There

1.  Anonymous | 31/7/07 21:47 |  

   "Pro-lifers" anthropomorphize a blob of cells with no brain or consciousness, no ability to suffer or even be aware of what is happening to it when a pregnancy is aborted, into something that actually has an internal monologue, saying things like "I don't like that doctor" and generally frets about being aborted. They have a habit of attributing qualities to blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses that even newborns and toddlers don't have!
   
   That is ludicrous (also, it's only called a fetus from the third month onward, and the VAST majority of abortions are done WAY before then). "Pro-lifers" (who always seem to be in favor of the death penalty, interestingly enough) make the molehill of an unfeeling, non-sentient blob of cells less than an inch long (1 inch at the two-month mark) into the mountain of a child, physically indistinguishable from a newborn, who not only can magically feel pain, but is somehow imbued with MORE self-awareness and sentience than a newborn. It's shocking, and hilarious how little understanding these idiots have.
   
   Following is the type of crap anti-choice jackoffs make up to try and demonize abortions, with my commentary added (this is a 'meme' that I've seen "pro-lifers" spread around a lot and actually use as an argument. It has not been cut in any way):
   
   "Month 1
   Mommy, I am only 8 inches long, but I have all my organs. I love the sound of your voice. Every time I hear it, I wave my arms and legs. The sound of your heart beat is my favorite lullaby."
   
   LOL, right out of the gate, we are swamped in BS. A four-week old embryo is at MOST one FIFTH of ONE inch long. It has almost NO internal organs: no ears to hear a voice or another's heartbeat, nor arms nor legs to wave. The only thing it's got is its heart, which only begins to beat on day 25.
   
   "Month 2
   Mommy, today I learned how to suck my thumb. If you could see me, you could definitely tell that I am a baby. I'm not big enough to survive outside my home though. It is so nice and warm in here."
   
   Sorry embryo, the pro-lifers are still telling dirty lies (the irony of me pretending to directly address an embryo is intentional satire, people :P). You have no real thumb to suck yet (hell, no real developed mouth to put it in either). And even if you did, thumbsucking is only shown to start happening around month 5, three months later. And if you were to see an embryo at this point, without magnification, you would think you were looking not at a baby, but at a fleshy bean, because that is the shape the embryo is, and it's also only about an inch long at eight weeks.
   
   ATTENTION: TAKE NOTE THAT IT IS BY THIS POINT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF ABORTIONS HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED. ABORTIONS THAT HAPPEN AFTER THIS POINT HAPPEN MORE BECAUSE OF A HEALTH RISK TO THE PREGNANT WOMAN THAN FOR ANY OTHER REASON. THEREFORE, THE VERY FEW VALID POINTS INTERSPERSED BEYOND THIS POINT MATTER VERY LITTLE OVERALL.
   
   "Month 3
   You know what Mommy, I'm a girl!! I hope that makes you happy. I always want you to be happy. I don't like it when you cry. You sound so sad. It makes me sad too, and I cry with you even though you can't hear me."
   
   Okay, I'll let them get away with this because it's at week twelve (the last week of month 3; you barely made it) when sex becomes distinguishable. So hooray, the pro-lifer makes their first true statement! Unfortunately, it's followed by a very false one--it's not possible for a fetus to cry, not before it's got air in its lungs! Sheesh.
   
   "Month 4
   Mommy, my hair is starting to grow. It is very short and fine, but I will have a lot of it. I spend a lot of my time exercising. I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes, and stretch my arms and legs. I am becoming quite good at it too."
   
   Again we've got a 'half-truth' in here. The development of the lanugo (the hair that's being referred to) does happen here, but it's temporary. It's gone before birth (and for reference, this fine hair covers much of the body--we're not talking about 'head hair' here, which some newborns have and others don't). The fetus is capable of basic movement by this time, so the last sentence is alright, I guess.
   
   "Month 5
   You went to the doctor today. Mommy, he lied to you. He said that I'm not a baby. I am a baby Mommy, your baby. I think and feel. Mommy, what's abortion?"
   
   This is some of the most obvious anthropomorphization yet. Guys, children don't have anything resembling sense of self/identity until several YEARS AFTER BIRTH! Much less a fetus having the capability to literally DISAGREE with something. Of course, that is also not mentioning the fact that a fetus doesn't understand English--again, jackoff pro-lifers are attributing qualities to EMBRYOS and FETUSES that even newborns don't have!
   
