Life Begins at...
From iGeek
Science says life begins at conception. Period. Now where should a human life get rights/protection?
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2019-09-23 |
| Left | Right |
|---|---|
| Life begins at conception for every other mammal and bi-sexed creature, except humans. That doesn't fit the political agenda. So life begins at birth for Humans. Denying that violates a panumbra right not enumerated in the Constitution. | Science says life begins at conception... or at least something like heartbeat, brainwaves or viability... Abortion is a complex moral issue about the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the mother -- but the scientific part isn't very fuzzy. And a panumbra is a political rationalization, not a constitutional protection. |
Facts[edit | edit source]
- Science says life begins at conception. Once two halves of the DNA join, and you get a new DNA, in a new living cell? That's life. Once that cell splits? It's a growing life. Period.
- The left thinks that by admitting to that scientific reality (or any fact that's in the way of their agenda) that they are surrendering. But the truth is where life begins is not the same as where should the law/Humans recognize a clump of parasitic cells, as a human worthy of protection? That may or may not be at the instant of conception, even if conception is where life begins.
- Something like 1/3rd of pregnancies end in miscarriage, likely more if you include ones where women didn't even know they were pregnant. So Women (and Men) don't become attached to every late period... nor should they. There is potential in those splitting cells, but a lot of them naturally abort for good reasons: bad chemical ju ju is happening, and the priomordial stew might not be quite right. Bringing a life to term is expensive, and a genetically/physically flawed life is more expensive. So nature doesn't take many chances and flushes early and often, just to avoid that waste.
- Where most humans start putting a lot more value on a potential life is where they value their sick relatives. Is there still a heartbeat, brainwaves or viability? If there's none of those, we tend to be fairly willing to pull plugs. And the same for many "babies". While the ethical medium begins significantly before birth (or where abortion activists put it), it is usually more like 8-12 weeks in... and often more at quickening (when the Mom can start feeling the activity, and seeing the bump move).
- So there's some grey areas. And being Libertarian'ish, I tend to want to give individuals as much authority to decide as possible (and limit the state on controlling). Thus, I'm not on either extreme that thinks it's just a parasitic clump of cells until the final seconds of birth, nor that it's a sentient being from the merging of the first two cells and before implantation. I fall where the majority do, that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, but at viability it's getting way too murder-ish for me.
Morals[edit | edit source]
So abortion is a complex moral issue -- but the scientific part isn't that fuzzy.
If you want to get deeper into the medical, ethical or legal implication, I suggest you dive into my Abortion slides/article. But my point in this one is just that the left has an absurd anti-Science position claiming that birth is when we should confer status of being "alive", when by all measures, that has to happen long before birth.
The left ignores science for political agenda and claims it doesn't begin until a full term fetus's little toe is out of the birth canal: up until then, killing it the viable baby is the mother's choice, and just getting rid of a parasitic clump of cells. In fact, if the baby is born alive by accident, you can neglect it until it dies. They think it's actually not actually "alive" until the mother decides she wants to keep it? Where the fuck is their moral compass? And they think they have the moral high ground?
Just ask a Woman who felt the baby moving and lost it though miscarriage, if she thought it was alive. If it was never alive, and she just lost a tumor (clump of cells), why should there be any grief?
The far-left / activist view is, as usual, absurd and insulting to our intelligence.
Video[edit | edit source]
Bill Burr  |
|---|
Bill Burr on abortion... like making a birthday cake. |
👁️ See also
- Abortion - Abortion is a deeply personal view, but someone's views on it is a window into their soul.
- Abortion/Toastmasters - I did a toastmasters speech (2008) on my views on Abortion.
- Abortion/Life or Choice breakdown - The majority of Americans are both for and against abortion. Most want it more restricted, but legal (in some cases).
- Abortion/By Party - General support/opposition for abortion is nearly the same across parties.
- Abortion/By Term - The vast majority of Americans want more restrictions.
- Abortion/Number per Year - ≈800K abortions per year, or twice as many American deaths as WWII.
- Abortion/By Ethnicity - Margaret Sanger founded planned parenthood on the idea of exterminating inferior brown babies, so they'd stop outbreeding white ones.
- Abortion/Why? - Abortion for Health of Mother (2.8%), Health of Fetus (3.3%), or rape/incest (>1%), total = <6%.
- Abortion/Why late term? - The vast majority of late term abortions are not about "Fetal Problems", or "health of the mother". It's irresponsibility.
- Abortion Limits - The far left lies, and pretends any reasonable restriction is a "war on reproductive rights".
- Roe v. Wade - Roe v. Wade fits my personal beliefs (1st Trimester legal, 3rd illegal), but it was a lousy and Unconstitutional ruling.
- Roe is Judicial Activism - "Blackmun’s papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference"
- Roe v. 10th and 11th Amendments - The dissenting opinion pointed out that the 10th and 11th both disagreed with Blackmun's interpretation of the 14th.
- Roe v. 14th Amendment - Blackmun used 14th Amendment as an excuse for enacting Roe. But the authors, ratifiers, others never noticed it before.
- Roe v. Legal Review - No Legal Review has ever come up with a substantive defense of Roe. Which is why the distract with whataboutism.
- Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill wrapped in the facade of being about Women's healthcare.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
| |
Tags: Left Lies Alt-Science Abortion Slides Roe Slides
