Slaughter the innocents…

Kill babies, not women!” says Rep. Louise Slaughter (kind of).  Rep. Slaughter is painting House Republicans who seek to defund Planned Parenthood’s current hand-out from the tax payers to fund abortion as wanting to kill women.  Says Slaughter: “In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”

I love how pro-abortion advocates always bring the discussion to what they perceive the character and intentions of the pro-lifer with whom they are discussing abortion.  They make the argument about the pro-lifer instead of making a coherent case for abortion.  Rather than debate the merits of the pro-abortion view (they might as well argue for the existence of square circles), they go on attack.

I find it ironic that Slaughter is arguing for Planned Parenthood because to defund them would kill women.  Does the fact that abortion kills babies (thousands per day) elude the Congresswoman, or is it just typical liberal thinking?

_______________________________

Eternity Matters recently posted about some little publicized facts about Planned Parenthood.

Comments

  1. Here you unconsciously highlight the absurdities that result from using overblown rhetoric in opposition to abortion. You’ve spent so long convincing yourself that a developing fetus is of equivalent value to a human that you are impervious to the facts as outlined by Rep. Slaughter: defunding Title X would have led to many deaths of actual women.

    • Defunding Title X will do no such thing. And it’s not overblown rhetoric, abortion kills a living innocent human being. Theres no arguing that. What you want to do is impose arbitrary qualifications as to who is worthy of being protected from being dismembered and thrown in a trash can.

      Let me ask you this: do you consider abortion a fundamental human right?

    • A fetus isn’t equivalent to a human, it is a human — that’s basic science from any mainstream embryology textbook and from common sense (species reproduce after their own kind).

  2. Roughly 90% of abortions take place before 12 weeks of gestation. Do you know what a 12-week-old fetus is like? About three inches long, not much of a brain or nervous system. It’s nearly two months before quickening, three or four months before it can feel pain, and long before it exhibits any signs of consciousness.

    So we should be careful, if we choose to talk of a “baby” or a “living innocent human being”, before the twelfth week, to specify that what we’re referring to is more in potentia than an actual baby or human being. If we don’t do that, some people might equate abortion to murder and kill a doctor in the belief that they are preventing many murders. Such things have happened. And none of us wants to see any more conscious, sentient human beings killed over this matter.

    Abortion rights supporters have been and will always continue to be extraordinarily patient and indulgent towards those who use overblown rhetoric in defence of what they believe is right. You can’t make us go away, though.

    • So we determine who is worthy of protection from dismemberment based on what they look like? Sounds arbitrary to me.

      I ask again, is abortion a basic human right?

    • For clarification, by every conceivable method of determination, at the point of conception, it it human and it is alive. To dismiss this or seek to ignore the biology of the matter is dishonest

  3. Based on what they look like? No, based on their capacities.

    If you’re going to say every blastocyst is a human being, or as you seem to be saying every zygote, that’s a ridiculous position and unlikely to gain much support within the medical profession.

    Ignoring the biology? That’s what you are doing old chap. The boot is on the other foot. A zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is on its way to being a human being, At the stages up to which abortion is common, it is not a human being in any meaningful medical sense.

    • Sorry buddy, its on its way to being an infant, on its way to being a todler, on its way to beeing an adolescent, on its way to being an adult. But at the point of conception it has every bit of dna it will ever have. It will never acquire any more genetically, it is fully human and alive at conception.

      Third time I’m asking: is abortion a human right?

    • That’s not what the embryology textbooks say — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq

      Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc.

  4. The term “on its way” is very important.

    I think the Supreme Court got it about right in Roe versus Wade. We have a great degree of autonomy which is not automatically forfeit just by a woman becoming pregnant, but at some point the right to life of a developing infant may override that to the extent that she may not terminate the pregnancy unless there is an overriding health reason.

    Absolutist bans on abortion seem to treat people as if they were incubators belonging to the government. Slaves, in effect. I don’t think that’s at all defensible.

  5. I’ve told you. I largely agree with the Supreme Court, that abortion is a human right that may be overridden at later stages by the right to life of the developing fetus.

