Socialist Stupidity? Say it ain't so!

Zygotes are not eggs, and I clarified this in my first post, but this is the first time I have ever seen an embryo or fetus called an "egg".

They then go on to commit the sperm fallacy and quote a stupid argument debunked a thousand times.

Seriously, I think that five halves of my braincells died wen me reed funee articpdsalkfcdkddfffffffvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv...

Rights of Citizens

There's lots of talk about whether terrorists "deserve" the "rights of American citizens".

The Framers didn't implement those rights as a reward to people for being born here. They implemented them because they saw them as basic human rights. To ask if someone "deserves" their rights is unAmerican in the truest sense of the word.

All men are created equal, not just all Americans.

Natural Law Party

This is an argument I see all to much.

I agree that education and resources are needed to prevent abortions.

However, natural law does not dictate that the mother should be responsible to no one for the death of her unborn child. It is not the person most affected that should decide if one option is the death of an innocent human being. This is not a private issue that only affects her; it is the destruction of a human life. However, it is also true that the person affected most is the child, who is killed. Because the child cannot speak for him-/herself; this is the government's job.

In any other situation in which one human being decides to kill another human being (we call this "homicide"), the government steps in. This is, in fact, what natural law dictates: that the government should protect human beings from each other.

As for "legislating morality", this is almost the definition of legislation. The reason we have laws against assault, murder, and rape are because these actions are immoral and violate the rights of other human beings. An action that inflicts violence upon another human being is never a private issue, and if it were the entire concept of natural rights would fall apart.

The analogy to prohibition is invalid because the consumption of alcohol does not violate anyone else's rights. The notion that a mother may harm herself in the process of killing her unborn child does not mean that the unborn child should not be given the full protection of the law demanded by basic human rights.

Those devious prenates!

Before they are even created, they force their parents to have sex. They then create themselves and begin sucking nutrients from the mother*. And they make themselves delicate and unviable so that they cannot be removed. What a cunning plan!

Wait, what's that? The offspring has no say in the matter? A prenate's existence, location, and dependency are thrust upon him or her? Wait, by who? By the parents?

Try telling that to the Roebots who compare an unwanted child to a rapist.

If you want intelligent debate on prenatal rights, don't go to NationStates.

*The mother's body delivers nutrients to the baby and the nutrients are passed from one circulatory system to another by diffusion.

Morons (or is it Moroens?)

Even beyond Roebots are the pro-abortion folks who are ignorant of basic facts like the following:

The difference between natural death and homicide*

That prenatal development is controlled by the fetus's DNA

That your kidney is not a human being

That hamburgers are neither human nor alive

That Jello™ cannot be fertilized by human sperm

All those were on the NationStates forum. Why do certain forums attract morons?

*If Old Man Jenkins down the road dies because I shot him, I go to jail. If he's hit by an asteroid, I don't? Why? One scenario has me choosing his death and one doesn't. ZOMG teh murder lawz r antichoice!!!1one

Slaves to biology?

One thing I'm tired of hearing is how affirming prenatal rights would make women "slaves to their biology". This is absurd. Even abortion is only possible because biology allows it. Biology is the study of life. It says what is, not what ought to be, and you can't be a slave to an entity (though biology isn't even a entity) that has no free will of its own.

It's like... it's like...

"Gag Rule"?

Lemme make something perfectly clear. The Mexico City Policy does not violate free speech. It does not punish foreign institutions, but merely prevents taxpayers from being forced to support the promotion of the violence of abortion.

Reproductive Power

In its simplest sense, freedom is liberty. Liberty is the right of A to control A. A has every right to control A, B has every right to control B, ad infinitum.

The problem comes when we introduce coercion. Power is the ability of A to control B, of B to control A, of C to control G, ad infinitum. C only has the right to control A in order to stop A from coercing C.

The a problem arises when the concept of freedom is expanded beyond liberty and into power. Many seek to extend A's freedom into power over B.

We see this taking place in the Net Neutrality argument, with many arguing A should be allowed to censor the content that B, S, Q, F, and L are exposed to. It also takes place when the concept of "reproductive freedom" is extended to the right of M to avoid the consequences of her mistakes by inflicting violence upon D.

How is babby formed?

Again, I'm not important enough to hack. But Roebots seem to be clueless as to how girl get pragnent.

When I point out that banning aborion doesn't give the unborn more rights than the born, they say [crap] like "give me your kidneys then". They seem to be under the impression that fetuses just walk around the streets looking for women to "glom onto", and that having an abortion is just refusing permission.

