until you open the bag.

It’s not a child until you open the bag.

Nothing may demonstrate the disconnect between sex and childrearing better than the evergreen debate over abortion. Rand aggressively advocated the “right” of mothers to kill their unborn children:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Thus Rand strangely deviated from her vaunted law of identity, the Aristotelian assertion that a thing is what it is. Through some mystical process which Rand – like all abortionists – takes for granted without ever actually demonstrating, a child emerges on the day of its birth having not existed as such mere moments before. Certainly, it can be objectively demonstrated that a being does not exist as such prior to its conception. But prior to its birth? How did it exist in the womb, as a loaf of bread?

A connection can be drawn from Rand’s belief that a child is not such until born, to her omission of children as a consideration when engaging in sex. From her perspective, which matches that of abortionists everywhere, the choice to procreate exists completely separate from the choice to have sex. If indeed “a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born,” the choice to have a child need not be made until birth, and has nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

Though atheistic, Rand condemned a few choices as sin, including the refusal to think and the rejection of reality. Detaching the sex act from its natural consequence commits both. Sex may result in children. Competent adults know that going in, and stand responsible for the lives of any children they may produce regardless.

There exists a certain irony in the fact that, while Rand’s overall philosophy remains on the fringes of popular culture, her views regarding sex, reproduction, and parenthood have been roughly and broadly adopted. Granted, most abortionists arrive at Rand’s view in parallel through a haphazard adoption of ideas, not a thoughtful consideration of her (or any) philosophy.

Destroyer of worlds.

Destroyer of worlds.

Despite a disproportional focus in public discourse on rape, incest, and the health of mothers, most abortions prove elective, committed for no other purpose than ignoring reality, shirking responsibility, and dismissing consequence. This desire to erase any trace of a child’s existence informs the irrational claim that the child wasn’t really a child anyway. The emotionalism surrounding that claim erupts mightily when challenged, because otherwise rational people know in both their hearts and minds that, if a child exists upon conception, its parents bear responsibility for it.

Even devout student’s of Rand’s philosophy acknowledge that a parent stands obligated to arrange for the care of their child. One comments:

A parent is not morally obligated to value their child more than themselves. However, they are morally obligated to ensuring that their child receives appropriate care until they are mature enough to care for themselves, through a responsible third party (foster care, etc) if necessary.

A worthy question is: why? Why is a parent morally obligated to ensure that their child receives appropriate care until they are mature enough to care for themselves?

The answer can be demonstrated through analogy. Rand’s philosophy holds that one man’s need places no moral claim upon the life of another. Thus, if we drive past someone injured on the side of the road, we have no duty to assist them. However, if we hit someone with our car while driving, a duty to assist emerges. That’s why states properly prohibit hit and runs.

The same principle applies to procreation. A neighbor in need has no moral claim to your assistance. However, a child which exists as a consequence of your own action does. As with the hit and run scenario, intention proves largely irrelevant. The consequences of your actions exist in reality and define your responsibility regardless of any wish to the contrary. Just as the duty to remain on the scene of a collision exists whether it was an accident or not, so too does the duty to care for one’s children. Pretending that an unborn child is not really a child proves fundamentally no different than pretending a struck pedestrian was really a dog.

Walter Hudson advocates for individual rights, serving on the boards of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, Minnesota Majority and the Minority Liberty Alliance. He maintains a blog and daily podcast entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of conservative Minnesotan commentary, and regularly appears on the Twin Cities News Talk Weekend Roundtable on KTCN AM 1130. Follow his work via Twitter and Facebook.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
If you force me to pay for the consequences of what happens in other people's bedrooms, then why are you upset when I want to say something about where my money goes?

If you don't want me to say anything about it, let me keep my money and don't ask me to subsidize your behavior and its natural results.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I have no interest whatsoever in regulating people's sex lives. I do, however, seek government which protects individual rights - including the right to life, which the unborn have. If you want to make an argument that the unborn are not human beings with a right to life, the burden of proof lays upon you.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We shouldn't worry about people killing their children?

Writing one article about abortion is not obsessing over it.

Mr. Hudson is not asking to regulate anybody's sex life. But he proposes people should not escape the easily foreseen consequences of their own actions by violating the rights of others.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (72)
All Comments   (72)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If the Fetus is growing it is ALIVE. Every birth results in a human baby. Abortion kills a human baby.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I continue to enjoy the thought provoking articles, Mr. Hudson.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Rather than reply to everyone here on each individual issue, I'm going to sum up my views here:

1. Syphilis was a virtual epidemic in the 19th century. By the second half of the 19th century, nearly half of men in New York City were infected with it.