    Do you habitually brow-beat people who make comments on your blog?

  6. I think you’re doing yourself a disservice. In your haste to make me look evasive you ignored my comprehensive answer and made yourself look like a bully.

    • I don’t mince words. My patience is thin with people who wont answer direct questions, usually becaude they inevitably know they will be backed into a corner. Your defense of abortion is vacuous and arbitrary.

  7. Now you have conceded that the developing fetus is “on its way” to being an infant. This is often overlooked or simply discounted by people who oppose abortion on the grounds that a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is a human being.

    You say ” It will never acquire any more genetically.”

    While this is true, it is also true of my fingernail clippings.

    • On its way to an arbitrary description of a particular point of development, not on its way to a more complete ontological status.

      You confuse parts with a whole. A developing child is a whole, your fingernails are parts of a whole. This is a logically fallacious objection

  8. “Your defense of abortion is vacuous and arbitrary.”

    Thanks. Have you thought of conveying your expert opinion to the Supreme Court?

  9. “On its way to an arbitrary description of a particular point of development, not on its way to a more complete ontological status.”

    Ontology is tricky. I assemble rolled pastry, salt and butter in a dish, add sliced apple and sugar. Is that an apple pie, or have I missed a step?

    “You confuse parts with a whole. A developing child is a whole, your fingernails are parts of a whole. This is a logically fallacious objection.”

    Fingernail clippings are parts, but each clipping contains every single one of my genes. I was pointing out your fallacy in assuming that the genetic completeness of the zygote is an argument for the zygote being equivalent to a human being.

    The parts are mostly there (or at least, the genetic parts are). As the fingernail example shows, you need more than a complete set of genes for a human being.

    In pregnancy, the equivalent of cooking in my apple pie example is ongoing. The recipe is more than just the list of ingredients and the preliminary preparation.

    “I’m working now, but when I get home with a few minutes I will explain where the supreme court failed in its opinion in R v W”

    Okay.

    • 1. The Roe court never defined what abortion actually does, and to whom it does it I.e. kills a human life. In 1964 according to Planned Parenthood’s own literature:

      “Is it [birth control] an abortion?

      Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.” Thats according to the largest abortion provider in the country prior to Roe.

      2. Planned Parenthood v Casey the court basically acknowledged it was upholding Roe only on the basis of stare decisis (precedent)

      3. The court claimed that the doctors could not determine when life begins (which is false now and was false then, but was the only way to allow abortion). So rather than err on the side of life, they allowed abortion. I know if I am driving and in the road is a blanket with a human shape crawling under it, I would be negligent if I just ran it over. I would not be justified is saying afterward “I didn’t know what was under it, so I ran it over”

      4. The court admitted there is no explicit right to privacy, so it wrote it into the decision. The 4th amendment applies to searches and seizures, not abortion.

      Just these four alone make Roe bad law.

    • Your pie analogy is not comparitive. In your example you are adding outside ingredients, assembling parts. The fertilized ovum has nothing added to it from the outside. A more true analogy would be to place an apple seed in a pie pan, put it in the oven and in 9 min/hrs/days etc. you take out an apple pie. Everytihng in the fertilized ovum is contained within itself. Remember nothing is added at any point after conception.

  10. “The Roe court never defined what abortion actually does, and to whom it does it I.e. kills a human life.”

    The case was a trial of the Texas criminal abortion statutes of the day, which assumed the normal medical meaning of the term: the ending of a pregnancy by the death of the developing embryo. Procuring an abortion (that is, intentionally causing pregnancy to terminate) except in case where the woman’s life is at stake, was a felony.

    “Planned Parenthood v Casey the court basically acknowledged it was upholding Roe only on the basis of stare decisis (precedent)”

    That’s not what I see in the ruling. Although the basic principles were upheld, of course, the ruling was revisited and tested for sanity. For instance: “Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable.” And again: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.” And then again: “No evolution of legal principle has left Roe’s central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society.”

    So there are three more arguments mentioned by the court in upholding the basic thrust of Roe v. Wade.

