(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: State Senate Decision Demonstrates Hatred

Posted: February 18, 2013 at 1:58 a.m.

I have a few things to say about the outlandish, misogynistic, mean-spirited, scientifically inaccurate, cruel antiabortion bill passed by the Arkansas Senate.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/18/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: Settlement With Attorney Distu...

Lowell’s long municipal nightmare is over. Read »

Next Story »

COMMENTARY: Ideas Aplenty Among Lawmakers

One of the great tools for state political junkies in the electronic age is the Arkansas General Assembly’s website availability of all the bills filed by lawmakers. Read »

seems the state Republicans are fighting for the best chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Posted by: cdawg

February 18, 2013 at 3:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"an inhuman lack of compassion" - how about when the doctor takes a scalpel and butchers the baby to remove it from the mother's womb - oh, i forgot, you all call it pro choice.

"a pure hatred of women" I get sick hearing you libs use that phrase all the time. Where is the hatred?

Why don't you go back to the blue liberal state you came from if you want those practices to continue.

You all don't even think about the 55M babies that have been murdered since Roe v Wade.

May God have mercy on our Nation for our slaugter of innocent babies.

Shame on us!!!!!!

Posted by: footballfan

February 18, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Shame on us!!!!!!"
Shame on you for not knowing the difference between a baby and a fetus.

And shame on God for performing so many abortions:

"The intricacy with which an early embryo divides, compacts, hatches out of the zona pellucida, ingeniously secretes molecules that penetrate the cells lining the uterine wall in order to implant in the womb, and then recruits blood vessels to nourish the placenta and the developing fetus marks one of the most awe-inspiring metamorphoses in all of nature.

"But here’s the rub: It’s horribly inefficient in humans.

"Much more often than not, the process fails. Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort. Some experts suggest that the numbers are even more dramatic. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is 'enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.' Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/... (Page 3 of 6)

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE-

"an inhuman lack of compassion"

So writes someone who supports mass genocide numbering in the tens of millions.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee, Tank you hit Kitty really hard. Opened his mouth and stickest his foot in up to the ankle. Gota look over him though, he is still not over Shirley.

Posted by: JailBird

February 18, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

online definitions of genocide:
"By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of an ethnic group"
"the extermination of racial and national groups"
"Genocide represents a systematic effort over time to liquidate a national population, usually a minority "
"Genocide is the deliberate, organized destruction, in whole or in large part, of racial or ethnic groups by a government or its agents. It can involve not only mass murder, but also forced deportation (ethnic cleansing), systematic rape, and economic and biological subjugation.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide...
As usual, those opposed to legal abortion make up their own definitions to words.

Posted by: Coralie

February 18, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dang, Linda Farrell kicking butt and taking names. Excellent.

Cor: "As usual, those opposed to legal abortion make up their own definitions to words.">>

A sure give away that they can't argue on the facts, they have to be dishonest with language. Perhaps it is just ignorance, but they really are without excuse. It's amazing how many extremist conservative positions are based upon either a plainly direct distortion of language or duncecap worthy lack of ability to understand it.

Read your Bible. Your God is pro-choice.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fet...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 18, 2013 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks to freethinker for clarifying the Biblical view on abortion.

Can anyone explain how all the Christian fundamentalists got so cross wired on this issue?

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 18, 2013 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What is "is"?

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 7:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE: "Shame on you for not knowing the difference between a baby and a fetus"

Jeremiah 1:5 says“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

You liberal Democrats can justify all you want.

God said it. End of story.

Posted by: footballfan

February 18, 2013 at 7:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "God said it. End of story."
The same God who kills all those "babies"? Apparently God is a hypocrite. Or maybe you are. Hard to tell; your understanding of God as revealed through His Word is a little fuzzy, so maybe you just don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 8:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If the big deal is really about the so-called destruction of life and not about trying to control women and their sexuality, then why doesn't anyone say a word about the vast numbers of discarded embryos that occur with in vitro fertilization?

foot says: "You all don't even think about the 55M babies that have been murdered since Roe v Wade."

and I say YOU don't even mention the millions of discarded embryos from IVF. We never see people picketing fertility clinics. Happy parents of a baby conceived via IVF are not harassed even when the process could have resulted in 20 embryos being destroyed. Meanwhile, a women who is merely contemplating the destruction of a single embryo is subject to judgment and recriminations from pro-life folk. We hear that the woman is immoral, yet the new mommy hears not a word about her morality after several of the embryos inserted for her pregnancy were aborted so that she wouldn't become the next Octomom.

This seems to make it obvious that the real concern is women's freedom and their ability and desire to have sex like a man does, and not much about the supposed "life" at all. Until I see as much attention paid to trying to push through legislation demanding that IVF should be illegal because they are "murdering babies", I will have to assume that the pro-life lobby is full of hypocrites who just want to keep women down.

Posted by: taminatress

February 18, 2013 at 9:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FootballF passes along probably the most common Bible boo boo on this issue.

FootB quotes: Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."
God said it. End of story.">>

This verse and Ps. 139:13-14 are similar but fail for the same reason, which is:

...As the story goes, the God of the Bible knows all things, from the beginning to the end, so saying this God knows you a week before you develop in the womb, or ten billion years before you develop in the womb, accomplishes exactly nothing for the status of the fetus and the position that a fetus has rights of personhood. It just a statement about the supposed power of this God. We know according to the Bible that a fetus does not have these rights of personhood because they didn't even count them as persons until 30 days after they were born. And a few other reasons covered here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fet...

