Call to Action

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

Plan C

After my earlier post on the issue of positive versus negative rights, you may wonder whether or not I support rape victims taking pills that may or may not inhibit implantation, suck as .

Well, I believe in erring on the side of not taking lives until it is conclusively shown one way or another.

So, let's talk about a hypothetical drug that we know prevents implantation, and thus causes the death of the pre-embryo. We'll call it Plan C.

Should a rape victim be allowed to take Plan C? After all, the embryo has no positive right to life*.

It should be taken into consideration that, like unplugging the violinist, taking Plan C is not an act of inaction. Nobody would object to having the pre-embryo removed, frozen, and implanted in another woman. Because the taking of Plan C causes the death of the pre-embryo, it violates his or her negative right to live.

Imagine you are out on a cruise and there is a sleeping man in a life raft drifting towards you. You can either do nothing, in which case the man will dock and be saved. Or you can grease the dock, thus causing his death. Because the man is innocent and greasing the dock is not an act of inaction, doing so would be an act of manslaughter.

*Where the pregnancy has resulted from consensual sex, the embryo does have the positive right to life, because his or her mother has placed the pre-embryo in jeopardy, and, thus, has a responsibility towards him or her to protect the pre-embryo from harm.

Baby = cat?

It's a well-known fact that humans are a highly altricial species. We have some of the least developed newborns.

In order to deny the rights of the unborn, many people base personhood on properties such as self-awareness. The problem is that nothing happens developmentally at birth; neonates are practically identical to prenates. Self-awareness takes place 12-15 months after birth.

Some Roebots bite the bullet. One even told me killing an infant is no worse than killing a cat.

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

Oh, yeah...

I forgot ESCR was illegal.

This post would be about something else had you payed attention in 8th grade.

You know the deal. You're defending prenatal rights online. Perhaps even more certain than Godwin's Law, a Roebot will eventually submit some form of this argument. Examples below.

• If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. (and/or some reference to the "Tubesock Holocaust")
• LIFE BEGINS AT MEIOSIS!
• If abortion is murder, any woman who's ad more than one period is a serial killer!
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Now, for this post I'm going to assume a fundamental understanding of the subject of biolo-...

Actually, I'd better not.

You see, sperm and egg cells (reproductive cells that fuse to form a zygote, collectively referred to as gametes) are formed through a process called meiosis, in which-

Whoa, there! Don't you think I should handle this?

Um, this is kind of my blog. Who are you exactly?

I'm Gamete Pete!

Err... okay?

Anyway, meiosis occurs when a body cell splits in two, copying its chromosomes as in mitosis, resulting in 2 daughter cells with a normal number of chromosomes. Next each of these daughter cells splits in two, but do not copy their chromosomes. The result is that the original parent cell produces four new cells with half a full set of chromosomes. This occurs in both the male and the female, though in the female 3 of the 4 granddaughter cells merely become polar bodies. This is simplified, but it's enough for our purposes. When half the chromosomes from a mother and half the chromosomes from the father join in a process called fertilization, a new organi-

MY TURN!

Um...

Who are you?

I'm Kate the Prenate!

I should've expected.

When the father's spermatozoon (sperm) fertilizes the mother's ovum (egg cell), the two half-genomes (sets of chromosomes) join to form a new genome, thus a new and unique organism is formed. Unlike gametes, which are cells of the parent, the zygote (the single celled organism created by the union of the two gametes) is a new organism. The zygote then begins to grow through mitosis into a blastocyst. In viviparous animals, the blastocyst travels down a fallopian tube of the mother into her uterus, implants in the uterine lining, and becomes an embryo. In humans, the stage of development after approximately five months is termed the fetal stage, and the individual is termed a fetu-

Ahem.

No, sorry Cletus. No.

As you can see, there is no comparison to be made. Gametes are cells of the parent and a prenate is a separate individual. A gamete has the potential to contribute half of the genome of a human being. A prenate is a human being.

It's a mad, mad world.

This should never have been necessary.

A slightly intelligent pro-abortioner...

Who woulda thunk it?

Of course, gender equality is irrelevant. Gender equality is a noble goal, but not one that may be achieved by any means necessary. Banning infanticide contributes to discriminatory pay for mothers, but most of us agree infanticide is murder.

But, hey, at least they recognize some of the bad arguments.

