The Planned Parenthood Videos Seem to be Getting a Fair Amount of Traction

[Achwienichtig]

What you said is that the fetus "isn't getting anything." On the contrary, it's getting a whole lot of stuff. It's amazing how many people seem to believe that the fetus's brain is completely inactive and then at birth BAMM! sliding out of vagina suddenly turns the brain on! It's the miracle of life!

The baby is getting a whole lot, and the way the mother of that child acts and behaves during pregnancy is of vital importance to the entire life of the person that will result. It is normal for an expectant parent to act in the ways I have described, and the indication is that this has some effect on the fetus. I'm not claiming the child will come out whistling Mozart.

ETA: I have to go check out that Dr. Seuss study myself.

When I said the kid isn't "getting anything", I was referring to the bonding process that some parents assume they're doing when they do such things as talk or play music to the preborn. And this study does nothing to alter the fact that the parents are the ones 'bonding' based on their own projections. Not the infant. It is not definitive that all infants recognize vowels. And even if some do, that's not a "whole lot". And certainly not bonding.

And you contradicted yourself. Either the preborn is getting a 'whole lot' or just 'some'. They are getting a lot physically but it is yet to be definitively determined how much they get mentally while still in the womb.

So what you are telling me is you did not watch the video, because if you did you would have learned about the study that shows that newborns recognize and show preference for their mothers' voices. In fact, another study was done that shows fetuses prefer their mothers' voices while still in the womb.

http://www.kangleelab.com/articles/Paper0001_0001_0028.pdf

"Some" and "whole lot" are not opposites. In fact, you had to add the word "just" prior to the word "some" to make it seem like they were opposites. I don't expect the child to come out whistling Mozart. I don't expect them to come out quoting Dr. Seuss. Just because the absolute growth of the fetus's mental abilities is fairly small, that is not an indication that the rate of growth has not been exponential. This is no different from fetal physical development. Although the growth of the fetus in utero is small on an absolute level (the majority of growth happens outside the womb), the rate of growth in the womb is far greater than at any point after birth.

So, when we think about fetal mental development, we would expect their absolute growth to be small. So of course I don't expect the newborn to have some perfect image of their mother or a fully developed emotional bond with her. But this in no way indicates that the rate of growth of this emotional tie has been small or non-existent.

So when a mother reads a book to her child in utero, the absolute growth of the child's connection with her will be small. Maybe even very, very, very small. But the rate of growth could very great. The child's nervous system just came into existence, after all. Literally, the child had absolutely no stimuli just a short couple of weeks beforehand.

All this is really beside the point anyway. My argument was not supposed to be about the child per se. I was responding to ronburgundy, who maintained that normal people do no develop connections with their infants in utero, and that any connection they do have is just a projection into the future. To this point, I was demonstrating normal behavior on the part of parents to develop a connection with the fetus that is not merely a projection into the future. Normal expectant parents actually take delight to interact in whatever small way they can with the fetus. This is far from projection. You might still maintain that it is delusional, but it is at least a delusion about the present, not the future.

 

[credoconsolans]

When I said the kid isn't "getting anything", I was referring to the bonding process that some parents assume they're doing when they do such things as talk or play music to the preborn. And this study does nothing to alter the fact that the parents are the ones 'bonding' based on their own projections. Not the infant. It is not definitive that all infants recognize vowels. And even if some do, that's not a "whole lot". And certainly not bonding.

And you contradicted yourself. Either the preborn is getting a 'whole lot' or just 'some'. They are getting a lot physically but it is yet to be definitively determined how much they get mentally while still in the womb.

So what you are telling me is you did not watch the video, because if you did you would have learned about the study that shows that newborns recognize and show preference for their mothers' voices.

But we're not talking about newborns are we? We're talking about the pre-born, still in the womb fetuses.

In fact, another study was done that shows fetuses prefer their mothers' voices while still in the womb.

Small study, not definitive.

"Some" and "whole lot" are not opposites.

They're not the same either.

So, when we think about fetal mental development, we would expect their absolute growth to be small. So of course I don't expect the newborn to have some perfect image of their mother or a fully developed emotional bond with her. But this in no way indicates that the rate of growth of this emotional tie has been small or non-existent.

