House Panel Hears 4 Hours Of Testimony On Human Life Amendment

This afternoon, Subcommittee One of the House Judiciary Committee heard more than 4 hours of testimony from proponents and opponents of House Resolution 536; the Human Life Amendment.

State Rep. Martin Scott (R – Rossville), the primary sponsor of the legislation, presented the proposed constitutional amendment saying, “The evidence is clear that life begins at conception. We need to enshrine it in the Constitution.”

“Now is the time. Georgia is the place. Let us vote and let them live,” Rep. Scott concluded.

H.R.536 proposes to amend Georgia’s Constitution so as to define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization. During the hearing, both Democratic and Republican committee members expressed reservations to the proposed constitutional amendment.

State Rep. Ed Lindsey (R – Atlanta), the chair of the subcommittee considering H.R.536, expressed his concerns about the legislation saying, “I don’t see how we make exceptions for incest or rape.”

Democrat Mary Margaret Oliver asked, “If life begins at conception, how can a IUD (Intrauterine Device) be lawful?”

The hearing also included testimony from Georgia State University and University of Georgia law professors who raised concerns about the constitutionality of the legislation. According to one of the professors, if H.R.536 were passed, it might open up a Pandora’s box of problems as it relates to personhood (could a fetus have the legal right to sue its mother for smoking during the pregnancy?) or eventually be struck down by the courts as violating Georgia’s single-subject rule.

Other groups in opposition to the legislation were traditional pro-life groups such as the Georgia Catholic Association and the Archdiocese of Atlanta and Savannah.

Representatives from Georgia Right to Life, a pro-life group supporting the bill, spoke in favor of the Human Life Amendment saying, “We are at all bashful at admitting that there are egregious assaults on human dignity. We believe we are laying the foundation for human dignity.”

“We believe all rights must be secondary to the right to life,” the Georgia Right to Life spokesman concluded.

Catherine Davis, a frequent candidate for Congress, agreed with Georgia Right to Life saying, “Her right to choose was before she got pregnant.”

“I disagree,” state Rep. Able Mable Thomas said.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee will hold another hearing on Wednesday, February 20th at 2:00p.m. in room 406 of the Coverdell Legislative Office Building.

143 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    “We believe all rights must be secondary to the right to life,” the Georgia Right to Life spokesman concluded.”

    This comment should be enshrined all by itself into the Musuem of Complete Lunacy.

  2. Ms_midtown says:

    Let’s vote on it.
    The people of Georgia deserve to know where their state representatives are on this issue.

  3. BubbaRich says:

    I don’t want to know how many state reps we have who are stupid enough to support this, even if they’re just cheap panderers.

    Catherine Davis sounds like a cheap GOPeach wannabe. Buncha zygote worshippers.

    More seriously, there are things to argue about fetuses that have functioning brains. But I don’t think a single-celled zygote is anything except, perhaps, a Georgia politician.

  4. Romegaguy says:

    Wouldnt you have to run for Congress more than twice to be described as a “frequent candidate for Congress”? Just curious

  5. profg says:

    Bill:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE…”

    Take away the right to life, and all other rights — including liberty and the pursuit of happiness — become meaningless.

  6. Bill Simon says:

    ProfG (and, anyone else),

    The statement you quote from the declaration says “all men are created equal with the right to life..”

    Amoebas, zygotes, blastocysts, fetuses, etc., are NOT “men” or “women.” Therefore, they possess no right to life as they are not human beings until they are born.

    Any other interpretation of this part of the Declaration is an attempt to shove your religious beliefs down someone else’s throat as that is all thei amendment is for.

    SHOW ME ONE Atheist who believes that a one-cell amoeba, a zygote, a blastocyst, or an embryo is equal to a human being, and I will listen to THAT person explain it to me.

    All of this other stuff is just religious extremism disguised.

    I’m not of your religion, ProfG…and, I have a right NOT to be a member of your religion. THAT happens to be spelled-out in the Constitution. Your claims were mysteriously omitted in the Bill of Rights.

  7. Clint Austin says:

    Bill,

    To say only atheists can have an opinion on this subject is exactly the kind of unconstitutional bias you are complaining about.

    A person of faith has every right to vote on the basis of their religious beliefs. The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state church, but it does not prohibit the faithful from pursuing public policy objectives that are motivated by their faith.

    Again, if you jump to that non-Constitutional conclusion, you create a public square fit only for atheists. This was not the Founders’ intention.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Clint,

    HUH?

    I was NOT saying that “only atheists should have an opinion” on this subject.

    What I am saying is that unless you can find me an atheist who believes that a human being becomes a “man” or a “woman” AT the moment of conception, then the only thing the “pro-life movement” is is a religious movement whose purpose is to use the force of law to require others to abide by their religious edicts.

    In short, to actually violate the freedom of religion that is the intent of the First Amendment.

    You and others can “believe” all you wish…but, the laws of this country should not be allowed to be used to push your religious beliefs onto anyone else.

    If you do believe that it is okay to use the law to promote and enforce your religious beliefs on everyone else, then that’s okay for you to believe…but, I think you’d be happier perhaps joining the Taliban or some other religious group like that where they DO use their interpretation of the law to make people abide by their religious beliefs.

    There are many Christians and some Jews, and maybe even some Muslims who believe that a person exists. It is NOT based on any logic or scientific evidence, but only your “belief.”

    So, again, find me an atheist, a person who doesn’t succomb to a religious “belief” (as opposed to “knowledge”) to justify their support of personhood at the moment of conception, and I’m interested in talking to THAT person who can explain to me the non-religious basis that that zygote should be considered a person.

    Do you understand any of this, Clint?

  9. ksuowls81 says:

    On a side note I am very much pro-life, but I do not believe that this is the route that we should take in order to regulate abortion. All this will do is get struck down by federal courts, and millions upon millions of our tax dollars will be used in order to fight this seemingly impossible fight. Most NATIONAL life groups are against going this route and think that many smaller battles need to be won in legislation before we can deal the final death blow in this war.

  10. Old Vet says:

    The amendment states that every “innocent” person has a right to life. Under the doctrine of original sin – you’ve heard of that quaint concept, haven’t you – none of us is innocent, but rather are burdened with original sin from the moment of conception. The religionists who support this garbage are hoist on their own petards – the amendmetn is meaningless.
    Further, the only place the word “inalienable” appears in the Constitution of Georgia is – not surprisingly – the “inalienable” right to worship God. The word isn’t in teh US Consititution. So, if one cannot alienate, or forfeit, his or her right to life, doesn’t this proposed amendment end the death penalty? Imagine, a pro-life amendment that ends state-sanctioned killing!

  11. ksuowls81 says:

    I personally think that you are reaching a little bit with the doctrine of original sin. Original sin means the general condition of sinfulness into which human beings are BORN, not concieved. Many would tell you that this is distinct from actual sins being committed which would then take away your innocence.

  12. Bill Simon says:

    KSU,

    Thank you. I have put forth a question to the proprietor of GodlessProlifers…I will share with you the question and what his answer is to that question when I receive it.

  13. Thadius says:

    Looky Here Fellas,
    It really all comes down to this question:
    Is the “child, baby, fetus, zygote inside a woman’s womb” a person or a not-a-person?This whole discussion of unintended consequenses and legal obfuscation are irrelevant once that question is answered.
    Ya see, If the “child, baby, fetus, zygote inside a woman’s womb” is a person:
    Then it is our duty to protect him/ her with every ounce of energy and every bit of passion we have… no matter how he, she came into existence, no matter what other challenges he, she will face in life.