Stupidity should be a capital offense...

Here's a conversation I had on Youtube:

Topic: is a fetus a "being"?

Me: A being is just that which exist, hence the root word "be".

Regardless of his or her rights, the fetus is not a part of the mother, but is its own, separate organism. This doesn't say much. So is her cat.

Blackrose3226: sorry hun, but that word has more than one meaning.
Blackrose3226: it's completely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. the fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. what the mother does affects the fetus. and when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother. their relationship is very parasitic.
Blackrose3226: It has no mind of its own,it reacts with animal instincts, it is a fungus according to all scientific standards, no better then moss on a tree, untill it becomes sentient and breaths on its own.

[Yes I notice the oddity of a fungus with animal instincts and the fact that moss is a plant.]

Me: A fungus? That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Blackrose3226: it is a fungus according to all scientific standards. whether you think it's stupid or not is quite irrelevant.

The Politicization of Science

Global warming is real, the universe began 13.7 billion years ago, and an individual human being is present from the moment of fertilization. These are scientific facts, not political opinions.

Science Class

I've seen some pro-abortion people say ND HB1572 would make killing any human cell murder, and that sexual reproduction is one organism splitting into two (the splitting taking place at birth), regardless of whether another partner contributes genetic material. Seriously, they need to go back to school.

Um, what?

http://lifenews.com/bio2786.html

Breakthrough

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2751.html

Just stop acting like those against stem cell research are anti-science.

Please.

Science

Here's a note to all creationists or supporters of "Intelligent Design". Develop a cohesive theory and put it through the scientific method. Don't just try to legislate it into schools. Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Creationism may be supported by a majority of Americans, but there is still no evidence to back it up.

ESC research funding

I said a couple days ago that President Obama would not be signing an executive order funding embryonic stem cell research. I was wrong.

Wikipedia

This is a note to all professors/teachers.

You have been pwned.

ESC research

To all the supporters of embryonic stem cell research:

1. ESC research has not helped a single patient. ASC research has helped many, many patients with dozens of diseases. It has even helped cure some diseases believed to be curable only through ESC research.
   
2. Stop acting like banning the destruction of human embryos is some huge affront to science. Science must always be bound by ethics. There are standards for experiments with human participants. That's why we don't see much vivisection of infants anymore.
   
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm
   

Randomness

Nobody says the unverse came from random chance any more than planets randomly become round or snowflakes randomly form hexagonal shapes. Some, however, are saying there are pixies in coudtop snowflake factories with ice cubes and little magic chisles.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Barack Obama, 

I would like to congratulate you on your historic inauguration, and hope you will continue advocating social change, though I am more a Green myself, and supported kat swift(1) until she lost the nomination. 

The mark of the left has always been its defense of the underdog. The unborn child is much more vulnerable than the farm worker or the single mother welfare recipient. I've noticed change.org has a section for animal rights but not one for prenatal rights. You said that abortion is not something decided lightly, and, while that may be the case, it does not mean abortion should be legal; a poor man deciding to kill his daughter to collect on the life insurance may be making the hardest decision of his life, but that does not mean no one should stop him, though it doesn't mean he shouldn't be given welfare either. While we should continue fighting poverty and other societal ills, we must eventually stand up as a nation and as a party and declare that all are equal: male or female, young or old(2), black or white, gay or straight, born or unborn, theist or atheist, rich or poor, American or foreign. Because of this, I strongly urge you to support a Constitutional Amendment defining "personhood" as beginning at fertilization, at which point modern medical science tells us a unique human individual is present. I also suggest you abandon ESC research in favor of the much more promising adult stem cells, or iPS cells (equal in all regards to ES cells, but with the added bonus that they do not involve the distruction of human embryos).

Being pro-life is not merely a stance of "the religious right", as is so wrongly believed by many. We are much more diverse than that. I, myself, am at once pro-life, liberal, feminist, and an atheist. I am anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-ERA (The ERA's original author was pro-life, by the way), pro-gay marriage, pro-comprehensive sex ed, and anti-religion. 