It doesn't indicate any emotional growth at all.

All this is really beside the point anyway. My argument was not supposed to be about the child per se. I was responding to ronburgundy, who maintained that normal people do no develop connections with their infants in utero, and that any connection they do have is just a projection into the future. To this point, I was demonstrating normal behavior on the part of parents to develop a connection with the fetus that is not merely a projection into the future. Normal expectant parents actually take delight to interact in whatever small way they can with the fetus. This is far from projection. You might still maintain that it is delusional, but it is at least a delusion about the present, not the future.

And I was just pointing out that some would-be parents tend to be overly emotional and not very clear thinkers when it comes to an unborn child and project themselves and their feelings onto the fetus. Very similar to parents having birthday parties for their 1 year old babies. It's ludicrous and is much more an event for the parent than it is the child.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I feel the need to readdress the OP. Since I have been taking the side of the pro-life cause in the ethical debate here, some might presume that I am anti-choice or against Planned Parenthood. I am not. As I stated, I consider myself personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. However, the foundations for my pro-life stance are not the same as most people who identify as such. I have studied grad level bioethics. Name dropping: I studied under Bonnie Steinbock who is a world renown expert in the field, and very pro-choice herself. I am well aware of the ethical and metaphysical issues with the anti-choice movement and the general pro-life stance.

What I do not accept are false characterizations of the pro-life movement or arbitrary rationalizations of the pro-choice stance. Bonnie Steinbock's position is very well thought out and decidedly not arbitrary. It is due to people like her that I have no choice but to be pro-choice at a certain level. Though her value judgments are different from mine, they are still reasonable, and that is enough for me.

As I said in an earlier post, many people identify like me. They are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Fundamentally, we are not willing to make value judgments for other people where they have good reason to abort, even though we would not make that same decision. It is, oddly enough, people like me who are most prone to succumb to anti-abortion rhetoric. Though I consider my education to be a good inoculation from such rhetoric, I cannot say the same for others.

As to the tactics themselves, I understand them well, since I am the offspring of a pro-life advocate. I too was taught these tactics, which, by the way, included standing on the street corner holding up pictures of aborted fetuses. Yup. Those are days I'm not proud of. The good news is, most people of my generation who identify as pro-life now reject those tactics. It's really a waiting game for the older generation to die off before cooler heads can prevail.

If you ask me, Planned Parenthood would do well to stop the practice of donating/selling fetal tissue, whether its legal or not. I myself am a little repulsed by the idea, though I am not strictly ethically against it. I did, after all, have my children vaccinated with vaccines which were in part cultivated with materials derived from aborted fetuses. Some people will not even get their children vaccinated for just that reason.

It's all about public opinion, and right now Planned Parenthood is losing that batter. I think they believe that their core of support is unwavering, so they haven't been waging a public opinion campaign, nor do I think they are going to change any of their practices to gain public support. I think they are wrong about this assessment. As I said earlier, the anti-choice campaign has been successful in maintaining moral high ground on the national level while restricting abortion access on the state level. Planned Parenthood is not doing anything to break that cycle, and they need to. Stopping this practice might be a start.

 

[PyramidHead]

I feel the need to readdress the OP. Since I have been taking the side of the pro-life cause in the ethical debate here, some might presume that I am anti-choice or against Planned Parenthood. I am not. As I stated, I consider myself personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. However, the foundations for my pro-life stance are not the same as most people who identify as such. I have studied grad level bioethics. Name dropping: I studied under Bonnie Steinbock who is a world renown expert in the field, and very pro-choice herself. I am well aware of the ethical and metaphysical issues with the anti-choice movement and the general pro-life stance.

What I do not accept are false characterizations of the pro-life movement or arbitrary rationalizations of the pro-choice stance. Bonnie Steinbock's position is very well thought out and decidedly not arbitrary. It is due to people like her that I have no choice but to be pro-choice at a certain level. Though her value judgments are different from mine, they are still reasonable, and that is enough for me.

