See Breaking, Video: Planned Parenthood caught aiding and abetting underage sex trafficking – Jill Stanek. Watch this video of the “pimp,” “prostitute” and Planned Parenthood Office Manager and ask yourself why they aren’t shut down and why your tax dollars support them. Then ask yourself why the mainstream media will suppress this story just like they are doing with the Dr. Gosnell atrocities. (Go see how many stories you find on him versus the murder of “Doctor” Tiller.)
This is pure evil, and I mean that without hyperbole..
The most bizarre thing is how casual the Planned Parenthood office manager is.
- She reflexively coaches the “pimp” on how to keep the girls working even after the abortions (“waist up”).
- She is practiced at coaching them to lie about their ages.
- She laughs and steers the younger girls to abortion clinics with even lower standards.
- She mocks parents who would want to know that their underage daughters are having abortions.
- She never flinches that this pimp is bringing in underage 14-15 year olds who came from other countries illegally and don’t speak English — i.e., sex slaves.
- And more!
As Jill Stanek noted, here are a few of the laws they appear to have broken or manipulated:
1. Sexual Abuse Cover up
2. Aiding and abetting statutory rape
3. Aiding and abetting minor prositution
4. Aiding and abetting human trafficking
5. RICO/conspiracy/racketeering
Aren’t you glad they get $300 million from taxpayers each year? Will the Republican House finally be the ones to expose them? Will U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder actually investigate them?
Theological Liberals continue to support Planned Parenthood, even though they:
- Encourage pre-marital sex
- Encourage kids to ignore their parents and their religion
- Perform abortions
- Systematically hide statutory rape
- Aid and abetting underage sex trafficking
This is one of the most vile and creepy organizations on the planet, yet theological Liberals bless them and insist that Jesus supports their efforts. Verses about millstones, “woe to those who call evil good and good evil” and “I never knew you” come to mind.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers obey the law and report statutory rape. Planned Parenthood deliberately hides it.
As noted at RedState:
The exploitative roots and track record of Planned Parenthood is a largely untold story that can no longer be ignored. The horror of the logic behind Planned Parenthood’s founding has come to roost in this modern form: it is the primary partner of those who degrade and exploit women.
The exploitation of women by men through abortion was vehemently rejected by the early feminists. Yet today’s footage and the unbroken trail of like evidence is a natural extension of founder eugenicist Margaret Sanger’s worldview, who saw vulnerable citizens like African-Americans, the poor, and immigrants as “human weeds” and “reckless breeders.”
She believed “the most merciful thing a large family does to one of its infants is to kill it.”
P.S. I do agree with one of Planned Parenthood’s views: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun” At least that was their view in this 1964 advertisement. Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds? Of course not. Science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is created at conception.
Of course, frequent commenter Poolman will tell you why the New Testament doesn’t support protesting Planned Parenthood.
And in a sickening irony, false teacher Chuck Currie laments how a man he used to support was 35 when he had an “affair” with a 13 year old — http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2011/02/neil-goldschmidts-final-act-of-rape.html . Chuck rightly called it rape, but Chuck & Co. are the ones who unequivocally support Planned Parenthood and all their evils, including the systematic hiding of statutory rape. PP would have helped the 35 yr. old cover up the rape and would have been glad to have given the 13 yr. old an abortion — or at least sent her to a “clinic” with even lower standards — all without telling her parents, of course.
Well if this is an actual real event caught on video, unlike the Acorn video fraud perpetrated by O’Keefe and Breitbart (though it has that same flavor), I do not condone it. I think it criminal and needs to be exposed. It is attrocious.
However using this as representation of the whole of Planned Parenthood is disingenuous and akin to claiming Roeder represents all anti-abortion advocates.
“However using this as representation of the whole of Planned Parenthood is disingenuous and akin to claiming Roeder represents all anti-abortion advocates.”
Hahahahaha! I can virtually guarantee you that this is the first of several videos, just like when she videotaped many clinics hiding statutory rape and the audio tapes of 90% of PP clinics hiding statutory rape as well. Really, click the link. These are the people that are in business because of Christians and “Christians” like you. They kill babies for a living. What kind of morality do you expect from them?
