Tuesday, October 16, 2012

aMaleFeminist response




A tweeter @aMaleFeminist left mentions for me attempting to "refute" my Prochoice debunk post.




He attempts to do so by using Feminist rhetorical sophistry.  His comments are in blue and my response is in black:



http://male-feminist.tumblr.com/post/33437209631/sacerdotvs-refuted-part-i-silly-religious-pro-lifers



Today I came across a post via Twitter on the religious site Sacerdotvs that made me chuckle like Joe Biden sitting across from an unqualified VP candidate at a debate.  The post itself is eloquently titled “Prochoice Debunked” as if the writer had found the magic pill that would finally silence anyone who believes that a woman has a right to have an abortion.  While the person does make a complete and total a** out of themselves within the first paragraph of their explanation, it’s important that we, as people advocating for women’s right to an abortion, respond to it in a calm, peaceful, and intelligent way…
Nah, who am I kidding.  This is me we’re talking about.
Those first two are out the window.


Sacerdotus replies:

First, you should ask for permission before using my writings as my blog states.   Second, the blog post cannot be debunked because it deals with science that is universally accepted.

From reading your replies, you merely recirculated Prochoice rhetoric.    



Here’s my systematic dismantling of Sacerdotvs’s “Prochoice Debunked.”
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/10/prochoice-debunked.htmlPerhaps I should title it “Prochoice Debunked Debunked.” Nah, sounds stupid. I like my title. Anyway, I’ll take it section by section, giving you highlights of Sacerdotvs’s post, and my responses.

Did I not tell you they make an a** out of themselves right in the very first paragraph? Firstly, starting an argument with a debate of semantics is never a strong way to start an argument. Personally, I already started losing interest, but forced myself to keep reading.

Point of the matter is, the author uses the definition of right as an adjective, not a noun, to support their objective. In other words, they used the definition that describes when something is “correct.” Somebody doesn’t know how to scroll down on Merriam Webster’s online Dictionary. The real definition, in pertinence to this particular argument, is:

“The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” Enough said. Now, let’s fight semantics with semantics, and allow me to pontificate my opinion as is MYright under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Firstly, this document that the author believes they support their argument so eloquently with was ratified on December 10, 1948. Funny how these folk who base arguments like this keep having to refer to documents that are decades old (or, in some cases, milennia.)

Secondly, the author leaves out the careers of those who authored the Declaration following the Declaration, which is the most poignant way for us to glean exactly what was going through their minds when they wrote the phrase, which so eloquently begins the Declaration:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

John Peters Humphrey, a Canadian author of the Declaration, spent his next 20 years at the U.N. Campaigning for freedom of the press, status of women, and against racial discrimination. Charles Malik, another author, is credited with the quote “The fastest way to change society is to mobilize the women of the world.” Yet another author was the United States’ own Eleanor Roosevelt.

With the years following this Declaration has become increased worldly consciousness from which has arisen the pro-choice stance. For all persons to be truly equal, there has to be equal security of person for every human being, not just men and fetuses.

Oh wait, that whole security of person thing is in the U.N. Declaration, too. Hmmm…

Sacerdotus replies:

Whether noun or adjective, the definition is pretty much synonymous.  Notice that both definitions mention the word "just" and imply that this is a possessive trait.

"The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>”


This is where you failed to understand my point.  If a right is "just" and entitled as your definition provided, then how can the killing of human offspring articulate this?   In other words: is it just to kill human offspring?  

I then link this to the UN's idea of Human rights and how reproductive rights are not mentioned nor is the killing of human offspring.  Despite the document being decades old, it is still a valid document accepted by the UN and its members.  Until a new one is written, this one is the one that has weight to it.  

I do not understand your foolish attempt to dismiss a valid document that is used today in 2012.  The United State's Constitution is over 200 years old and is still valid.  The careers of those who authored the document are irrelevant.  Again, the document still stands today and is used to define what a Universal Human Right is.    

Your inferences are not part of the document so it is unfair for you to imply that Prochoice rhetoric has arisen from it.  Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term legalese.  What the words explicitly state in a legal document is what goes, not what is inferred by its readers.