    But

    If the “child, baby, fetus, zygote inside a woman’s womb” is not a person:
    Then I agree… chop it up and throw it out… It’s the same as a wart of a tumor.

    That is what this all comes down to fellas.

  14. Bill Simon says:

    Thadeus,

    For years I’ve observed “bleeding-heart liberals” wring their hands and woe to us about everything THEY are concerned with.

    Now we have people like you and others who are “bleeding-heart Republicans” who devote more of their time working on ways to insert themselves into the lives of OTHER people rather than focusing on their own lives.

  15. Thadius says:

    I recognize your point of view Bill.
    You see my concern as an insertion into the lives of others.
    I expect you will agree that this is again due solely to your presupposition that the “child, baby, fetus, zygote inside a woman’s womb” is not a person in the same way a 2 year old is a person and my presupposition that the “child, baby, fetus, zygote inside a woman’s womb” is a person in the same way a 2 year old is a person.
    Let me put it this way, Mr. Simon:
    Is it an improper insertion or an unreasonable worry for me to want to interfere in the case of a neighbor taking the life of his/her one year old?

    And so you see, it does come back to the original question of personhood…

    And finally, Bill, would you prefer people of my presuppositional persuasion to not vigorously defend life?

    Your comments make it sound like we should not defend persons unless there is unanimous agreement in their personhood. Tell that to Dred Scott, Bill. Tell that to Dred Scott.

  16. Clint Austin says:

    Bill,

    You are making my point but don’t realize it. An American has every right to push for whatever law they want on any basis whatsoever, except for a law that violates the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says I cannot push for an established state church, but it does not prohibit me from fighting for a law to protect human life because my faith requires me to do so.

    Equating a law to protect life with an establishment of religion is a BIG stretch of logic that does not jive with a strict constructionist viewpoint.

    It also is simply false to say the Founders intended to construct a government where the only laws that would pass muster are those that can be justified strictly from an atheist viewpoint. That is just ludicrous.

  17. Bill Simon says:

    Clint,

    Ah…so, now you’re magically transporting your ESP back in time to project forward that the Founders did not mean to produce a secular-based government.

    Good claim. Invalid premise, though.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    Thadeus,

    Here’s the question I have for you: Are you 100% consistent in your “vigorous fight to protect life?”

    How do you feel about the innocent people, both existing children and adults who were killed by the US dropping bombs in Iraq, people who were only residents of that country by the luck of the draw? Did you weep at all for them, Thadeus?

    Or, do you only presume to weep and worry about the lives of non-existent humans…that is, the ones YOU presume to be empowered to speak on behalf of?

  19. Thadius says:

    Bill,
    When you have answered my questions directly:
    Is it an improper insertion or an unreasonable worry for me to want to interfere in the case of a neighbor taking the life of his/her one year old?
    and
    And finally, Bill, would you prefer people of my presuppositional persuasion to not vigorously defend life?
    I will answer yours directly.

  20. Old Vet says:

    The “original sin” comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. But it’s no sillier than the religionists’ attempt to force upon the rest of us the idea that a single cell is a “human.”
    BTW, I have seen attacks on stem cell research but not a peep about the fertility clinics that produce and flush thousands of microscopic “humans”. I guess there are some kinds of “genocide” that are OK.

  21. Bill Simon says:

    Thadeus,

    1) No, it is not unreasonable. A “1-year-old” is living outside the womb as an entirely independent human entity.

    2) If people of your “presuppositional persuasion” insist on telling people that the developing human entity contained within a womb IS a “man” or a “woman” right now, and one that we must treat in much the same way that you or I are treated, then NO, I would prefer you didn’t “vigorously defend life.”

    NOW, answer the question I posed to you without referring to these answers.

  22. BubbaRich says:

    Thadius:

    It’s fine for some people to vigorously propose laws based on their religious beliefs. It is not fine for them to lie (for some of them it’s even against their religion) and say that science is either the reason for their proposition or it completely supports their proposal.

    Now, to pin you down more, how do you define “life,” since you like to use it as a catchword to make people think they’re on your side? You need to define it in such a way that includes zygotes, but not cells from your cheek.

  23. Thadius says:

    “How do you feel about the innocent people, both existing children and adults who were killed by the US dropping bombs in Iraq, people who were only residents of that country by the luck of the draw? ” It’s a tragedy beyond comprehension. I regeret thier loss of life as much as I regret the loss of life of the non-combatant citizens of London circa 1944.

    “Did you weep at all for them, Thadeus?”
    Not, much of a weeper here Bill, but yes, I have prayed for them and hurt for them.

    “Or, do you only presume to weep and worry about the lives of non-existent humans…that is, the ones YOU presume to be empowered to speak on behalf of?” I take a portion of the responsibility (as a voter) for all of the lives which are taken legally in this nation, because I am in part responsible for the laws which allow them to be lost. I take more responsibility for the lives taken legally in GA as my share of responsibility is obviously greater on the state level than on the federal level.

    And you, Bill? Do you find it appropriate to stand up for anyone without a voice?

  24. Thadius says:

    Hubba Bubba,
    I define “a life” as a being which is individual / independent of another.
    The argument “But these zygotes are not individual or independent” is anwered below:
    Individual – Yes, the Zygote has a fully formed genetic code, already defining its full set of physical features and even some of its personality
    Independent – Only in the same way that a newborn is independent. I submit that a 1 week old is as dependent on others as a zygote is. But either one should thrive unless there is intentional harm brought upon it.

  25. Bill Simon says:

    Thadeus,

    THOSE lives could have been saved. Yet, you did not protest the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the war.

    You sat back and said “Yeah, yeah, yeah! Kill all the Muslims!”

    I do find it appropriate to stand-up for those who are physically unable to speak for themselves when it comes to a matter of justice.

    Since I (nor, by the way, do District Attorneys in this state) do not consider the existence of a fetus prior to the time it becomes “quickened,” to be equivalent to you or I, then no, I do not find it appropriate to “speak” for humans that are not yet viable outside of the womb.

  26. Groseclose says:

    Bill:

    Justice Kennedy recently wrote: “[T]he government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) (citing O’Conner’s majority in Casey) (Emphasis Added)
    He continued: “The State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1633 (2007).
    While I don’t believe O’Conner or Kennedy profess to be atheists, they certainly aren’t the darlings of the “religious” right. I think in your pursuit of what you deem to be “intellectual purity” provided only by atheists, you fail to consider much mainstream intellectual thought about the meaning of “life” within the context of the 14th Amendment.

  27. Bill Simon says:

    By the way…I think I’m going to change my mind on this whole issue now.

    I believe you folks need a lesson in reality. In order for you to learn that lesson, I am going to push for this Human Life Amendment to actually be put ON the ballot for this November.

    That’s right. I am for the initiative to be placed on the ballot and voted on.

    Do you wish to know why I am now for the legislation passing both houses and getting on the November 2008 ballot?

  28. Icarus says:

    Perhaps, Bill, because people like myself who consider themselves “pro-life” would still vote against it because it doesn’t have exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother,

    And those of us who are so squishy in our position combined with the people like yourself who are totally against it, will cause its defeat,

    And because, after it is defeated, the GRTL crowd will have virtually no political legs left to stand on?

    Am I getting close?

  29. ksuowls81 says:

    Bill,

    You have to stop commenting for a group of people. First Atheist, now DA’s. Working for law offices for the better part of my working life I can assure you that the above comment is not true with concern to many DA’s personal belief. I understand that you are using extremities to get your point across, but stop acting like the unofficial spokesman for a group of people.