D.
-----------
Excerpt from a standard Christian reference, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; Oxford University Press, p. 4

On Abortion:
"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status."

What did the Rabbis say?:
The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth..."

The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity....
The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being executed. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]

This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 18, 2013 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fft,

Why don't you get Rev. Grisham's take on some of your attempts at being a Sunday School teacher.

tami,

RE,

"I will have to assume that the pro-life lobby is full of hypocrites who just want to keep women down. "

Assume away. The pro-life movement is packed with women who would have a thing or two to tell you.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 11:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Why don't you get Rev. Grisham's take on some of your attempts at being a Sunday School teacher.">>

I do my teaching on Saturdays.

I was chatting with him the other day. I doubt there is very much difference at all in our beliefs about the Bible because we both look to the very best scholarly peer-review Bible scholarship the planet has to offer.

I very much admire the Episcopal church's ability to save the rich lineage and tapestry of stories and parables that Christianity has to offer while at the same time not being wedded to a straitjacket of literalism that will no longer work in a modern world.

D.
-----------
"In Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong writes:

"I am not impressed by what passes for adult education in most churches. Many a church adult Bible class is little more than the pooling of ignorance. Few clergy that I observe are willing to give the time necessary to become competent teachers of the Bible in their congregations. When they do, the biblical ignorance of the ages rises up to haunt them, for scholarsip challenges the pious, simple faith of those who do not want to be bothered by disturbing truth" (pg. 246).

The consensus of modern scholars is that the gospels are anonymous, that most of what is claimed about Jesus in the gospels is the product of various traditions which created or shaped mythic stories for their specific theological purposes, and that the New Testament accounts, beyond reasonable doubt, are not historically reliable accounts. Indeed, they were never intended to be. As Paula Fredriksen noted: "Fundamentally, the gospels are theological proclamation, not historical biography" (From Jesus to Christ, pg. 4)." --Dr. Doug Krueger

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

RE-

"very best scholarly peer-review Bible scholarship"

Yeah, uh huh. I'm sure we have a fundamental difference of opinion on a what a Bible scholar is.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 19, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, please read down to the Extermination of the "Blacks". Would that be an "Ethnic Group"?

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
Margaret Sanger
Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew www.dianedew.com

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Where do these Morons get the Crazy, Stupid, Ignorant Idea that, everyone who disagrees with their philosophies are people haters or racist?

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "Yeah, uh huh. I'm sure we have a fundamental difference of opinion on a what a Bible scholar is.">>

Well we shouldn't, because it's quite straightforward. If you're consistent.

Dr. Art Hobson is a physicist because he has decades of experience, training and expertise in doing study and research into the complexities of the field of physics, at the highest level.

Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman once addressed this question of who should be considered Bible scholars. He is professor at the University of Calif., San Diego; Ph.D Harvard; Fellowship from the Am. Council of Learned Societies; Visiting scholar at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew Studies, etc.,

From note 2, p.261 of his excellent book "Who Write the Bible" (which if you read, you would be floored with his knowledge of the Bible):

"There are many persons who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology, and literary and historical skills to work on the problem [of authorship], and who meet, discuss, and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through scholarly journals, conferences, etc."

Do you have a different definition of what is a Bible scholar? When I want the best answers on physics I go to Art Hobson, Dr. Bill Harter and some of their grad students. When I went answers about the Bible, I refer to Bible scholars, as defined above. Makes sense eh?

D.
--------------
"The Society of Biblical Literature is THE principal organization of serious Bible scholars around the world. Some names, however, are conspicuous by their absence: Gleason Archer, Jerry Falwell, Norman Geisler, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, Pat Robertson, etc."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woodw passes along a pile of tired antique anti-Sanger garbage. Let's knock this one down again:

***
"The Demonizing of Margaret Sanger

As I have shown in previous articles in web newsgroups, the Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist movement is full of liars, who pump out misquotes to support Creationism and Intelligent Design. The lies of the Christian Right in America are not restricted to Science, however. Demonizing, slandering, and libeling people with whom they disagree, especially if that person is perceived as a hero figure of movements they oppose....

The most egregious example of how dishonestly and malignantly Christian Fundamantalists in America lie and engage in hypocritical deceit is how they have demonized Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,... There is a series of claims made about Sanger, on hundreds of websites, and in a couple of widely-promoted books, which makes Sanger out to be a monster on the level of Adolph Hitler, with possibly a dash of Dracula and a little Caligula thrown in for good measure. According to the usual littany of claims, Sanger allegedly believed the following:

* She wanted to exterminate blacks
* She believed in white supremacy
* She thought that we should exterminate the poor
* She believed we should forceably sterilize people with undesired genetic traits
* She believed that the poor were weeds that needed to be pulled from society.
* She wanted to use abortion and forced sterilization to eliminate undesired races.