As I said in an earlier post, many people identify like me. They are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Fundamentally, we are not willing to make value judgments for other people where they have good reason to abort, even though we would not make that same decision. It is, oddly enough, people like me who are most prone to succumb to anti-abortion rhetoric. Though I consider my education to be a good inoculation from such rhetoric, I cannot say the same for others.

Personally pro-life and politically pro-choice = pro-choice. The whole point is that you are in favor of allowing others to choose for themselves, and do not require them to choose as you have chosen for yourself. That's just pro-choice, no qualifier needed.

 

[Achwienichtig]

So what you are telling me is you did not watch the video, because if you did you would have learned about the study that shows that newborns recognize and show preference for their mothers' voices.

But we're not talking about newborns are we? We're talking about the pre-born, still in the womb fetuses.

In fact, another study was done that shows fetuses prefer their mothers' voices while still in the womb.

Small study, not definitive.

"Some" and "whole lot" are not opposites.

They're not the same either.

So, when we think about fetal mental development, we would expect their absolute growth to be small. So of course I don't expect the newborn to have some perfect image of their mother or a fully developed emotional bond with her. But this in no way indicates that the rate of growth of this emotional tie has been small or non-existent.

It doesn't indicate any emotional growth at all.

All this is really beside the point anyway. My argument was not supposed to be about the child per se. I was responding to ronburgundy, who maintained that normal people do no develop connections with their infants in utero, and that any connection they do have is just a projection into the future. To this point, I was demonstrating normal behavior on the part of parents to develop a connection with the fetus that is not merely a projection into the future. Normal expectant parents actually take delight to interact in whatever small way they can with the fetus. This is far from projection. You might still maintain that it is delusional, but it is at least a delusion about the present, not the future.

And I was just pointing out that some would-be parents tend to be overly emotional and not very clear thinkers when it comes to an unborn child and project themselves and their feelings onto the fetus. Very similar to parents having birthday parties for their 1 year old babies. It's ludicrous and is much more an event for the parent than it is the child.

You're entire argument is based on there not being enough evidence yet for my position. The research is clearly leaning in my direction, and you would do well to head it. Instead, you just keep saying "isn't so." Well, I see no reason to stop talking to fetuses or stop reading them books or stop forming a bond with them just because the research is only leaning in my direction and is not definitive yet.

And, actually children do get a lot from birthday parties, although they don't recognize the cause or know what the commotion is about. Children love things outside of the ordinary. My children have always loved large events where they are the center of attention. Of course they don't get out of it what the parent gets out of it, but they get something.

ETA: I also noticed you ignored the core of my argument which is a differentiation between absolute growth and relative growth. I supposed you ignored it because it is common sense and we can't have any of that.

 

[Achwienichtig]

Personally pro-life and politically pro-choice = pro-choice. The whole point is that you are in favor of allowing others to choose for themselves, and do not require them to choose as you have chosen for yourself. That's just pro-choice, no qualifier needed.

I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, self-image is such a complicated affair. When pushed, most people who identify as I do would give up the pro-choice identification before giving up their pro-life identification. And, likewise, people like me are more prone to voting for an anti-choice candidate based on his "values" which are aligned with one's own personal preferences, even though this could result in restriction of choice on a political level. As a result, the voter like me is prone to undermining the political right to choose which he affirms. That is bad.

 

[scombrid]

Kind of straying from the original topic this thread.

20 years ago I had a bioethics class as a capstone course at the parochial school that I attended. Debate around the ethics of biomedical research using human tissue of all sorts from fetal to stuff recovered in cancer removals featured heavily in that class. Of course the course was taught through the Catholic lens but the relevancy to this thread is that the issue of fetal tissue being used in biomedical research is not new.

What we have witnessed in this case is yet another example of political activists taking control of the conversation by means of extreme hyperbole and deception. The ignorant politicians and their ignorant public and the media looking for the next sensation have jumped all over this "selling baby parts" bullshit. Now the belief that "Planned Parenthood hacks babies up and sells the parts for profit" is part of Republican cannon and the abortion debate has shifted accordingly.

 

[SimpleDon]

The videos are pretty disgusting. They show doctors arguing over the best way to abort a fetus to preserve the most valuable organs. Even considering the low integrity of the hit squad that made them I don't see Planned Parenthood surviving.