    What the court did was to reject the old trimester framework of the Roe decision,and replace the “strict scrutiny” standard with the “undue burden” standard.

    “The court claimed that the doctors could not determine when life begins (which is false now and was false then, but was the only way to allow abortion).”

    No, this is what they said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

    They were correct to state that there is a wide divergence in views on this matter. They simply side-stepped it as irrelevant to the case.

    “The court admitted there is no explicit right to privacy, so it wrote it into the decision. The 4th amendment applies to searches and seizures, not abortion.”

    The court actually based its privacy ruling on “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”

    Nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

    “In your example you are adding outside ingredients, assembling parts. The fertilized ovum has nothing added to it from the outside.”

    Of course it does. All of the parts needed to build the child, with the exception of half the genes in the zygote and perhaps some residual matter from the sperm head, come from the mother’s body. They do not appear from nowhere. Look down at your belly button. Why do you imagine it exists?

    • The mothers body does not produce a brain, lunds, nervous system, stomach, heart, etc. for the baby devolping. Are you seriously suggesting that baby parts are passed to the baby via the umbilical cord???

      Hey, thanks for the convo. But it seems aparent that you are content in your willful ignorance of the issue. Which of course is necessary in order to keep your conscience clear.

  11. The mother’s body doesn’t do the work of construction, but it does provide the building materials, most of which are syphoned to the developing embryo by the placenta via the umbilical cord (a remnant of that period in our development is our navel). Recall that you had claimed that my point about assembling the ingredients in the apple sid analogy was incorrect. Well, the umbilicus refutes that false belief.

    • You are so wrong, I actually have to end the discussion. If you are so off on this point, and are arguing it, how can anyone talk any sense into you? You are publicly admitting you have no clue on this issue, and as I said, that is required for being pro-abortion.

  12. Just to make sure that you understand me: virtually every part of the embryo and ultimately of the baby that emerges from the process of pregnancy is constructed from materials fed to it from the mother’s body. This is, or ought to be, common knowledge. The material is not created in the uterus by magic, it is transported there through the mother’s body.

  13. Okay, John. Your blog, your rules. If you like I’ll open a thread on my own much-neglected blog so we can continue without cluttering this one with my unwanted comments. Just say the word. In view of your opinion about my alleged impenetrable denseness, I admire your fortitude and thank you for your hospitality. So long.

    • Tony, I’m not telling you not to participate, I’m saying that if you think the baby’s organs and body are produced by the mother’s body, then you are admitting that you don’t know about the issue. You are wholly wrong about that. So if that is the point of view you are comming from, theres nothing else anyone can say to you. Maybe you could link to a website which supports your claim and I’ll eat crow. Your comments are not unwanted, but you cant expect me to try to defend my position and make my case using your factually inaccurate information.

  14. John, I reiterate my offer to continue this discussion in an environment that will not clutter your blog. If you’d prefer something private like email that’s okay too. Invite anybody you like.

    I’m finding this discussion interesting because in my country abortion is just a basic health service, the controversy died long ago. Bringing me up to speed, so to say, might be a good idea. I might learn something.

    • I am not concerned about clutter, after all, the entire purpose of blogging is to create discussion. My concern is your view of human biology is false. The fact that the growing baby gets its nutrition from the mother is not the same as getting its organs and bodily structures from the mother via the umbilical cord. If we cannot get past that, I just don’t know where else to go.

      You also assert contrary to all biological science that human life does not begin at conception. Even according to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion acknowledges abortion kills the life of a human being. Did you look at the link Neil provided? It quotes from modern and earlier biology text books as to the nature of what happens at conception.

      The problem isn’t clutter, it’s a drastic misunderstanding of the facts.

      • “The fact that the growing baby gets its nutrition from the mother is not the same as getting its organs and bodily structures from the mother via the umbilical cord.”

        Well, I claimed the former and not the latter. The embryo starts as a small cell called a zygote and divides a few times then undergoes several processes that result, after about five days, in a blastocyst. It is only at this stage that the embryo is likely in a condition to embed itself in the walls of the uterus, which have thickened so as to accept it.