Here’s a continuation of my blog post in which I systematically dismantle Sacerdotvs’s blog post in which they believe they “debunk” the pro-choice stance.
This is the reason we can’t let all the religious folk in the abortion sandbox play with the science toys. They end up spewing out a whole bunch of factual bull*** that they strongly believe supports their cause but in fact just leaves pro-choice folk giggling because they completely and utterly missed the point of their argument and just made themselves look like an a** to everyone but those who share the same ridiculous belief system they do. Allow me to explain:
The phrase “this is my body” is said by feminists with no scientific intent. It’s purely a matter of human rights. The same human rights which they believe they so eloquently dispelled in section one. The phrase is said because a woman believes that, as a human being, that she is allowed the security of not having an authoritative figure, especially one who will NEVER go through what she is going through as far as a pregnancy, to make a decision about what takes place inside the confines of her own body.
What if you had cancer, and the government could decide that it would be illegal for the doctors to remove a tumor that was implanted against your brain? Hell, it’s a bunch of living cells, right? The most fundamental block of human life, right? What about a tapeworm living inside your stomach/intestines? What if the government told you that you couldn’t remove that because, well, it’s a thing that’s ENTIRELY alive living inside your body, and that would be murdering something for no reason? Isn’t that wrong? Your viewpoints would allow the government to invade the human body to a point where they can decide who lives and who dies. They’d be playing god.
Personally, I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life, than give the United States power to play god over the life of every. single. United. States. citizen.

Sacerdotus replies:

To date you have not debunked anything.  You have not even touched the scientific facts that support the Pro Life cause.   Prochoice rhetoric as you have demonstrated, relies on sophistry.  Those ideas only work with the ignorant.  

The term "this is my body" is irrational.  Biologically speaking, during pregnancy there are TWO bodies.  Moreover, as I have shown, the destruction of human offspring is not listed as a 'human right.'  Whether you like it or not, governmental bodies have control of all of us.  
  • Do you grow your own food?  
  • Do you teach yourself? 
  • Can you do whatever you want with your body?   
The answer to these is no.  You rely on the government and private businesses to take care of most of your needs.  This indirectly controls your body because the processing of food can alter your body in ways you may not have intended.  Hence, the obesity epidemic in the United States of America.  

If you urinate on the street, or use your body to attack another person, you will be arrested.  What then of "bodily autonomy?"   It seems to not apply here does it?  

Bodily autonomy has its limits in society.  Every government in order for it to be valid must protect human life.  Women, being the ones who carry human offspring are not above the government in this regard.  Just because they are biologically determined to carry human offspring does not give them the right to kill them at will.  

If you saw a pregnant lady punching her stomach, would you stop her or let her do it?   Most likely, your conscience will compel you to run and stop her.  Furthermore, if your mother wanted to jump off a roof, would you stop her?  She has bodily autonomy correct?  Who are you to put your love and feelings for her above her right to take her body and throw it over a roof?  

Your analogy of cancer is the typical attempt to correlate a tumor with an unborn child.  An unborn child is not a tumor.  Your analogy fails.  The removal of a tumor, or tapeworm is not related to pregnancy which is a biologically determined aspect of being a female.  Women have sex organs specifically designed to ovulate and conceive offspring.  You cannot compare this natural occurrence to that of an illness or invasion from a foreign organism.   

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is?   

You are implying that pregnancy is the same as cancer or an invasion from another foreign organism!   Cancer is a mutation that only serves to destroy human life.  Pregnancy is a natural course of evolution that allows a species to continue.   It is NOT a disease.  

The removal of a tape worm is not the same as a child living within the womb.  Remember, this child comes from an ovulated egg of the mother that was fertilized.  It has her genes and that of the father.  This conception is a new human being with its own DNA - geno/phenotype.  This is the normal function of having ovaries, a cervix, Fallopian tubes, and wider pelvis.  Having a tapeworm is not a function of the human being so therefore it is not murder.  See the rest of my blog:

3) Fetus is an aggressor

This is one of the strangest arguments to date. Some claim the fetus somehow attacks the woman. However, biology teaches otherwise. A woman's body is designed to reproduce. She has ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, and vagina. The ovaries regulate hormones and also produce eggs with the genes of the women. These eggs are released at different intervals and wait for fertilization in the Fallopian tube. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) (http://www.thefertilityrealm.com/what-is-ovulation.html)

Once fertilized, the egg travels to the uterus as a zygote. It implants and starts to gestate. -(http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception)
This fertilization, or conception is the beginning of a new human person - “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.” - (Moore K. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.)

Moreover, a female's pelvis is different than that of a male. It is wider and symmetrically set up to hold and deliver a baby. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9034 ) The vagina/cervix itself dilates during birth in order to allow a baby's head/body to pass through. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/signsoflabor.html) That being said, a woman's body is biologically and naturally designed to house and help develop a zygote, embryo, and fetus. To say the fetus is an aggressor is not science. It is hateful feminist rhetoric based on fallacies.