What finally ended the syphilis epidemic wasn't morality or religion but the invention of effective antibiotics. Dr. Paul Ehrlich invented the first one, Salvorsan.

2. *Men* have always enjoyed "sex without consequences." The sailor on leave cruising for a pickup is practically a movie cliche. How many women did American G.I.'s and sailors impregnate in Europe? Quite a few. Very few men remained virgins till they got married.

Back then, we told the truth about that.

3. I regard the issue of abortion as the dual of the issue of death with dignity. Were they right to pull the plug on a mental vegetable like Terri Schaivo? Or did she have 14th Amendment rights till the day she was buried?

To me, what separates us from animals (who don't have 14th Amendment rights) is our functioning cerebral cortex, truly the seat of our soul. That part of our brain enables us to think, plan, dream, and internalize moral codes. Without it, we're no better than animals. Any mouse can react to stimuli, search for food, and mate, just like we can.

The cerebral cortex of a developing fetus doesn't really "turn on" till around the 24th week of pregnancy. Prior to that, we have an organism that is incapable of higher and abstract thought. And in the case of Terri Schaivo, her cerebral cortex no longer functioned. The fact that we could keep her body (below her neck) alive indefinitely is irrelevant. The entity Terri Schaivo was gone; only a protoplasmic shell remained.

So for me, I have no problem with abortion before week 20 of gestation. Past week 25, I'm absolutely opposed to it as long as the fetus' cerebral cortex is working.

The late scientist Carl Sagan--who was an atheist--agreed that abortion of a healthy fetus in the third trimester is "murder beyond question" (his words).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ever watched a person die Sinz when water withheld, functioning cerebral cortex or not? My neurologist cousin did and called it the most gruesome, agonizing, wretched death he has ever witnessed.

I just wonder how many of you abortion proponents would be willing to stand before a sonogram while an abortion performed on a 19 week old fetus and applaud our rights?

Frankly, I find this rational, this mindset, one miniscule step from outright infanticide...



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Walter, if our society really ever believed that embryos and early-stage fetuses were unborn children, why don't we have public mourning and funerals when a woman has a miscarriage? I think we have a majority consensus for protecting the unborn as babies in the 3rd trimester. Probably possible to achieve consensus for legally protecting the unborn like babies in the 2nd trimester. However, early 1st trimester abortions look more like artificial miscarriages than infanticide. To an outside observer, the society consensus rule seems to be that fetus = baby status is recognized around the time that pregnancy starts to show.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"why don't we have public mourning and funerals when a woman has a miscarriage"

Because, George, it's a very private thing.

I suspect you are young, and really don't know much about the subject from personal experience. Please let me help you understand.

Miscarriages are probably a lot more common than you realize. It used to be standard practice for expectant mothers to tell nobody about the baby until the first trimester has passed, or even until a bit farther along. Why? Because the probability of miscarriage takes a big dive after that point. If nobody knows about the pregnancy, the mother and father can grieve privately, or perhaps only tell a few close people.

When a woman miscarries, unless she's a thoroughly degraded wretch (as so many are today) she feels grief at the loss of her child. I think we can all understand that to some extent. But more than grief, she often feels failure, and yes, even shame. She feels she has failed in her most essential task, that of nurturing life within her. You and I may not think this is rational, but that doesn't mean it's not real. And, of course, women are different and feel these things to different degrees.

This is why there isn't much public attention paid to miscarriage. Nobody wants attention drawn to her "failure". The attention merely exacerbates the pain.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ever met a woman who wanted a baby and had a miscarriage? I can assure you there is mourning, she wasn't treating as a hangnail as Tom Perkins suggested below, and she called it "losing her baby."

The word fetus will never be mentioned.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The man below was claiming human DNA made a just fertilized ova a person, I am pointing that's ridiculous.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What is ridiculous about it?

Neither the egg by itself nor the sperm by itself will ever become a person. Alone, each will die; no other possibility exists for them. NOBODY suggests that either is a person, or that any wrong has been done when one (or a billion) are destroyed.

However, once fertilization takes place, the fertilized egg has been set on a course which, unless interrupted (naturally or otherwise) leads inexorably to an adult human being. Everything is present. A fundamental, qualitative change has been made from one sort of existence to another. It is not a change of degree, it is a change of ESSENCE.

