“My Body, My Choice” and Other Pro-Abortion Myths

Incorrect, unless you have polling data to indicate the opposite.

Reproductive rights include the right to choose who you want to reproduce with, i.e., choosing the partner you want to have sex with.  Eliminating an innocent life is not a reproductive right.

I guess the same way Planned Parenthood is helping people plan for parenthood.  Words' altered meanings have been repeated so many times that many people now accept that up is down and black is white.

I totally agree I’m in the minority.

the way I see it, an unborn child doesn’t cease to be a living human (meritorious of rights) just because of how they were conceived.  A woman has every right to decide what happens with her body.  She should not have a right to decide what happens to any other body that is involved.

Same thing I tell all my students.

The more Buttigieg speaks, the more he comes across as a condescending, ignorant fascist.

The way he scolds Christians for their behavior and morals is laughable. I don't give a damn who Pastor Pete decides to sleep with or call his "partner", but to cherry pick the Bible and attempt to come off as morally superior is the height of hypocrisy. There is no way that Buttigieg can believe the Bible and not know his choice of engaging in homosexual acts will prevent him from going to heaven. He uses his so called "faith" as a weapon to bludgeon good people into doubting their righteousness.

In a word, he is a dick.

It depends on how you define life before you can definitively say that you know when it begins.

The practical definition I have always used is the ability to replicate, live independently, obtain and consume nutrients, and metabolize independently(which is how I try to explain to people that viruses are not "alive" and therefore cannot be "killed" with antibiotics......... but, my God, that's often a losing battle)

There are shortcomings with this definition because there are some types of bacterial forms and parasites that can only "live" within other living organisms. They would seem to be "alive" but they do fully not fit the above definition.

The term "alive" is open to definition, frankly. Can you call a 4-week fetus technically alive if it cannot independently feed itself or live outside the uterus? That is why I cannot insist that all abortions constitute terminating a life. Certainly I would say beyond approximately 26 weeks that is the case.

While with rare exceptions abortion at any stage is morally repugnent in my personal opinion, it is merely my opinion. There is legitimacy in some of the opposing opinions and I have a difficult time justifying the imposition of mine.

It is evil to justify routine abortions near and certainly after term, certainly, but I think it is completely unrealistic to try to outlaw abortion en toto. Practically speaking, a ban could not be enforced and it would be as disruptive as any issue in this country since the Civil Rights Act and maybe even slavery. A compromise has to be reached and the activists at either end of the spectrum are not helping.....................................Luca

"Last part, first: that it cannot be completely enforced is not sufficient justification to not make a law and enforce it "

That's true. I didn’t include my major premise. What I should have said is that it is unrealistic to outlaw abortion given that it is not widely accepted or understood what the definition of a human life is. If we were all in agreement that human life begins at inception then we would have a morally compelling case for establishing such a law.



"... because, I don’t accept that “alive” is open to definition."

I understand. But, as you say, you are in a minority as regards that belief and therefore establishing such a law is not only legally dubious, it is a practical impossibility.


"a sperm is living. An egg is living... they combine and the result is living. The embryo or zygote or fetus is both living (it is not dead, it is not inert or inanimate) and human (it is not a Izard or a monkey or an algae)... as I told MDDad, I do realize I am in the minority when I affirm abortion should be outlawed en toto:"


If you don't believe that the definition of alive is open to interpretation, then I would be interested in seeing your definition of "alive" that applies under all circumstances. If your definition of alive is "that which is not dead or inanimate", that doesn’t clarify anything. It doesn’t define the meaning of "alive."

A sperm does not ingest nutrients or by itself reproduce, but you say it is alive. In that event, let's take the example of MDDad whose feverish proclivity for auto-stimulation in high school and college is well-known to us all. With each climactic episode then was he taking a quarter of a million lives? Is he therefore one of the greatest mass murderers in history?

If you perform a hysterectomy and remove the ovaries just as a woman has ovulated, have you taken a human life?

I am assuming you would say no to the above questions. In each case you have destroyed a "life" by your definition, but have you destroyed a human life? I don’t think that's a logical conclusion. Even if we assume your definition of "alive" - which still is not entirely clear to me - we have to distinguish between a living organism and a living human……………………………………….Luca