Today, The Atlantic ran a bizarre piece by Moira Weigel titled, in Orwellian fashion, “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Foetus Is a Person.” Which is somewhat like saying, “How the Microscope Pushed the Idea That Cells Exist,” or “How the Hubble Telescope Pushed the Idea That There Are Stars Outside Our Solar System.” […] But Weigel goes even further, assuring readers that ultrasounds were primarily a form of warfare against women rather than a tool allowing doctors to identify problems with foetal development as early as possible.
Ben Shapiro on abortion and evasion. One of these.
a baby is a baby at every stage of development. using language to try and say that it is not a child is foolish and I think evil. those who think killing unborn children in the womb do not rise to the level of a civilized human being. they have difficulty believing their lying eyes.
Sometime around 1510 or so, Leonardo da Vinci made some highly detailed drawings of the fetus in the womb.
We did not have to wait for any ultrasound machine to know this fundamental biological truth: a fetus is a human being.
If these ultrasounds are provoking this type of discomfort, then perhaps they need to examine why that is.
Yah, I udderstand he used one of those optical scopes we use when wanting to look in a plumbing pipe, to see what causes restrictions. Kriste your post is stupid.
I’ll give you a hint, Olde Leo was one of “us”
I knew to topic was going to be comedy central for the bible bangers and you already proved that:-)))
This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with science. IT’S SCIENCE that has proven to me that a so called fetus is it’s own identity, it’s own person, a baby, NOT RELIGION.
Don’t you believe in SCIENCE ?
Following the links to The Atlantic it seems that they have changed the headline. Now it reads, “How Ultrasound Became Political”.
I believe they suffer from what is called “Cognitive dissonance” Denying the evidence and facts. And it’s nice to that NME666 had to jump right in with his bible bashing before the topic was ever brought up.
daVinci used dissected dead pregnant women to make them pictures.
While abortion is a terrible thing, it is physically impossible to secure the 4A rights of women and the unborn simultaneously.
Anyone who claims that they cannot see this is either blind, a fool or a liar.
It is not science that confers personhood on someone.
So you’re saying that some people are more equal than others and that the most helpless among us are expendable?
So you’re putting words in my mouth?
Typical lefty straw-man BS tactic. Well done.
Not necessary for the first half of the statement you referenced, you stated it yourself when you said “it is physically impossible to secure the 4A rights of women and the unborn simultaneously.”
As you hadn’t stated whose rights you believe should be dominant, the second half of River Rat’s statement is conjecture.
I merely stated a fact. Period. that’s it. I made no statement as to whose rights I should consider “dominant”. In fact, to make that suggestion is to say “that some people are more equal than others”.
The fact is, however, that some people are more important/valuable than others. People who can’t see that fact are also either blind, a fool, or a liar.
That’s correct. That is why it is important to take into consideration the rights of both parties involved. “My body, my choice” is simplistic to the extent that it completely ignores the rights of one of the two parties. I think we should be looking for some sort of reasonable middle ground on the abortion issue — perhaps looking at protection for the foetus after 16 weeks, or something. The other issue that is often ignored is that women tend to get abortions NOT because they object to carrying the fetus, but rather because they do not choose to raise the child. The decision around getting an abortion almost always focuses on the woman’s circumstances after the birth, and not on the 9 month period of carrying the offspring. I think that the arguments put forward about abortion need to take into consideration human responsibility for offspring — that of course is not just a woman’s responsibility. As a society, I think we are total hypocrites when it comes to abortion “rights”.
Be very careful when you speak of “rights” for the unborn.
I agree, todays sick “celebration” of abortion is just that: Sick.
I also agree that having an abortion because one is unwilling or unable to properly rear the child is sick, as well, as is having an abortion because one feels “inconvenienced” by the pregnancy.
Myself, I think 12 weeks is more than enough, errs on the side of the woman’s right to choose, even. Legislation to that effect wouldn’t hurt anyone, except the babies who get killed, of course. But, when it comes to conferring “rights” on the unborn, again, be very, very careful, unless you want to see the state/businesses performing mandatory pregnancy tests for certain positions, licenses, pastimes, etc, to ensure that the “rights” of the unborn are not violated.
Law of unintended consequences, yadda yadda yadda. Of course, the real zealots on either side will never be able to acknowledge the error of their ways, or look beyond their own brainwashed noses to see the consequences of their ideas.
You have understand that NME666 sees JOOOOS wherever he goes, so…
This was leftists typically denying science all the while claiming to be rational about things.
Boy, were they wrong!
The right isn’t really rational about arbotion either.
Saying “science is on our side” is BS 99.9% of the time anyone says it.
“da Vinci used dissected dead pregnant women to make them pictures…”
However, he didn’t have them killed just so he could draw the pictures.
“And it’s nice to that NME666 had to jump right in with his bible bashing before the topic was ever brought up.”
Unfortunately, NME666 is the price you pay for frequenting SDA.
True.
Hitler was an “artist”. Maybe he and Dr. Mengeler could have collaborated on some “art.”
I’m sure the jaded, sickened libtards would fawn all over it like they do over “Piss Christ.”
I wonder if this abortion Ghoul would say that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth (LIE) pushed the idea than Man is killing Gaia ? When his film has been scientifically … factually … disproven in dozens of ways ?
I doubt it. Because this abortion salesGhoul demonstrates a shocking lack of scientific knowledge or understanding.
when ultrasound machines showed up in India it seriously backfired for the femnists.
female fetuses were summarily ‘evicted’ in that patriarchal chauvinistic society.
my attitude about abortion changed literally overnight in high school when the biology teacher described the advanced development in just even the 1st trimester, fingers, beating heart, etc. and has stayed that way some 40+ years now.
rule #1 to commit mass genocide: take away the attribute called ‘human’ and then do pretty much anything you want to the targeted group; jew, fetus, whatever.
Except that it is.
Pro-abortionists don’t care about science.
Do you know how many times I have had a scientific/demographic/economic argument against abortion and some wag pretends to be clever by reducing my statement to religion? I never mention religion when debating this topic.
When you have some j@ck-off insist that a procedure that disembowels both the child and (potentially) the mother is non-existent, then rare and then not to be talked about, you know how deep this rot goes.
Me, a lefty?!?! People who know me would be in histerics to read that. Also, not a man, straw or otherwise.
My point was that the unborn child should have as equal a right to life as the woman who chose to engage in an act that’s purpose in nature is to produce life. Therefore, in all fairness, that child should be carried to term and then, if the woman so wishes, can be given up for adoption.
Voila! A perfectly balanced approach.