How are some doctors trying to figure out ways to save countless lives by performing abortions more carefully to preserve important tissues "disgusting"? How are rationality and trying to prevent lost benefits to society things that should make any minimal reasonable person upset? I don't doubt that the raving idiot masses will react with unreasoned knee-jerk emotion over such discussions, I just doubt that it is in any way disgusting, immoral, or unreasonable to have such a discussion or seek to achieve the goal they are talking about.

Did they say that they want to preserve the organs and that they have no concern for whether that would increase the pain and suffering of the fetus during the abortion process?

Abortion, no matter how you dance around it is ending a human life. It was made legal as a concern for human health.

No it isn't, or if it is then the category of "human life" is too broad to have any moral or political meaning. If it isn't surviving outside the mothers body, then it is not yet a human being in any sense that gives human beings their ethical and political status, which requires their ability to survive as a physically distinct organism. Genes are not all that matter. Whether the organism is enveloped within the body of a human matters for what is in scientific fact, ethically, and politically. It is a concern for human health precisely because its objective location within a human's body causes direct health impacts on that human.
If you want to argue that unreasoning emotional idiots react as though fetuses are human beings, then that is fine. But most of those same people do not react as though it is a human being when the mother is smoking, drinking, or doing other things that risk the life of that fetus. If they were, then would call for treating such actions the same as they do for a 1 year old whose mother intentionally blows smoke in its face or forcing liquor down its throat, or forces it to do any risky actions that many pregnant mothers do. They also do not show the same emotional sympathetic or behavioral response they do when a fetus dies as when a infant dies, which proves that despite any dishonest claims they make, they do not actually view fetuses as a human being in the same sense as post-birth children.

I am pro-choice because I don't think that making abortions illegal will reduce the number of them. The only certain way to reduce the number of abortions is through reliable, long term birth control and the judgement free distribution of them.

This is largely a pipe dream now because of the overreaction of the moral majority to the abortion question. Now they have irrationally equated birth control to baby killing abortions. In one agonizing meme they have eliminated any chance of reducing the number of abortions whether they are legal or not. Coupled with the irrational overreaction of women to health scares from contraception we have almost a perfect storm of irrational behavior working to maximize the number of abortions.

Yes, a fetus is not a human being. But it is a human life, abet I can accept a qualifier of a potential human life for early term fetuses. But at some point in the womb they do become human beings. This you can't work around.

The only way to avoid the question of when this happens is by working hard to reduce the number of abortions. This is what we haven't done, to our discredit. We didn't advance conception as a way to reduce the number of abortions because we were afraid of being called out by those hung up on the question of sex, because they believe that conception encourages premarital sex. Not using conception encourages abortions, the or illegitimate children, single parent families with their limitations for the children and the narrowing of the usually mothers potential.

If you believe that the moral majority whose attitudes are so set in stone about sex that widespread sex education and distribution of contraception is impossible, consider this. The attitudes against gay marriage was completely turned around in half of a generation. And now, fifty years of legal abortions it is much harder to do than it would have been fifty years ago because of the overreaction to abortions. Abstinence is an obvious failure. Look at the spokeperson for it, Palin's daughter working tirelessly to spread the word about the effectiveness of abstinence, interrupted twice to give birth to her and two different boys illegitimate children.

When I said that I found the doctors disgusting who were arguing over the best way to avoid damage to a fetus that they were killing because that was my visceral reaction to it. I readily admit that it is not logical. But considering the extreme stake that I have personally in the use of fetal tissue I think that it should give every pro-abortion person here a better idea of how deep the hole is that Planned Parenthood is in.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Option A: Sell unwanted/unused fetus parts in order to help other fetuses/babies/humans.
Option B: Throw unwanted/unused fetus parts in the trash.

Not sure why A is so offensive relative to the alternative.

aa

 

[dismal]

Option A: Sell unwanted/unused fetus parts in order to help other fetuses/babies/humans.
Option B: Throw unwanted/unused fetus parts in the trash.