   "Month 6
   I can hear that doctor again. I don't like him. He seems cold and heartless. Something is intruding my home. The doctor called it a needle. Mommy what is it? It burns! Please make him stop! I can't get away from it! Mommy!! HELP me!!"
   
   Let's start at the beginning. A fetus doesn't even know what a 'person' is, much less have the ability to 'dislike' a specific person (or, for that matter, know his/her GENDER, much less PROFESSION). Again, not even newborns are capable of this. The fetus here is shown asking about things in the same way that one would only expect a child of 3 or 4 YEARS to be able to. Shrieks of pain and cries for help are attributed even though the actual process of abortion at this point (again, I can't reiterate enough that it is EXTREMELY rare in the third trimester (let alone the second), and done most often because the pregnant woman's health is at risk) is still nothing like the kind of prolonged agony a pro-lifer would like to have you believe it is. The described reaction sounds more like what you'd expect if someone took a branding iron to a 5 year-old's forehead.
   
   "Month 7
   Mommy, I am okay. I am in Jesus's arms. he is holding me. He told me about abortion. Why didn't you want me, Mommy?"
   
   Again, no sense of self in a fetus--it doesn't even know what a 'mommy' is, much less who it should refer to that way (or even how to tell the difference between people). The "why didn't you want me" at the end is a fallacious appeal to emotion, which dodges the reality of the situation--even if you don't abort an unwanted pregnancy, it's STILL an unwanted pregnancy! Going through the whole pregnancy, and having the kid grow up to TRULY (with the level of understanding these idiot pro-lifers would like to have you believe a freaking EMBRYO or FETUS has) feel unwanted, and know that their whole life was a 'mistake'...is that REALLY better than stopping an unwanted pregnancy as soon as possible? Think about it without a religious crutch or fantasies of embryonic sentience, and you'll know the answer.
   
   P.S. The majority of pregnancies are miscarried before the mother or (obviously) the embryo is ever aware of what's happened.
   
   Sources
   This blog entry
   http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/centres/pregnancy/pregnancy/second.html
   http://www.stronghealth.com/services/womenshealth/maternity/trimesters.cfm (this and the source above are where I got the REAL information about what goes on during pregnancy, and what the embryo/fetus is and is not at a given point in time)
   http://blog.youngpeoplefor.org/story/2007/2/1/15922/35939 (someone else exposing the flaws in the same account)
   http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=107651 (a source showing just how many pregnancies 'abort' themselves, with no outside intervention--less than two-thirds of pregnancies make it to birth)

2.  Demnos | 1/8/07 07:48 |  

   Wow, this blog post was meant to make people think but if you are reading this as a Scientific Paper then you have come to the wrong place. I don't recall stating that this is exactly what goes on in every pregnancy or that it is scientific fact. I just thought it was cute.
   
   I would just like to add too that you seem to think that us "Pro-Lifers" are a bunch of crazies when it actually sounds like you are the crazy one. You seem to be going a little off the deep end to defend your so-called "right" to kill babies.
   
   The real solution here would be for people to quit casually having sex when they have no desire to procreate. Sex=Babies. Most kids know that before they are out of elementary school don't they? Instead of getting pregnant and then killing the thing inside you because it is an inconvenience maybe you should learn to keep your pants on. I would agree that there is a big more of an argument in the case of rape, but I don't think that's what we are talking about here is it?
   
   Hey, thanks for the comment though.

3.  Anonymous | 9/1/08 02:05 |  

   anonymous said...
   '"Pro-lifers" anthropomorphize a blob of cells...'
   
   So he's a little rabid. Fortunately it doesn't detract much from what he said. The tragedy in banging your head against the wall when it comes to the abortion debate is that eventually you get so sick of the other side's arguments that you just skip the foreplay and go on the attack. I'll try to limit myself but...
   
   A blob of cells isn't a life, thought it DOES become one. So often that statement is (ironically) used as an argument for pro-life, even though there's a major difference between the two. Just as a spool of thread isn't a shirt or a pair of pants - neither is an embryo a life. It seems to me that most of the inclination to believe otherwise comes from religion itself - another troublesome relic of falsehood that long ago stopped being useful or productive. I'll belay that debate entirely. Suffice it to say I'm an atheist (as if it wasn't obvious).
   