I watched the full uncut videos and it is obvious this Amy Woodruff is telling these people how to get around the existing rules that PP has in place. She even agrees to accept bribes to keep things from being on the up and up. She appears to be a sick and corrupt individual and needs to lose her job in the very least.
If any others in the organization operate that way, and likely they do, they NEED to be removed. I would support a federal investigation of the whole operation, top to bottom.
Just like every other government sponsored and subsidized entity, corruption and abuse likely runs rampant. For that I applaud those exposing this corruption, even if in this case it may have been by deceptive means. Is it on the same scale as MMS, FEMA, the Pentagon, or Congress? Who knows? God help us.
Pingback: Planned Parenthood gets caught with their Pants Down | Voting American
Okay, dumb questions:
If you do not respect the sanctity of human life, and find it to be disposable on the whim of another human, why would you respect the sanctity of a young woman’s body?
If sex is just a good time, then how can a person stand and condemn rape as a moral atrocity? Unless there is a moral, emotional, and psychological component to our sexuality, why would rape be anything but akin to being forced to eat ice cream?
How do you draw a rational line between this behaviour and the behaviour of Planned Parenthood in general? the ideals represented by this woman and the ideals of her organisation?
Planned Parenthood is facing the same problem Acorn faced. At it’s heart, it basically exists for itself. It is morally bankrupt having made so many compromises to further it’s goals.
From PP’s website “For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” read that again. It is all about respect for a “RIGHT” and not for “PERSONS”.
PP is all about promoting and protecting a right and if people are hurt along the way, well that is just collateral damage. They must remove all judgment of right and wrong from every aspect of decision making within their organization.Because if they start judging, they must also allow themselves to be judged. And that is their weakness.
Here’s an ironic picture of an old PP pamphlet promoting birth control:
http://liveaction.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Planned-Parenthood-Pamphlet-Abortion-is-Killing-a-Baby.jpg
Apparently, not all change is for the better.;)
Good find! I wonder what they learned to make them change their minds? I think it was $$$$$.
So when a new human being is created at conception, how do you explain twinning that occurs well after that point? Because if we use your black and white definition, then we have a whole lot of twins walking around with just the one soul between them.
Really? That’s the best justification you have to kill innocent human beings? Please note that you — the alleged “science” person — brought the soul into the matter, not me. Tell me what scientific experiments prove when an immaterial soul is present? You are a bad materialist for even thinking a soul exists (even though deep down we all know it does).
The relevant science is that a unique human being is created at conception, and faux science people like you ignore that pesky fact and become bad philosophers by introducing things like the soul, “personhood,” etc. into the conversation to rationalize death and destruction.
I came to the conclusion recently that an atheistic pro-life perspective is the only logical and morally consistent one – and I think you may just have confirmed that for me Neil, thanks!
Hee hee.
(Hi, Neil!)
Conflicting emotions — always concerned if I bolster atheistic arguments but you two are my favorite atheists! What to do?!
Join the dark side!
We have secular, deity-free cookies!
I <3 the twin argument.
So you think that killing babies is okay because there could be two people, not just one, who are dead? Isn't that a bit like saying, "Don't worry about killing women of child-bearing age; those people who say that it kills a person are entirely wrong, because she could be pregnant and not know it."
Beyond that, as a matter of logic, that one person happens to exist does not preclude another from existing as well, at some point in the future. Your argument, taken to its logical ends, says that there are no such things as human persons, since we all come from other humans.
As Neil correctly points out, it's not about souls – it's about people. It's about knowing that we don't kill innocent people for sport, to keep a skinny figure, or to finish college. But, if you want to start the soul discussion with twins, here's some thoughts:
Maybe the second soul enters the twin at the moment of twinning.
Maybe there is no such thing as a soul (in this world or metaphysically).
Maybe the zygote that will be a twin has two souls, because an omniscient God knows that the zygote will split.
Maybe the soul, like the zygote, divides into two separate souls at the moment of twinning.
Now my question to you: if you think that there are souls, when do YOU think they enter the human body? Birth? (Tell that to a woman who miscarried at 8 months.) Viability – whatever that means? If you think that there are no such things as souls, and it’s therefore okay to kill unborn children, then adults don’t have souls, either (under your belief), so do you condone murder of adults?