But I hope anyone arguing on the internet knows where babies come from, so I'll spare you another Post 239.

The offspring in no way chooses his position; it is forced upon him by the mother. And abortion occurs after implantation, and is performed by actively killing the prenate, not merely "unplugging". To have an abortion is therefore analogous to bringing someone onto a cruise in their sleep and dropping them in the middle of the ocean. After all, who are we to force you to carry him on your ship to Bermuda.

But I guess this is all irrelevant since granting the unborn their human rights and insisting women take responsibility for your actions is just a punishment for sexuality.

For more, see Libertarians for Life's article "Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy, Comments on why the prenatal child has the right under individual liberty to be in the mother's womb".

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.

"People-seeds"

Libertarians for Life have a great article debunking Thomson's violinist argument. I will now tackle her much weaker "People Seeds" argument:

Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.

The analogy is very laughable, but let's consider it at face value. You open the window, well aware of the risk. Then, the "people-seeds" take root.

Here comes the problem. Thomson says you would then have the right to remove them from your home. She made the same mistake in the violinist argument; she confuses negative rights with positive rights. Following this analogy, all that could be done is induced labor. For an argument against induced labor before viability, see the boat analogy.

So, to imporve the analogy, let's say that the people seeds plant, and one comes up to you asking for food. You then proceed to poison her, or dismember her, or burn her, or... you get the point. You would then rightfully be charged with murder.

"Slut-punishing" cont.

I feel I should expand upon Post 59. Pregnancy is not a punishment. It doesn't even happen randomly.

When a woman gets pregnant, just like anyone else in any other situation, she may react the situation in any way that does not violate someone else's rights.

I have been told that banning abortion somehow harms women, banning rape and murder doesn't hurt people, and that it should therefore be legal. But what that basically says is, regardless of its morality, homicide should be permitted if it allows one to excape an inconvenience or a responsibility.

Abolition harmed plantation owners. Does that make slavery okay, regardless of its morality?

Thought you'd enjoy this.

As part of my ongoing series on American prudery, I give you this.

Durr... it's medical!

Describing abortion as a "legal medical procedure" does nothing for it. So is circumscision. But both are performed on nonconsenting parties.

I also had someone say that doctors take an oath to do no harm, so abortions would never be performed if the prenate was a person.

1. This assumes oaths are unbreakable.
2. This is an argumentum ad verecundiam.
3. This ignores the fact that doctors are often forced to perform them (especially after Obama rescinded conscience protection).
4. Holocaust executions were done by "doctors".

Come on!

When will it stop? Every time this happens, pro-life groups condemn it. The criminals aren't associated with the mainstream pro-life movement, and this particular one seems to have had a mental disorder.

Can the Roebots get any dumber?

Yes. Yes they can.

Progress

Similar to the "It's legal" [nonsense], I will not accept the ad novitatem argument that abortion used to be illegal and now isn't. Even if I grant that the law, overall, tends toward the truth, it can have hiccups along the way.

Durr.. it's legal!

I am willing to debate abortion, but any arguments that defend abortion because the law says it's okay will be promptly ignored in the order in which they are recieved.

Terminology

http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/on-political-euphemisms-pro-choice/

In American political dialog, "pro-X" means "pro-right to X". For instance, I am pro-gambling, but I still see gambling as a stupid thing to do. I am pro-gun, and I *also* think everyone should own a gun.

Following this pattern, "pro-choice" means "pro-right to choose". Sounds good on the surface, but think harder. "Choose" is a transitive verb. Right to choose what?

Choose to own a gun or choose to rob a bank? Choose to gamble or choose to rape your daughter?

Choose to be a prostitute or choose to murder?

There exists a right to do this and a right to do that, but no right to choose. What are we talking about?

Robbery? I'm anti-choice. Gambling? I'm pro-choice.

Murder? I'm anti-choice. Smoking? I'm pro-choice.

Pro-choice on gambling is pro-gambling.

Pro-choice on owning slaves is pro-slavery.

Pro-choice on owning guns is pro-gun.

Pro-choice on having an abortion is pro-abortion.

"Pro-X" can also be translated as "pro-choice on X" or "pro-right to choose X".

Now let's examine "pro-life". Pro-life = pro-right to live. "Live" is an intransitive verb. You live, and that's it. You don't live anything but a life. "Pro-life", like "pro-choice", encompasses more than abortion, however. "Pro-life" refers to a Consistent Life Ethic.

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.