I would also like to discuss the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The only good thing about it is its abolishment of parental consent and notification laws; it is insulting, when millions of young children are being denied equality, to turn around and strip older, biological adults, of equality as well. Ignoring the issue of abortion's immorality, FOCA completely deregulates abortion, and, thus, puts the lives of mothers in danger. It allows doctors not trained in the practice to perform abortions, abolishes laws requiring operational emergency equipment standing by, abolishes informed consent laws, and even allows unsterilized equipment to be used. Not to mention it would also force doctors to perform abortions, regardless of their moral convictions. Catholic hospitals have threatened to close before performing abortions, and will follow through on it.

Instead of signing FOCA, I suggest signing the Pregnant Women Support Act, which is endorsed by Democrats for Life of America, does not restrict abortions, and would dramatically reduce abortions by providing support to pregnant women; sadly, many women feel abortion is their only choice, and college campuses often default to directing pregnant students to abortion clinics because the colleges do not know what else to do, a fact lamented by Feminists for Life of America. 

This is one of the main reason Crisis Pregnancy Centers exist, supplying everything from ultrasounds to baby clothes free of charge. We need more federal funding for these charitable organizations if we really want to decrease the abortion rate. These are needed because women do not want abortion like a kid wants a candy bar; they want it like a bear in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. 

I would suggest that you read Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority by Kristen Day and The Liberal Case Against Abortion by Vasu Murti. 

If you've read this far, or even read this post at all, I am extremely grateful and sincerely apologize for this post's length. 

Yours in the fight for freedom, fairness, and equality, 

Nulono

(1) That's how she writes it, not a typo. 

(2) Youth rights is a bigger topic not discussed here, but I suggest you look into the National Youth Rights Association and read their arguments. I was disturbed, yet not surprised, by your statement on the drinking age. Youth rights was a main reason I support(ed) kat swift.

Responding to Christian [nonsense] 0001

Here I'll respond to some t-shirts form Virtuous Planet.

First, I'll let Snopes deal with the laminin molecule.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp

We'll start, of course, with the homophobic propaganda.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Civil Rights! Blacks should have the same right as whites do to marry someone of the same race!

See this comic from I Drew This.

This was listed under "Funny"!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians: Strenghtening marriage by protecting it from people that want to get married. Although, if you aren't changing anything, wouldn't that technically be keeping its strenght the same? And if we'd never redefined marriage, interracial marriage would still be illegal. Hell, blacks wouldn't've been allowed to marry at all!

This is strengthening marriage the same way genocide strengthens the human race: eliminate a whole class of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do not live in a theocracy. Your particular God's law does not apply here. Some churches are fine with gay marriage, If you want to get your way, you must present it in a secular manner. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's keeping score? Evolution's winning everywhere:

in the Supreme Court

in schools

in the genetic record

in the fossil record

et cetera.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They already have.

...

Wait, I didn't see that human print in the middle; black doesn't show on dark brown. The "finders" of that example admitted to faking it to con tourists out of their money.

Though, even if humans and dinosaurs walked together, they could've done so millions of years ago. False dichotomy!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay... Let's see...

My God, The Almighty Grxfg'ftevgë, has a bigger penis than your God. She also has the power to defy all laws of the Universe. Necromancy is not a very impressive feat for a God. And, no matter how powerful you imagine your God to be, he is still imaginary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And:

Only one road leads to Muhammad.

Only one road leads to Thor.

Only one road leads to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume you're referring to the Scientific Method? Perform repeatable experiments that support your idea, use it to make predictions, submit it for peer review, and we'll see if it stands up to scrutiny. If it does, you'll probably win the Nobel Prize! Since your claim is supernatural and basically equates to "Magic Man dunnit", it will not last long.

Your idea is not even useful. How did Magic Man do it? Many Christians think God did it through natural processes. That's because 100% of the evidence supports the current scientific explanation. If we found any contrary evidence that couldn't be explained by the current theory, we'd alter the theory. That's how science works.

Also, "Darwinism" does not exist. If it does, then I am a proud Newtonist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technically, humans are apes. This isn't evolution; this is basic taxonomy. We are all members of the Hominoidea superfamily.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, come on!

This is based on an ancient three-tiered vision of the sky. If this were true, spacecraft would've flown through a magically floating ocean and ended up in heaven. What did they find instead?

The firmament does not exist.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science is, by definition, the study of the observable, the knowable, the repeatable, the explainable, the demonstratable, the natural world. The supernatural is not science by definition.