Thus, conception is the ONLY point in the process of life that can rationally be the demarc between full personhood and mere clusters of cells. All other points, no matter how reasonable they may seem on the surface, when subjected to rational analysis, when tested by logic, are found to be purely arbitrary, and in fact, irrational.

For example:

If we take size as the demarc, then we have to ask the question, WHAT size? How does one choose what size is person and what size is cluster of cells? Who decides? The same is true for gestational age.

If we take completion of certain organs as the demarc, again, which organs, and who decides? What about babies born without some organs? Throw them away? Some do argue exactly that.

Well, what about birth itself? That's the insanity that permits partial birth abortion. (Yes, I know, that's not the medical term. It IS an accurate description of the process.) By that definition, a baby still in the birth canal can simply be killed because the mother changes her mind. Really, this definition comes down to nothing more than convenience. If the mother wants the baby, then no expense or effort is spared to repair birth defects as far as humanly possible, even in the mother's womb, at times. But a baby that is not wanted, even though perfect in every respect, can be killed with impunity.

Intellectual capacity? We don't even know how to measure it. Of all of these arbitrary points which have been proposed, this one is probably second most easily abused for convenience.

Viability? There is no worse definition. How can the definition of murder change with advancing medical techniques? What was legally and morally permissible 10 years ago is murder today? Worse, if we accept "viabiltiy" as the criterion of personhood, we are free to off grandma when her kidneys fail, even if she retains her full mental capacity. That 30 year old paraplegic? He's not viable - unless someone takes care of him, including feeding, he'll die. So, smash his head in - he's not a person, he's merely a burden.

How can any such definition be defended? How can it be anything OTHER than arbitrary? And, since it IS arbitrary, how do we defend against the definitions shifting so that ANYBODY that is deemed too small too imperfect too inconvenient too stupid too conservative can be killed at will, simply because that person is vulnerable?

All such arbitrary definitions, whatever objectivity they FALSELY promise, turn out to be the playground of the eugenics crowd; an excuse for convenience, and even when merely misguided, an invitation to shifting definitions that invite abuse, and eventually, tyranny.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It is not a change of degree, it is a change of ESSENCE."

It is a change of degree, the change in essence can not have taken place yet. There is no possibility of a soul or humanity being present in a single cell, the complexity to support such in the brain is perfectly absent, and has always been to that point. It isn't there for months yet in the course of a pregnancy.

You have faith it happens then, you have no evidence whatsoever. In contrast, I find my position to be well supported by both faith and evidence.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It is a change of degree, the change in essence can not have taken place yet."

Irrational hogwash. We have moved from two individual cells which have no possibility in themselves of ever doing anything except DYING, and which do not contain within themselves the possibility to be anything other than what they are, which, by themselves, will NEVER be a person, to one cell which is on a course to become a doctor, lawyer, teacher, mother, father, whatever. This IS a fundamental change, a change of essence.

The fertilized egg stands in complete contrast. It is as fully equipped with all it needs to continue its growth as any baby or teenager or adult. Yes, it needs nutrients and protection from hostile environments. So does a baby or teenager or adult.


"You have faith it happens then, you have no evidence whatsoever. "

I have REASON.

"In contrast, I find my position to be well supported by both faith and evidence. "

What evidence? A vote creates personhood? How is that based on evidence?

What you HAVE is a rationalization that quiets your conscience, nothing more.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"What is ridiculous about it? "

Because it's beside the point.

That egg is really, really unlikely to undergo parthenogenesis by itself doesn't matter. That it requires a healthy enough womb to develop in doesn't matter. That it is distinct human DNA doesn't matter. Whether it is viable outside the womb to any arbitrarily chosen degree of likelihood doesn't matter. That is has a beating heart doesn't matter.

In a country with a constitution that demands super majorities to define what the law will take to hand, and majorities to define the details of what is taken to hand, what matters is what an overwhelming majority--a super majority--will support.

An overwhelming majority does not believe either that all pregnancies are humans from the moment of conception or that all abortions for convenience are murder, rather that they believe it is never murder early in the pregnancy, and almost always murder later in the pregnancy.

It is not without reason they believe such. The idea that a single cell is a human being beggars belief--those who have faith is such should keep true to that faith. Those with a different faith need make no apologies for such.

Unless you reciprocally plan on apologizing for your reasonless faith at a later time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If a vote can decide when a person becomes a person, a vote can decide that certain persons are no longer persons.