I absolutely did not say that twinning justifies anything. The original post claims that a new human is created at conception. If that is true, then the argument must answer for the relatively common event of twinning.
As to the point about souls, I introduced it, but I think it’s more than fair to say that that is what forms a fundamental aspect of how you even define a human. But we can do away with that for simplicity’s sake. The same problem remains: If a new human is created at conception, then the event of twinning needs to be explained. Does that event also constitute the creation of a new human? If so, then does that mean there are multiple (non-miraculous) ways in which humans can come into being?
I will be happy to answer any question(s) once this issue has been fleshed out; as it is, strawmen (‘So you’re saying twinning justifies [X]?!’) and red herrings (‘What do you think about souls?’) do not interest me.
A new human being is created at conception (it ain’t a puppy). A 2nd one is created at twinning. How about we don’t crush and dismember either?
Roxanne answered your questions, and regardless of that it is a pretty lame justification for abortion. “This human being might twin, so just to be on the safe side we should destroy her.”
Kudos to Michael Hawkins for shifting the discussion away from the reality of Planned Parenthood’s horribly twisted morality and lack of any kind of institutional code of ethics and shifting it into a discussion about the one line in the post that has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Well played sir.
However, given your shift away from the entire point of the post that what Planned Parenthood has done over and over and over in numerous examples is to display absolutely zero ethics when dealing with what is right and wrong is quite interesting. That video is not a theoretical discussion like you tried to start here but a fundamental acceptance of evil (child prostitution/sex trafficking). The employee applied no moral judgment whatsoever. Your failure to even address that main point demonstrates a very selective approach to ethics and reveals your true priorities. Why can you not admit what the manager did was absolutely wrong. Why not admit that this has happened over and over at different PP offices showing the problem is systemic. Perhaps you could even agree that taxpayer money should not be used to support organizations that lack any semblance of a moral/ethical compass? Certainly that at least there is a valid reason why some taxpayers would feel their tax dollars should not fund them? But you didn’t care. The only thing in the entire post you thought worthy of discussion was about when human life is created.
I guess for you there simply is nothing to see in terms of PP’s behavior. you apply no judgment to their actions whatsoever. I hear there is a manager slot that recently opened at a PP office. It seems to me like you might have the right “nothing to see” attitude to apply for the position.
Michael Hawkins: to quote one of my friends, “What’s your point?”
Are you saying that an embryo is not a human at the earliest stage of existence? If so, please explain:
1) what an embryo is (is it non-living? non-organic? a puppy?);
2) when is a human being created? Birth? “Viability”? End of the first trimester?; and
3) when did YOU become a human? When did you, Michael, come into being? (This brings to mind my favourite March for Life t-shirt: “Former Foetus!”)
You brought up identical twins, souls, and humanity. A few questions:
1) You implied that we cannot accurately say that a unique human being is created at conception, because another human might be there. Isn’t that exactly like saying that a sexually active woman of child-bearing age is not a human, or that the space occupied by her body is not human, because there could be another human inside of her? (As I said before, the idea that one human is fair game because you could be killing TWO humans is absurd.)
2) The twinning process occurs quite early on in pregnancy, before a woman really knows that she’s pregnant. Playing your game, and assuming that we cannot assign humanity to an unborn child because we don’t know whether or not it will be two children, would you agree that, after the twinning process would have occurred, or did occur, that we should prohibit abortion, since it ends the life of a human or two?
3) What are your thoughts on women who engage in “selective reduction”, which involves killing one or two unborn children when a woman is pregnant with multiple babies (often from in-vitro fertilisation)?
You brought up souls; we did not. That brings up more questions for you:
1) If having a soul is a necessary component for being a human, when (according to you) does a soul enter the human body?
2) Morally, should we not “err on the side of life”? That is, if we cannot determine when a soul enters the body (and thus, the body cannot be destroyed), shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and treat the human (which a zygote surely is) as worthy of protection?