Responding to Roebotic [nonsense] 0001

Here, I'll respond to more miscellaneous pro-abortion bumper stickers, T-shirts, et cetera.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an ad hominem circumstantial. I can still say we should stop this illegal and pointless war in Iraq, even if I've never been there myself. I can tell parents not to beat their children even if I'm not a parent myself. I can say the South shouldn't have supported slavery even if I'm not in a position to own slaves. Morality is a function of reality and reality isn't going to change just because Bob the anti-abortion person is male. No matter how many men are anti-abortion, abortion will still be immoral. It is worth noting, however, that this only counts anti-abortion leaders; females are more often pro-life and a majority of rank-and-file pro-life activists are female.

This also applies to "no uterus no opinion".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your child is not your body. It is therefore no more your choice than child abuse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another circumstantial ad hominem. Also mixed with a simple ad hominem. Not only is it racist, it assumes trying to save the lives of billions makes you "self-important" or "greedy".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your baby has no political beliefs you idiot! It's a [freaking] baby! Although, evolution has installed in most species a basic primal urge to survive. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that, if anything, your baby is against abortion. Unless, you know, the baby's suicidal.

EDIT: Wait, "baby"? Not "parasite", "products of conception", "seahorse", "mass of cytoplasm", "blob of tissue", "tumor", or "uterine squatter"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody is "cut[ing] off [your] reproductive choice". You are perfectly free to use a condom, or be abstinent, or get sterilized, or do absolutely anything you want with your reproductive system as long as you do not hurt anyone else. And, even if we were cutting off your reproductive choice, there's a huge difference between that and physically mutilating you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are too many of these to count. "Coat hangers are for coats." Remember that next time you think it's a good idea to shove one up your [vagina].

Let me make something clear:

Those who are anti-abortion are against coat hanger abortions. Why?

1. They tend to kill the mother.
2. They tend to kill the child.

However, the end does not justify the means. Rape is illegal, and, as a consequence, dangerous. You can get STDs (or STIs, as they are now called), be hurt when she fights back, et cetera. It would be so much safer if we had special rape centers where women are kidnapped, tested for STIs, and drugged, right? Yes and no. We would make things safer for the rapist, but not for the rape-ee. Not to mention that most illegal abortions before 1973 were done by doctors. Roe just made them legal, not safer. Before you try to tell me Roe saved lives, I want to point out that any calculation of "lives saved" must take into account the lives of the prenates that were lost.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All "personal" "decisions" must be debated politically to insure that they are either. No decision is personal that harms another person. Parents have, to an extent, a right to choose how to raise their children. This does not make child abuse a personal decision. This also applies to "Who Decides?" and "Get the government out of our lives!". Whether or not the prenate is a person is independent of you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "pro-choice" movement is, in fact, the stupid idea that women own their children's bodies. Nobody is saying you don't own you own body; we are saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no god.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because not letting you kill your baby is exactly like putting you in shackles. Nice ad misericordiam. Aww, you were raped? That's so sad! Go ahead and kill your baby.

That's just sick. Rape is a violent offense, but so is abortion. A raping B does not give B the right to kill C. NOTE: I have a question for the readers: Why the separate mention of incest? If the incest wasn't consensual, it's covered by "rape". If is was, WTF's the problem‽

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just stupid.

I'll let this quote from http://prolifetraining.com/Articles/Five-Bad-Ways.htm deal with this.

Mistake #1: confuse objective claims with subjective ones

When pro-life advocates say that elective abortion is morally wrong because it unjustly takes the life of a defenseless child, they are making a particular type of claim.[6] Specifically, they are making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Of course, moral claims can sometimes be mistaken, as for example, when a man equates eating peanuts with racial genocide. But just because the claim is false does not mean it’s purely subjective. The man making it is not offering an opinion; he’s claiming to be right.

Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is making in order to respond to one they like better, thus avoiding the hard work of demonstrating why, exactly, the pro-lifer is mistaken. Consider the following responses to the moral claim, “Elective abortion is morally wrong.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We aren't saying we don't trust you, just that it's one "option" is immoral. Although, if you were thinking of having an abortion, I'd sure as hell call Child Protective Services; someone who has demonstrated homicidal tendencies or thoughts is clearly not a suitable parent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, this makes perfect sense. Disagreeing with someone's political and/or ethical beliefs is exactly like standing on their back. Whatever.