    What this comes down to is personal belief. This is one of those debates that even scientist have differing opinions on. This isn’t a well he said this so it is true, or she said that so this is true. Everybody will continue to have changing views on this.

    As stated in one of the sites I posted above, in the Declaration of Independence it says that all men are CREATED equally. Not that all men come out of the womb equally. Creation begins at conception, there fore you would have to believe that our Founding Fathers that took the time to write and sign the Declaration of Independence, many of whom worked on and signed the Constitution, thought that the characteristic of equality, which is reserved for ever man and woman, began at conception (creation).

  30. Thadius says:

    Icarus,
    Is it a person or not?
    If yes, how can you possibly defend his/her termination because of the events surrounding his/her formation – tragic as they may be.

    If it is not a person, why are you pro-life?

    Honestly, you confound me more than Mr. Simon.

  31. Icarus says:

    Thadius,

    The fact that so many in the pro-life movement are resistant to any compromise, and choose to battle the people that agree with them on 90% of the issues, is the major reason that people that disagree with us on 100% of the issues continue to rule the day.

  32. BubbaRich says:

    ksu:

    Your founding fathers must have been equally careful to make sure they were only talking about the rights of _men_.

    That’s just as likely as any sort of bizarre presumption that they meant “conceived” when they said “all men are created equal.” I notice you try to change their words to “man and woman” in your paraphrase, but you’re just corrupting their gospel.

  33. ksuowls81 says:

    Thadius,

    While I am pro-life, some religion’s, like Judaism, believe that while in the womb a baby may be a person, if it endangers the mothers life that the mothers life is more preci0us then the babies.

    Being pro-life I have a hard time justifying taking the mothers life in any scenario. If I did feel like it was ok for a mother’s possible death to be the final step to a healthy baby then I would no longer be pro-life. Because I certainly would not be supporting the mother’s right to life. Yet again all tricky questions.

  34. Bill Simon says:

    KSU,

    ACTUALLY, I speak truthfully because I had an e-mail conversation recently with a prominent, REPUBLICAN, District Attorney.

    The issue we discussed was “feticide.”

    He said they prosecute for feticide. I asked him how do you determine when to prosecute for this? He said if the embryo has arrived at the point of “quickening” in the mother’s womb, it is feticide.

    If it has not quickened, they cannot prosecute anyone for causing the incidental death of the fetus.

    Oh, and I’m not going to bother with bringing in the identity of the DA because kooks like you will launch some whackjob, Ted-Kascinsky-like crusade against him…all because he is following the legal definition contained with the law.

  35. Bill Simon says:

    Icarus,

    Pretty close.

    Icarus, do you receive the Political Vine newsletter? Like, did you receive the ones I sent out last Saturday and Sunday on the Hman Life Amendment?

  36. Tekneek says:

    There are almost always contradictions with these pro-life sorts. They are anti-abortion, but they are pro-death penalty. They are anti-abortion, but they are pro-war. No pro-lifer has any credibility with me unless they carry that view across the board. Because the truth is that if they advocate death at any time, they are pro-choice. They want the choice.

  37. Old Vet says:

    An exception for rape or incest or life of the mother ? The first two are for the mere convience of the woman, and who cares what she has to say. The latter may be a bit more, but who could permit the human sacrifice of a just conceived bouncing baby, er, boy, girl, thing? for any reason? Isn’t a baby born of rape or incest, or cut from its dead mother’s belly, a human being? Why is it not at conception?

  38. ksuowls81 says:

    Bubba what is your definition of creation. I define it as the act of creating, which in the case that we are talking about meaning sex. When it comes to a baby what does the act of sex usually culminate to? I’ll go ahead and answer that one for you: CONCEPTION.

    Do not try to perceive me as any type of stereotype. While most of my thinking does lean toward the Christian Philosophy I can assure you that I am as about as free thinking as they come.

    And Bubba please don’t grasp at straws by using a “Our Founding Fathers were sexist” argument. If we are going by your logic above then there would be no reason to ever use their thinking in any argument. We might as well go ahead and throw out every thing we stood for before the women’s sufferage movement. I am going to go ahead and call the US Supreme Court clerk to let him know that I just heard from this genius of a person named BubbaRich on a message board, and he assumes that the Supreme Court should stop using the Constitution to decide cases because they did not intend for woman’s rights in their writing.

  39. Thadius says:

    KSU,
    I agree, and actually, there was significant discussion regarding this issue at the hearing yesterday.
    The “life of the mother” argument is already taken care of in “standards of care” precident.
    I’ll explain: When forced to decide between one life or another, the person who saved the one life by ending the other is not guilty of killing the lost life.
    Not fun to discuss, but important.

  40. ksuowls81 says:

    Bill,

    I’ll give credit where credit is due. You are absolutely right from a legal point of view. I happened to be talking about personal point of views. Legally they may not be able to punish a person for feticide, but personally some certainly do consider the existance of a fetus prior to the quickening stage.

    Your wording confused me. And please stop lumping me in with anybody. Just because you are for abortion doesn’t mean that you are an immoral, flag burning, treasonous liberal. That is the problem with people now-a-days. You guys are so closed minded about any issue that you are simply unwilling to discuss the otherside, and instead your 4th grade name calling instincts come out, and you show your true maturity.

  41. Bill Simon says:

    “You guys”

    There you go again, KSU, PRESUMING my position. you’re not educated enough about my position to presume one thing about how I think.

    All you know is that I am personally against THIS human life amendment…but, I am now FOR having it placed on the ballot in November 2008. Let the people decide en masse at one time which way the “true” majority feels about this.

  42. dragonfire says:

    “An exception for rape or incest or life of the mother ? The first two are for the mere convience of the woman, and who cares what she has to say.”

    I do. But evidently the person who violated her and caused her years of nightmares, therapy, and depression did not.

    If one has never been attacked in this manner, then one really can’t offer an opinion on the horrors that are faced by a woman who has been violated in this way – she certainly wasn’t treated as a human being. When rape and incest quit happening, then there is much more room for discussion. In the meantime…not so much.

  43. ksuowls81 says:

    You have eloquently put your position down on many post above. I thought I may step out of the box and take an educated guess at what your position may be. Even though you say and I quote “All you know is that I am personally against THIS human life amendment…but, I am now FOR having it placed on the ballot in November 2008” I am not going to go assuming that what you write has any bearing on your actual belief.

    And as for the “you guys” thing you PRESUMED that I mean pro-choice individuals. Nope, I mean political message board commentors. You are definately not educated enough about my terminology to presume one thing about what I meant about using you guys.

    Also this isn’t even going to get on the floor. And to state my opinion I do NOT want this to pass. It will do nothing for the deterance of abortion.

  44. Bill Simon says:

    KSU,

    “You are definately not educated enough about my terminology to presume one thing about what I meant about using you guys.”

    OHhhhhhhhh…you are a completely different TYPE of human being. You have your own terminology to process and describe the world around you.

    My mistake. I will send the Men In Black over to you though…you appear to be one of those aliens who has drunk a little too much.

  45. Thadius says:

    “The fact that so many in the pro-life movement are resistant to any compromise, and choose to battle the people that agree with them on 90% of the issues, is the major reason that people that disagree with us on 100% of the issues continue to rule the day.”

    Icarus,
    Yes, you and I have a difference in strategery. I no longer am convinced in encremental change as a valid stategy. I did hold that position in ’94 and ’95, and ’96, and ’97, and ’98, and ’99, and ’00, and ’01, and ’02.
    But guess what, Icarus? I realized that I have wasted all the effort I expended for candidates (federal and state) with the expectation that they would :
    1. Cut Spending
    2. Cut Taxes
    3. Shrink govt
    4. Stop the feticide
    I’m talking about Republicans in particular who were given the House, Senate, and Executive branch and have failed to deliver on the promises they made.
    I will no longer accept the strategy of incremental change. I’d like some statesmen who are willing to stand on principal, please… and if the voters strike it down… so be it.

