So, you liberals resort to dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with you or your views? That's rather disturbing, and rather typical of you.
Can you highlight were I dehumanized people who disagree? I said anti-abortion is anti-human. In other words, preventing abortion or promoting misinformation (that every abortion is always murder) is aiding in preventing a human from making a choice based on facts and her needs. You offer a convenient misinterpretation.
I have noticed many people do not like to be challenged at all. So they make up foul rhetoric to undermine someone. But I'm sure you claim to know logic. I happen to as well. So we can be logical about this.
Even granting that I dehumanized someone or something (which I did not, I am very careful not to attack people below the belt) this has absolutely no bearing on the truth of my propositions. I suspect you know enough to know this fact and I won't need to explain further. Just in case...the truth of a claim is not effected by the messenger.
There is ample...evidence for fetal and neonatal pain.
Ample evidence, as we both know, is not to be taken as truism. Regardless, I don't dispute typical development, including a heart in the first 25 days. There is a point beyond which abortion is not recommended; but let's be clear when this occurs is not the topic. Your quote spent about 2% dealing with our point of discussion and the rest talking about irrelevant, undisputed fact.
But we all know that women typically come to know they are carrying within 3-4 weeks. So why did your quote spend so much time talking beyond the 2 month mark? Distract attention?
Well, we can discuss when abortion is no longer appropriate, but first we need to realize there is indeed a window in which abortion is appropriate.
Which should be devastating to your view that human fetuses are nothing but a clump of cells.
Trust me, we're far more scientific than you are on the subject. And thusly, have more informed opinions about abortion than you do. What do you have? Your emotions? Scare tactics? Smear campaigns?
I wonder how you know my view points without having ever known me? You know I'm a liberal and that I think a fetus is a "clump of cells." Youre wrong on both counts but that wouldn't stop you. I would explain but you've already made up your mind. So who am I to tell you what I believe? Once Temple knows that gnarly thinks anti-abortion campaigns in public schools are potentially disastrous, Temple knows everything gnarly believes. What magic!
How irrelevant, spending the bulk of your reply with intimidation tactics and outright taunting. How evident is your desire to win an argument rather than rational dialogue! This typically indicates a front behind which little truth lies. If you want to continue your ignoble tactics, please ignore me! If you want to engage in serious dialogue then do it.
No one is disputing science, the science is quite clear. But what's also clear is that it is not sensible to resist abortion based in unscientific ideals. You conveyed no reason to think a fetus is the same thing as a full moral being. You conveyed reason to think that at some stage in development the fetus becomes sensitive to pain and stimuli. Well, before that development happens, it seems quite plausible to at least consider abortion. A lively dialogue where ideals of unscientific absurdity are not allowed to enter the debate.
But we don't cease killing things because they feel pain. In fact, almost 20% of emissions comes from industrial cow lots and the like. We know they feel pain but I don't see you giving a damn. Why think a human has any more special right than man? Here is a renowned biologist on this issue:
While we readily admit that the first organisms were bacteria-like and that the most complex organism of all is our own kind, it is considered bad form to take this as any kind of progression. . . . [One] is flirting with sin if one says a worm is a lower animal and a vertebrate is a higher animal, even though their fossil origins will be found in lower and higher strata. —John Tyler Bonner
So if the issue isn't pain, then what's it based on? A species bias. But let's assume somewhow humans are justified in this bias although we aren't, all is sacred. So let's
think about the effects of anti-abortion propaganda has, leaving aside its spread of misinformation. Let's say a girl decides to go through with developing a fetus and trying to raise a child (hopefully with support). Well, we know these mothers are under intense pressures from all sides, parental, financial, their school, peers, and the baby. And everyone seems to know what's best for them except themselves. What happens? With all this stress, it's very likely and well studied that a significant portion of these children grow up neglected or orphaned. This will be reflected over the life of the child and can result in harms of society or burdens like Medicare because this child, now adult, has been mistreated his whole life and is unable to work but needs expensive medical care. Was your ideology worth this burden on this poor man, those who know him and society at large? This is multiplied over the population for every person that didn't go through with abortion, this burden is a likely possibility.
Maybe you should take a step back from supporting ideological campaigns against women. Just because you have an idea in your head doesn't make it true or worthwhile. This idea to demand the "both-sides argument" in a public school is rooted in imposing your ideology (not science) on another person; the fact is, some ideas are not worth anything and should be kept from public grounds. You are not concerned with human flourishing or thinking about how your demands affect the women and families involved, and other consequences that result from your ideology. Maybe you should
treat these women like you would a fetus. We have plenty of reason to think these women are full moral persons. Fetuses at early stages are much more debatable whether they are full moral persons or not. Maybe we should consider the interests and well-being of the living and not of your ideology, which is based in dogma