3) Legally, we don’t much care about ensoulement; we protect humans qua humans. Why should the theology matter for what we do legally – which, under any sane regime, is to protect human life?
4) Legally, part II: assume that souls leave the body upon death. How, then, do you justify laws against desecration of bodies? As I keep pointing out, to no avail, our laws are more protective of very dead, never-to-be-alive again humans than they are of babies. How sick is that?
Neil,
For someone who rants about logical fallacies so much on his Comments page, you don’t seem to have a problem committing them.
The link you cited draws issue with the idea that the beginning of life has no consensus (using overtly poor rhetoric to imply that anyone who disagrees is being dishonest). In agreeing with the link, you said life begins at conception. But it doesn’t appear the line is so solid: you have already admitted, once we moved from the ad hominen attacks to the question I was posing, that life apparently can begin at two points. One point is conception, another is twinning.
LoneStar,
I wasn’t the one who posted the link and made the factual assertion.
The strawmen here are rampant.
Roxeanne,
I think I have been quite clear, though I suspect it would help to ignore the foaming-from-the-mouth strawmen. I questioned the claim that it can be asserted at all (much less based upon science) that conception is where human life begins. If that is the case then when twinning occurs, we apparently have a non-human. But speaking in absolutes tends to bring us to such absurdities.
The claim isn’t that the initial embryo isn’t human because it might twin. If you want to call that human, go ahead. But if you want to call it human at the point when it was conceived, then you don’t have that same luxury for its twin.
Again, I did not say you cannot assign humanity to an embryo. My point is that you cannot assign humanity to it at the point it was conceived, less you want to imply that twins are not human.
This strikes me as a non-sequitur, but okay: the same as my position on abortion in general.
I brought up souls because of the patent absurdity of claiming that science tells us exactly how to define what a human being is. The only out I see for the anti-abortion side is to appeal to the idea of souls. So presuming an embryo is a human and presuming all humans have souls, the issue of twinning gets awfully complex. But at any rate, we can do away with this argument; I raised more or less for the opposition’s benefit, not mine.
Michael, I think Roxanne answered your objections to her and me at the same time, but I’ll repeat: Life begins at conception. Your twinning game-playing reminds me of someone who objected to my scientific points by insisting that conception wasn’t instantaneous but a “process,” which, while technically correct, implied that it was a long process resulting in grey areas. I asked if he wanted to take that argument to its logical conclusion, i.e., permit abortions during the “lengthy” conception process but not after it was complete. He changed the subject, of course.
You are the scientist-turned-(bad) philosopher in this case. The pro-life position is simple, both scientifically and morally.
1. Science: A new human being is created at conception.
2. Moral / philosophical: We shouldn’t permit the destruction of innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions (i.e., the lone exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).
The “personhood” argument is horrible philosophy and anti-science. The size, level of development, environment and dependency of a human being do not impact whether or not she is fair game for destruction.
Eh, Michael? If you’re claiming that science cannot tell you what a human is, may I suggest that you re-take biology and anatomy?
As I said, even if we assign humanity to the point after which a twin is or would have been created, you still don’t justify abortion, because a woman has yet to figure out that she’s pregnant.
FYI: you think that the “twin” issue is a slam-dunk, irrefutable trump card for your side. I think it’s laughable and have said why. You’ve failed to respond to me or really to delve down into my points – i.e. the myriad of ways in which an embryo that splits into a twin in the future is a human being now. As but one, scientific, non-soul way: it could be possible (given what we know about DNA and twinning) that there is something inherent in the zygote that causes it to split into twins at the moment of conception, so two humans are created that share the same cell.
As a side note, your argument, if taken to its non-embryonic ends, would seem to suggest that the Hansen twins are not human. Pardon me if that makes me think less of you.
Science can tell us at what point an embryo and then fetus is in development. It can inform us whether something is conscious or not, whether it can feel or not, whether it can think or not in any appreciable way. But whether consciousness, or feeling, or thinking, or any other criteria is what constitutes personhood or not is not somehow magically scientific all of a sudden. I recommend you take a biomedical ethics course. Or at least read the relevant philosophy on this topic.
