Posts tagged infant

emilye:

opinionlizard:

emilye:

opinionlizard:

emilye:

Nope.  Merely pointing out the inconsistency in accepting and admitting the truth that her unborn child is a human being while simultaneously supporting the denial of life to other unborn children on the grounds that they aren’t people.

It’s not a matter of denial of personhood. It’s about another organism using someone’s body without consent.

But I’m pretty sure we’re consistent when we repeatedly say “only the pregnant person can decide if the embryo they’re carrying is important.”

Just because someone can look at another human being and convince themselves they’re not really a human being doesn’t make it so.  How a woman sees her child doesn’t have any affect on who and what that child actually is.

Someone can call an embryo their infant all they like in the same manor that someone can call their boyfriend “honey” without said boyfriend actually being honey. Pet names for things you want to get attached to (such as a wanted embryo) exist as a means of bonding.

But even if, for the sake of argument I’m willing to say “sure, there’s an inconsistancy of what pro-choice people say an embryo is.”
What the embryo is is irrelevant.
It’s not a matter of denial of personhood. It’s about another organism using someone’s body without consent.

“Human being” is not a pet name; it is what the embryo is, a member of the race Homo sapiens  Calling a human mere “tissue” or a “clump of cells” are not pet names, and they do not accurately or entirely define what a human wholly is.  Convincing yourself an embryo or fetus isn’t a human being and convincing yourself that an embryo or fetus has no value or worth as a human being is entirely different from adopting pet names for a loved one.  You’re right, calling your boyfriend “honey” does not make him a sticky, sweet substance.  Similarly, calling a developing infant a worthless clot of tissue does not make it the truth.  

“What the embryo is is irrelevant.” — Thank you for getting to the heart of the issue.  If you don’t care what an embryo is, then of course you can justify it’s disposal.

“It’s not a matter of denial of personhood. It’s about another organism using someone’s body without consent.” — The woman’s consent was in the act, not in the result.Pregnancy is a very real, natural physiological process that can result from having sex.  If you don’t want to risk the possibility of creating a human being, then you might not want to risk having sex.  But thanks for taking the time to demonstrate your fundamental divorce from reality.

“The woman’s consent was in the act, not in the result.”
So I can only assume that, by demonstrating this method of thinking, you also believe that someone gives consent to be injured in a in a car accident? I mean they did commit the act of getting into a car.

“embryo is, a member of the race Homo sapiens”
And?
Tumors, parasitic twins, etc.

”Calling a human mere “tissue” or a “clump of cells” are not pet names,”
“[calling] a developing infant a worthless clot of tissue does not make it the truth”
Good thing I’m not calling it “tissue” or a “clump of cells,” eh? I like using medical terminology, like embryo.
You brought this argument of “IT’S NOT A CLUMP OF CELLS” into the ring, not me. I do not like calling things something they’re not.

“if you don’t care what an embryo is, then of course you can justify it’s disposal”
It’s not a matter of me caring what someone views an embryo as; it’s a matter of what the pregnant person views the embryo they’re carrying is.
There’s a difference between fact and philosophy. We have the facts about abortion, such as that embryos are not comparable to newborns (for many reasons) and that abortions done in clinics are safe procedures. The rest, the philosophical part of the debate, is out of fact’s hands. It’s up to the individual, because philosophical views vary from person to person. This is why choice (not being forced to abort, nor being forced to keep) is important.
To some people, and unwanted pregnancy is a burden that needs to be remedied. To others, it’s a life change that must be endured. It depends on the situation and your mindset, but because the facts tell us what we need to know, it’s up to the individual to choose. The already born and established person already experiencing what it’s like to live is always more important than an embryo. Always.

“thanks for taking the time to demonstrate your fundamental divorce from reality.”
lol

the-girl-from-hyrule:

I think it’s funny when I hear some of the pro-choice/pro-abortion slogans people use.

“Every child a wanted child” - mmmk, sounds good. There are kids who are abused by their caretakers because they are unwanted. Let’s round them up and off them. OR, since killing children is wrong, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. Unwanted pregnancy? Yes. Unwanted child….no. Believe it or not, there are 40 people waiting to adopt for every 1 child available. It’s the corruptions of the system that are the problem, not the kids involved.

“If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?” - What? Seriously? This is ridiculous…rather than addressing whether or not abortion is wrong, you go to the people who say it is and attack them personally. Some people who are prolife do not believe in gay marriage. How does homosexuality at all affect the argument at hand? I could say the same to you…if that fetus was a gay/lesbian, are you homophobic for killing him/her? Hmm?

“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” - ummm…we aren’t dealing with ovaries, it’s your uterus.

“If you can’t trust me with a choice how can you trust me with a child?” - Can I just change the situation for you? Reference this slogan to, say, incest. So to be fair, we should trust men to make that decision, to prove they can be trusted with a child. What? You are giving them the choice to an incestual relationship? Oh, no? Really?

“77% of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant.” -Wow. Ok first off? CNN Study shows 62% of Americans are prolife except in cases of rape/incest. 60% of women, and 61% of men. So a slightly larger number of men, but not slightly possible that “77%” is true.

Second of all, why the heck does it matter who is against it? If it’s wrong, then everyone should be against it. “50% of anti-child abuse leaders are not parents. 100% of them don’t have children to abuse.” …Just….just no.

“Hoes before embryos” - If this is feminist I don’t want to live in this world. You need abortion to give yourself more “rights”, so you refer to yourself as a Hoe? Smart, smart. So feminine, those derogatory terms.

“Keep abortion safe and legal” - Sorry, dearies. An abortion that always ends with a dead baby can never be safe.

“My body, My choice” - Agreed. That’s why it’s illegal for you to kill someone, because they have a right to live. Except, apparently, if they’re unborn.

“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” - Ohh, this one’s great. This is from the people who are “personally opposed to abortion”, but think women “should have the choice.” What? If it’s ok, why are you opposed to it “personally”? It’s either wrong or it’s not. Analogy: “If you don’t like rape, don’t rape people!” …Oh. That makes total sense.

“She’s a woman, not a womb!” - …response: It’s a child, not a choice.

“We’ll never go back” (picture of coathanger)” - Come on now. This implies that anything that is unsafe, even if it’s wrong, should be made legal. So rape should be legal and safe, because if the woman is good at self-defense he might get hurt! Oh, and stabbing people…what if the person getting stabbed manages to get the knife and win the fight?! Oh my goodness we should totally protect murderers.

“End the war on women” - Not going to lie, life for women SUCKS. We get 70 cents to a man’s $. But do these “feminists” supporting abortion comprehend that 50% of those dead babies are little girls? Or do you ignore that for your cause? Abortion is not feminist. Feminism wouldn’t support killing young women. Or men, I would hope.

“Some people who are prolife do not believe in gay marriage. How does homosexuality at all affect the argument at hand”
The right to marry is a right. The right to adopt children is a right. You’re not supporting their rights (plural) if you completely abandon defending their rights after they’re born.
You saying “gays can’t marry or adopt, but hey! We don’t want to murder them!” is NOT defending their rights.

“we aren’t dealing with ovaries, it’s your uterus.”
At least you’re honest about wanting to control other people’s uteruses.

“You need abortion to give yourself more “rights”, so you refer to yourself as a Hoe?..those derogatory terms”
Because people who call themselves a “hoe” don’t deserve equal rights, right?

”An abortion that always ends with a dead baby can never be safe.”


“That’s why it’s illegal for you to kill someone, because they have a right to live. Except, apparently, if they’re unborn.”
You don’t get rights as a citizen until you’re born.

“If it’s ok, why are you opposed to it “personally”? It’s either wrong or it’s not. Analogy: “If you don’t like rape, don’t rape people!”
Still comparing rape to abortion? *slow clap*
Rape is a sexual assault that deals with sexual assault/battery without someone’s consent. It’s not a personal issue that affects only one person. It negatively affects another person and can harm them physically or emotionally and can cause the victim to suffer needless during or way after the incident.
To compare this to a embryo that cannot feel physical sensations, cannot suffer, cannot feel or convey emotions is rather demeaning to rape victims.

“It’s a child, not a choice.”
Manipulative language is cool, right?
An embryo is not a child. The world child describes born offspring.

“This implies that anything that is unsafe, even if it’s wrong, should be made legal… rape should be legal and safe, because if the woman is good at self-defense he might get hurt! Oh, and stabbing people…self defense.”
No, it implies that medical procedures should be done in a clean safe environment by trained people who know what they’re doing.

Rape and attempted murder involve negatively affecting/harming people without their consent, and victims of either suffer greatly whether it’s physical, emotional, or psychological pain. These things aren’t illegal simply because they’re unsafe; they’re illegal because they negatively affect another person without their consent.
A back alley abortion involves reproductive health procedure that is meant to be elective, but is so unsafe that people die from it when it could be done safely if it were illegal. It’s a medical procedure, not an assault.

I didn’t think I would ever have to explain the difference between rape/attempted murder and a medical procedure.

Nice reasoning though. It’s nice to see people who are so compassionate about others that you shrug off suffering and victims of back alley abortions, rape, and attempted murder.

“do these “feminists” supporting abortion comprehend that 50% of those dead babies are little girls?”
An embryo can’t identify as a gender.


“Pro-choice logic” indeed.

(Source: manhattanmidnights)

wewillnotbeputtoshame:

Okay. A fetus is not by definition a baby.

Or a child.

Or a person.

But it is still human.

No matter what term you use, there is one thing people and the unborn have in common: they are human. And they are the same humans.

When I was in my mother’s womb, I may have not been by definition a “child” or a “person”, but I was still the same being that I am today. I was less developed, but I was still the same. 

So tell me, how can you say that just because something is in a different stage in its life, it is not the same? When pro-life posters and pictures use the term “baby” or “child”, you can say “an embryo/fetus is not a child!” all you want, but you can’t deny that it is the same being (or organism, or whatever term you like to use) in and out of the womb. 

But I guess I’ve always had it wrong. I always thought it was wrong to kill another human. When all this time, it was only wrong to kill another “person.” What we are made up of, our DNA (etc), does not make us special. Being simply human is not what makes us special and worth something. It is now our autonomy, our citizenship, the people who love us and only the state we are in after we are born that makes us worth something. According to this argument, humans are worthless unless they are, by definition, “people” (or wanted by a “person”).

“When I was in my mother’s womb, I may have not been by definition a “child” or a “person”, but I was still the same being that I am today. I was less developed, but I was still the same.”
Terminology is a study that exists. I shouldn’t have to elaborate farther but I will if requested.

“I always thought it was wrong to kill another human. When all this time, it was only wrong to kill another “person.” What we are made up of, our DNA (etc), does not make us special.”
That’s right (sorta!), which is why tumors, which have human DNA, are allowed to be removed/destroyed/killed.

“humans are worthless unless they are, by definition, “people”
Mind-blowing concept, isn’t it?

(Source: isaiah-50-7)

fight-forlife:

Four things differentiate a human fetus from a newborn.  They’re easy to remember with the acronym SLED. 

Size and physical appearance: Larger, more attractive people do not have more rights than others.  The civil rights movement has       established beyond a doubt that discrimination based on physical attributes is wrong.

Level of development: In a democracy,  people do not lose rights simply because they lack the abilities possessed by others.

Environment: Fetuses within the womb can be killed, but those of the same age who are born prematurely receive full legal protection.  And yet, intuitively, we know that one’s status as a person does not change when they change locations. 

Degree of dependency: All children are dependent on caregivers, as are people with disabilities.  The idea that degree of dependency defines one’s value insults the equality of  these persons.

Are “persons” those who can sustain their lives independently?

This definition is inadequate because many human persons, such kidney dialysis patients, people with disabilities, and young children, require outside help to remain alive.

Are “persons” those who are part of society?

Humans who cannot communicate (or who choose not to, such as hermits) are still persons with rights.

Are unconscious humans merely “potential persons” without rights?

If this is so,  many individuals other than the unborn do not have the rights of a person either.  Newborn babies, people knocked unconscious, and coma victims should not be treated as persons.  They could,  if inconvenient circumstances arise, lose their right to life and be killed.

Source: http://secularprolife.org/files/person.pdf

Your forgetting one crucial detail that makes your entire argument crumble:
You are granted rights upon birth. Once you’re born, you are legally, without a doubt, a person, because you are no longer occupying the body of someone else and you’re fully using your own for body processes rather than theirs.

Disabled people? Young children? Unconscious humans? People on dialasis and breathing machines? They’ve all been born. They’re all citizens. They all have rights.

An embryo has not been born, it’s still using it’s carrier for it’s body processes, most cannot survive without said carrier performing those body processes, and it’s not a citizen.