I use what I have. Is that so wrong?
It’s consistent with their stated goals.
For your theory to be true, they would have to have unstated, actual goals. My theory’s evidence is the actual language of the movement.
So it’s you that needs to show that there’s a “real,” unarticulated, secret set of goals in lieu of their stated goals.
It’s guys like you that make it so hard for those of us who seek to get by on our intelligence and work ethic. And who have fat asses.
Go on, shake it, honey, you won’t break it. Use what yo momma gave you.
Hmm, I should probably know the answer to this question, but the talk of frozen embryos makes me realize I don’t:
Do pro-life activists ever picket/protest fertility clinics? If someone believes life begins at conception, then wouldn’t they also believe that the discarding of frozen embryos is morally equivalent to abortion?
(Sorry to interrupt from the admittedly heady distraction that Bricker’s ass is providing, but… )
I don’t know about the protests & pickets, but most anti abortion rights people I know oppose discarding frozen embryos.
It isn’t as much on the front burner, though. You can look at that in two ways - it’s less common than abortion is the charitable interpretation. A less charitable one is that it is far less good for PR. Most people see fertility clinics as good places, and don’t see a frozen embryo as being anything to particularly worry about. Acting the same way towards infertile couples seeking a child would lose them much of the middle ground in a way that assailing dirty ass sluts who got knocked up because they couldn’t keep their legs closed would not.
Again say what you want. You are perfect Diana, you have never made one mistake in your life. Congrats!!!
i bow to you pefection. You are the typo/grammar, punctuation and spelling police!!!
Actually, I also consider chimpanzees, not even bright ones, to be persons. Technically, they’re not Homo Sapiens but they’re pretty close. Many people campaign to treat apes with the respect we treat humans. I support these measures. Again, I use my knowledge of science to come to that conclusion. In fact, our animal humane laws do take into consideration that many animals have some higher cognitive functions. So do very strict regulations on animal research.
OTOH, humans are tribal (including me). My family comes first. Then I worry about other species. We as a nation don’t even value the lives of people outside our nation. Hell, not even all our citizens lives are are respected. It’s not surprising that we would treat even more foreign entities like apes with less respect. So I don’t expect the most Americans to think like I do.
But you’re stretching personhood to an extreme. Your person isn’t even multicellular (or only a hundred or so cells).
We are talking about abortion here. Discarding a frozen embryo is not abortion. The embryo has not yet been implanted into the mother’s uterus.
I purposely left some spelling an grammar mistakes in this post for you to correct.
But it is a human embryo, so why doesn’t its life count, if saving teeeeeeeeeeeny tiny humans is what you’re all about?
So life begins at implantation?
It’s a stupid place to draw a line, but very slightly less stupid than conception.
classyladyhp, if you’re for real here, I gotta tell you that’s a big fat fail.
If you believe that life begins at conception, then discarding these frozen embryos, which have definitely been conceived, is premeditated murder.
Yes, as a general statement, the pro-life movement opposes discarding frozen embryos. However, there’s no good way to delineate which patrons of fertility clinics are there to discard frozen embryos, and because much of the other services provided are supported by the movement, and because the numbers of people involved are so dramatically few when compared to abortion seekers, fertility clinics are not a (ahem) fruitful ground for protests.
Indeed we are talking about abortion. But choie specifically asked about frozen embryos. Hence I answered that question.
So your position now is that life begins at implantation. I am presuming then you have no objection to birth control methods that allow conception but prevent implantation.
Can you explain what it is about the moment of implantation that creates a human being with rights?
Can you point out these pro-choicers who objected and why they objected and point out the pro-lifers who expressed uniform support? At the point of your post I only see 3 direct responses to the scenario.
One pro-choice was for but suggested that pro-lifers were against for the reasons of being against the state taking care of the incubation and eventual baby. Then there was one pro-choice that had legal consideration and also suggested the reality that the procedure would be invasive, thus destroying your whole hypothetical. I only see on pro-life who was all for it but that person doesn’t think about things in depth.
How do you arrive at your consensus?
Me? If you had a magic machine that could extract objects from a body without anything invasive like a Star Trek transporter, you’d still have a problem. Who’s going to take care of the eventual baby? See, pro-choice people may include in their moral compass, the concern for the actual baby once it’s born. Because that actual, real baby may suffer without some kind of parents.
OMG, I just read classylady’s response to in vitro fertilization. So implantation is what gives the embryos the special sauce? Is that when the soul enters? WTF?
So it’s not about being pro-life, it’s about reaching the largest amount of people? What gives an embryo in the freezer less importance than an embryo in a womb? They have both been conceived and, by your reasoning, should be considered human beings worthy of life.
Kinda like there’s no good way to determine which patrons of any given Planned Parenthood are there for abortions?
Thanks for illustrating exactly how committed these protesters are to preserving human life.
There’s a real baby- hating tone in this post.