As for your questions, I answered them:
In your first set, you premised your questions on the idea that I said humanity does not begin at conception. Since I didn’t say that, I chose to explain to you what I said instead. Your points are relevant for another discussion.
In your second set, I went through each point one by one. I’m not sure how I failed to respond here.
In your third set, I explained why I brought up souls. For the second time I noted that we can do away with that argument if it isn’t convenient for you or anyone else.
On a further issue, I would appreciate it if you could please be aware of all the assumptions you have in your questions. From the moment I entered this thread I’ve had a number of positions attributed to me. I’m not interested in arguing polemics, especially when people are trying to get to them using strawmen and red herrings.
I think you’re lost. My argument is that conception isn’t some magical line in the sand that makes the beginning of humanity ever so clear; twinning proves that fact. I did not say that an initial embryo is not a human (as already explained). I did not say that twinning constitutes a point of new personhood. What I said was that if conception is the point of new personhood, then twinning poses a problem. At no point can you derive what I believe when say “If A is true, then it seems to conflict with B.” All you can know from that is that I see a conflict between A and B. I may believe that even if conception doesn’t constitute the beginning of personhood that we ought to act as though it does. Or I may believe that personhood comes about at some other definite point beyond twinning. Or I may believe we can’t objectively define personhood. There are all sorts of options; it would serve you well to stop assuming you know which one is the one I choose.
Michael,
These are scientific concepts:
*Humanity
*living
*dead
These are not scientific concepts:
*souls
*”personhood”
SCIENTIFICALLY, conception is when a new human being is created. (Don’t believe me? Ask a scientist – who isn’t me.)
And, time for a Joe Wilson moment: YOU LIE! You never answered my big question: If conception is not when a human is made, when is it, scientifically?
By the way, I think I can declare victory when you’re forced to abandon your entire argument, which revolved around humanity, and had to move to the nebulous “personhood”.
That’s because you’re done arguing science and you’re onto your own version of philosophy. Again, personhood isn’t a scientific concept; human is. And a new human is created at the moment of conception, which is a basic tenet of biology – not some debatable position like all of you people with degrees in liberal arts think it is.
ROFLMAO. I took two of them in law school. That was after I took a major in engineering.
Epic fail. (smirks)
Science evolves and has failed us in truth many times. We are constantly revising its proofs and theories. The only constant in life is God. So far we have been unable to irrefutably prove the existence of Him through the sciences. Therefore, since many of us know God exists, we are waiting for science to “catch up” and confirm His existence with tangible proof. Whether we ever get it is not certain.
Many have attempted to disprove God’s existence also. Truth has been kept from us and confirmation of biblical facts have been censored over time. A good example is the discovery of numerous skeletons of giants, now kept out of history books and hidden from public view.
Over the years we have seen confirmation that His Word is true. As we see more of how our world works, we will see His signature on it. Of this I am convinced. The discovery that planets and stars produce sound, confirms Bible truth. The discovery of laminin confirms Colossians 1:17. The Word also tells us, as science has confirmed, the life is in the blood. Scripture tells us God hears the cries of spilt blood. We recall the first mention of this in Genesis, after Cain killed his brother Abel. One would assume the blood splilt in abortion would also reach His ears.
God ultimately decides life or death. It is His to give. We are the ones He chooses to work through. We decide if we let Him direct our actions, or if we do it in our own power – in the flesh. Are we acting in our own benefit, or are we advancing His kingdom and seeking His will? We are each accountable to Him for our entire life, be it long or short. If we shorten or lengthen others lives, we are assured He will call us into account.
We were created for His glory. Only when you glorify God with your own life, can you truly please Him. Obedience trumps sacrifice.
Jesus is our path. If you are living a truly spiritual life, you will not fall into sin. The Holy Spirit (the Comforter) is our guide while we are on this planet. He gives us power over sin. Holy Spirit is the deposit in our heart given to us when we became brothers and sisters in Christ. We are instructed to live by the Spirit – to walk by faith and not by sight. He that is in us is greater than he that is in the world.
If we are obedient and seek Him in all things, we will eliminate any need of abortion in our lives. Living in Him also curtails any sexual activity outside of a marriage. He will direct us in all we do, giving us a heart of compassion for all others that cross our path. The greatest gift He gives us is love. We are commanded to love one another in the same manner He loved us. That is how we are to change this world.
