Claude
Posted on 03/07/2012 7:15:50 PM PST by Morgana
“can’t you anti-choice yahoos get with the program?”
I guess the learned Prof never heard that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Or maybe he just “deconstructed” that myth.
Well, in his case maybe a retroactive abortion is ok.
Live Action News needs an editor.
I want to be patient with him because it is clear that he appreciates the basic question - there is obviously something different between the broad acceptance of sexual activity and a similar acceptance of abortion. Whatever could it be? Um...now let me think. Could it be because the latter involves a dead human being?
A sociologist cannot draw that conclusion. The furthest he can go is to conclude that there is a perception that the killing of a human being is involved. From there it is easy to fall back into the comfort of the position that it's only a matter of perception, and that the perception is likely to be erroneous.
Well, it isn't. It's a matter of stark appreciation of biological fact. That thing isn't undifferentiated tissue, it is a person. I will quote Christopher Hitchens on the issue: if it isn't human, what is it? And if it isn't alive, what is it?
It is, to be sure, a perfectly legitimate sociological question as to why so many of us think that the death of a human being is involved. "Because it is" is a terrifying answer. But it does lead to an equally valid question that I challenge him to ask: why so many think that the death of a human being is not involved.
I wonder why this Berkley Professor wasn’t aborted.
With the latest so-called ethicists calling for after-birth abortion at the parent’s whim, it is certainly an anti-life crowd.
Reference:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/something-deadly-this-way-comes-after-birth-abortion-70975/
Because babies are the least able to help themselves or defend their life.
Because all things want to live and we recognize that quality in us.
Because death is absolute and final.
Because no one would willingly let another human life be taken needlessly or cruelly at the hands of another who has no right to kill.
Because babies are beautiful.
Because babies are cute.
Because babies smell like babies.
Because babies smiling warm any weary soul.
Because babies laughing are infectious, making us laugh as well.
Because babies make baby noises and we just have imitate them.
Because only a loving God would create a baby so beautiful you know that baby represents life.
Because all life has equal value in the beginning, in the middle and at the very end.
Because I love babies.
(well, other peoples babies anyway)
That's a long way from the Hippocratic Oath ("First, do no harm...")
/johnny
Mark
Claude
It is zee 1930s and Der Fuhrer has spoken; can't you Joo-loving schwein get vit zee program?
Easily answered.
Of course it is biologically human. Of course it is alive. Of course it is a human life.
Those are scientific questions with obvious answers.
The question is not whether the fetus is a human life, it is whether it is (or should be) a legal person with the rights of other persons.
This is not a question that can be answered by science, as it is moral, ethical and legal in nature. In fact, it is at root a theological question.
It is entirely logical, though deadly wrong IMO, to believe a fetus prior to the moment of birth is not a person and has therefore no legal rights. Or, more accurately, choosing the moment of birth as the point where such rights are acquired is neither more nor less logical than any other random point. This creates logical problems for proponents of abortion, as we can see from the recent arguments that "post birth abortion" should also be allowed.
Each human life is a continuum from conception to death, whether that death occurs 3 months or 100 years after conception. There is and can be no point on that continuum where it becomes logical to say that life should acquire (or lose) the "rights" of a "person" under the law.
They understand. This “playing dumb” act is a cynical calculation by some VERY evil people.
Would like to meet his mother so I can kick her arse as to why she brought into this world.
These fools grew up thinking that steak originates in sealed plastic trays, they know nothing about death, or life, it's all put on someone else's shoulders, the doctor or the butcher or the cop.
Sit at a dinner table with them and discuss killing the cow and they'll ask you to leave. They will curse you as a killer because you hunt, while they eat a Big Mac.
They are able to tell, and believe, the lie that shields their conscience.
They are insane, and they will hate you because you aren't.
Only a career academic could be so hopelessly blind and consummately ignorant.
There we have reached ethical nullity, the position of grunting beasts. I think that we are something more, and for evidence I shall point out to the ethically challenged that those of us who believe and behave otherwise tend to have grunting beasts for supper. There is something to be said for the strong protecting the weak, most notably that it is in the interest of those who were weak, are now strong, and who will inevitably become weak once more. In short, all of us, and those who pretend otherwise are only pretending.
Bingo. They KNOW that abortion is murder, that is why they never discuss the actual reason people oppose abortion, but rather make it a privacy issue, as the scotus did in its great moment of cowardice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.