Who are you and by what means are you justifying your condescension towards Cultureshift? Are you sure he’s trying to separate ‘religious baggage’ from being pro-life? What baggage? You mean the baggage of life? Of suffering, the seed that enables human depth and growth? What gives you the right to tell me he’s a liar? You’re not giving yourself a good image by telling me these things. I’m disappointed, but I forgive you anyway.
The youngest child to have given birth was 5 years old. She may have been really young but it’s evident to see that there was no psychological damage done to her, even at 5 years old!
If babies could speak, we’d all be pro-life. One can either deny Truth and suffer the pains thereof or accept it and be edified through growth. Life begins at the moment of conception; live a lie or live in Truth.
Suffering is a part of our human weakness and it plays an instrumental role in our life by giving us the opportunity to accept, to learn, and to grow, and thus to become better masters of our own selves. We cannot be the judges of who can live or die; that is something ruled by nature and by nature alone and it is not in our nature to KILL our offspring!
Who am I? I’m the guy cultureshift has continuously avoided. I’m the guy with a more nuanced view on this issue. I’ve demonstrated it over and over and over. Peep my abortion tag.
Yes, I’m sure he’s trying to separate religious baggage from being pro-life. Christians are often asked, how can you be pro-life when considering verses like Hosea 9:11-16 and Hosea 13:16? Never mind other verses that involve the murder of infants and children. You can’t believe in the ancient war god of Israel and proclaim yourself pro-life. It’s contradictory.
He’s a liar because he’s shrouded propaganda in so called truth. He’s a liar becausehe continues to use this the “nine out of ten babies with down syndrome are aborted” stat though I explained that it’s inaccurate. He’s a liar because he continues to call embryos and early fetuses persons or human beings; they are neither. He’s a liar because he generalizes pro-choicers and equates us with the anonymous hatemail he receives. How do we know he’s not sending some of it to himself? He’s a liar because he equates all abortion with late term abortion. Peep that circumcision graphic, for example. He’s a liar because he blames so called “gendercide” on abortion. Any responsible person would blame that on Indian and Chinese societies who, which for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion, abort females for socioeconomic reasons—reasons he’s obviously oblivious to. Never mind that he consistently avoids my quality of life argument. But what makes him a liar more than anything is that I and others constantly corrected him and he hasn’t listened. So he’s not only a liar; he’s a deceiver because he’s misleading his followers. I mean look at you, you’re more like an acolyte defending his honor.
Who gives a bull’s nutsack if the youngest person to give birth was five years of age. It’s disgusting and inhumane to impose pregnancy on young victims! This is precisely what I mean when I say my view is more nuanced. I take account of the child victim and the unborn; however, I recognize that accounting for the unborn is only appropriate when they meet the first prerequisite to qualify them as a human being—namely that they must possess the components to survive in the world. This is generally accepted as week 21. That’s precisely why I’m against late term abortion. I’m only for it when good reason is available (i.e. a woman wanted to abort several weeks ago, but couldn’t afford it).
Sure, a life begins at the moment of conception, but is it a human life? Please recall that homosapien isn’t the same as human. Is it appropriate to say larvae are the equivalents of the insects they become? Is it apt to call caterpillars butterflies or moths? No. Likewise, embryos and early fetuses are not the organismic equivalent of fully developed human beings. You are equating the thing developing with the thing developed. Since most abortions happen early, we can conclude that an organism that doesn’t meet the first prerequisite is aborted.
Lastly, we’re not killing our offspring. Ironically, I’ll quote a paper cultureshift decided not to read because he’s not in the business of challenging his views: “Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person” (Continue Reading). My second prerequisite is implied: for one to qualify as a person, one must enter the world—what I call the realm of experience. Fetuses don’t exist in the same way a newborn does. A newborn cannot speak of its own existence, but its existence is verified by others. An expecting mother can certainly act as if the fetus already exists, but it doesn’t actually exist until it enters the realm of experience.
A human life indeed begins at conception. If you know anyone who’s been pregnant and gave birth, there is an experience happening within the womb of the woman. Ever wonder why crying infants are calmed by the sounds of rushing water? Or why they are swaddled in cloth to give them the comfort of sleep? Or ever wonder why a mother’s voice is instantly soothing to the infant? That baby spends 9 months bonding with its mother-to-be and experiences everything his/her mother is doing. That baby knows when the mother is touching her belly, and he’ll even kick and move around to give her a signal. When Mother gives birth to her child, that child already knows who his mother is. Mother and Father give LIFE and Mother gives BIRTH.
You’re asking me if it is appropriate to say larvae are equivalent of the insects they become. Then you say, “Likewise, embryos and early fetuses are not the organismic equivalent of fully developed human beings.” Well, obviously; no one becomes pregnant and has a full grown adult out of nowhere growing in their womb.
But more seriously, why must you put yourself through so much work in trying to equivocate insects to human beings when the fact of the matter is right there in front of you? At every stage, insect or human, that organism is ALIVE.
Much like a tadpole becoming a frog, it’s still alive. No one goes out of their way to kill a tadpole growing its legs out of its tails. It squirms around in water aimlessly, so it seems—and a bit off-putting to some, but as “grossed out” as one may become, we are continually fascinated and enchanted by this. In no way do we kill mercilessly without understanding something; we let the little amphibious creatures live because we know their purpose. What is our purpose as human beings? To recognize life. To recognize it everywhere and at every stage of its organismic process.
Deconversionmovement: It’s fascinating how far some people feel they must go to justify the killing of unborn children. I am an atheist for the same reason I am against the slaughter of the unborn members of our human family – because both of these ideas are founded in logic and science. It is a scientifically proven fact that human life begins when the male and female gametes fuse and it is illogical for a mother to kill the offspring formed by this biological function. The creation of new human life is the very purpose and reason for sex. If you are willing to kill your own child for an orgasm, what does this say about you? What does it say about a culture who has legalized this practice?
I ‘avoid’ you because your ‘arguments’ are so baseless that they don’t warrant a response. But since a fellow human being who understands the true value and meaning of life came to my defense, I will respond to a few of your ridiculous premises:
“An expecting mother can certainly act as if the fetus already exists, but it doesn’t actually exist until it enters the realm of experience.”
I really don’t know how you consider this an argument at all. You think an unborn child doesn’t exist because you can’t physically see it? Are you serious? I actually thought you were slightly more intelligent than this. Unfortunately, your ideology is exactly why so many unborn children are killed. They cannot be seen by the naked eye and they cannot speak for themselves. There is, however, ultrasound. Does this meet your criteria for determining ‘existence’?
“Is it appropriate to say larvae are the equivalents of the insects they become? Is it apt to call caterpillars butterflies or moths? No. Likewise, embryos and early fetuses are not the organismic equivalent of fully developed human beings.”
1. (in an insect or amphibian) the process of transformation from an immature form to an adult form in two or more distinct stages
In other words, yes, a caterpillar IS a butterfly. They are the EXACT same creature, simply existing at different stages of life. The DNA never changed from the larval stage as a caterpillar through adulthood as a butterfly. Just like when we pass through the embryonic, fetal, and adult stages – our DNA never changes. We are the same human being throughout.
See this post for more details.
This is all the time I will dedicate to rebutting your ‘arguments’ since I have already addressed all of your other points elsewhere in my archive.
Be a voice for the voiceless by subscribing to our weekly digest and sharing the truth with the world.