In your world, the personhood, and therefore the life or death of individuals and entire classes of people hangs on a vote.

It's been done before. People like you will make it true again.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This does not logically follow. A miscarriage is a natural event whereas an abortion is an artificially induced procedure by the mother. A conflation on your part is an attempt to use miscarriages to legitimize abortions and remove the latter's stigma.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your reply doesn't logically follow. We have public mourning and funerals because of death, a natural event. Do you pretend we only have funerals when there are murders?

Try replying to the actual point, that the overwhelming number of people have no reason to feel and do not think that an abortion nor any contraceptive in the first trimester is any sort of murder, or homicide of any sort, while a very large majority also support making abortion illegal in the latter portion, usually after 20 weeks, of a pregnancy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My point is certainly logical. What's illogical is your point. There is absolutely a difference between a natural phenomenon and an artificial one. I don't know what the "overwhelming number of people" think nor do I particularly care. The "overwhelming number of people" also accept that it's okay for the government to steal from one class of people to give to another and call it compassion. It is not, and neither is abortion akin to a miscarriage.

As for your second point, the only reason it isn't murder is because the State has determined that it isn't murder. Of course, the question I have for you is why is 20 weeks a cutoff for this purpose?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your "actual point" isn't relevant. Personhood is not determined by popular opinion.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Though atheistic, Rand condemned a few choices as sin, including the refusal to think and the rejection of reality. "

Thus, Ayn Rand is the greatest sinner in her own book. Check your premises!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Where exactly did Ayn Rand comment on abortion? I have most of her books - all of the novels and most of the other books - and I don't remember her raising the topic. Mind you, I've only re-read Atlas Shrugged "recently" (within the last two years) and haven't read the others for close to 30 years so I could easily have forgotten a discussion of abortion.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"But prior to its birth? How did it exist in the womb, as a loaf of bread?"

Mary Tyler Moore said it was more like a goldfish.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Sex without consequences is dehumanizing, self centered and narcissistic."

Sex with government enforced consequences is dehumanizing, and totalitarian and unconstitutional. And yes, all abortions done after some undefined point in a pregnancy for any other reason than saving the life of the mother is a murder.

There is public support for banning all abortions of convenience in the third trimester, and in many states, somewhat earlier. There is no majority support--or even close to it--for banning abortions altogether, and still less for banning contraceptives, or even drugs which cause the next period to go ahead and happen.

What an overwhelmingly large majority of the public supports is a human life amendment stating constitutional guarantees of rights have begun by the sixth or seventh month of a pregnancy, and have not begun in the first three, and that the feds should treat as binding the definition of murder as the individual state jurisdictions define that for the time in a pregnancy intervening.

Any argument made to the contrary of the gist of that, is the two extremes of the argument "abusing themselves" in public to the rile up their distinct minority bases to continue their fight to foist an injustice onto the public.

Each side is equally extreme in that one want all abortions done anytime in a pregnancy and for any reason to be legal, and the other wants them all illegal.

But one is for murdering babies, and the other isn't, so for as long as only the two extremes are argued as policy--the GOP extreme will continue to advance.

And the Dems continue to loose, as well those baby murderers like Obama and Pelosi should.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
""all abortions done after some undefined point in a pregnancy ... is a murder."
Undefined is the problem. At conception a life that is unarguably human begins and will develop into a full human being baring fatal defect, disease, accident, or deliberate killing. To arbitrarily decide by any subjective measure that life only becomes human after he/she develops a certain trait is pure sophistry. If society can make arbitrary choices as to when in life someone is human, it legitimizes those who argue that children as old as 12 or older or who have defects, major or minor, or who are disabled, can be legitimately killed if they pose a burden to their parents or society, just as well as stating all is legitimate up to point X in a pregnancy. I once thought like you that there was some convenient compromise point but I like yourself was wrong to my shame and deep regret. It's a slippery slope my friend where in the end we get walked and talked into sanctioning the killing of anyone whom we find interferes with our foolish fantasy of free uninhibited sex without consequences or any other selfish pursuit that destroys the bonds between human beings and their offspring.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Undefined is the problem."

And the problem is solved by the will of a super-majority defining it as I have suggested, by amendment.

"At conception a life that is unarguably human begins and will develop into a full human being baring fatal defect, disease, accident, or deliberate killing."