Not sure why A is so offensive relative to the alternative.

aa

Yes, really the focus should be on getting something useful from the aborted fetuses not harvested intact.

Like perhaps making a tasty chili for the federal school lunch program.

 

[NobleSavage]

Option A: Sell unwanted/unused fetus parts in order to help other fetuses/babies/humans.
Option B: Throw unwanted/unused fetus parts in the trash.

Not sure why A is so offensive relative to the alternative.

aa

Yes, really the focus should be on getting something useful from the aborted fetuses not harvested intact.

Like perhaps making a tasty chili for the federal school lunch program.

That will probably get quoted over at CARM.

 

[credoconsolans]

As I said in an earlier post, many people identify like me. They are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Fundamentally, we are not willing to make value judgments for other people where they have good reason to abort, even though we would not make that same decision. It is, oddly enough, people like me who are most prone to succumb to anti-abortion rhetoric. .

This is probably because you still seem to think you can judge others. Hence your above statement.

The rest of us who are pro-choice are not really interested in a person's reasons. That's between the woman and her doctor.

 

[credoconsolans]

You're entire argument is based on there not being enough evidence yet for my position. The research is clearly leaning in my direction, and you would do well to head it.

I don't see it "leaning" in your direction at all. It may just be a curious phenomenon. Much like hearing being the last sense to go when dying, hearing might be the first sense to activate when close to being born.

Instead, you just keep saying "isn't so." Well, I see no reason to stop talking to fetuses or stop reading them books or stop forming a bond with them.

Except you haven't proved you're doing that. You certainly are pretending that you're bonding with them. But it's all on your side. Unrequited bonding I guess you could call it, though that seems a bit contradictory.

And, actually children do get a lot from birthday parties, although they don't recognize the cause or know what the commotion is about. Children love things outside of the ordinary. My children have always loved large events where they are the center of attention. Of course they don't get out of it what the parent gets out of it, but they get something.

Really? You asked a 1 year old what they got out of it and they were able to tell you?

ETA: I also noticed you ignored the core of my argument which is a differentiation between absolute growth and relative growth. I supposed you ignored it because it is common sense and we can't have any of that.

I didn't quite ignore it. I did note it and commented that it was unproven and thus irrelevant.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I don't see it "leaning" in your direction at all. It may just be a curious phenomenon. Much like hearing being the last sense to go when dying, hearing might be the first sense to activate when close to being born.

Instead, you just keep saying "isn't so." Well, I see no reason to stop talking to fetuses or stop reading them books or stop forming a bond with them.

Except you haven't proved you're doing that. You certainly are pretending that you're bonding with them. But it's all on your side. Unrequited bonding I guess you could call it, though that seems a bit contradictory.

The only thing you are proving is that you are ignoring the evidence and sources I have presented while you yourself have present absolutely no evidence for your position. It's just nay-saying.

And, actually children do get a lot from birthday parties, although they don't recognize the cause or know what the commotion is about. Children love things outside of the ordinary. My children have always loved large events where they are the center of attention. Of course they don't get out of it what the parent gets out of it, but they get something.

Really? You asked a 1 year old what they got out of it and they were able to tell you?

So unless a child is able to talk, he cannot learn anything? Because according to you, the only way I can know that my child has learned anything is if he talks and says so. Your position is irrational.

ETA: I also noticed you ignored the core of my argument which is a differentiation between absolute growth and relative growth. I supposed you ignored it because it is common sense and we can't have any of that.

I didn't quite ignore it. I did note it and commented that it was unproven and thus irrelevant.

Unproven? You are the one committing the fallacy of ignorance by ignoring all the evidence I have presented while not presenting any evidence of your own.

Please answer one question: At what point do you believe an infant capable of learning anything?

 

[SimpleDon]

Really? Have you never met a women who's had a miscarriage? Contrary to what you say, people do mourn over the death of a fetus. It is not unheard of that people will actually have funerals for babies who died in utero. There was one woman in my church (back when I went to church) who had a funeral for a baby she had to abort on her doctor's advice. My mom (who had her own share of miscarriages) is one of those women who will console other women after a miscarriage. Your characterization does not apply to any people I actually know. All the people I know who say they value the life of a fetus actually do value the life a fetus.

I agree with this assessment as a statement of fact: we are hardwired to feel deeply protective of babies, even before they are born. This is a natural instinct that can be found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is also morally backwards, because fetuses and even newborns have no interest in their continued existence beyond the most basic survival urge. If we accept the ethical assumption that killing someone harms them because it deprives them of the ability to satisfy their preference to go on living, killing an adult is far worse than killing a newborn baby, all else being equal. Yet, most would consider killing an infant to be a particularly heinous act. I think it's because we want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to innocent people. Even though killing an adult is a more serious violation of the victim's conscious wishes, and destroys something that required much greater resources to maintain than a baby, the idea that a blameless babe could just be snuffed out is like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sense of fairness. People don't think straight when babies die. The unfortunate consequence is that institutions like Planned Parenthood, which among other things does the admirable work of preventing people from being born, get vilified by the emotional mob.

Most of us here are atheists. We don't have the crutch of faith in the existence of a sky commander who explained morality to some goat herders 3000 years ago. We have to work it out between ourselves. We have to be careful of every small step we take toward discounting human life, whether it is before or after birth.

Our average pro-lifer seems to lose interest in other people's fetuses once they are born. They have no problem with commending the children of the poor to a life of hardship and lost potential because they believe apparently that poverty is a choice and that passing it on to the children is the parents fault.

Pro-lifers by and large don't mind if other people's now born fetuses don't have adequate food to eat or adequate medical care.

They seem to be able to short circuit their hardwiring pretty easily.

 

[Achwienichtig]

As I said in an earlier post, many people identify like me. They are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Fundamentally, we are not willing to make value judgments for other people where they have good reason to abort, even though we would not make that same decision. It is, oddly enough, people like me who are most prone to succumb to anti-abortion rhetoric. .

This is probably because you still seem to think you can judge others. Hence your above statement.

The rest of us who are pro-choice are not really interested in a person's reasons. That's between the woman and her doctor.

For not being interested in other people's reasons, you sure are judgmental of a mother's interaction with her unborn child.

But I digress.

You make it sound like apathy is a virtue. What I just heard is you don't care why women have abortions. That is a shame. In fact, that is a fallacy often committed by those on the right. Unable to listen to the reasons women have for getting abortions, they neglect the abuse that many of them go through. They neglect the rape culture. They neglect that lack of sex education. All they have is condemnation without understanding. My path to the pro-choice position has been through understand other people's situations and reasons.

Yes, reasons are important.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I agree with this assessment as a statement of fact: we are hardwired to feel deeply protective of babies, even before they are born. This is a natural instinct that can be found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is also morally backwards, because fetuses and even newborns have no interest in their continued existence beyond the most basic survival urge. If we accept the ethical assumption that killing someone harms them because it deprives them of the ability to satisfy their preference to go on living, killing an adult is far worse than killing a newborn baby, all else being equal. Yet, most would consider killing an infant to be a particularly heinous act. I think it's because we want to believe that bad things shouldn't happen to innocent people. Even though killing an adult is a more serious violation of the victim's conscious wishes, and destroys something that required much greater resources to maintain than a baby, the idea that a blameless babe could just be snuffed out is like fingernails on a chalkboard to our sense of fairness. People don't think straight when babies die. The unfortunate consequence is that institutions like Planned Parenthood, which among other things does the admirable work of preventing people from being born, get vilified by the emotional mob.

Most of us here are atheists. We don't have the crutch of faith in the existence of a sky commander who explained morality to some goat herders 3000 years ago. We have to work it out between ourselves. We have to be careful of every small step we take toward discounting human life, whether it is before or after birth.

Our average pro-lifer seems to lose interest in other people's fetuses once they are born. They have no problem with commending the children of the poor to a life of hardship and lost potential because they believe apparently that poverty is a choice and that passing it on to the children is the parents fault.

Pro-lifers by and large don't mind if other people's now born fetuses don't have adequate food to eat or adequate medical care.

They seem to be able to short circuit their hardwiring pretty easily.