God knows every hair on your head. He is still sustaining and creating all of life. He surely knows the destiny of every soul and spirit He creates. If you lean on Him He will give you strength. He will not let you operate outside of love.
This is a cruel world and evil is rampant. It is deeply interwoven within the fabric of this nation and this planet. He only allows as much temptation as we can handle in one day at a time. We need to walk by faith to overcome evil and our flesh. Walk in His step. Operate in His Spirit in everything you do. Don’t bury that gift, His deposit in each of us that are a part of His body. We live for Him and to advance His kingdom. Check in with Him often, with every breath.
As far as atheists are concerned, the Word essentially states you are already dead to God. The condition is spiritual death, not a physical one. Until your heart stops, you can reverse your destiny. Since we have been given free will, no one can force you to believe in the supernatural. But as believers we are obligated to offer you the path to eternal salvation for your soul.
P.S. As an update to this thread, the PP representative in the video was fired Tuesday. Hopefully it will go far in removing corruption from that organization nation wide.
” As an update to this thread, the PP representative in the video was fired Tuesday. Hopefully it will go far in removing corruption from that organization nation wide.”
But according to PP, this is the representative who turned in the pimp. Turns out they lied. Shocking! Equally shocking is that multiple new videos are already out showing how common this is.
They are rotten to the core. What do you expect from an organization that destroys innocent human life for a living?
“They are rotten to the core. What do you expect from an organization that destroys innocent human life for a living?”
Planned Parenthood’s fundamental flaw is they have no moral, ethical standards of conduct they can apply to the organization because of their chosen business. The only standard they can apply is “It is for the greater good”. There is no evil or depravity that cannot be excused with that phrase. When life is no longer sacred, neither is anything else.
Yes, because I’m sure I could never find any scientist who rejects your ideas.
What your doing is defining “human” where it’s convenient to define it. In truth, you’re argument is tautological: you’re defining human as the point where something is human. Great. You told me nothing. Why is the point of conception the beginning of humanity? You can try and steal the mantle of science, but you aren’t adding anything substantial (despite the passionate vitriol you have towards a complete stranger).
I am using the terms interchangeably; the issue is one of semantics. If you want to play that game, you need to actually bother defining “humanity”. So far from what I’ve gathered you’ve defined it as “the point where conception happens” because that’s where humanity begins. I’m looking for something a little more linear.
You can’t be serious, can you? What else do you think humans would reproduce? Beings reproduce after their own kind. That’s really, really, basic biology.
Man, people really work hard to rationalize abortion.
Michael: my undergraduate degree is in engineering and I worked as a chemist for several years. So telling me that I’m not “scientific” frankly pisses me off, because it’s incredibly sexist and stupid.
Now, my question to you: upon what basis do YOU take the mantle of science?
Question 2, which you’ve refused to answer: according to biology, when is a new human created?
Now, I think that a human is created at conception because that is when male and female gametes merge; no longer haploid cells of their parents, but an entirely new human is created. It has all the chromosomes it needs, and, provided it gets nutrition and avoids being harmed, will continue to grow and develop into a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then an adult.
Embryology textbooks are quite clear on this. No one actually disagrees that once sperm and egg meet, a new human is created.
Beyond that, it’s social policy, philosophy, and ethics, but the science is clear.
I follow the science because a) once a scientist, always a scientist, and b) I think that all human life is worthy of protection. In case you hadn’t noticed, human history is riddled with all sorts of disgusting acts because people couldn’t follow “If he or she is a member of the human race, do not kill, beat, or enslave, no matter how much you may want to.”
As a matter of record (and so it isn’t thought that I am ignoring anyone), if people would like a response from me at any point, I recommend making a new reply using the “Leave a Reply” box at the bottom of the page. It is far too tedious to comb through a lengthening thread to see if people used the “Reply” button for one of my comments. (Not that I’m stopping you; you just shouldn’t expect a reply.)
I think if you subscribe via email you can respond via email as well.