4) Fetus is a parasite.

This is another strange argument presented by some prochoice advocates. They claim at fetus is a parasite or parasitic because it is "living off" the mother. Once again, this attack on human life is based on fallacious feminist rhetoric. All life comes from a beginning point. No one or thing appears "fully developed."

A cat does not fall out of the sky fully developed, neither does a dog, fish or human being. All organisms; plant or animal begin at one point. From that point they go through a series of developmental stages that do not end at birth. -(http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Humanities/Images-Multimedia/green/plant-life.jpg) (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051762/xhtml/images/img00022.jpg) (http://www.milleprime.com.sg/htm/elearning/lifecycleanimals/human.gif) ()http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm)
This is how it has been for however long life has existed on this planet called Earth.

Now, is a fetus a parasite or parasitic? The answer is no. A parasite has to be of another species. It invades a different species and survives off of it. "A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)"-(Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology.) The relationship between a zygote, embryo, fetus and the mother is solely dependent, not parasitic if we are to believe the biological classification of a parasite. Now, there are changes in the woman that are caused by the pregnancy; however they are related to hormonal changes, not disease as would be the case in a parasite invading a host.

A fetus does not cannibalize his or her own mother. This relationship is called "motherhood." If a fetus were a parasite, it would not have come from within the woman's own genetic material. The woman's immune system would attack it as if it were a foreign body. The antibodies of the woman actually help with the growth and development of the fetus and placenta. -(http://www.rialab.com/book_ch5.php) The idea that a fetus is a parasite or parasitic is flawed and not compatible with science. The fetus lacks the qualities for being classified as a parasite. Claiming that a fetus is a parasite because he/she is dependent on the mother is absurd and a misuse of definitions. It is a misrepresentation of the natural function of reproduction and pregnancy. If a fetus were a parasite, then the mother is one as well; however, that is not the case, because for a parasite to be classified as such, it would have to be of a different species invading another species. A parasite is a parasite, and a human fetus is a human fetus. Prochoice cannot twist taxonomy to suit feminist rhetoric. They are both incompatible to one another.

     

A fetus is a "blob of cells" "tissue."


Prochoice advocates disregard the destruction of a fetus by claiming it is merely "cells" or a "tissue." It is a "cancer," or a "tumor' as I have seen some post on twitter. According to the medical dictionary and fetus is: "The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo" - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424 )

Now notice that the definition says, "when the major structures have formed." What are these major structures? They are organ systems. Biology teaches that life takes different forms. The most basic form is a "cell." A cell is a structural biological unit of an organism - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell) Some definitions add the word basic to this. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2661) In layman's terms, a cell is a building block of life. They contain a nucleus with DNA, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, etc.

When these cells are together, they form cellular tissue. - (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/biobookanimalts.html) This cell tissue can come in many different forms; i.e, connective, smooth, epithelial and so on. When these tissues come together they form what is called an organ.

An organ is defined as "A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organ) This definition seems to match the prochoice's one of a fetus. However, notice the error in classification. A fetus is "unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week -when major structures have formed.." so a fetus cannot be an organ or a "group of tissues that perform a specific function.." as prochoice suggests. A fetus is an organism, or "am individual living thing that can grow, respond to stimuli and so on." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism) Once again prochoice rejects biology in favor of feminist rhetoric which contradicts truth.



The government has a duty to protect all human life.  Allowing pregnancy is not dictating who lives or who dies.  On the contrary, abortion is what is really an act of playing God.  Abortion decides who lives and who dies.  It is heavily promoted in poor neighborhoods with minorities.    

It is no wonder why Planned Parenthood founder and abortion/contraception supporter Margaret Sanger fought hard to eliminated blacks, latinos and the disabled who she saw as unfit to exist because of "imperfection."  




You write "I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life" I am glad you call the unborn "life" and acknowledge that the unborn are indeed alive.  Since they are alive, then what does terminating them do?  You are showing the cognitive dissonance that is found in so called "prochoice" supporters.  



No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (456) God (309) Atheism (239) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (174) Pope Francis (165) Atheist (145) LGBT (130) Science (117) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (84) Rosa Rubicondior (76) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (65) President Obama (56) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Physics (38) Christian (37) Philosophy (36) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Biology (28) Politics (28) Liturgy (26) Baseball (25) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Donald Trump (15) Health (14) Death (13) Astrophysics (12) Christ (12) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Illegal Immigrants (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)