It isn't unarguably human. I have never met, neither have you, and nor will any of us, any single cell nor a few 100 million cells, which is a human.

To arbitrarily decide by any subjective measure that life only becomes human after he/she develops a certain trait is pure sophistry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Didn't get the copy/paste right, sorry.

"To arbitrarily decide by any subjective measure that life only becomes human after he/she develops a certain trait is pure sophistry. "

It's not merely not sophistry, it's required. If something "magical" doesn't happen, then there is no humanity. And faith isn't arbitrary, it either is or isn't.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Magic is not required. Reason is. The will of a majority is no more reason than the will of a (powerful) minority.

Neither can settle the matter.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You confuse faith with reason, who are you to talk?

Might does not make right, but it is in the constitution that it should make legal reality. The amendment I propose is both agreed to by a super majority fit to amend the constitution, and very well agrees with reason as I see it and my faith both.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is you who are confusing faith with reason. You assert no "reason" other than the will of a majority, which is nothing more than might makes right, and you offer no justification for your "faith" other than to throw the word around.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
@Jeff Gauch,
Regardless of the other purposes of sex, it is the responsibility of the people engaging in the act to deal with the consequences of that act. I couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their bedroom as long as they accept responsibility for whatever happens and they don't expect me to pay any part of the bill. If a pregnancy results, and they choose abortion to deal with it, then there are consequences there as well, but again, don't expect me to pay any part of the bill.

But make no mistake, when you abort, you are killing a human. The clump of cells to which you refer may look like the animals you listed during the various phases of constructing the human being, but the notion that the clump of cells are indistinguishable from those animals is nonsense. Clearly, the DNA carried by every single cell in the clump is different from the DNA of every single animal on your list. Without manual intervention, that DNA codes for 2 possible outcomes: 1) The production of a non viable human that gets miscarried, or 2) The production a viable human baby.

At no point is the clump of cells ever any of the animals you have named. Regardless of what they look like, it is the DNA that defines what they are. That DNA comes into existence at the moment of conception and, viable or not, it codes for a human. Since it is human, it has rights.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
By your logic, the Intra-Uterine Device (IUD) is an instrument of murder.

IUDs are a form of birth control that work by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall.

So by your logic, any woman who uses an IUD is just as much guilty of murder as a woman who has an abortion.

Was that your intention?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your argument is a case of reductio ad absurdum.

First and foremost, I am unaware of any IUD that operates as you say, at least none that are approved for use in the US. As far as I know, there are two types of IUD, both of which operate by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg. One device uses copper which acts as a spermicide, another device operates through the use of a hormone that thickens the cervical mucus and prevents sperm swimming through it.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an IUD that works as you describe, the use of such a device cannot rise to the level of murder. There is a difference between murder and killing. I specifically stated killing. With the use of a birth control device that operates by the denial of implantation, we cannot know for certain that a human has been killed because no evidence can possibly exist to support the claim that a fertilized egg was denied the opportunity to implant itself. The most we can say is that it may have happened that one or more fertilized eggs were prevented from implanting by a birth control device, but there is no way of proving that even one occurrence happened, or even proving that there was some other natural reason for a failure to implant that is totally independent of the use of a birth control device.

So, no, it was not my intention to imply murder when I specifically stated killing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"First and foremost, I am unaware of any IUD that operates as you say"

I don't know what is in common use today, but that is exactly how early IUDs operated, back for at least a couple of thousand years. The ancient Bedouins used to insert peach pits as IUDs in their camels. The irritation made implantation almost impossible.


"the use of such a device cannot rise to the level of murder. There is a difference between murder and killing."

Murder, no, but depraved indifference, yes. When we engage in an act which we know, or should know, carries with it the likelihood of endangering the life of another, we are legally and morally culpable if a death occurs as a result.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just because it codes for a human doesn't mean it is a human or has been--it only means it frequently, without intervention to the contrary--will in the future be a human. If I clip a hangnail too deep, those dying cells code for a clone of me.

If the technology existed, it would solely be my discretion as to whether I rescued those cells and raised a clone of myself--and choosing not to do that would not be murder. The technology exists to prevent gametes from meeting with a very high degree of certainty, and to prevent the development of what is not yet human into a human being--if they do meet--into a person. Neither option is murder.

A fetus is not a baby, it is not a person having rights, until many months into a pregnancy.

So says an overwhelmingly large majority of the country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The context of my statement is the cells of a fertilized egg. That is clear.