        At that point, you must understand, it’s literally a ball of cells. That’s what it looks like, but it has an ambitious program: to construct a human being.

        It is that process of construction that causes the embryo to form a placenta which mediates with the maternal systems and enables the growing embryo to be kept stable while it develops.

        “You also assert contrary to all biological science that human life does not begin at conception.”

        Actually I don’t assert that at all. It is my opinion that life is continuous from mother to infant. At no stage is the development of a new life dependent on a non-living stage. The sperm and ovum are alive, the initial zygote formed by their union is alive, the blastocyst is alive, and at the other end obviously the delivered child is alive.

        All that is irrelevant to anything that matters, as I think Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings have found. Being alive is not a remarkable condition.

        • “Of course it does. All of the parts needed to build the child, with the exception of half the genes in the zygote and perhaps some residual matter from the sperm head, come from the mother’s body. They do not appear from nowhere. Look down at your belly button. Why do you imagine it exists?”

          “The mother’s body doesn’t do the work of construction, but it does provide the building materials, most of which are syphoned to the developing embryo by the placenta via the umbilical cord (a remnant of that period in our development is our navel). Recall that you had claimed that my point about assembling the ingredients in the apple sid analogy was incorrect. Well, the umbilicus refutes that false belief”

          You most certainly claimed the latter.

          • “You most certainly claimed the latter.”

            The latter being, in your words, “getting its organs and bodily structures from the mother via the umbilical cord.”

            What is gets is there wherewithal to produce those organs, I apologise if you somehow read into my statements that odd notion that bits of the embryo were formed by the mother and then sent to the embryo to be assembled. It is certainly the case that virtually all of the material (nutrition is part of it, but not all) required to make the baby is delivered by the mother.

            Consider this: for our reptilian ancestors, the embryo formed from a self-contained amniote. For their amphibian ancestors a similar package was formed, but it had to be laid in water because the casing was not waterproof.

            In those animals the work of the mother went into producing the egg with a substantial package of material (nutrition, if you like) from which the embryo could produce the hatchling. In placental mammals, the revolutionary change is to provide an ongoing connection with the mother. It is for this reason that, for instance, the developing embryo may be susceptible to toxic materials in the mother’s blood (for instance, fetal alcohol syndrome), diseases (rubella), and nutritional deficiencies (lack of folate leading to spina bifida).

            So the zygote starts out as a single cell and follows its genetic program, but it isn’t some kind of magical cell, it needs to obtain all of its material from somewhere. For a reptilian embryo it’s the material deposited by the mother in the amniotic sac. For the mammalian embryo it’s initially the uterine environment and eventually the material mediated via the placenta and delivered through the umbilical cord. That’s why reptiles have no belly button.

            • Then I now have to ask you whatyou mean be “Material”. When you used the example of the apple pie, I showed you where your analogy failed based on the nature of the human fertilized ovum being its own source of the new human’s life bodily structures, i.e. organs and tissues.

              Your analogy would have someone/thing adding the baby’s organs and tissues from outside itself (pie ingredients), which is where the analogy breaks down. You then went on to tell me we have a belly button and this proves the mother provides the materials. So now I must ask you to define “materials”.

  15. ‘Your analogy would have someone/thing adding the baby’s organs and tissues from outside itself (pie ingredients), which is where the analogy breaks down. You then went on to tell me we have a belly button and this proves the mother provides the materials. So now I must ask you to define “materials”.’

    My point (and it’s not a terribly big one so I don’t know why you’re being so bloody about it) is that virtually everything needed to construct the baby is delivered to the growing embryo from the mother’s body, mediated by the placenta and through the umbilicus.

    This, in my apple pie analogy, is equivalent to the ingredients if the pie. The equivalent of the recipe is the genetic algorithm provided by the zygote.

    To go back to my apple pie analogy, the point was that the ingredients assembled are not the pie but they become the pie through a process. Likewise, the embryo and the materials supplied through the umbilicus are not the human being, but they become a human being through a process.

    • Actually, the fact that the baby isn’t put together piecemeal is vitally important. If it was, as your language suggested, it would mean the baby is a potential human being. The fact that it is self contained and develops on its own re-affirms that it is a wholly unique human life.

      Embryos do not become human when mixed with materials. It is not a process, it is a human being at conception. I had asked you to provide documentation for your view that its human-ness develops by the additions of materials. I’d like to see where you are getting your information.

  16. John, it’s a program. You ask for my definition of “material” but I think you know what I mean by “material”. Every single atom of the baby that eventually emerges from the mother is delivered to the construction site from the mother (with some exceptions I have noted). The creation of a baby is not a miracle like those conjuring tricks in “holy” books, it really happens in an amazing but understandable way.

    Put a zygote outside the human body (as happens regularly to any sexually active woman who is not using contraception) and it will shrivel and die. If the zygote were really some celestial conception of a human being, why would God arrange for billions of them to be flushed down the toilet overw day?

  17. A human being deprived of shelter and food is not an embryo or fetus. The woman holding this developing being in her body may have other interests (and certainly her continuing health and life, and her commitment to her other children, may be termed legitimate interests).

    Try as one might to equate the fetus with a fully developed human being, they’re not the same. In particular, if my wife says she doesn’t want it I’m in on position to arrange alternative accommodation and, since her own body is the host, I think it would be silly to suggest that she cannot decide what she wants to do.

    • No one is claiming a fetus is the same as a fully developed human being. But neither is a 4 yearold. Level of development does not determine humanity or huma nature.

      You still have yet to offer evidence that a new human life does not begin at conception, something you asserted. Through this whole discussion, you have been assuming what you are supposed to be proving.

  18. In here we go with the equivocation. A four-year-old is indeed a fully developed human being for the purposes of my argument. Please stop trying to pretend that pregnant women are holding human beings captive for months on end and then paying a nasty man to slice them to bits with sharp knives. It’s silly.

    • You haven’t shown its equivocation. It seems as though you use your arguments to your convenience. You suggest its ok to kill a fetus because if you remove it from the mother it shrivels and dies. But all beings which are removed from its shelter and forced to go without nutrition will shrivel and die. Then you say its ok to kill a fetus because its not fully developed, well, neither is an infant or a todler.

      You keep asserting a fetus is not a human being, you keep asserting that at conception a new human being is not created, but you have yet to offer any medical, biological, or scientific evidence for your position.

      Women arent holding babies captive, the womb is the natural environment. But yes abortion “doctors” do dismenber human beings inside the womb.

      I’m not sure what else I have to do to get you to provide evidence for your view that a new human being is not created at conception. That a growing baby in the womb is not as human as one outside the womb. Provide documentation how this “human-ness” is transferred to the out of the womb baby, since nothing new genetically happens after conception.

      This keeps going back and forth with you just making assertions offering no evidence for your view. I now must ask you to put up or shut up. If you choose to not respond with evidence, I will take it as a concession that you know you have no evidence and just want women to be allowed to kill their babies for matters of convenience. I will take it as an admission that you have no real reason to hold the beliefs you do, you just want to hold them dispite every bit of medical and biological proof contradicting your view.

  19. I think I see movement here finally. You’re moving towards admitting that level of development *does* matter, indeed you now insist on a palpable difference between a newborn and a four-year-old.

    Now you’re repeatedly accused me of making assertions without proof, but clearly we’re both agreed on the existence of human development, you presumably don’t dispute that there are intermediate phases of development, and I expect that being a reasonable chap you would accept the medical consensus on stages of development.

    So all we’re left with, it seems to me, is our separate opinions. I look at a zygote, a cell formed by fertilization of the otto by a sperm, and I form the opinion that it can be destroyed (as many millions of such cells are in normal life) at the will of its owner, the potential mother. One may apply a similar process of evaluation at all subsequent stages of development, or one may adopt an absolutist position. I choose the former simply because I’m not an absolutist.

    • Of course there are differences in level of development, but they do not equate to differences in degree of value and humanity, which is your continued unsubstantiated assertion. You still leave unanswered why the differences in development affect one’s being worthy of protection from being killed, and what the mechanism is that adds human-ness.

Leave a Reply to Neil Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: