The unborn listen and learn

It is a running discussion I have where I am attempting to teach what is and is not science

 

The New Yorker has consistently been a pro-choice outlet, so publishing an article embraced by pro-lifers is indeed noteworthy.

 

Please stop teaching.

 

Actually, the New Yorker takes no position on the human experience.

 

That's what I said. It is the OP who is trying to use the article in an unrelated manner.

The fact that they are so pro choice means that data or claims from them should not be used as evidence, lest it be slanted. If they cite a non bias source, then that sourced should be referenced and quoted, not the New Yorker.

 

I am sure that is true in the later stages of pregnancy, but the question is at what stage do they begin to learn.

 

The OP is free to use the article as he sees fit, and you are free to criticize that use.
As a matter of debate in a political forum, what I find interesting is that an article in an avowedly pro-choice publication like the New Yorker should be embraced in the pro-life cause, and then pro-choice posters are swift to denigrate a publication they would normally praise.

 

I just found a good article on the topic of the unborn feeling pain.


https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/

 

None of this matters, it's a human being at the point of conception, i.e. as soon as unique DNA is created.

Pro choicers just want to justify killing babies.

They think it magically gains rights somehow when it exits the womb.

Stinking thinking.

Just call it was it is, human fetus killing.

I've met some pro choices who are at least honest about this.

It's the terminating of a unique life. It's robbing that life of a chance to experience life with all its ups and downs.

We shouldn't be so uncaring about human life based on what stage of life it's in, how consciousness it is or how much pain it can feel, etc.

 

Life has yet to be created in the lab. For folks who think humanity knows everything about everything, this alone is a sufficient datum to prove it does not.

At no point in the chain of life is anything not alive. There should be no debate over this question with respect to the fundamental issue of whether or not an embyro or a fetus is 'alive'.

This chain of life carries with it the biochemical codes that instill all lifeforms with everything that makes them what they are, excepting of course the bit about being alive we've not yet sorted out.

So, this topic, to me, isn't so much a wow, as it is a yeah, and?

DnCs are well proven procedures that are now eliminated in many fundamentally necessary miscarriage and similar cases due to these supposedly pro-life ideologues.

Never lose sight of the fact that these same ideologues view basic support for newborns and children as evil socialist degradations.

Again, as I've recently found occasion to mention, the New Testament is chock full of socialism, and yet as practiced by many of these 'pro-life' ideologues, providing care & support to the parents of these saved babies is a bit of an anathema. Wow. Been a long time since I've thought of Soren Kierkegaard. Either Or folks.....

Personally, I chafe at the idea of having a portion of my income taken from me to supplement care for folks unable to afford to have kids. Consistently with this, I am all in favor of abortion as an elective means of post coital contraception.

For those folks that view abortion as undesirable, it follows, imo, then, that they should equally step to the plate to fund support for these babies brought about through forced carry-to-term.

What I am willing to have a portion of my income redistributed to society is with respect to education. We simply cannot have an uneducated electorate to maintain a functioning all-votes-are-equal democracy.

Otherwise, concepts taken all-but-for-granted like universal suffrage are unfortunately logically, from my point of view, rightfully back on the table to be debated.

The US has actually shifted toward a de facto step away from universal suffrage with stuff like Citizens United, giving unlimited influence to folks like Musk, Bezos, Soros, rich guys on both the left and the right, actually it seems.

Recently proven to be insufficient in WI, make no mistake that there are powerful forces that are incensed by the equality of votes.

These folks go snow skiing on private mountains these days and plot to control the world rather than suffer the demeaning situation that a dishwasher's vote counts the same as their own.

So, Either Or, such logical failures of consistency are the hallmarks of building a house of cards. Forced carry-to-term, to me, implies an equal obligation to support the raising of these people.

 

Agreed

Wait are they alive or aren't they? I thought you settled that before

Doctors who don't understand the difference between ending a live fetus and removing miscarriages, should be fired

The mother's should be looking to the fathers for support or choosing to sleep with men that can provide for them. Pro-lifers also want citizens to take more individual accontability for their choices and not raise children in fatherless households.

Christ taught about helping others, but He also spoke about being wise. He never condoned enethical choices, but instead taught repentance and forgiveness for sins for those that asked for it from Him.

.

Sick

I support policies that would make it easier for the mother to marry the father and raise the child, providing for it with the income they make from working.

What kind of education? Post secondary education? Currently, it's a cess pool of liberal minded rot. I'd be more interested in this if this weren't the case. I actually have a post in the education section of this forum on looking at ways to remove liberal rot from our education system. I'm all for social safety nets, but not ones that incentivize the wrong things.

Neither Trump nor Musk are pushing for abortion bans. They have been more liberal in many ways than a lot of Democrats have been from they last 20 years. Women all over the country are killing babies and loving it. All they do is order an abortion pill or drive out of state. Women in the US are still free to be their care free promiscuous selves if they so choose. Democrats have shifted far left in the last 10 years, championing identity politics,/racism and la la land logic. The Republicans have also shifted left, which is so funny to me when I hear fake news talking about anyone of them as being "far right." They're so dramatic.

 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Might need to reread my post if you question my thoughts on alive or not. Your assertion that Trump has had no role in abortion bans is quite remarkable. Do please share some more of your logic having come to such a conclusion.

 

Trump wasn't president when Roe v Wade was overturned. I've heard he may have made some suggestions on what the supreme Court should do, but I don't know if this has been verified and I don't think the supreme Court takes orders from him. The most blame he can take for this is for having appointed three of the supreme Court judges that voted for it. Nonetheless, ending Roe v Wade simply sent the decision to the states and as I mentioned before, women are running around the country killing unborn babies at will, despite some states being stricter on abortion than others. How exactly does that mean Trump is fighting to end abortion? So far he's been doing and working toward accomplishing exactly what he ran on and ending abortion wasn't what he ran on.

 

Fascinating. Let me see if I have these positions of yours straight. You are anti-abortion and pro-Trump, but do not give him credit for having stacked the court to end RvW?

 

He was certainly a part of the process, but not the deciding factor. I could see why pro-lifers might praise him for this and why pro-choicers condemn him for this. However, it would be nice if both sides could see that what the supreme court did, didn't actually help the cause, per say, because women can still get abortions at pretty much any stage with a little travel or ordering a pill from out of state. It's theoretical that in the long term, making it a state issue might make more local folks more interested in arguing about this and coming up with positions on the matter. Completely ending abortion would be political suicide, because it's like a 60/40 issue right now. Hearts and minds need to be changed first. This will be difficult in an entitled, hedonistic society. A fall from ethics and values always leads to society's downfall and this is no different. As they say, "hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times."

Yes, I am anti abortion, for a multitude of reasons.

 

I asked AI what is problematic related to the above comment. I fully agree with AI’s comments.

“The statement you shared is deeply problematic in terms of attitudes toward women in the U.S. Here’s a breakdown of what is wrong with it:

1. Dehumanizing and inflammatory language

• “Killing babies and loving it” is a deliberately provocative and misleading characterization of abortion. It disregards the complexity of the issue and the emotional, physical, and ethical weight that often accompanies decisions around reproductive health.
• Most people who seek abortions do not do so lightly or joyfully, and to claim they “love it” is a gross distortion that vilifies women.
​

2. Promoting harmful stereotypes

• The phrase “carefree promiscuous selves” reduces women to a sexist stereotype that suggests women who exercise sexual agency are irresponsible or immoral.
• It implies that women use abortion as a form of birth control to enable a reckless lifestyle, which is not supported by evidence and promotes stigma.
​

3. Dismissing bodily autonomy and rights

• The statement shows no recognition of women’s right to make decisions about their own bodies, which is central to gender equality and reproductive justice.
• It mocks the fact that women in some states must travel out of state or use abortion pills—often because access to care is being restricted—which is a serious barrier, not a sign of freedom or ease.
​

4. Underlying misogyny

• The tone and phrasing reflect deep contempt and hostility toward women, especially those who don’t conform to conservative ideals around sexuality and motherhood.
• It perpetuates the idea that women’s choices must be policed or punished, rather than respected.
​

In sum, the statement reflects a broader pattern of misogyny, moral judgment, and political rhetoric that seeks to shame women for exercising reproductive choice and autonomy.”

 

Lol, you have AI make your arguments for you?

My comment was a reflection of the masses of women moving in droves to enshrine their governments to allow them to kill unborn babies. It's sick. Whether you kill someone with joy in your heart or with pain, it's still wrong.
​

That's exactly what I'm saying, i.e. women should be sleeping with men they intend to build a family with. Am I wrong?
​

It's not justice to freely kill other humans. I believe in bodily autonomy and women's rights to their bodies, which is why I stand up for the rights of those unborn women in their mother's womb.

I wasn't mocking it, I was saying they could still do this if they didn't kill it with the pill in time and lived in a abortion banned state
​

Yes, there is a deep dislike for unethical behavior and killing babies... Our country is suffering as a result of a decline in ethical clarity

Anyone (man or woman) needs to be policed if they were to kill or harm others.
​

Misogyny, no, the AI did not make a case for that

Moral judgement, yes and rightly so

Shame for unethical beavhor and killing humans, yes, indeed

 

You asserted that my position regarding approving of abortion as an electable procedure by a woman is 'sick'. To some extent I can appreciate your take as such, but I do question your position in general.

One thing that I will assert that you may agree with is that the biological father of the child seemingly should have some input into the matter. But to what extent? Neither you nor I has to deal with the biological kit females have to deal with. I myself have always been a bit fascinated by the concept of Yin and Yang. Women at their core are much stronger than men at theirs. This is the principle nature of the philosophy - indisputably. The father is not the one who raises the children. It is the mother. Seemingly there are folks similar to you who overvalue the role of men in reproduction and in child rearing. And hide behind outwardly professed adherence to moral virtues when it seems much more likely to me that they are banging a side piece as all alphas apparently according to folks such as Musk and Trump consider de rigueur. And when this side piece becomes pregnant, many of these men will insist on her having an abortion.

Chivalrous ideology often falls flat from its own pretentious weight. Men controlled this whole era that you fantasize them to have resisted. The pill, and abortion, f'g just for fun without the hassle of the obligation to raise a kid because of it. Are you opposed to condoms and birth control pills too? Vasectomies? Apologies, these questions are stepping right toward the edge of just being dumb, except that you seem to have a strict code that sex should not be engaged upon without the intent to make a baby. There are very strong biological imperatives that do not support this Puritanical view of sex. Puritanism not being unique, btw, it is as I understand it also a very strong influence on morals in India and not inherited from the British occupation of that nation.

Why though would do you not give Trump credit, truly a disconnect here it seems to me. Almost as though you are apologizing for his role in all of it.

 

No, the father should not be able to choose to abort the child either, since abortion shouldn't be legal. However, as long as it is legal, yes the father should have a choice to opt out of responsibility for the baby if he chooses and allow the mother to make a choice from there. I also don't think the mother should be allowed to get welfare from the state if she decides to have the baby without keeping the father in the home. Moral of the story? Don't sleep around with people you don't intend to make a family with.

Well, yes it should be the mother much do the time and also the father when he's not providing. Children need both a father and mother. Men and women are both strong in their own ways. They both have unique burdens as well in their own ways, that if the shoes were switched would be difficult for both to handle. One is not stronger or better than the other, just different.

Men shouldn't be sleeping around either

No, not opposed to these

Yes, for child molesters

[Quite]Apologies, these questions are stepping right toward the edge of just being dumb, except that you seem to have a strict code that sex should not be engaged upon without the intent to make a baby. There are very strong biological imperatives that do not support this Puritanical view of sex. Puritanism not being unique, btw, it is as I understand it also a very strong influence on morals in India and not inherited from the British occupation of that nation.[/quote]

I'm saying you really shouldn't be sleeping with someone you don't intend to have a family with and you darn sure better be careful if you slip up and do... And you'd better be prepared to step up and be a father or mother if a baby comes along, understanding that both mom and dad need to be there, together, in the home, for best results

I like truth over drama. I'm sick of the fake news drama and fear mongering and citizens who lap it up

 

AI is a great tool in getting information. It is an excellent unbiased source. You might want to use it as an tool to find unbiased information that is not rooted in biases and prejudices.

What women have fought for is the right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health. You believe it is wrong. You are entitled to your beliefs. I doubt there are many women who go out and get pregnant and subsequently go and have an abortion as a method of birth control and shame on any woman who actually would do that.

Most women who get abortions are in their 20s. Many are religious, already have families, and report deep thought and emotional weight behind the decision. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester (within the first 13 weeks).

​

Should men only be sleeping with women they intend to build a family with, or is okay for them to have sex who they want when they want. Consenting adults should be able to sleep with each other whether or not they intend to build a family. Should couples who have made the decision they don’t want children just not sleep together?

​

That is an example of an internal contradiction. You are claiming to support bodily autonomy while denying the person who is pregnant the right to make decisions about their own body. Your statements are full of emotionally loaded language which reflects a philosophical inconsistency. You are treating the fetus as a full rights-bearing person while overlooking or minimising the rights of the women carrying the fetus.

When you use the words “killing babies and loving it”, it very much a deeply insensitive mocking of women and it’s also totally disrespectful of the rights of women to make their own reproductive decisions.

Describing abortion as ‘killing babies’ is inflammatory and misleading. Most women who seek abortion do so after serious consideration and not likely and they don’t often view it as ‘killing babies’. What is considered ethical/unethical varies widely based on individual beliefs, cultural norms, and legal frameworks. To claim that there is a universal moral truth about abortion is a gross oversimplification. You are voicing comments on abortion without even considering social issues like inequality, economic struggles, and healthcare access. Obviously, there are valid counter arguments to your view. However, many people, especially women, believe that a woman’s right to choose is a fundamental issue of body autonomy and personal liberty. Making the choice to have an abortion should be respected even if you morally disagree. In short, you are basically not acknowledging the perspectives of others and the right to choice.

Ethical clarity is subjective. What one person considers ethical, another might view it differently.

Indeed, but murder and bodily harm legislation does not include abortion. Are pregnant women immediately required to report their pregnancy to the government and then be monitored to make sure she doesn’t have an abortion? [/quote]

 

I think it's fine to use AI for a reference from time to time, father facts, etc. However, using it to make a full argument is a bit lazy and not from your own mind. You're not using your own rationale. If you have a belief in something, you should have a good rarioa le for it, not just believing in it because it makes you feel good.

There you go again, ignoring the body inside her body.

What's your point?

​

Men also shouldn't sleep with women that they don't intend to build a family with or whom they wouldn't buodla family with, were they to conceive a baby

​

Just as you are overlooking the rights of live unborn human inside her. If my argument were a supposed contradiction, so would yours be.

It's not mocking, it's acknowledging the fast and vigorous way women moved to be allowed to kill their unborn babies. It certainly is a comment made to provoke, since there needs to be some judgememt for those that kill others.

What about the baby's life? Isn't the mother being disrespectful of it? The mother has a right to make reproductive decisions just like the father does, by not sleeping with people they don't intend to build or wild build, a family with.

Calling it a abortion or terminating the pregnancy is just as misleading. Just own it, it's killing unborn babies. Killing unborn humans. Those are the facts and you just don't like how it sounds, because it sheds light on the error of your position.

And therein lies the problem; they've been brainwashed or are in denial

Legality doesn't determine what's right and wrong, what's right and wrong should determine the law. An argument from what is, should not determine what ought. If people were doing child sacrifice in other countries, would that make it morally correct? Culture and beliefs don't determine right or wrong either.

So you're saying that it would be OK for a mother to kill her born children as long as she has experienced inequality, economic struggles or a lack of healthcare access?

This is what the slavery holders told the abolitionists. They said that sinceabolitionists didn't own slaves, they didn't have the right to judge and didn't know how much it would hurt the slave owners if they couldn't have slaves. They said they had different ethics and the abolitionists were trampling their right for choice and to live the way they wanted to in accordance with their own morals. Are you saying we should be allowed to have slaves too for this reason?

This is a cultural relativistic position. This type of thinking would allow one country to allow another to sacrifice their babies. We all know there is a right and a wrong that isn't subjective; you know it in your heart.

Here you go arguing from what is to what ought again. Does legality determine morality? If murder were legal, would that make it right, ethical, good and true?

I'm not sure what you're asking

I read the chatgpt definition you gave for mysogyny and nothing in my post suggests I have a hate for women (as it defined it), but more a disdain for the act of killing innocent humans.

 

Your stated “Women all over the country are killing babies and loving it. All they do is order an abortion pill or drive out of state. Women in the US are still free to be their care free promiscuous selves if they so choose”

This statement is misogynistic because it relies on harmful stereotypes, uses dehumanizing language, and shames women for exercising their reproductive rights. Why? Because of the following reasons,

1. Dehumanizing and inflammatory language:

Saying women are “killing babies and loving it” is a highly inflammatory way to describe abortion. It disregards the complexity and nuance of individual circumstances and reduces a deeply personal and often painful decision to a cruel caricature.

2. Moral judgment and shaming:

The phrase “care free promiscuous selves” implies that women who have abortions are irresponsible and sexually immoral. This perpetuates the harmful stereotype that women who assert sexual autonomy are less worthy of respect or compassion.

3. Dismissal of bodily autonomy:

The statement ignores that abortion is a legal medical procedure in many places and a fundamental aspect of reproductive healthcare. Framing it as women recklessly “ordering a pill” or “driving out of state” diminishes their right to make informed choices about their own bodies.

4. Gender-specific criticism:

The statement targets women exclusively, with no mention of the role of men in reproduction. This one-sided blame reinforces patriarchal norms that hold women solely responsible for pregnancy and its outcomes, which is a hallmark of misogyny.

 

Not until they have brainwaves.
And then some time after that begins as well.

 

I already answered this before, look above and reply to my arguments

1. Define sexual autonomy

2. This does not mean why aren't worthy of respect or compassion, just that killing unborn babies isn't ok

3. If they are killing babies, it is immoral and if they are sleeping with me they wouldn't raise a family with, that's also irresponsible

What about the rights of the life they are killing inside of them?

If a man is holding a gun to the woman's head and telling her to kill the baby, I hold him responsible. This has nothing to do with "patriarchal norms."

Obviously men have a role in creating a baby and this is why they too should be sleeping with women they don't intend to create a family with. However, as of now, it's only the woman that is ever given the choice to kill the baby or not, so the topic isn't really about men. Try again and this time try it without AI.

Also, try responding to the actual arguments I made rather than taking issue with the tone of the conversation. Try actual logic and facts based arguments. Otherwise you're just arguing from feelings.

 

Apologies, it's taken me a moment to grasp your position on this matter. Let's see if I've got it correct. You are opposed to abortion under any circumstance where it isn't necessary to preserve the woman's health. Have I got that correct? And based on a previous assertion you would expect that a woman's Dr. should be the one to make such a determination? This is not compatible with either you or I throwing our 2 cents on the matter into the determination though is it? You would then concede that the AMA or a similar professional society, although with respect to this subject I'm not sure whom else would be in the running, would provide the guidelines rather than politicians and religious ideologues? Although it would still amount to forced carry-to-term, I can see where there is a compelling argument from someone having your perspective to rail passionately against it. Were you to have been born a woman, what then though would you think that anyone could preclude your decision to abort a pregnancy?

This other thing that you mention about a woman deciding to have a baby without keeping the father at home, it's within her power to achieve this exactly how?