   Moving on...sex for the sake of procreation only is an idea long since dead. The kama sutra dates back to the second century...so at least 1800 years dead, and in reality much, much more. Do we need whorish white trash going out, getting pregnant and having bi-weekly abortions? Of course not. I hate them as much as you do because I loathe that kind of irresponsibility. It betrays the intelligence we have as human beings. Still, accidents happen even when precautions are taken. It's why pencils have erasers - and in that circumstance, I see no reason to force a baby on an unwilling parent. And yes...grade school kids understand sex=babies because most parents would rather not see their children ruin their lives with unwanted pregnancies. There's no need to be so condescending. We tell children there's a Santa Clause but that's to protect their innocence. Eventually people grow up and they get real.
   
   Sincerely,
   Anonymous

4.  Demnos | 9/1/08 10:36 |  

   Can you answer this for me, "When does LIFE begin?" Do you remember the first day that you had conscious or even unconscious thought? The first commenter seems to think that there is possibly a magic something around the third month. Seemingly that it isn't as much of a crime if done earlier on. True, "the blob of cells" maybe isn't comprehending or understanding much at this stage of life but can you honestly say that there is no thought at all?
   
   If it truly is only a "blob of cells" that we are discarding than I wouldn't care so much. We lose "blobs of cells" all the time. We skin our knee and lose lots of cells, we cut our nails we lose cells, we get a tumor removed we lose cells, we get our appendix removed we lose cells. Somehow, at least to me anyway, I think this particular blob of cells means just a little bit more. Even if it can't do anything worthwhile at this point and even if it can't think it is still a developing life and I don't think it is right for us to decide to snuff it out.
   
   On another note, I agree that it is fine to have sex without the purpose of procreation. That is not at all what I meant to say. The act of sex biologically however is meant for such, that is what I was getting at. I do think, very strongly, that sex is a very sacred and wonderful thing that should not just become a recreational hobby. Having sex with a person is a very deeply emotional and impactful thing is it not? I think that is something that should be saved for marriage and not just something to do. The Kama Sutra is fine but only if you are experiencing it with your wife (or husband).

5.  Anonymous | 11/1/08 03:43 |  

   Hi, Anon (comment 3) here again.
   
   When does life begin? Well, I can answer a couple of ways. I can go out on a shaky limb and conjecture that anything in the first trimester doesn't count and it's fair game on all unwanted fetuses. I say shaky because there's already a swarm of conflicting opinions surrounding what a fetus can experience at that point in it's development and just how much of what attributes you have to have before you hit that safe zone as a "human life". Of course I believe my side and you believe yours. Unfortunately there's no 100% proven and universally accepted set of facts on the subject so I've got no choice but to concede some ground on the issue. Of course, if you're playing ball with me here, so must you.
   
   My second way of answering the question is to take an easy path - pull my chips and leave the table by saying life begins at conception. A race starts at the starting line, why shouldn't a life start at conception? After all, it is the first event that has to occur for a life to be born. Nevermind viability, nevermind the mother's wishes, nevermind any of that crap - we've got a point to make! In an obvious and non-arbitrary sense, conception is the point at which life begins.
   
   Of course, a host of things have been obvious in the past. It's cliche but a flat earth and a terracentric universe come to mind. Others like God's existence and the inferiority of blacks and women pop up too! And in the past it was obvious that life began at conception. Nevermind there's no specific mention of this in scripture that doesn't require interpretation, and nevermind that most people throughout ancient history had no appreciation for the biology anyways. The subject of when life begins only began when we took up the scientific mantle and allowed for the possibility of abortion.
   
   There's nothing obvious about the question of when life begins. I'm making that quite clear. Most of the debate stems from this one fact, and you can either err on the side of caution and go pro-life (which seems to be about 10% care for the fetus and 90% religion-motivated) or you can use the ambiguity of the subject to allow for the practice of abortion. On a personal note, I'd like to add that I'm sure this debate will rage on for a million more years since so much of the pro-life side hinges on the existence of a God who's certainly not going to show up and make his wishes known any time in the foreseeable future (read: ever).
   