  46. ksuowls81 says:

    I really do feel like I am lowering my own standards here by commenting on you post Bill, but “you guys” obviously did not mean what you assumed it meant. Otherwise you would have not mentioned any thing about my presumption of how you thought, because the “you guys” comment had absolutely nothing to do with the presumption of what you thought. Therefore the terminology that I used containing the phrase “you guys” was my own terminology because it certainly did not belong to you because you misread it as something else.

    Now to be such an educated person in your above posts concerning the topic of Abortion, you just negated any type of credit that was given to you by me and hopefully by others on this board with the last comment that you just made. I conceded to you earlier and even told you that you were right.

    If you want to debate abortion and HR 536 I will be happy to do that with you on this forum, but I feel like we have rapidly gotten off track from what this originally was. You can support it if you want, just to see it get knocked down in the state, but I don’t believe that it will even be heard on the floor of the House. And once again I am very much Pro-Life and I say NO to this perposed amendent.

  47. ksuowls81 says:

    I wish we could edit on these things. The goofy looking “perposed” is obviously suppose to be purposed.

  48. Thadius says:

    I would prefer to lose while standing for what I believe than win while standing for something I don’t believe.

    I know I am 1 among 5,000,000. I know that my voice only counts so much, and I don’t want or expect it to count any more than it does.

    But you can count on this… The days of my vote being taken for granted by an electorate who forgets me once they get in office are long gone.

  49. Bill Simon says:

    KSU,

    I don’t wear pocket protectors. Never have, not even in college.

    Similarly, to debate you on ANY issue would be a waste of time for me. You don’t know what “educated” actually means, NOR do you have much of a sense of humor.

    And, because you are devoid of a sense of humor, that nullifies any possibility of you and I debating HR 536, HR 1096, or HR 4567346.

  50. BubbaRich says:

    Thadius, KSU:

    Real sex education (including contraceptive use) has been shown to greatly decrease abortions. But anti-abortion idiots keep opposing that sort of sex education. I think y’all don’t really hate abortion, but y’all hate wimmen. Otherwise you’d do the one thing that clearly decreases abortion (and suffering of women).

  51. ksuowls81 says:

    I am with you Bubba I think that greater education is a big key in cutting abortions. I have told you that I am pro-life, but I look at things from a realistic point of view.

    I would like to do everything with in the power of the government to stop abortions without taking away the choice of women in certain cases. I do not think that abortion should be used as a contraceptive. That is my big thing. I think that there are too many women out there that use this as a contraceptive. But I agree with you on your above post. Well all except you saying that I hate women. My girlfriend may have to disagree with you on that one.

  52. profg says:

    Hey Bill – here’s some reading material for you, from them dang atheists’ website:

    Abortion and the Question of the Person:
    http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-per.html

    A False Assumption:
    http://www.l4l.org/library/falassum.html

    Power and Act: Notes towards engaging in a discussion of one of the underlying questions in the abortion debate:
    http://www.l4l.org/library/poweract.html

    Just to be clear, I don’t actually expect you to take the time to read those, especially with an open mind. But I can at least say that I tried.

  53. BubbaRich says:

    profg:

    Lesbians for Life is a weird site!

    More seriously, they are definitely in Ayn Rand’s version of libertarianism under rigid authoritarian control. And very bad science. They don’t seem to understand brain formation embryologically. They attempt to use emotion, such as calling a zygote a “child,” at the same time they attempt to use some abstruse and even some false philosophical arguments.

    There’s not enough information there to figure out exactly why they did that, but there’s plenty of information to see that, like all Randian stuff, they started with a conclusion and figured out how to rationalize their way to it.

    And that’s fine. It’s normal to build an attachment to even the potential of a zygote in a woman, especially as mother or father of it. However, to get attached to someone else’s zygote, and say that it is now “murder” to wash that cell out, well that’s just evil. Millions of women wash zygotes out every month, anyway.

    There are a few scientific whoppers in those pages, and there are even a few sophistry whoppers, but unless you have specific questions, I don’t feel like tracking them down again.

  54. Bill Simon says:

    Icarus,

    You ARE part of the riff-raff, but you arrived much earlier in this thread. So, I figured you were trying to differentiate yourself from the usual suspects of the riff-raff.

  55. profg says:

    Bubba,

    “Zygote” is a real pretty word. Just like “fetus,” “newborn,” “infant,” “toddler,” “child,” “pre-adolescent,” “adolescent,” etc., etc.

    But in reality, it all boils down to this:

    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU

    YOU are a person. YOU were a person last year. YOU were a person at 2 years old. YOU were a person at 1 year old. YOU were a person 1 minute after birth. YOU were a person 1 minute before birth. YOU were a person 30 minutes before birth. YOU were a person 1 day before birth. YOU were a person 1 month before birth, etc. etc.

    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU

    Dr. Edmund D. Pellegrino, Director of the Center for Clinical Bioethics and The John Carroll Professor of Medicine and Medical Ethics at the Georgetown University Medical Center, has made a very salient point in his article, “The Pre-Embryo: An Illusory Category Of Convenience” —

    “According to this view, personhood somehow is conferred when traversing the birth canal and, therefore, partial birth abortion could be considered a harm and not a wrong… There are serious flaws with this stage of the argument. First, it relies on social construction as a valid method of defining an entity or state such as personhood. If personhood is a social construct and conforms to no objective nature, then we are free to define humans into and out of humanity as well as personhood at will. Some already classify retarded persons, patients in permanent vegetative states, persons who have poor quality of life, or infants who have cerebral damage as nonpersons. A further malignant step of this social construction could allow differences in ethnicity, political belief, color, or religion to be used to define someone out of personhood. The recent history of genocide, ethnic cleansing, racial segregation, and enforced sterilization makes this danger abundantly clear.”

    Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are no better in this regard than Dred Scott v. Sandford. I think that’s why Justice Blackmun, when he authored Roe v. Wade, made this (otherwise very strange) assertion: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU

    Pretty simple, even for people who like pretty words.

  56. Bill Simon says:

    ProfG,

    Let me ask you this: Do these rights of “personhood” also apply to pregnant women who are in this country but they are NOT U.S. citizens themselves?

  57. BubbaRich says:

    prof:

    You’ve got the latest talking points down, but there are major errors of fact in them. Like this equation:
    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU
    is completely false. It’s so bad that “Sperm + egg + time + nutrition = YOU” is only slightly worse. The zygote requires a very detailed and specific chemical environment, with different chemicals and nutrition present at different times. It is a process that is very difficult and fraught with error, even in the machine that has evolved to perform it (female womb). Like the cells in your skin, a zygote has all of the genetic material to make a person. It is not a person, though, any more than your skin cells are.

    You might make an argument that I was a person from the third trimester of mom’s pregnancy, once I had a partially functional brain, but there are arguments against that, too.

    Partial-birth abortion is used only when an abortion is necessary in the late stages of pregnancy, and it is not used as a “form of contraception” like some of the freaks like to say about abortion. Would you and Doctor Pellegrino like to outlaw this medical procedure? Can you say why?