This is quite a contrast to the idea of Sanger as a champion of women's rights, promoter of birth control, and medical pioneer. In fact, the Christian lies about Sanger are so [pervasive] that many people who are not even involved with the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist movement believe them. This is because of a very-well financed campaign by Evangelical Fundamentalist groups to spread these lies about Sanger, through the promotion of books, websites, and other media. All of these lies stem from a series of books written by anti-abortion activist George Grant. Grant wrote several books about Sanger and Planned parenthood that are full of invented facts, misquotes from books, articles, and letters by Sanger, and falsely-attributed quotes. The books are literally a colleection of clever lies that have numerous footnotes, to make them appear to be legitimate."

The rest here: http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot....

PP has a nice 5 page response here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/file...

And more here: "Bald-faced lies about Margaret Sanger for political gain" http://tinyurl.com/aqxk3kc

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woodw brings up eugenics, which was a widespread pseudo-scientific belief in the early part of the last century.
"In the early decades of the 20th century.... eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. "
Policies and programs included "genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies and genocide....
Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
"The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune....
By 1910, there was a large and dynamic network of scientists, reformers and professionals engaged in national eugenics projects and actively promoting eugenic legislation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics...
Unfortunately, Margaret Sanger and many other well-known people fell for this ugly ideology.

Posted by: Coralie

February 19, 2013 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

My last post was written before Free's comment appeared, and I am glad to find out that Margaret Sanger did not hold any of those beliefs. I know that many people were taken in by eugenics at the time.

Posted by: Coralie

February 19, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

thanks coralie for getting it right on about the real meaning of genocide.
remember bloggers. LYING is a sin too .
lying is when you tell part of the truth, but omit important information in order to have a better outcome.
lying is saying something is true when it is not. or denying that something is true when it is.
this is especially serious when referencing the bible.
so maybe take that log out of your eye before correcting your neighbor.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 19, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Calling Republicans racists or sexist is like calling Democrats Nazi's because they obviously hate Jews.

Posted by: BCGuy

February 19, 2013 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BCG: "...like calling Democrats Nazi's because they obviously hate Jews.">>

Oh, that reminds me:

"Israel to award Obama prestigious medal in visit

Israel will award President Barack Obama the country's Presidential Medal of Distinction during his upcoming visit. Israeli President Shimon Peres' office said Monday that Obama will be recognized for his "unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/...

D.
-----------------
"The Jews are a frightened people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have broken down their nerves." --Israel Zangwill

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Individual Republicans may act like racists or sexists.
If it walks like a duck, one is justified in pointing this out.
Official Republican policies (such as voter suppression or the current spate of anti-abortion laws) may be described as racist or sexist..
There may be a very few few individual Democrats who hate Jews, but in general, American Jews tend to vote Democratic,

Posted by: Coralie

February 19, 2013 at 5:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "in general, American Jews tend to vote Democratic,...">>

Let's check:

"Jewish Vote Goes 69 Percent For Barack Obama: Exit Polls"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Kitty,
Your Quote "Shame on you for not knowing the difference between a baby and a fetus." Could you please explain the difference. And while you are at it please explain the difference in a baby and a child. A boy and a man. A child and an adult. Let's see what others name do we humans call ourselves. Young Man and Old Man yeah the difference please. When did you begin to grow? When your Dads sperm connected with your Mother's egg? And What where you at that precise time in your life? A Species? And what species would that have been? A German Sheppard? A Moose? A human being? I'm just asking. What species were you when you were growing in your Mothers womb?

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 6:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yep, just as I suspected, none of the pro-lifers on here have a thing to say about IVF. Tell me again how this discrepancy doesn't indicate that the real issue is a transparent desire to try to impose one's moral views on others and keep women from having the equal right to control what goes on in their bodies.

And Tank, keeping women down is not the sole domain of men. Women can also support anti-female legislation. Being female does not automatically give one empathy for women's causes. Back in the day, there were plenty of women who did not think that women should have the equal right to vote either. http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_Argu...

Posted by: taminatress

February 19, 2013 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tam, Could you please explain your quote "women from having the equal right to control what goes on in their bodies." How can a woman "Control" what goes on in her body?

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seriously wood? Ending an unwanted pregnancy is doing exactly that. There are many other ways men and women alike can control what goes on in their bodies. Have you ever taken antibiotics?

Posted by: taminatress

February 19, 2013 at 8:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "'Shame on you for not knowing the difference between a baby and a fetus.' Could you please explain the difference."
That question has been addressed in this very thread, and any missing details can easily be found online.

RE "And while you are at it please explain...."
The remainder of your questions are irrelevant to this issue.

woodw doesn't understand much, and won't do his own research. Is he just lazy, or is he afraid to find out what he needs to know?

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 19, 2013 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tam, Could a woman keep herself from getting pregnant? Would that be controlling What goes on in her body? If you could control what goes on in your body why would you have to take antibiotics?

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wood, if you seriously cannot answer those questions on your own, there is no point in attempting to converse with you.

Posted by: taminatress

February 19, 2013 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

W: "If you could control what goes on in your body why would you have to take antibiotics?">>

It gives one pause when they consider that some of these people are actually in the other lane coming your way.

Careful out there folks, and make sure your insurance is up to date.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 8:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tam, Your quote "Yep, just as I suspected, none of the pro-lifers on here have a thing to say about IVF. Tell me again how this discrepancy doesn't indicate that the real issue is a transparent desire to try to impose one's moral views on others and keep women from having the equal right to control what goes on in their bodies." This is where you made the accusation of keeping Women from controlling what goes on in their bodies. Just trying to figure out if you knew what you were talking about.

