Originally Posted by buggyone

Personally, I would rather listen to Bill Maher than to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, or any of those other political comedians on Fox. Gretchen Carlson, though, is quite pleasant.

No surprise. He strokes your political bias and you melt, just as I said. Thanks for the feedback.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure if you could call a fetus a person who is conscious for most if not almost all abortions. Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

The only important issues in the whole ten which are in the article you linked are numbers 1 and 10. They’re the only ones that have anything to do with the human life in the womb of it’s mother. I have to assume since you linked this without comment, that you concur with the thoughts of this author.


(1. "You can't be pro-choice and be anti-death penalty/anti-war at the same time."False. The pro-choice position is predicated on the idea that women have the right to decide whether to carry their pregnancies to term. The victims of the death penalty and war are fully conscious persons rather than presentient entities in a woman's womb, so the moral questions involved are entirely different.)

Lot’s of assumption here. The author doesn’t mention the age of the baby. A baby’s heart beats at 18 days from conception and his brain activity can be detected at 6 weeks from conception. That’s a conscious person by any definition.

6 to 7 Weeks | Prenatal Overview

Also, the author doesn’t discuss the baby’s soul. Then again, maybe the author doesn’t have one and his omission is understandable

You want to stand on OK’ing the destruction of innocent life over convicted murderers, that’s your conscious.

(2."Human life begins at conception."False. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. In 2000, the British House of Lords established a Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience, which estimated that higher-level brain development begins to commence at about 23 weeks.)

This author states that he grants life with higher-level brain development. How many babies are born prior to 23 weeks and survived? This author again is making statements and assumptions that are ludicrous.

It is an undisputed biological scientific fact that human life begins at conception; at the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s ovum, which is called fertilization.
From the very moment of conception the fetus contains all the genetic information that baby will have for the remainder of his life. Any embryology book will confirm that this new, unique human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing.

At the very moment of it’s conception, this creation is completely human in every one of his characteristics, totally unique from every other living organism. He has the same 46 chromosomes he will have until death.

That means they deserve all the same rights to life that other individuals enjoy. Even if someone has doubts, there is certainly enough reasonable biological facts to give an unborn baby the benefit of the doubt. If you’re not sure someone’s dead or alive, you don’t bury them, right?

The protection of life should be the final word on this topic.

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

No human being should be discriminated against based on his or her stage of development, place of residence (inside the womb) or arbitrary notion of “when life begins”.

Richie, I don't want to get into an argument over this - after all, another thread got shut down... But that 'heart' at 18 days is a one-chamber heart that more resembles a frog embryo. And that "brain activity"? Miniscule would be putting it kindly.

Properly cared for and nourished, yes, that fetus will grow into a person. Any anatomy book can show when certain physiological changes occur. But saying "there's a heart" at 18 days *really* oversimplifies things.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie, I don't want to get into an argument over this - after all, another thread got shut down... But that 'heart' at 18 days is a one-chamber heart that more resembles a frog embryo. And that "brain activity"? Miniscule would be putting it kindly.

Properly cared for and nourished, yes, that fetus will grow into a person. Any anatomy book can show when certain physiological changes occur. But saying "there's a heart" at 18 days *really* oversimplifies things.

And denying the humanity of that "fetus" really oversimplifies things.

You can't deny that you're talking about a human being.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

No surprise. He strokes your political bias and you melt, just as I said. Thanks for the feedback.

and right back at you with the political comedians of Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter. Thanks for your feedback and your bias.

Originally Posted by buggyone

and right back at you with the political comedians of Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter. Thanks for your feedback and your bias.

I don't constantly fawn over them or initiate their names in conversation or on this forum as you do with your constant admiration for the loathsome Maher.

Beck and Palin are greater comedians than Carlin ever was.

Richie: I see a potential human being. I can't "look" at a single-cell organism and say "that's human". If you told me that it was a fertilized human egg, that would only change my opinion of the future of that cell.

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie: I see a potential human being. I can't "look" at a single-cell organism and say "that's human". If you told me that it was a fertilized human egg, that would only change my opinion of the future of that cell.

If you don't see the humanity that is there in even a scientific sense, let alone a moral sense, I find that really tragic.

Potential human being???...............omg!

Why would you consider and categorize a human fetus as something to be eliminated from the body, like urine or feces?

Is a human fetus a "waste product"????

Not even wild dogs or boars dig out their unborn offspring.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Why would you consider and categorize a human fetus as something to be eliminated from the body, like urine or feces?

Is a human fetus a "waste product"????

Not even wild dogs or boars dig out their unborn offspring.

The pro-abortion crowd must dehumanize the human being developing inside it's mother in order to live with themselves.

If they ever admitted to themselves what they were really advocating...........

Richie, I'll put this as politely as I can - and not that I'm angry at you or anything - I'm not. It's just that what I'm about to describe can be disturbing.

Back in 1991, my (now-ex) wife had a miscarriage. What I had to clean up off the floor wasn't what I would call "human". It was something that, clearly, the body rejected (as happens, apparently to approximately 1/3 of all pregnancies).

Because I don't view a one-cell organism as having the same rights as you, me or any other living human doesn't make me a monster. Quite the contrary - what I see is the potential. It's a blueprint and, WITH THE PROPER CARE, if there aren't too many genetic mistakes, you'll have someone in 9 months. You'll have "viability" sooner than that.

In the old days of film photogrpahy, everyone would say they "took pictures". But it wasn't "a picture" until you sent the film to the lab, had it developed and prints made.

Yes, as soon as fertilization is complete, you have a 100% blueprint for a unique (barring twins/triplets/etc) individual. This, however, still requires a LOT of "care and feeding". Again, I don't think I'm saying anything that controversial.

But if you go and "grant full rights" to a single-cell organism, have you thought this through? It means *every* miscarriage becomes a case of suspicion of, at the very least, negligent homicide. It means forcing parents to bring anencephalic babies or Tay-Sachs babies into this world.

Look, I dont' believe that someone should be able at, say, 8 months pregnant, to be able to walk into a clinic and get an abortion. IMO, she had plenty of time to think about it BEFORE then. I also know it's pretty much impossible to get one at that stage around here. Just as a reminder, Roe v. Wade DOES allow for 3rd trimester restrictions. It's not the "free pass" that so many seem to think it is.

Richie, you insist that I'm "pro-abortion", which I'm not. I don't like it and never have. You talk about "pro abortionists" using the tactic of "dehumanizing" the fetus - isn't that what you're doing with me by constantly pinning that label?

Originally Posted by djplong

Richie, I'll put this as politely as I can - and not that I'm angry at you or anything - I'm not. It's just that what I'm about to describe can be disturbing.

Back in 1991, my (now-ex) wife had a miscarriage. What I had to clean up off the floor wasn't what I would call "human". It was something that, clearly, the body rejected (as happens, apparently to approximately 1/3 of all pregnancies).

Because I don't view a one-cell organism as having the same rights as you, me or any other living human doesn't make me a monster. Quite the contrary - what I see is the potential. It's a blueprint and, WITH THE PROPER CARE, if there aren't too many genetic mistakes, you'll have someone in 9 months. You'll have "viability" sooner than that.

In the old days of film photogrpahy, everyone would say they "took pictures". But it wasn't "a picture" until you sent the film to the lab, had it developed and prints made.

Yes, as soon as fertilization is complete, you have a 100% blueprint for a unique (barring twins/triplets/etc) individual. This, however, still requires a LOT of "care and feeding". Again, I don't think I'm saying anything that controversial.

But if you go and "grant full rights" to a single-cell organism, have you thought this through? It means *every* miscarriage becomes a case of suspicion of, at the very least, negligent homicide. It means forcing parents to bring anencephalic babies or Tay-Sachs babies into this world.

Look, I dont' believe that someone should be able at, say, 8 months pregnant, to be able to walk into a clinic and get an abortion. IMO, she had plenty of time to think about it BEFORE then. I also know it's pretty much impossible to get one at that stage around here. Just as a reminder, Roe v. Wade DOES allow for 3rd trimester restrictions. It's not the "free pass" that so many seem to think it is.

Richie, you insist that I'm "pro-abortion", which I'm not. I don't like it and never have. You talk about "pro abortionists" using the tactic of "dehumanizing" the fetus - isn't that what you're doing with me by constantly pinning that label?

Before the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court, abortion was illegal. No parents of a baby that was miscarried or lost otherwise were ever looked at with anything but concern and pity at the unexpected loss of the human being taken from them.

The loss of your baby was a tragedy, and I sympathize with the horror you and your family went through, but fail to see how dehumanizing the growing human being helps you, or somehow excuses and justifies abortion.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Before the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court, abortion was illegal. No parents of a baby that was miscarried or lost otherwise were ever looked at with anything but concern and pity at the unexpected loss of the human being taken from them.

The loss of your baby was a tragedy, and I sympathize with the horror you and your family went through, but fail to see how dehumanizing the growing human being helps you, or somehow excuses and justifies abortion.

How did this evolve from George Carlin political quotes to abortion issues?

Originally Posted by buggyone

How did this evolve from George Carlin political quotes to abortion issues?

Keep up Buggy; the quote was Carlin referencing abortion in his "inimitable" way.

Taltarzac thought it prescient and has some support in that, and then I and others vociferously disagreed.

Are you up to speed?