  58. profg says:

    Bubba,

    Your equation has a major error of fact in it making it completely false. It would actually need to read:

    (sperm + egg) + time + nutrition = YOU

    where (sperm + egg) would be necessary to equal YOU, but sperm does NOT equal YOU and egg does NOT equal YOU. Thus,

    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU

    is, simply stated, a FACT. YOU were a zygote, YOU were a fetus, YOU were a newborn, YOU were a baby, YOU were a toddler, YOU were a child, YOU were a pre-adolescent, YOU were an adolescent, YOU were a young adult… all that was needed to move from zygote to your present self was Time + Nutrition. Irrefutable.

    Now, does environment matter? Well, sure. Maturing requires a very detailed and specific physical environment, with different chemicals and nutrition present at different times in one’s life, from fertilization to old age. It is a process that is very difficult and fraught with error, although less so now with the advance of medicine.

    As Pellegrino notes, “the underlying science [is not] sufficient to support an arbitrary division of the line of development of the embryo into a stage called a “pre-embryo” [what you call “zygote”]. If… the embryo is a human life, then it is set on a specific course of continuous, active development beginning with conception. At each stage, embryo and fetus exhibit the physical and functional properties proper to a human life at a particular chronologic stage in the actualization of its potentialities. Creating a category of “pre-embryo” [or “zygote] is both biologically and ontologically arbitrary.”

    “Adolescence” is just as “biologically and ontologically arbitrary.” Can we use the term and be “correct”? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we can classify a human being at that “stage” of development as any less of a person than he or she is at an earlier or later stage. Same with a “zygote.”

    And this argument you keep making, that just because a skin cell “has all of the genetic material to make a person” means it’s the SAME THING as a newly-created baby, is just plain goofy (to use the scientific term). A skin cell becomes a skin cell — no, strike that, it IS a skin cell. A single-celled human being is a human being. It doesn’t “become” a human being, it IS a human being, deserving of the designation “person.” It’s not a bird, nor plane, nor even frog. It’s a little ol’ person (not underdog).

    I’m not talking about these arbitrary “trimesters” that Blackmun came up with out of thin air, and I’m not talking about when or why “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide) is “used”. I’m talking about a simple fact:

    Zygote + time + nutrition = YOU

    P.S. I’ve never heard of a “machine evolving” before. That’s pretty funny. I guess that’s part of the latest talking points?

  59. profg says:

    Bill,

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE…” — Jefferson

    “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” — Horton

    While rights are often coded into law so that they may be protected by third parties such as the civil government, a person’s rights are rights by virtue of the fact that the person is created.

    You are a person whether you live north or south of the parallel 36°30′ north, regardless of what Dred Scott v. Sandford said; and you are a person whether you live inside or outside of the womb, regardless of what Roe v. Wade said. A person’s a person.

  60. ksuowls81 says:

    Just think this conversation would be a lot more condensed if only some people’s mother would have choosen to abort their zygote.

    Going back in time I don’t think that anybody in here would have wanted their mother to have a choice on that, espcially if her choice would have been in the negative.

  61. ksuowls81 says:

    I do think that is something that everybody needs to think about with dealing with this issue. The only people who are writing about it are those who were not aborted. We are lucky that it is not us, but it could have been us. What is the difference in where that baby is right now, and where you were however many years ago. It’s great to talk about it from a scientific, religious, or political point of view, but the truth of the matter is that under any different situations it could have been you. I love my mother to death and I will always fight for her rights, but if it would have come down to aborting me I may have been on the opposite side of the aisle from her. Of course this is all hypothetical, but I do believe that you need to look at your own past, and the chances that could have been taken with your life as a just conceived little boy or girl.

    I say this as a man who has a sister who has a little one now, and who has had two aborted. She didn’t get them aborted because she was raped, she got them aborted because she was 16 and sexually active. She had the one that is alive as a young girl, and it has completely changed her life, just the pure fact that she had a child. I often wonder if she would have gone through with the first one and had it, if it could have saved the second ones life.

    Most of these doctors who abort babies, are not in it to make an impression on the young girls life. They are in it for one reason only and that is to make a profit. Otherwise little girls would not have to lie to their daddies and their mommas, and steal, cheat, borrow, and beg for money in order to get the abortions.

    Many say it is about choice. Girls who are 16 years old are not mature enough to make any of those choices. Even more so they are pregnant, and any body who has had to deal with a woman during pregnancy, or who have study about women during pregnancy know that chemical and harmone imbalance is the norm and can cause rash and irrational decision making processes. Now I am not saying that during a pregnancy women cannot think or make logical decisions, but what I am saying is that there needs to be way more stepping stones in order to qualify or even begin to think about abortions. WAY MORE!!!

  62. BubbaRich says:

    KSU:
    16-year-old girls aren’t mature enough to make decisions, but they are mature enough to force them to make a zygote into a baby and then make them raise it? Can you see how your zygote worship is really warping your perspective and messing up a lot of real human beings’ lives?

    profg:
    _I_ was not a zygote. A zygote developed into a human being, me, but the zygote was not me. If that zygote had been aborted, I would never have existed. That is the same as if a condom or diaphragm had been effective. It is exactly the same as if an IUD had been present and prevented the zygote from implanting. But I don’t think most people preaching like you are daring to preach against contraceptives, even though they are the same for your argument.

    You do know that skin cells can be converted to zygotes, right?

  63. Thadius says:

    “_I_ was not a zygote. A zygote developed into a human being, me, but the zygote was not me. If that zygote had been aborted, I would never have existed.”

    That is the most hilarious string of self-defeating logic I have ever heard in my life, Hubba Bubba. You just completely proved the whole point Profg was making. You are a credit to Profg’s cause.

  64. Bill Simon says:

    Profg,

    And yet, in this country, who is screaming the loudest about sending illegal alien, pregnant Latino women “back to Mexico and don’t forget to take their stinkin’ kids with them!”?

    Why, nothing other than you “full of love”, pro-life Christians.

    You guys LOVE suffering in the world, don’t you?

    You don’t give a sh*t about how kids are raised, or the health of the mother, you just care about the growing future person inside the womb.

    You folks are pretty sick-minded, hypocritical individuals. Luckily, we live in a country where you can have that viewpoint, and many other people who are JUST as ignorant as you will shout right alongside you to “Get those illegal immigrants OUT of this country! Our rights are ONLY for ‘Mericans! God Blesses ONLY Americans!”

  65. Thadius says:

    Bill,
    The insinusation that a non-citizen fetus/zygote/person is worth less than a U.S. citizen fetus/zygote/person betrays your underlying premis that personhood is definable by a political perspective.
    Plese answer: Do you think an Illegal alien is as much a person as a citizen is?
    I don’t see the Pro-Life argument as an attempt to bestow personhood upon anyone or anything, but rather a fight to recognize and protect the personhood of persons who society fails to recognize. (eg: slaves in the Dred Scott era)

  66. Bill Simon says:

    Thadius,

    The fact that you miss the point ENTIRELY and try to insinuate that _I_ am the one treating the “non-citizen” as a “non-person” belies the fact that you don’t have much of a defense for your own hypocrisy, do you?

    Consistency, Thad…try for some consistency in your belief structure.

  67. Thadius says:

    Bill, I posted before your last post… I apologize for imagining that you would ever devalue anyone.
    … and what hypocrisy? I’d be glad to answer any questions and reconsider any inconsitencies.

  68. Bill Simon says:

    AND, to make sure you get the entire logic stream: A non-human being is also not a citizen of the US or any other country.

    But, Thad, anytime you want to stop the sniffling of your bleeding-heart conservatism and go ADOPT children who have the ability to cry and express feelings of lonliness because they were abandoned by crackhead mothers, you’re free to proceed.

