Faith writes:
I already many times described the better solutions as providing for the woman's needs during pregnancy and birth, explaining options for adoption or keeping it herself, and all kinds of other services that are now provided by many churches that could be expanded and emphasized instead of the current emphasis on abortion that also denies the woman the basic information about the living human being in her womb.
I just explained how you are wrong about Planned Parenthood, and you ignored it. Here are links to pages at Planned Parenthood that you're pretending aren't there. Two of these I provided in the message you're replying to, and I also added a link to their page on adoption:
Moving on:
It's only a "process" the same way any growing child is a process. The word is meaningless and just a way to distance us from the fact of its being a living human being.
You keep declaring that a zygote is a living human being without supporting your position. You might believe this, but it's only your subjective opinion and not a fact.
Yes there are no real "uncertainties" or "unanswerable questions" when you face the fact that it is a living developing human being. That fact has a way of ending all those manufactured doubts. They are ALL a product of not seeing the fetus as a human being.
Your opinion is not fact. This is the problem you have in every thread. You keep thinking your opinions are facts. When told you're wrong you claim you've proved it. When asked where you proved it you can only point to where you expressed your opinion.
If the problem is "when does a fetus become a human being" it is NOT clear that there are no answers: I've answered that in terms of its genetic constitution and the fact that if nothing interferes it will inexorably grow into a full human being from conception. Obviously you aren't happy with that definition so what is yours? I asked Stile that too. Where do YOU want to draw the line before which it is not human and after which it is?
When I called the questions unanswerable I didn't mean that there aren't people like yourself falsely claiming that they have the answers. I can't answer your question because for me it is unanswerable.
I've been giving actual OBJECTIVE reasons why it is a human being from conception, starting with its genetic constitution: the DNA defines it.
The DNA only defines the species the cell represents. Every cell from the human body has the same DNA (not counting gametes), but no one would take one of those cells and call it a human being.
It's all in place, and the fact that if nothing interferes WE ALL KNOW it will grow into a full human being and to deny this is to engage in self-deception. THIS IS OBJECTIVE FACT.
You've said this before, and were told at the time that no one is disputing facts of biology. That's still true.
But if YOU want to define things differently go ahead.
I'm not defining things differently. I have mostly questions, few answers. It is you who is declaring definitions and declaring your opinions to be fact.
Your problem is that you have no OBJECTIVE way to do that, all you have is how you feel about it at different stages.
You're way out in left field. Again, I'm not making any claims, only asking questions that do not appear to have any definite answers.
If you want to draw lines between pre-human and potential human and so on, go ahead.
But I've explicitly said I'm not trying to do that. I've only posed questions that I believe are unanswerable, so it makes no sense to accuse me of trying to nail down dividing lines.
Let's see your reasoning.
My reasoning about what?
If you want to define it on that basis you can do that, but it isn't an objective standard.
I haven't defined anything on any basis. I'm not trying to establish any objective standard because I don't believe one is possible.
Perhaps the reason nothing you're saying is making any sense is because you're not quoting anything from my post. Maybe if I knew exactly what I said that you're replying to then I could make better sense of what you're saying. Quote what I say next time.
There IS no "anti-abortion industry, nobody is making money off of fighting abortion, it costs us money, it requires donations and a lot of unpaid volunteers. They usually maintain a house where pregnant girls and women can live during the pregnancy, they provide help with schooling and qualifying for work, getting welfare funding when possible, and making decisions about their future in general whether they keep or give up the baby, and more than that. The one in my area is supported by all the local churches.
I only said industry because I was mimicking your sentence. Maybe I should have said "anti-abortion efforts." I think the work these people do is laudable.
I have not lied about Planned Parenthood and you don't say how I have.
Sometimes it's like you can't read. I've explained clearly multiple times how what you've been saying about Planned Parenthood is untrue. You said, "Planned Parenthood fights the attempts by Pro-Life advocates to make the pregnant woman aware of it as a developing human being," and I pointed you to webpages at Planned Parenthood that clearly explain fetal development. See the links I listed up above or just browse around their website. If you look at
What happens in the second month of pregnancy? you'll see that it says things like "A very basic beating heart and circulatory system develop" and "External ears, eyes, eyelids, liver, and upper lip begin forming."
So Planned Parenthood is very clearly describing the process of development.
The Planned Parenthood website also provides some basic definitions that we should probably begin using, and I checked Wikipedia, too. When a sperm and egg join it is called a zygote. The ball of cells that form within a few days is called a blastocyst, which is what implants on the uterine wall. The blastocyst becomes an embryo around the 6th week. The embryo becomes a fetus around the 10th week.
They DO work to prevent the pregnant woman from seeing the evidence that she is carrying a human being rather than a piece of tissue or whatnot.
What evidence is there that it is already a human being? You sure haven't provided any.
Why else do they get so upset when pro-lifers gather outside with the intention of giving their clients that information?
Why would Planned Parenthood be upset by people providing information? I can imagine they'd be concerned if anti-abortion demonstrators harassed their clients.
WHAT I MEANT ABOUT SHOWING THAT THE FETUS IS HUMAN, and in fact have said many times already so don't accuse me of failing to show it,...
You seem unable to discern that there is a significant difference between saying something is so and showing that it is so. So far you have only said it and never shown it.
...IS THAT WE CAN SEE IT IS HUMAN ON THE ULTRASOUND AT TWELVE WEEKS. IT IS FULLY HUMAN, IT IS ALIVE, IT LOOKS HUMAN AND IT ACTS HUMAN.
No one denies that you can tell it is a human fetus.
Oh blah blah blah to all your twistings of my motivations. Try arguing fairly.
You quoted nothing from my message. I have no idea what you're responding to. I'm looking at my message right now and cannot see where I'm addressing your motivations, let alone twisting them.
Could you just stick to the subject and leave the complaining out? It has no place here or in any thread except
Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.
How do I explain the evangelical flip? I think they Got Real. I didn't know they had denied the humanness of the fetus before, but that certainly needed to be corrected.
How do you know whether evangelicals were wrong then or now? You've offered only opinion in support of your own view.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)