for those still following along- to disagree and say the human life growing in the mom’s belly is an individual is to say the mother cannot be an individual.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 1:28 AM

What is this? Theology?

Reproduction happens when one individual creates more. This is the main fallacy of the pro-abortion lobby when they say a woman has a right to her own body. Yes, but in this case, there are two or more bodies. And the abortionist has to believe that one body has rights when the others do not. If the baby has a right to its own body, should we kill the mother?

The answer is that we should not take the life of either. Abortionists know this but seek the cover of synthetic arguments to cover what is brutality.

I admire your ability at conspiracy theories. Could you tell how 9/11 happened?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Bush did it, obviously.

But seriously, your flippancy is tiresome. You’re either a) truly historically ignorant of Sanger’s place in history as a eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood specifically towards targetting the poor, minorities, the disabled, and other people she deemed unfit or b) exceedingly duplicitous and feigning ingnorance for no discernable reason other than it suits your socio-political prefences.

I can correct a), I can’t do anything about b).

No conspiracy theory needs be involved. Planned Parenthood supports one-child policies worldwide. It’s entire overseas message is that children are burdens, Michelle Malkin’s site has more than a few posts on this if you go looking.

END ALL PP FUNDING, PERIOD!

You’re making a fool of yourself. If your argument that individual is defined as indivisible is correct, and the mother is indivisible, then giving birth makes the mother no longer an individual because she has divided the baby from herself.

You can’t possibly argue that the baby one hour before birth is substantially different from the baby one minute after birth.

tom on May 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM

More concise for you- at any point in pregnancy, to say the mom possesses an actual individual inside her makes her divisible, i.e. the mom is NOT an individual. So, which is it? She cannot be an individual and not be one at the same and under the same conditions? Answer; of course, the mom is an individual. What she is carrying is not (until its born, of course).

Regarding your second point, I’ve not once quantified nor do I plan to quantify the magnitude of difference that exists before and after birth. That there is a difference is all I’m saying and all that is needed.

I would oppose the genocide of Dalit, if I thought such a thing were happening. But the ruling Indian political class would allow no such thing to happen.

Since you feel free to ask me if I support a genocide, I’d like to know if you support the death penalty for sodomy?

thuja on May 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

No, of course not.

The political class of India did encourage targeted involuntary sterilization of the Dalit often resulting in deaths among the women who were cut up. That’s historical record, beyond argument.

PP has been involved in these overseas one-child policies. Here’s a link to one of them: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/international-program/india-country-program-19007.htm

They are not just a US organization, Thuja. OBVIOUSLY. They are wherever a money can be made off their gruesome trade.

for those still following along- to disagree and say the human life growing in the mom’s belly is an individual is to say the mother cannot be an individual.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

beselfish on May 30, 2012 at 1:28 AM

You’re making a fool of yourself. If your argument that individual is defined as indivisible is correct, and the mother is indivisible, then giving birth makes the mother no longer an individual because she has divided the baby from herself.

You can’t possibly argue that the baby one hour before birth is substantially different from the baby one minute after birth.

You’re just defining your terms in such a way as to justify abortion. We humans call this, “rationalization.”

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I agree the fetus has its own heart and brain, etc.. however an individual as in a human individual is a separate whole entity, right? It’s not just that our brains and heart and such are disinct and separate from one another its that as a whole human we are each individuated.

This is getting silly. it’s obvious what it means to be an individuated, separate, distinct isn’t it?

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM

A beating heart, and an active brain with its own brain waves. I just listed half a dozen ways that the baby is separate from the mother, even though in the mother’s womb. It’s quite obviously a separate being, even though tied to the mother through the umbilical cord.

The baby is its own individual, with its own DNA. This is basic biology. You’re better off trying to argue, “But it’s not really human.” Because if you’re going to try to argue that it’s just part of the mother, you’re already lost the argument.

Part and parcel to being an individual is to be indivisible, i.e. NOT divisible. If you say the fetus is an actual individual, the mother is then divisible in terms of individuality(a contradiction) therefore NOT an individual which is, of course, absurd.

Reality is truth. Watch and observe it sometime. It just makes sense.

E-R

tom on May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I agree the fetus has its own heart and brain, etc.. however an individual as in a human individual is a separate whole entity, right? It’s not just that our brains and heart and such are disinct and separate from one another its that as a whole human we are each individuated.

This is getting silly. it’s obvious what it means to be an individuated, separate, distinct isn’t it?

Pretty good Tom. A beaver has a seperate brain from the mother too but its not a human individual. The fetus is not separate from the mother. Its not an individual

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It’s hard for a beaver to be a human individual. Being, you know, a beaver.

Not sure how that helps your argument. Babies aren’t beavers. Really. Check the science books if you don’t believe me. I think even Wikipedia gets that one right.

Individual – existing as a distinct entity, i.e . a separate entity. The fetus in the somb is not separate therefore it is at best a potential individual.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Separate brain. Separate heart. Separate mind. Separate personality. Able to respond to the sound of the mother’s voice. Separate blood supply. Separate fingers. The baby in the womb is a separate being attached by an umbilical cord. Even though borne in the mother’s womb, it is not part of the mother’s body.

Ergo, your whole argument fails.

And this is especially true if the baby is old enough that you can figure out the gender.

Which is where we came into this discussion.

Seriously, I don’t know where your zeal for killing babies comes from but you are not going to win the argument here by claiming it just makes sense to abort the unwanted babies to save public funds.

Happy Nomad on May 29, 2012 at 11:16 AM

And how should we judge your zeal to eliminate welfare programs even in the face of evidence that they feed starving children? Christ-like?

libfreeordie on May 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Starving children are only fed if the government does it?

Charity doesn’t count unless it’s funneled through Congress?

You’re building a straw man.

Americans don’t wan the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

That’s the goal of some, that’s always the goal, and it isn’t happening. Regardless of how they approach it.
…..
Moesart on May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Yeah, no one’s buying that opposition to abortion on demand is “putting the government in charge of pregnancy.” It’s just a ridiculous argument. That’s like saying that laws against murder is “putting the government in charge of the funeral industry.”

If you’re unable to stop weeping at the thought of an unwanted POTENTIAL individual, grow up and deal with reality honestly. Rights are for ACTUAL individuals. And hang up the religious mantra too- deal with REALITY!

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Abortion kills an ACTUAL individual, not a POTENTIAL individual.

Maybe you have it confused with CONTRACEPTION.

Where is that wrong? Serious question. Proof if you have it.