Insofar as I’m not scrolling all over the place, I will respond to posts. If anyone has anything higher up than my previous two comments and wants a response, they’ll need to repeat themselves.
Neil,
1. You still haven’t told me why the point of conception is where humanity begins.
2. I got you to admit, once you got over the logical fallacies, assumptions, and personal attacks, that humanity can begin at a time besides conception; you undermined your argument long ago that conception is a clear line in the sand. You have yet to articulate a clear reason why it is such an important point for your (subjective) definition of humanity.
To help things along since I know you’re ready to say the same thing, perhaps with a new insult: Is it the combination of genetic material which defines something as human? Is it the potential behind that material that is important or simply the material itself?
Roxeanne,
This is wildly offensive. Aside from you being flat out wrong that I called you unscientific, it’s cheap rhetoric to call me sexist or to say my statement was based upon sex. You don’t promote your argument by trying to paint me as some sort of misogynist because I had the audacity to call a female’s idea an attempt to grab the mantle of science. Furthermore, trying to bolster your argument, as I tried to ignore you doing earlier and as you’re doing now, by bragging about your credentials is more bad rhetoric; people with the same credentials as you – in fact, ones with even better ones – do have different opinions on the abortion matter, where we ought to define humanity/personhood, and how we should legislate on the issue. Arguing from your authority doesn’t impress me except insofar as it is impressed upon me that I’m being forced to call out “Logical fallacy!” far more often than I would like.
I have done no such thing. I have presented one primary arguments: the line in the sand is not as clear as everyone wishes.
It depends on how you define “human”. To use your definition, a new human is created when a new human is created. That is, if we define “human” as the point of conception because the point of conception is when humans begin, we have ourselves a lovely circle. What I’ve been trying to get to is why is the point of conception so important? Telling me that organisms produce members of their own species, as Neil so helpfully pointed out, doesn’t answer the question.
The real question here is what makes a human, well, a human? Saying ‘being conceived by two humans’ doesn’t help at all; all my cells are ultimately the product of conception, but they aren’t human. Clearly, if conception creates something we aren’t willing to call human, then we need to delve further into the question; stonewalling with “Conception, conception, conception!” can only get you so far.
This is getting somewhere. But it has its problems. What is important about needing all its chromosomes? No, not biologically. I mean, what makes that so special? Is it the potential they hold to continue forming? Is it something else?
And if you don’t trust the reasoning in all these mainstream embryology textbooks then I’m not going to bother trying — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . Here’s a sample:
“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
You do have a fertile imagination, I’ll grant you that. Even a twin had to begin at conception.
1. It isn’t subjective.
2. The key question with abortion is, “What is it?” If “it” isn’t a human being, then have all the abortions you want for any reason. If “it” is a human being — and science and common sense are clear even to many rabid pro-aborts (see the same link) — then 99% of them are completely immoral.
You are a beyond-rabid pro-abort for not conceding that.
My sincere apologies for the insults. Even though I am personally disgusted by the anti-science barbarism of pro-aborts like you I should be more kind (seriously).
Re. your questions, since you won’t go by what all the mainstream embryology texts say I’m not going to try and convince you further.
If you want to play the bad philosophical “potential” game, then have a potential abortion. But of course, abortions are done to destroy something that is real and alive: A human being. All the pro-abort word games try to hide that.
It is only not helpful when you are deliberately avoiding the obvious: If organisms reproduce after their own kind and they have reproduced, then whatever has been reproduced is their own kind. In this case, that would be a human being.
I find your anti-science views tiresome so I’ll leave you to Roxanne for now.
Neil, I’m done.
I’ve asked this jerk about a half-dozen times when new human life is created, and he refuses to answer.
Heck, Neil, I teach science on the side to make some extra money, but I have never had a student so obtuse. I’m sorry, but I usually get paid anywhere from $30 to $75 an hour to explain stuff this basic (or less basic) to people who are at least willing to learn. I have better things to do with my day than engage with someone so fundamentally dishonest. (Yes, I do think that, at this point, Michael is being dishonest when he fails to state when he believes a new human being is created, from a scientific perspective.)
Good choice, Roxanne. It is amazing what people will do to rationalize abortion, even when they have to mock mainstream embryology textbooks to do so. Their anti-science views are literally the most deadly thing on the planet. He plays the same game that the “conception is a process” guy did — trying to find some hypertechnical exception to the clear science of embryology so they can act like the whole thing is a crapshoot. Pathetic.
Reciting to me your position from other sources does nothing to elucidate your position. I’m still asking why is conception important. Specifically, what makes it special.
When the process of twinning occurs after an initial zygote is formed, that is no longer conception between two humans. It is a result of that conception, but it is not the point of conception; it is an independent event. The line still is not a clear one in the sand.
1) Of course it is. The definition of any term is subjective, even if we are able to use it objectively within a framework.
2) That tells me why you think abortion is wrong. I asked you to articulate why the point of conception is special.
That is no more honest than if I said you’re anti-women’s rights for your position.
That merely avoids the issue. I’m still waiting for you to tell me what makes the point of conception important. Why does the combination of genetic material make something human? I presume it’s the potential because the skin cells I flake off every day old all my genetic material and they certainly aren’t human beings. But maybe you have a different answer.
Roxeanne,
You don’t get to move the topic to my views before we resolve anything about your views.
While I appreciate so dearly being called a liar and a sexist and stupid because I disagree with you, I’m following a basic line of discourse: Don’t move on to a new topic until the previous one has been resolved. If you want to know my views on when a human being is created, you can feel free to click over to my blog: I have an email address listed as well as an “About” section ready for comments. (I don’t have any posts especially about abortion, but you may see one soon.) In lieu of that, it’s up to you to explain what makes conception important. So far we have that it is the coming together of genetic material. The next question is, Why is that important? At no point is my personal view needed in order for you to answer these questions.
That’s been answered multiple times and you know it. It is the foundational pro-life argument and completely supported by science. I’ve blogged for 5 years and am trying to recall someone as thoroughly dishonest as you.
You have created a little fantasy world to justify abortion and to do so you must teach the opposite of mainstream embryology textbooks. So feel free to come back when you can refute them.
In the mean time, I suggest you exercise some intellectual integrity and change the title of your blog.
I do appreciate your stopping by and so clearly expressing the inconsistency and poor reasoning behind your anti-science, pro-abortion worldview. It really makes my job easy.
Cheers,
Neil
I was told by another poster that I had been banned. This is a test.
Don’t confuse moderation with being banned. People who repeatedly ignore 2+2=4 type scientific facts don’t earn full commenting privileges. Life’s too short to keep correcting them. Atheists like Roxanne are welcome here. But I frown on deliberately silly commenters.
Neil: there’s a nerdy math joke: “2 + 2 = 5… for sufficiently large values of 2.”
That said… Neil, you have more patience than do I with pro-abort young men. I spent far too much of my life with that cohort telling me that I “couldn’t handle engineering” or “am intimidating” or that I’m not “empowered” because I won’t sleep around, and then abort, to have any patience with them. I can smell the “Baby, I’m pro-choice, so sleep with me” types a mile away, and the “I’m a liberal, so therefore, I’m more pro-science than you are. Get back in your place, little girl” types a mile away and just can’t deal.
LOL re. the math joke.
Thanks, but I should have been more patient (i.e., more polite) or even less patient and cut him off earlier. I’m better than I used to be at cutting out the time wasters but the liberal in me (heh) wants to give people a forum. But some just can’t handle the responsibility.
I think one of the primary reasons to see life as beginning at conception is because to do otherwise opens the door to the obvious corruption we see here, and the horrors we now know about in Philidelphia.
In short, conception is the only definitive biological line we have – every other line is arbitrary and provides no protections for human life at all.
Excellent point, Jack. Everyone has to draw a line somewhere. Those pretending that conception isn’t the scientifically valid line for when a new human being is created get all philosophical when trying to draw “lines” elsewhere, but they are usually vague and elusive, such as viability. Viability is bad philosophy (those outside the womb shouldn’t be fair game because of dependency) and would vary by person, by part of the world regarding medical care and even by what type of local hospital one had.
Oh, and human beings tend to be much more viable if they aren’t ripped apart with sharp instruments.