Posted by: woodw

February 19, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wood, I am sure it is clear to anyone with their cognitive functions intact exactly who in this thread knows what they are talking about and who does not. If you do not understand what it means to control one's own body, I cannot help you.

Posted by: taminatress

February 19, 2013 at 9:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"A woman controls her own body
A man lets his body control him
A check of history it's always been
the one that is out of control of his
feels a need to be in control of hers."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 12:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfree, I was surprised to see you agreed with me. That may never happen again I'm afraid.

Posted by: BCGuy

February 20, 2013 at 8:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not suprised to see tami equating abortion to using antibiotics. What a crock.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 20, 2013 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Not suprised to see tami equating abortion to using antibiotics. What a crock."
Insofar as the fertilized egg becomes a parasite in the mother's body, it isn't as much of a crock as you think. It is perfectly reasonable to rid oneself of unwanted and dangerous flora and fauna.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 20, 2013 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Geez! I'm just a poor dumb country individual out here in the sticks. For some reason these smart, intelligent people can't answer my questions.

As I'm just a simple individual I'll give you multiple choice answers and you can pick one for me.

I just want to know the difference in an Embryo and a Fetus, a Fetus and a Baby or a Child and an Adult.
Answers:
A: Embryo is a Germ, Fetus is a Fish, Baby is a blob of Tissue, Child is an older blob of Tissue, Adult is a mature blob of Tissue.

B: Embryo is a Blob of Tissue, Fetus is a Blob of Tissue with a body. Baby is a more mature blob of tissue. Child is a Baby becoming a Human Being, Adult is a mature Human being.

C: No difference they are all Human Beings. One is more mature than the other with the Adult being the most mature.

When does an Embryo begins to grow?
Answers:
A: When it turns into a Fetus.

B: At Conception

C. When it become a Baby.

What is the species of the Embryo when it begins to grow. The species of the Fetus. To be very clear here I'm asking about the Embryo, Fetus growing in the womb of a Homo Sapiens Woman. This question is about the present, now, not a billion years ago or a billion years from now. The species we were known as a hundred years ago and now.
Answers:
A: Human Being Homo Sapiens

B. Plant Life.

C: Some form of unknown organism.

When is the Embryo "Created".
Answers:
A; At ovulation.

B. At conception

C: At Birth.

Please just choose A,B, or C.

Posted by: woodw

February 20, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "Not suprised to see tami equating abortion to using antibiotics.">>

What a distortion. Of course she didn't. She used it as an *example* of how a person can effect what goes on in their bodies, by taking medicine. She said:

"There are many other ways men and women alike can control what goes on in their bodies. Have you ever taken antibiotics?"

Likewise, when I used the seed/tree comparison to show something isn't equivalent this is not to "equate" a person to a tree.

Can we have some smarter conservatives in here please?

Now, with all of this barking and misreading of plain English and simple distortions, Miss T's most excellent point has been buried in distraction and blather. The question is.... how come these anti-choice folks who think a blastocyst is a person, never...

"...mention the millions of discarded embryos from IVF? We never see people picketing fertility clinics. Happy parents of a baby conceived via IVF are not harassed even when the process could have resulted in 20 embryos being destroyed. Meanwhile, a women who is merely contemplating the destruction of a single embryo is subject to judgment and recriminations from pro-life folk. We hear that the woman is immoral, yet the new mommy hears not a word about her morality after several of the embryos inserted for her pregnancy were aborted so that she wouldn't become the next Octomom." --Miss T

Now, you pro-lifers and great lovers of life, is it the case that you were unaware that IVF tosses dozens of embryos in the process? Do you not know know what IVF is? Or, is it as it seems, more likely that you just don't care? Just like you don't seem to care enough to want to take actions that would actually reduce abortions, preferring to instead pose for the politics and smile righteous for the cameras?

D.
--------------
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 20, 2013 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BCG: "I was surprised to see you agreed with me.">>

I provided two examples showing quite the opposite. Read for comprehension. Repeat if necessary.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 20, 2013 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woodw, you aren't going to have any luck grasping answers, because you don't even understand the questions.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 20, 2013 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Answers:

1: C
2: B
3: A
4: B

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well freeby, I was just wondering how you guys could handle "Facts" and now I know.

Posted by: woodw

February 20, 2013 at noon ( | suggest removal )

RE "As I'm just a simple individual"
You give yourself far too much credit.

RE questions:

1. None of the above. At no point in prenatal development is a human accurately described as a "blob" (although many adults are blobs), and "human being" does not apply to prenatal development, as far as the Bible and law are concerned.

2. B. And congratulations! You used the correct term: embryo. It isn't a baby.

3. A, sort of. "Human Being" is not a species; however, the embryo is human tissue. So is cancer in humans. There is a difference between "human" and "human being".

Given the limited sentience shown in most of their posts, "B" is apparently the correct answer in the case of an embryo that will grow up to become a conservative.

4. B. And again, congratulations-- you have used the proper term: it is an embryo, not a baby.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 20, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst you are correct. Hard to believe supposedly smart intelligent people can't understand that.

Posted by: woodw

February 20, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kitty is a legend in his own mind, but an obnoxious blob to others.