Again, this was not my experience growing up in a strongly pro-life family. In one regards, the pro-life stance certainly is at odds with the usual conservative mantra of how bad welfare is, but in my parents' case, the more they worked with people in hard situations, the more the gave up their conservative beliefs. My dad eventually left the republican party to become an independent. My mom joined the right-to-life party, which I'm not sure is a step in the right direction, but it is a step away from republicanism. My mom was particularly active working with people in difficult situations. One eye opening experience with her was when she tried to help a single mom with three developmentally disabled children get welfare. She ran into obstacles left and right. That's when she realized that the welfare system was in need of reform rather than abolition.

Here in Upstate New York, you also get a fair share of pro-life democrats. In general it's a more progressive state anyway, so people have more left leaning tendencies even if they identify as right-wing. I understand the same might not be true of all places, and it is unfortunately not true on the national political level. I have no sympathy for republican politics to begin with, but their demonization of the poor is repugnant.

 

[credoconsolans]

This is probably because you still seem to think you can judge others. Hence your above statement.

The rest of us who are pro-choice are not really interested in a person's reasons. That's between the woman and her doctor.

For not being interested in other people's reasons, you sure are judgmental of a mother's interaction with her unborn child.

I'm just saying it's nonsense. If they want to blither to their unborn, go right ahead, but IMO, it's just projection.

You make it sound like apathy is a virtue. What I just heard is you don't care why women have abortions. That is a shame. In fact, that is a fallacy often committed by those on the right. Unable to listen to the reasons women have for getting abortions, they neglect the abuse that many of them go through.

"Many of them"? You have the sources for this claim, I imagine?

Why is it "apathy" and not concern for someone's privacy?

They neglect the rape culture. They neglect that lack of sex education. All they have is condemnation without understanding. My path to the pro-choice position has been through understand other people's situations and reasons.

Yes, reasons are important.

The reasons are important to the woman who is getting the abortion. For the rest of us, why a woman is having a medical procedure is not only none of our business, it's not for us to judge either.

 

[credoconsolans]

I don't see it "leaning" in your direction at all. It may just be a curious phenomenon. Much like hearing being the last sense to go when dying, hearing might be the first sense to activate when close to being born.

Except you haven't proved you're doing that. You certainly are pretending that you're bonding with them. But it's all on your side. Unrequited bonding I guess you could call it, though that seems a bit contradictory.

The only thing you are proving is that you are ignoring the evidence and sources I have presented while you yourself have present absolutely no evidence for your position. It's just nay-saying.

You've provided sources. I've let you know how un-definitive they are. So my answer is no more right or wrong than theirs.

And, actually children do get a lot from birthday parties, although they don't recognize the cause or know what the commotion is about. Children love things outside of the ordinary. My children have always loved large events where they are the center of attention. Of course they don't get out of it what the parent gets out of it, but they get something.

Really? You asked a 1 year old what they got out of it and they were able to tell you?

So unless a child is able to talk, he cannot learn anything? Because according to you, the only way I can know that my child has learned anything is if he talks and says so. Your position is irrational.

Will he remember? I used to give my niece horsey-back rides when she was 18 months old. She loved them. I asked her when she was 10 years old if she remembered them.

She said, "No."

So I really doubt a child even younger than 18 months gets anything out of a party.

ETA: I also noticed you ignored the core of my argument which is a differentiation between absolute growth and relative growth. I supposed you ignored it because it is common sense and we can't have any of that.

I didn't quite ignore it. I did note it and commented that it was unproven and thus irrelevant.

Unproven? You are the one committing the fallacy of ignorance by ignoring all the evidence I have presented while not presenting any evidence of your own.

Why should I post contrary evidence when I think what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion?

Please answer one question: At what point do you believe an infant capable of learning anything?

ANYthing? That covers a lot.

For a general milestone, I'd say about 2-3 months of age.

 

[Axulus]

OTOH, part of the shift toward pro-life is due to the increase in Hispanics, both due to immigration and greater birth rates. They are still mostly voting Dem. Given the high % of hard core pro-life candidates that are also blatantly racist, this won't likely change soon.

What will likely change is the the number of pro-life Democrat candidates. We'll see more of them to attract the Hispanic vote.