  69. Bill Simon says:

    Thad, Part 3

    Or, don’t. Because, as I said in my post to ProfG, it is my contention that people like you LOVE to see suffering in the world…somehow, that feeds some sort of self-induced fantasy that YOU are doing the work of God if you are there at the doors of the abortion clinic, preventing the crackhead (or, AIDS-ridden) mother from bringing into the world a human being who will likely have some serious development issues. If not an arm growing out of their head.

  70. ksuowls81 says:

    The HR did not make it out of subcommittee. Even though it didn’t go out, like I thought it wouldn’t, I did find an interesting take on things. If a man and a wife get together to have an unwanted baby , could a man argue that he didn’t have to pay child support because the thing that came out of her body was her choice to have. It had nothing to do with him, and it was all her choice. She could have had it aborted knowing that he did not want to pay for it or have anything to do with it, but she was the one that made the CHOICE of keeping the baby therefore she should have to pay for her own decision.

    Bill I know that you aren’t discussing with me any more, but I really want to know your take on this. If you could find it in your ever so big heart to enlighten me on your take it would be wonderful.

  71. BubbaRich says:

    Thadius:

    If you think that is somehow self-defeating logic, you must not understand some of the words I used. Could you explain in detail how you feel it was self-defeating?

  72. Bill Simon says:

    Tell you what, KSU, you disclose your real name on here, and I’ll answer your question.

    I’m fed-up with being honest and forthright about my opinions, only to be talking to chickensh*ts like you, ProfG, and Thad, none of who have the balls to converse under your real names.

    Gosh…I wonder why that could be…?

  73. ksuowls81 says:

    Bill, I don’t want you to acknowledge me anymore cause you have certifiably cemented yourself in my all time wall of Goobers. You do understand just because somebody doesn’t fall into your own personal beliefs that they are not automatically wrong. You are the most narrow minded, self rightous, pompous, ignorant, a**hole I have ever read or been apart of a debate with. How you can get up and look at yourself in the mirror and think “Wow I am actually really smart” I will never understand.

    Me disclosing my name has nothing to do with what I asked you. And while I may be a chickensh*t, at least I will rest comfortably knowing that I am not a jacka*s. Oh yeah and I read your blogs…they suck.

  74. Bill Simon says:

    Wowwww…lots of tough talk from an anonymous motherf*cker. Wowww…you’re nothing but a little whiny punk.

    (Sniff! Sniff!…you’re so hurtful…NOT!)

    But, yes, you ARE both a jackass and a chickensh*t. Make sure you go log-on to your Twitter account, and your Facebook account and BRAG to everyone how you beat down a guy like me.

  75. Jace Walden says:

    Bill,

    At what point does something become “human”? Is it the second that its head starts crowning from a woman’s vagina? Is it when it takes its first breath?

    If it is at the second that its head starts “crowning”, what made it less of a human the two seconds prior?

    I ask this in all seriousness. I’m probably on your side of this debate more than you realize. I just want to hear your take on the matter.

  76. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    I usually ignore the abortion warlord threads, but this needed a comment.

    What I am saying is that unless you can find me an atheist who believes that a human being becomes a “man” or a “woman” AT the moment of conception, then the only thing the “pro-life movement” is is a religious movement whose purpose is to use the force of law to require others to abide by their religious edicts.

    I know at least one devout atheist who believes this. However, I think atheism is as much of a religious stand as the most strict adherents to any other religion. To “know” that there is no god is as big as a leap of faith than proclaiming that there is one. No one can “know” the unknowable, despite how certain they are.

  77. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    I think the abortion debate is the biggest waste of time in the world, but I have the same questions that you do. Mine also include:

    If Anti-abortionists are truly “pro-choice” why not be in favor of drug legalization, gun ownership, school choice and a whole lot of other “choices” people make.

    If it is about the fetus being human, why are any exceptions except to save the life of the mother allowed by most anti-abortionists? Is a child born of rape or incest less valuable? Does this mean that this stigma follows them from cradle to grave? Perhaps we should tatoo these babies so all of us know who these people who are so valueless to not deserve protection against murder (as many anti-abortionists refer to it).

    For pro-abortionists, why should someone who murders a pregnant women be charged with a double murder if it is indeed “just a clump of cells”?

    For the anti-abortionists, cancer is alive, so are bacteria and fungus. If “when life begins” is the only test, why is it legal to have a tumor removed? What about a tubal pregnancy? Do we allow a fetus to develop in a way that would end up killing a woman?

    The abortion warlords are THE single reason this country has fallen apart. Great candidates are struck down because they are not 100% pure one way or the other on an issue where purity is madness. We end up electing people who hold crazy untenable positions who understand nothing of economics, freedom, federalism, and a whole slew of other issues that should be considered first.

  78. Bill Simon says:

    Jace,

    In the back-and-forth between myself and Thad, ProfG, and KSU, you may have missed what I said about what is a “human.” It would have been easy to do, and I’m not being sarcastic about this.

    I have admitted that the one-cell amoeba, the zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo, and the developing fetus are ALL “human.”

    They are “human” in much the same way that if you were to detach your arm, your leg, your gall bladder, etc. from your body, THOSE are all human.

    What they are not, however, is what I consider to be a “human being” that possesses a distinct heart, lungs, a cortex, and other similar body parts.

    My belief in abortion (which, by the way, NO ONE has ever asked, but just assumed) is that up to the first trimester, the mother carrying the developing human should have the opportunity to choose to cease the development process.

    After the first trimester, the developing human gains human traits like the cortex mentioned above, and more likely becomes closer to being able to survive outside the womb.

    Abortions after the 1st trimester should only be allowed if the life or health of the mother is not put at risk.

    But..take note…I use the word “should”…as in it should be allowed on a case-by-case basis, and NO LAW should be made as to restrict case-by-case exceptions.

    If pro-life people cannot trust individuals and doctors to make the right decisions for the overwhelming majority of the time in each case, then that demonstrates to the rest of us that pro-life folks are really just out to control every aspect of everyone, and have NO interest in the concept of free-will.

  79. ksuowls81 says:

    I think that you said that extremely well Bill, and I am not being sarcastic. I should have asked you about your opinion, because I do not feel like we are that far apart on this issue now that I see your point of view. Take it for what it is worth. I am not trying to fire any shots.

  80. Bill Simon says:

    Doug,

    Have you ever read heard of the book Freakonomics?

    In it, the authors present fascinating statistics and research on a variety of subjects.

    One of the subjects they looked into was the subject of abortion. They determined that HAD all those abortions not been performed for the period of 1972=on, there would have been a lot more criminals living and committing crimes during the 1990s.

    In fact, it there may even be a decent chance that one of you might not actually be here today because one of the ones who were not aborted could have grown-up and killed you.

    A lot of people presume that the world today would be the exact same if those abortions hadn’t taken place…it would just be a little more crowded.

    I tend to think that for those mothers who aborted their first pregnancy, and THEN had a child who is now walking among us (or, even possibly reading this board or participating in the discussion), the current child might not be here at all as a result of the mother taking the pregnancy to term back in 1980.

  81. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    What do you mean by “one of you”? I wasn’t defending the other side. I pretty much attack both sides of the abortion debate because they both generally have crazy beliefs if taken to the extreme they seem to lust for.

    I am not sure what is right on this issue, however I do know that the Federal government has no business interjecting itself into this and that Roe v Wade was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Republic (next to Dred Scott). Also, it is beyond unacceptable to make something illegal that does not have widespread support beyond even mere consensus. 50.0001% opposed is not enough, it really needs to be on the 80% plus order.

    If you don’t have that, either get to work convincing people, or stop trying to use laws one way or the other to enforce your beliefs.

  82. Bill Simon says:

    Doug,

    Your previous comment sure did appear that you might be “one of you.”

    My apologies. Perhaps it would have been Thad or ProfG who would not be here right now if one of those abortions had not taken place.

    The POINT is that nothing happens in a vacuum. Crime rates are known as a percentage of population. Add a chunk of population, and SOME percentage of that population will be criminals…murderers, rapists, etc.

  83. Thadius says:

    Your a brilliant man Bill,
    Let’s follow tht logic all the way… If we had no population then there would be no crime… UTOPIA. Now let’s see Bill, how can we make this happen?

  84. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    Just because I attack an argument, does not mean I am opposed to the conclusion, and similarly, I can appreciate a good argument without subscribing to the conclusion.

    The abortion debate is just filled with a bunch of buzz kills that think the rest of the country is willing to throw everything into the toilet over a debate that no one has changed their mind on in decades.

    The extremists on both sides can only debate straw men, as both sides have crazy, untenable positions if they are taken to their extremes.

  85. profg says:

    Bill, you already know my real name. You’ve simply chosen to forget it, and far be it from me to be “anti-choice.”

  86. profg says:

    Bill, by your logic, if these are all like your arm, your leg, your gall bladder, etc., then the one-cell amoeba, the zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo, and the developing fetus are NOT human. They are human APPENDAGES.

    That position is scientifically untenable. A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a partial relationship (a relationship of parts to the whole).

    Scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a “potential” or a “possible” human being. It’s an actual human being – with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

    Your conclusions on what you consider to be a “human being” that possesses a distinct heart, lungs, a cortex, and other similar body parts are also scientifically untenable. Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between “brain death” and “brain birth” is scientifically invalid. “Brain death” is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. “Brain birth” is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

    The belief that a single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings or have the fully-developed human “parts” shows an ignorance of the science of embryology. As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being – and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

    Finally, Bill, this whole “trimester” farce was invented out of thin air by Justice Blackmun. I’m surprised to see you appropriate it; it’s simply illogical. One would expect more from you.

  87. Icarus says:

    That’s what I get for having multiple screens open and drinking at the same time as blogging. pay no attention to my comments. Please continue talking around each other while making no progress on finding a middle ground or any sense of understanding the other side of this argument.

  88. Bill Simon says:

    ProfG,

    I’ve met so many people over the years that I do forget people, and their names that are attached to their e-mail addresses.

    As far as “expecting more from me,” sorry to disappoint you…but, really, I haven’t read all of the details of the decisions from the judges.

    I also can think independently of the judges. I know it may sound weird, but I was taught as a young lad to use my own mind to reason some things out, and not follow lockstep with the folks who earnestly believe that everything written down in the Bible happened exactly as described, and to dare question the logical reality of it means one must be “anti-” this or that.

    Frankly, ProfG, I don’t quite get why it is that folks like you feel the need to go diving into someone else’s business when you have ZERO compassion about how they live otherwise.

    You (and, I use the term “you” as a proxy for the entire pro-life “womb to the tomb” crowd) have a lot in common with the folks who are members of PETA. PETA is chock-full of people who weep and spend their lives “defending” those insectsm reptiles, and mammals who obviously cannot speak for themselves.

    You presume to speak for those not yet born. You presume that that is your duty as a citizen (or, perhaps you might consider yourself a multi-celled entity).

    You are willing to force females to take every pregnancy to term, regardless of the age of the female, regardless of the health of the female, regardless of the means for the female to maintain her health in order to deliver healthy babies, and then, as the “compassionate” person you think you are, you are content to just tithe your 10% to your church and be done with your “contribution to humanity.”

    Meanwhile, you’re willing to cut federal dollars from organizations and agencies that are designed to help women through a lot of health issues and problems…but, hey, as long as that baby is born, your responsibility to the world has been met.

    I don’t know this at all…but, I predict (it’s just a prediction) that when you die, ProfG, you’re not going where you think you’re going. Because, humanity is so much more than presuming to speak and defend those who cannot speak for themselves. It’s about demonstrating compassion for those who are truly suffering.

    Zygotes and blastocysts and the fetus at whatever point BEFORE it develops a cortex don’t suffer pain because they cannot. Without a cortex, there is no sensation or comprehension of the concept of “pain.” THAT is something I got from the great Rush Limbaugh 10 years ago, and I’ve studied it to understand it. No cortex, no pain. It’s what separates us from things like lobsters.

    If you think the zygotes suffer, then you are as batty as the people in PETA. And, I don’t think we need a judge’s interpretation to determine that.

  89. BubbaRich says:

    profg:

    I don’t know if you can’t follow your own thoughts logically, or if you’re intentionally confusing things. But just to clear something up, zygotes do not have a heart, lungs a cortex, or any other body parts.

    A zygote is not a human being. Not because it doesn’t look like one, but because it only has one thing that is one of the characteristics of a human being, and that is human DNA. It does not have a brain. You can develop your own religious attachment to a zygote that has the potential to become a human being, but you cannot force your own religious ideas (no matter what religion you base them on) onto every other man and woman. Or you should not, but you’ve got the political power of poorly educated Americans on your side.

  90. Bill Simon says:

    By the way, a slight correction: There are MANY things that separate us from lobsters. It was just a statement of instantaneous comparison.

    Don’t go off on the deep end, Tahd, ProfG, and others.

  91. profg says:

    So Bill, you appropriate an arbitrary trimester system pulled out of thin air by Justice Blackmun, without ever bothering to investigate whether it holds any water whatsoever, and you excuse your deliberate ignorance with a flippant “I haven’t read all of the details of the decisions from the judges”? You say that you “can think independently of the judges,” but you aren’t — you’re accepting a judge’s made-up pseudo-scientific fabrication hook, line and sinker, without batting an eye.

    I keep expecting more from you. Maybe I shouldn’t.

    And Bill, you go off the deep end complaining that people are “PRESUMING my position. you’re not educated enough about my position to presume one thing about how I think.” Yet, you are more than willing to do the same to others, claiming that “people like you LOVE to see suffering in the world” and “you have ZERO compassion about how they live otherwise,” and then go through an entire litany about what “you” want to do: “You presume to speak… You are willing to force… you are content to just tithe… you’re willing to cut federal dollars…” your presumptions mount up, ad infinitum.

    I keep expecting more from you. Maybe I shouldn’t.

    Bill, “demonstrating compassion for those who are truly suffering” means NOTHING if we don’t “speak and defend those who cannot speak for themselves.” Just ask the European Jews in the 1930s-1940s.

    Finally, why are you talking about when a human being develops a cortex, and how that relates to a person feeling pain? I never said word one about that relationship in this discussion. But I will say this: I really hope you’re not saying that, just because a human being can’t feel pain, they aren’t worthy of being called a person, and being protected by society and society’s laws. I really hope you aren’t.

    But then again, I keep expecting more from you. Maybe I shouldn’t.

  92. Bill Simon says:

    Oh wait…a little addendum…because I was inspored by your point on the other HLA thread, ProfG:

    Those Jews you talked about above…they ALL HAD NAMES, Profg.

    Perhaps that IS the difference. There is an identity associated with existing “people.” Or, those in the womb in which their GENDER is at least known so the mother or parents knows what name they want to attach to their child when he/she is born.

    Perhaps I’ve just discovered the “killer-point” to your bemoaning about what is a human being, and what deserves a chance to live.

    NAME them, ProfG. Give me 100 names of the aborted fetuses. First Name AND Last Name. Demonstrate to me that there is an identity associated with those “humans” you claim they are.

    Don’t quote me judges or anyting else. Give me the names of .0001% of these aborted humans youclaim have occured in the past umpteenth years.

    First name, and LAST name, Profg.

    Otherwise, you’re done in your argument because you lost.

    Cogito, ergo sum. Fetuses up to 1st trimester, ameobas, blastocysts and zygotes don’t, can’t, and therefore, AREN’T.

  93. Thadius says:

    And by the way Bill… i know you like to know a person’s real name. If you are in the Atlanta area, Id be glad to met over coffee. I just don’t give info over the net.

  94. Bill Simon says:

    Okay, ProfG..I’ll make it EASY on you. Just give me ONE name of an aborted zygote, blastocyst, developed-human-without-a-cortex-or-brain-or-heart…

    ONE NAME, that’s all I ask, ProfG. Give me the name of just one of these entities YOU consider equal to ANY of the victims of The Holacaust.

    Here are the names of some REAL people who were murdered during the Holacaust:

    http://www.geocities.com/vienna/strasse/5960/Augnames3.html

    ProfG…you LOST the argument. You’re checkmated.

    To convey “personhood” on entities THAT ARE NOT “PERSONS” is to truly pervert thousands of years of knowledge of what defines a human being.

  95. bowersville says:

    I don’t know why you people bother with Bill, after all he is just a zygote without a cortex that his mother allowed to live.

  96. bowersville says:

    You only have a name because your mother allowed you to be born. I don’t have a name, confirmed by my moniker. What does that meen? I skeered?

  97. bowersville says:

    No Simple Simon, I’m not drunk. You tried that ad hominem argument before and once again you are full of it.

  98. bowersville says:

    What ever. I’m just happy you found out who ProfG is. After all, I had to deal with him in the special. He could have been my congressman. Whew!

  99. profg says:

    Bill, since you wanted this to be on two threads at once, I’ll be glad to repost my answer to you here in full, just as you did.

    Do you seriously need one hundred names brought to you before you start believing that a single person has been murdered in a holocaust?

    Do you yourself know, off the top of your head, one hundred names of Jews that were murdered under the Nazis, after the Nazis declared through the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 that they were “non-persons”? Do you know one hundred names of any Gypsies, at least 4000 of whom were murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau, after the Nuremberg Laws were amended in 1937 to also classify them as “non-persons”? Do you think that linking to some list somewhere qualifies?

    Native Americans were once declared to be non-persons by the U.S. Government. In the early 1900s, women were not considered persons. In Canada, it took the historical Person’s Case to have women awarded the right to be considered persons under the law, meaning they were no longer just property. In the U.S., blacks had their personhood revoked in the late 1800’s. That law allowed slave owners to kill their slaves, as the rights of life, liberty, and freedom do not extend to non-persons. Are we going to have to start naming 100 names of each of those groups of persons — or better yet, link to a list on a website somewhere — so that the great Bill Simon can declare that yes, a person was actually killed?

    Luckily, all these groups are now considered, rightfully so, to be persons. Hence, they all have the rights and freedoms that persons are allowed; we cannot kill Indians, women, blacks, Jews or Gypsies for any reason. However, we can kill unborn babies. For any reason. At any time. As long as we have the mother’s “permission”.

    You still need names, Bill? OK, I guess we can start with a few, and if you still need more, we can start adding to the list, just for you:

    * Ximenia Renaerts
    * Ana Rosa Rodriguez
    * Amy Charlton
    * Christelle Morrison
    * Gianna Jessen
    * Heidi Huffman
    * Sarah Smith
    * Juan Diego
    * Susan Rachel
    * John Paul
    * Chandra Marie
    * Mary Esther
    * Paul Michael
    * Lurana Terrel
    * Kirk Scott
    * Stephen Daniel
    * Elizabeth Ann
    * Margaret Mary

    Yes, Bill, those are all real names, of real aborted babies.

    Do you still need a full hundred?

    30,000 aborted babies are buried in a cemetery in the Huê diocese in Vietnam, and every single one of them has a name. Since it was set up in 1992, volunteers who bring the babies in for burial carry a notebook with them to list the names given to the victims. Until 2006, one notebook per year was sufficient, but at least three were needed for 2006, given the growing number of abortions in that increasingly materialistic nation.

    You said you would be satisfied if I “just give [you] ONE name” of an aborted child. But I know better than to take you at your word. As you said, I shouldn’t expect such a moral compass from you. None of this will convince you of anything, Bill. I recognize that. But I can’t remain silent when you continue to bring up asinine point after asinine point, and think that because no one answers your foolishness with a rational answer (because we know that would be foolish as well, given who you are and what you do) you “must be right” and so you “win” some silly “chess game” in your mind.

    You don’t “win” anything, Bill. There is no “checkmate” in this “game.” Nevertheless, when it really comes down to it, you actually do lose. And I have great pity for you, and your foul mouth, and your twisted and petty little mind. I really do. You are a sad person…

    But you are a person, and worthy of life. And you always have been.

  100. Thadius says:

    Hubba Bubba,
    “_I_ was not a zygote. If that zygote had been aborted, I would never have existed.”

    The attempt to separate your self from the zygote is where the fumble occurs. You yourself admit that the only reason you are here today is because that zygote was nurtured. … and in so admitting set up the conclusion that you and the zygote are one in the same.

  101. Thadius says:

    Bubba and Bill, I ask you to look at this from a purely material point of view…
    Imagine all the proteins and acids and carbon based body material thats out there.
    You can put any combination, billions of combinations togehtera dn not form a new being which is unique and independent (see my prevous post) but at the moment of conception, and at no other moment, a new, unique, independent person is formed. There is no other time or way to form a new person. You must join the egg and sperm and crete a “zygote”.

    But I tell ya what Bill… Give me one example… just one… of a person who was never a zygote (tiny person) and I will renounce all I have said on this matter to date. That’s a promise. The only difference between all of us and a bunch of unique, individual zygotes is time.
    The offer is there Bill.

  102. profg says:

    And Bubba, as all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or a human fetus, is a human being – and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

    It doesn’t have the “potential” to become a human being — it IS a human being. Scientifically — not religiously, so quit trying — it is a HUMAN BEING. Not a goat, or a pig, or a horse — a human being. Period. There is really NO argument here — except for people like you with faith-based assumptions that the zygote is NOT a human being. But you have to deny science to claim that.

    A human being, even at the single-cell stage, does indeed have a heart, lungs, a cortex, and many other body parts – they just haven’t grown yet. Whether or not YOU can see it so that YOU can pronounce “human!”, it’s all there.

  103. Bill Simon says:

    Bill…Thad, et al.

    The reality is that as brilliant an intellectual as you THINK I am, I’m really not, and never professed to be.

    I do know that I have spent lots of time dicking around with online discussions with people who might be more stubborn than I am on some subjects. And, tht time hasn’t contributed one red cent to my livelihood.

    So…I’m not “running away”..I’m just calling for a “suspension” of this chess match until such time as I wish to re-engage.

    Adios for now.

  104. BubbaRich says:

    ProfG:

    A zygote does not have a heart, lungs, brain, or any other body parts. It is a single cell. Whether or not YOU can see it, it’s not there. But you are giving a good description of your delusions about the matter.

    I have a billion dollars. Well, it’s a ten-dollar bill that just hasn’t grown yet, but I expect you to recognize it.

  105. profg says:

    Bubba,

    It is obvious that you need both biology and economics classes. I can recommend a good community college if you’d like.

Comments are closed.