Your argument is a straw man and a bad one at that. It is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate and is patently absurd. The dying cells from your hangnail carry human DNA but cannot become a human because they are not the type of cells that can divide and grow into a viable human being without manual intervention - namely, converting the dying cells into the type of cells that exist in a fertilized egg.

In addition, as I pointed out to the other poster, I specifically stated killing, not murder. I won't repeat that explanation in this post.

Arbitrary lines of demarcation set after fertilization without bulletproof scientific justification to them are meaningless and nonsensical. The fact is that I can say with absolute certainty that prior to fertilization the egg is not a human and after fertilization it is. You may not agree with my line of demarcation, but my position is easily argued and yours is absolutely untenable, it doesn't matter how many people believe it. If at some point in the future it can be demonstrated scientifically that a fertilized egg is not a human then I will look at that science and decide for myself if I find the argument compelling and bulletproof enough to revise my view. Until that time, making declarative statements about arbitrary lines of demarcation or calling something a name intended to dehumanize it is not compelling evidence of anything.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The dying cells from your hangnail carry human DNA but cannot become a human because they are not the type of cells that can divide and grow into a viable human being without manual intervention - namely, converting the dying cells into the type of cells that exist in a fertilized egg."

And they haven't become a human being until they've done enough dividing, changing, and multiplying. Judging when they have done enough such is the job of the government especially when defining murder, and more generally when the rights of human being inhere to it.

They are the abjectly meaningful arbitrary bright lines the law requires to meaningfully exist.

That the science shows it is not a human being is obvious from definitions of brain death, wherein in the fertilized egg, and for many weeks after there not merely can not be brain death, there has been no brain.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You rely solely on the government to define the location of the arbitrary line of demarcation. Inherent in your assumptions are that the government will draw the line in a way that you agree with and that the location of that line will never change to something that you disagree with.

Using the definition of death to define what is human is a non starter because a dead human is still a human and still has a limited set of rights - for example, you cannot harvest any organs from a dead body without permission nor can you desecrate the remains. There is also the case of children born with anencephaly who, according to your missing brain defiintion, wouldn't be considered human.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, the code is there, but that code is never going to develop into a human being.

A fertilized egg will just as certainly (and as UNcertainly) as a 10 year old child will develop into an adult.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you're so sure the overwhelming majority believe a zygote equivalent to a hang nail (I hope you weren't a medical student), then let's put Roe aside and put it to a national vote up or down, shall we?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What's Roe V. Wade got to do with it? Roe v. wade is obviously unconstitutional.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And for that matter, that's exactly what I'm proposing.

The GOP should modify it's abortion plank to supporting just such an amendment:

That a pregnancy in the first trimester is not a human being for constitutional purposes, in the third always is, and in the second the national government should to defer to the local/state jurisdiction.

Are claiming I'm saying something else? Or are you up for just such a GOP led vote?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How many months into a pregnancy? Exactly when? Upon what criteria do you assert that to be true? Obama's science czar says that a baby isn't a person until they''re about two...why is he wrong and you right?

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Both assumptions are provably false.

An overwhelmingly large majority once said that slavery was legal...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They said it was more than legal - they said it was morally right!

It wasn't.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I see two arguments here. First, whether there is a societal obligation for everyone to pay for "free" abortion. Second, does the unborn child have a right to live. Sex without consequences is dehumanizing, self centered and narcissistic. It has led to the destruction of the nuclear family and wide spread sexual assaults the quantity, not the quality, of which is a growing epidemic. On the first argument, no one other than the mother and her "lover"should be forced to pay for the state sanctioned legal murder, the killing of a viable human life, especially if it is against their religion. On the second argument, the hypocrisy of the "Pro-choice" supporters can be shown by their absurd labels. Pro-choice indeed If your choice is death for the unborn child, why not be bold and call yourselves Pro-Death. And I always marvel at how the death of an unborn child is a legal choice if made by the woman, but if caused by a another, say in the murder of a pregnant woman and her unborn child, its a double murder. Its a slippery slope our nation is on. First its free abortions, next its free euthanasia for the aged and terminally ill, soon it will be mandatory for not only those but also for the mentally and physically impaired, followed soon thereafter by those who are politically opposed to this culture of death, all of course scientifically approved of by our own version of the Nazi Ministry of Health, the HHS under Sebelius. I'm sure the masterminds of the Nazi Aktion T4 euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" are laughing out loud in whatever circle of hell they inhabit. They were just before their time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All