   I'm getting longwinded now and I'm afraid I may have missed a few critical points in my diatribe. I'm sure you'll point them out to me, but for now it's time to move onto my personal view. I think life is given. To give is a choice. You should meet my wife. Before her, I'd never met any woman who's thoughts on the subject of pregnancy and birthing were so deliciously wretched. The thought of a thing living inside of her, growing, consuming...heh. There's no way she could carry a child to term - she'd go crazy. I agree with her views of course, though in debate I'm not so provincial. My point is that I've never met anyone else who so poignantly illustrates the woman's right to choose. To continue, I think that a lot of women who choose to have abortions have considered the possibility that the fetus can experience pain and/or some level of awareness and proceed anyways (many because they've considered the reverse as well). Doubt is a wonderful thing isn't it? Then of course there's people like my wife who would proceed even if she was 100% sure a fetus felt pain (I wouldn't be able to stop her anyways, so don't look at me)! But I digress...
   
   Can a fetus think? Is it self-aware? I think not, and if pressed I could back my stance with studies (as could you no doubt). Debate never changes minds anyways so it's inconsequential I think. Anyways, I can say for certain that there are countless thousands of animals that are self aware and can feel pain that are killed every day for food and/or convenience. Not just chickens and cattle of course - companion animals as well. Now I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, I'm quoting moral precedence as far as I'm concerned. I'm a misanthrope to the very core and I value human embryos the same as animal embryos. Why should species make a difference? Now that's arbitrary! I guess it's why bears eat humans too. Life is hilariously cruel.
   
   Now I'm really all over the place. To summarize, I can sleep at night knowing fetuses might be able to feel pain. I think the importance placed on a human fetus is unwarranted and slanted because of species bias and the gigantic block that is religion. I think that more importance should be placed on the wishes of the would-be mother who's life and self-awareness is completely uncontested. I think that as we take up the scientific mantle and surge forward we cannot shy away from the moral questions we've uncovered. I think that barring a practice entirely because you might offend God is monumentally stupid. I think that barring a practice that people will harm themselves performing anyways is monumentally stupid. I think that sentience gives us the right to make choices about our reproductive lives and to each their own.
   
   I'm going to cut this short. Tell me what I missed.
   
   -Anon3

6.  Anonymous | 3/3/08 14:54 |  

   What a crock. One month old and 8 inches long? I'm falling out of my chair laughing my tail off. Get real.

7.  Anonymous | 30/5/08 22:58 |  

   The only problem with the first comment is everything about it. Firstly its the nature and point of the story that needs to be considered in this blog, which by the way is not scientific. Also, since it is a piece of literature, one of the purposes of it would be to recieve a reaction from a certain audience. This played on the emotion of the audience, particularly mothers and on a lower level, doctors. The desired effect was not to create a scientific debate or base it upon science, but to gain an emotional fire from readers supporting the argument. Also, by excluding religion you go into a state of denial like society. Religion is a primary foundation on which this country was made. The basis of the country is on God. This is easily seen in our culture, our money, our national pride, and in other aspects. We use phrases such as "In God We Trust" "Under God" and "God Bless America." Also, the death penalty does not always go in favor with pro-lifers that is a mere stereotype place upon them and would make their cause a complete oxymoron. Also, by saying that it is not a crime based on the fact that the child is devoid of feeling pain and has little self-awareness, then it should also not be a crime to kill any fully developed human in this state. Also when you say anti-choice you represent it falsely. One should say anti-death as we should call you anti-lifers since you are the antithesis of pro-lifers. Either way its a story on the basic principle not science.

8.  Anonymous | 30/7/08 17:30 |  

   I don't think the little poem was supposed to be scientific...it's trying to get a general message across. That "blob of cells", as you call it, is ALIVE. It cannot speak for itself, fend for itself or even think for itself, hence the fact it is in the safety and comfort of it's mother's womb for nine months, and even then, completely dependent upon other's care. It is that fact that makes abortion so awful. The baby relies upon the protection of it's mother. It cannot survive without her making wise and healthy decisions on its behalf. Can it feel fear? No. But, it can feel physical discomfort and don't tell me (the mother of a newborn) that it is not growing progressively attached to its mother as it develops. God designed this bond to be established from the get-go.
   So, really, does it matter when the baby sucks its thumb or when it looks like babies as we know them outside the womb? NO! The fact is, it is alive and abortion changes that.
   The fact that some people, namely radical "pro choicers" make it their life's ambition to get people comfortable with abortion baffles me. What a miserable existance to spend your life fighting so hard so that innocent babies can be murdered. I feel sorry for you.