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

woodw,

It is the same "supposedly smart intelligent people" that call people who call on God when under duress "intellectual coward[s]".

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 20, 2013 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "It is the same "'supposedly smart intelligent people' that call people who call on God when under duress 'intellectual coward[s]'."

Who did that?

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 20, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kitty is outnumbered now by the good side of the force. Better call up Freeby or cdawg, Kitty. Oh, sorry, Freeby's not availiable, library is closed today. Freeloader has no internet access unless its paid for by someone else.

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Outnumbered" is only an illusion. Most of us did not engage in this sily effort or left a long time ago. Most of us know you can't fix stupid.

Posted by: pricem36

February 20, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey there, Gen. George Armstrong Custer where ever you are, Outnumbered is only an illusion.

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Don't you just love the smoke screens that continue to be thrown up to try to avoid the question I posed to the pro-life proponents regarding the millions of IVF embryo terminations?

Here's what I got instead...

Wood: " How can a woman "Control" what goes on in her body?"

I will try one last time...I could do umpteen things, as could any of us to control (aka regulate, direct) what goes on in our bodies. I gave the example of antibiotics, used to control bacteria in the body. We have drugs to control cholesterol levels, etc, etc. I'm not sure why this should be a strange concept to any person living in this or the last century.

Wood: "Could a woman keep herself from getting pregnant?"

Again, seriously? Someone needs some sex ed apparently. Obviously you are just trying to take my original point off into the bushes in the hopes that I will forget about it. I won't, and if anyone on here was a serious pro-life proponent, I would expect that the volume of so-called murders occurring in IVF clinics would have you all up in arms over the slaughter, That is not happening. Instead you are all trying to change the subject. Interesting.

Tank: ":Not suprised to see tami equating abortion to using antibiotics."

I never equated abortion to antibiotics. That is an outright lie. I asked Wood if he had ever taken antibiotics to illustrate that people have control over certain things that go on in their bodies to answer his inane questions. Don't make things up and attempt to smear me in a pathetic attempt to avoid talking about the IVF issue I posted.

Not one word has been offered about the IVF problem, so I have to assume that no one cares about those discarded embryos. If that is the case, then there is obviously something else going on as I suggested. What could it be if not a desire to keep women from retaining the rights they fought for and won DECADES AGO? Anyone, anyone?

Posted by: taminatress

February 20, 2013 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaC did an excellent unpack of Wood's four questions. He should read his response carefully and learn from it.

So what was Woo trying to do with his questions? What's his point? He didn't really get around to that so let's unpack it. Pretty standard stuff.

Woo:
1) I just want to know the difference in an Embryo and a Fetus, a Fetus and a Baby or a Child and an Adult.">>

This one is just semantics. If Woo doesn't know the meaning of these words, dictionary.com can help with that. Obviously these things are different and that's why we have different words for these categories. Even Woo must know this.

Woo: 2) When does an Embryo begins to grow?">>

This has no relevance to when the status of personhood should be given. A sperm grows, an ovum grows, and as AlphaC points out, cancer grows. And even Woo knows none of those things are persons. So the fact that something grows does not mean it necessarily has any worth. A fetus suffering from the condition of Anencephaly (no brain), can grow, but it will never have any value or worth.

Woo: 3) "When is the Embryo "Created">>

After a zygote divides by mitosis we then get the multicellular organism known as an embryo. That doesn't make it a person, or a human being, but it does have the potential to some day become that.

Woo: 4) What is the species of the Embryo...">>

The medical scientific category of course is human, but this is the same for "human" skin tissue, a "human" hair follicle, or "human" skin cell etc.,. As AlphaC beautifully put it:

"There is a difference between "human" and "human being".

Be careful to not confuse something being part of the category of species of "human" with being "a human being" (which denotes a "person"). There is a difference. Learn the difference.

D.
----------
"Science tells us that only 10% to 15% of fertilized eggs develop into human beings. A large percentage of fertilized eggs never attach to a woman's uterine wall, and many others detach in the first several weeks or simply stop developing. Thus, the vast majority of fertilized eggs simply wash away.
It seems a stretch to conclude that ending a pregnancy is somehow against the will of God when the body rejects more than half of what the Vatican considers a "pregnancy."
--J.M. LAWSON Jr., pastor emeritus of the Holman United Methodist Church

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 20, 2013 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tam: "Not one word has been offered about the IVF problem, so I have to assume that no one cares about those discarded embryos."

I was chatting in an email with Linda Farrell yesterday (author of original letter at top) and will add that she thought Miss T's point about IVF was a most excellent one. And it is. Why the silence on this point? Because they have nothing in response.

Nothing. No thing.

Just squirms, awkward looks and... oh look over there... change the subject and hope no one notices.

D.
---------------
"Our (and every other civilized country's ) present legal definition of personhood is based on the writings of John Locke, the seventeenth century philosopher of freedom, who defined a human as a "thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places." Clearly biological humanness does not equate with personhood.

Rationality tells us that an embryo without a brain, or a fetus without consciousness is a pre-human not a human. They can lawfully be aborted. A human that is brain dead has the machines that keep the body alive turned off, legally. They are post-human. Without the gift of consciousness, there is no life and no rights.

Human cells fall off and out of our bodies each day and die. Why must we make a fetish out of a few common reproductive cells that are so abundant and easily replaced when humans now alive still need to be educated, housed, fed, healed and empowered to live their own lives to achieve their fullest potential.

The nurturing needs of children necessary to produce a fully responsible adult require most of a mother's assets and life energies. Children are too important to be accidents. Call off the pregnancy-enforcing police so a mother can produce her offspring at the optimum time in her life when she can do the best job. And, if she feels that she can't be a mother now or never, it's her choice, no one else's. Believe it or not, women are smart enough to make these decisions on their own. Freedom requires that a woman be allowed to abort for any reason at any time safe for herself." --Shirley Braverman

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 20, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Government should not pass laws that attempt to control what a woman and her doctor decide in the privacy of that doctor's office. It is a medical decision, not a Government decision or a political decision. I think that IVF is another decision that is between a woman and her doctor. Men should learn to control themselves (Patrino) before they even think about laws to control women. Why do you see these women walking down the street all covered up except for two eyeholes and the man with her is wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Control.

I have always been consistant with this. When you can, always choose life. But there are times when you can't. What are we going to do, send the woman and her doctor to jail? How absurd.

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So since they said "NO" to abortions, does that mean they are going to free up some money to feed, clothe and educate the children that are brought into this world by parents who can't afford to care for them???

Posted by: mysts

February 20, 2013 at 9:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

tami,

RE-

"I never equated abortion to antibiotics. That is an outright lie."

Then I am mistaken by your comparison when you asked about men taking antibiotics. That is not a lie.

RE-

"Don't make things up and attempt to smear me in a pathetic attempt to avoid talking about the IVF issue I posted."

IVF? No smear needed. IVF is a whole other issue.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 20, 2013 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How is IVF "a whole other issue"? If abortion is "murder" as some people say, then so is IVF. The destruction of embryos is the same in both cases. That is the exact same issue in fact.

Posted by: taminatress

February 20, 2013 at 11:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

After conception, it is a human being, it is a person, but the problem is that this person resides within another person. The right of the baby does not take precedence over the pre-existing right the woman has of sovereignty. That right is is an exercised prerogative since it existed before any right the baby might be granted. Once said baby is born or can claim its own sovereignty, then to take that status from that baby is murder. "Don't judge any man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins."---Sioux proverb. One law for all circumstances, I don't believe out Congress is that infallible or omnipotent.

In vitro fertilsation is the beginning of a child that outside of IVF would not have existed. This procedure is not intended or done for the destruction of embryos, but the for the noble intention of giving life. An example is twins joined and using some of the same organs. A decision between a woman and her doctor, often results in the taking of a life that cannot sustain itselt without the other. That is not murder, even though the killing of a child was the result. IVF is pro-life not pro-death

Posted by: JailBird

February 21, 2013 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Only seven states hold pharmacies accountable if their employees block women from getting their birth-control prescription filled.
Contraception is the key to reducing abortion rates.
Even Catholic women largely ignore their Church's teaching on this issue. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
+++
I don't know why some Protestant Evangelists are following the same line as rigid Catholic bishops.
If women can't get contraceptives, and are not allowed to have abortions, then they are indeed baby factories.

Posted by: Coralie

February 21, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If women would deny sex to men without protection, Coralie, a lot of men would change their minds in a minute. Got to understand who's in control here. I am Woman, hear me roar!

Posted by: JailBird

February 21, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "This procedure [IVF] is not intended or done for the destruction of embryos...">>

That's nice. Tell that to the handful of embryos (that you say are persons) necessarily created and discarded in order to have a successful IVF event.

"Intent" doesn't change the fact the IVF creates and discards hundreds of thousands to millions of embryos as part of the procedure. For people who for some strange reason think embryos are people, this creates a problem that can't be dismissed because of a nice "intent" at the beginning.

But whether you even think embryos are persons or not, is not clear because you've flatly contradicted yourself. If they are persons (as you've said), then abortion should not be a matter between a woman and her doctor (as you've also said), because it is actually a matter of killing a "person," a "human being," as you've also claimed. And whether two people can conspire to kill a "person," or a "human being," is not a right two people have.

Perhaps you ought to polish your theories a bit more before you make them up as you go?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I knew I should have expanded due to the limited capacity to understand demonstrated by the post hog. If I told Freeby, that the sun didn't shine today because it went behind the clouds, he would come back and say thats wrong, the clouds moveed in front of the sun. Freeby is a labatory example of a moonbat.

In the case of joined twins who share some of the same vital organs. The Father and the Mother are called into the Surgeon's office and told that the both babies cannot survive a seperation, their names are Mark and Luke. Choose which one you want me to save, I cannot save both. What a horrible decision to be faced with. The parents don't want that choice so the Surgeon tells the parents that Luke would have a chance at at better life. The parents tell the Surgeon to do everything he can to save Luke. He does and Luke lives and Mark dies.

Three people (could have been two) just conspired to kill another person (a human being) and this surgery could be done inside the womb or out. Life and death decisions are made every day in emercengy roomr and surgical facilities. It is a right a woman and her doctor has because the rights of the child do not trump the pre-existing rights of the mother. When the egg and the sperm mate, the result is a human being that cannot survive outside of the mother.

The mother can choose (that is pro-choice to moonbats like Freeby) not to nuture that child to birth if that women and her doctor decide it it is in the woman's best interests. I would hope that these decisions are made with firm counciling, prayer, and sound medical advice. It is a life and death decision.

Posted by: JailBird

February 22, 2013 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perhaps you ought to polish your theories a bit more before you make them up as you go? You're still trying to waffle on both sides of the tracks.

And he's an author too! Hilarious.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 22, 2013 at 1:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "After conception, it is a human being"
No, it isn't. It is human tissue, but for some time after conception it is no more a human being than a sample of stem cells.is a human being.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at midnight ( | suggest removal )

Funny that corporations are persons--there's now a bill in Montana that would let them VOTE in municipal elections--and fertilized eggs are persons.
Yet a gorilla such as Koko who is able to understand more than 1,000 signs based on American Sign Language, and who understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken English, and who had a pet kitten--she is not a person.

Posted by: Coralie

February 23, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Then there was Alex, an African Grey Parrot, who unfortunately died at about half the normal life span of 60 years.
In the meantime, "he could identify 50 different objects and recognize quantities up to six; he could distinguish seven colors and five shapes, and understand the conceptsof "bigger", "smaller", "same", and "different", and he was learning "over" and "under".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(pa...)

Posted by: Coralie

February 23, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Elephants:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/...
http://www.elephantartgallery.com/pai...
I'll take an elephant over BP, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, or General Electric any day.

Posted by: Coralie

February 23, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alex was smarter than some human beings, but unfortunly Alex had had to be destroyed after voting a straight Democrat ticket in the last three elections.

Posted by: JailBird

February 23, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Alex had had to be destroyed after voting a straight Democrat ticket in the last three elections."
I guess he should have voted a gay Republican ticket. (It's a lot easier than Republicans care to admit.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

At what point does a "fetus" become a baby / human?

Does anyone know?

Is it at conception? Is it at 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months?

If no one knows when it becomes a baby, then does anyone know when it becomes murder to abort?

If no one knows when it becomes murder then could it be said that to protect our children should we then err on the side of caution and proclaim it to always be murder?

You know, just to be on the safe side...

Has our society already aborted someone who could have shed light on this question?

Posted by: patrioteer

February 24, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Err, always on the safe side. Welcome back, patrioteer.

Posted by: JailBird

February 24, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "At what point does a 'fetus' become a baby / human?"
Why don't you do some research and tell us?

RE "Does anyone know?"
You certainly don't, but don't let that stop you.

We await your informed opinion.

.
RE "Err, always on the safe side."
Better yet, don't err at all.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 24, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fray Free, we agree on that topic. Don't you comprehend?

Posted by: BCGuy

February 24, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Many different beliefs about when personhood begins:
When the embryo loses its tail and looks vaguely human;
When the fetus' face begins to look fully human;
After 20 or 21 weeks gestation (measured from the time of the start of the woman's last period), a limit imposed by many state & provincial medical associations;
When the fetus is viable -- able to survive outside its mother's body with current medical technology;
At about 25 weeks, when the fetal brain's higher functions are first activated and the fetus attains consciousness;
When the fetus half-emerges from his/her mother's body. This is a Jewish teaching.
At birth, when the fetus becomes apart from her/his mother -- a newborn.
When the newborn's umbilical cord is cut and she or he is breathing as an independent, separate person;.
Some Aboriginal people worldwide believe that the newborn only becomes a human person when he or she is named.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo...


Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Most of the people posting here are such specieists that they can't take seriously an animal that has many of the same qualities that we attribute to "personhood."
http://www.care2.com/causes/dolphins-...

Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Are discarded IVF embryos "persons"?
Is a corporation a person?
+++
“But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless contentions in places where they exist, and they lessen the common rights of national society.”
– Thomas Paine The Rights of Man, 1792
+++
Thomas Jefferson hoped to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
In 1827, James Madison wrote that "incorporated companies with proper limitations and guards may, in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only."

: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local...

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local...

Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When does an animal become an animal?

Posted by: JailBird

February 24, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When does a fetus become the products of conception?

When the woman who wishes to terminate the pregnancy and her physician agree on the time and date.

It ain't nobody else's business. That's the law.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 24, 2013 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A human being becomes a living person at conception the same as an animal becomes a horse at the moment of conception. A cow lays down in a field to give birth and the dumb farmer wonders if its going to be a horse or a pig. No! That was determed at the moment of conception.

Any woman of animal can terminate the pregnancy whenever the female chooses to provided she has the means to do so. Vet or Doc.

That is not the busness of Government or the Chruch. Nor the bulls or the studs.

Posted by: JailBird

February 26, 2013 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The animal or human is predetermined to be whatever species it is BEFORE conception, in the DNA carried by ovum and sperm.
I don't think anyone here disagrees that the ovum, sperm, fertilized human cell, embryo, and fetus are all human.
The species can be determined by swabbing mouth tissues or other methods to obtain a small amount of tissue for DNA analysis.

Posted by: Coralie

February 26, 2013 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"A human being becomes a living person at conception."
To call a fertilized cell a "person" is begging the question.
The ovum and sperm are alive, so life does not begin at conception, as people so often say.
What they should say is: "a unique human life begins at conception." That at least makes sense.
But it does not mean that this is a "person."
There is no agreement on the definition of a "person."
Acc. to Wikipedia, "A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Posted by: Coralie

February 26, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How many humans have ever been born and lived on the Earth?
According to best estimates, 108 billion of us.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowM...

Posted by: Coralie

February 26, 2013 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All 108 billion were a unique human life at conception.

Thanks a billion, Coralie
Good post!

Posted by: JailBird

February 26, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

We often use DNA to determine the species of some tissue::
"Between restaurants and grocery stories in the US alike, 59% overall of the tuna tested was definitely not tuna as found by genetic testing."
http://readersupportednews.org/news-s...
And DNA can be used to identify a unique individual: http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB...

.

Posted by: Coralie

February 27, 2013 at 11:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now, concerning those 108 billion humans who have ever lived. Many of them, living thousands of years ago, perhaps in difficult times and and places such as Ice Age Europe, died very young.
+++
But that doesn't count all the unique human lives at conception.
"Embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. "
These are not even miscarriages but conceptions that die so early in the cycle that women don't even know they have been pregnant. Many of them are defective but some aren't--they just fail to implant.
So we might estimate that 108 billion humans represent only 20% or less of all the human conceptions that have ever occurred.

Posted by: Coralie

February 27, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Look at it from a species viewpoint:
From the Year One, at least 500,000,000,000 unique human lives have been conceived.
Of these, 400,000,000,000 were destroyed by God or Nature in the very early stages before the pregnancy was even noted.
Of the 108,000,000,000 humans who were ever born, relatively few lived to adulthood, and a great many died in their first 5 years.
Even today almost 7 million children under age 5 die each year, 2/3 from preventable causes, that is, from poverty and lack of medical care.
In 2009, there were 31 countries reported in which at least 10% of children under five died. All were in Africa, except for Afghanistan.
+++
As members of a species, where should our priorities lie?

Posted by: Coralie

February 28, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As members of a species.

For men, to lie with a fertile woman as often as possible.

Posted by: JailBird

February 28, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

All those dead fetus-babies are nothing more than collateral damage in America's left's war on masculinity. And, collateral damage is OK; ask anyone who flies a drone and kills people at a distance.

Collateral damage happens. You say a little prayer for their poor, dead, little souls - maybe rend your garments some, shoot off your AK at nothing in particular, and act in general like a grieving third-world idiot. Then you suck it up, refill your coffee cup, and get back behind your joystick to kill some more folk you don't know for no reason better than "national security."

Thanks for your service.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 1, 2013 at 3:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money, your reproductive strategy is similar to that of mice. Why?
One female mouse produces between 5-10 litters annually, and each litter consists of 5-6 young that are able to reproduce at approximately 30 days of age.
Lots of babies but they don't live very long.
Intelligent animals such as elephants and chimpanzees may have an offspring every 5 years. It takes an elephant about 20 years to completely mature.
Some humans take much longer, if ever.

Posted by: Coralie

March 1, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GenBuck reminds us that we're not too concerned with killing 3rd world children and other civilians. Women included in collateral damage may well have been carrying fetuses.

Posted by: Coralie

March 1, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

GenBuck says only this: "Life's pretty cheap to that sort, Janet" (with apology to Barry Bostwick, if I've misquoted his character, Brad Majors.)

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 1, 2013 at 8:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, I've never heard of any of those characters.

Posted by: Coralie

March 2, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Off his meds, again.

Posted by: JailBird

March 2, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Both y'all need to spend more time out from behind your computers - Barry Bostwick played Brad Majors in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, opposite Susan Sarandon playing his fiancee, Janet (as in "Damn It, Janet . . . .)

Jeez!

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 2, 2013 at 6:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now add the movie to the list of those the world will little note nor long remember. Must be in one of those cheap entertainment packages thay put together down at the State Hospital. Must have impressed ol Buckeroo though, for him to quote it.

Damn it, Janet.

Posted by: JailBird

March 3, 2013 at 2:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not many people care about our own species
Yet we're supposed to be such an intelligent critter--made in the image of God, no less.

Posted by: Coralie

March 3, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Man has never loved one another much, for reasons we can readily understand: Man is not a lovable animal."---Edward Abbey

"There are some who say that I love the lowly ground squirrel more than my fellow human beings: Damn right I do!"---ME

Posted by: JailBird

March 5, 2013 at 3:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey, Money -

Here's a quote from another timeline to which you and your ilk may never have been exposed:

"Arbeit macht frei."

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 6, 2013 at 5:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gott macht frei. Spinnst du?

Posted by: JailBird

March 6, 2013 at 7:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ach, das ist too much for me. Snaka du Norska?
Parlate Italiano? Me either.

Posted by: Coralie

March 6, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Work brings freedom." (sign over many concentration camps)

Can't find spinnst du.

Posted by: Coralie

March 6, 2013 at 6:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gott macht frei. Spinnst du?

"God will make you free. Are you nuts?"

Posted by: JailBird

March 7, 2013 at 12:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since you are such German experts, maybe you could explain something my maternal grandmother used to say. She was second generation. Lived to 98.
When she was clumsy, like dropping an egg on the floor, she would say something that sounded like "doppich" or " toppich" but we couldn't find it in a German dictionary.

Posted by: Coralie

March 7, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I figured "Ach, doppich" meant something like "Oh, I'm such a clumsy fool," but I guess I'll never know.
Ach, you guys don't know enough German.

Posted by: Coralie

March 8, 2013 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )