A couple of weeks back one of the The Hand Mirror sent a letter to the Herald protesting their use of a picture of an unborn baby smiling, for she believed it was physically impossible and that the Herald was displaying an inaccurate picture of an unborn baby smiling when it couldn't possibly do so.
When I pointed out that it is actually physically possible for an unborn baby to smile, and in fact more likely the younger the baby is, and could even be quite possibly evidence of a dream-state and that both my babies had smiled from a very young age even before it was supposedly physically possible, I got a very nasty reply. Apparently I was "trolling" and I should really leave them alone, as they leave us alone.
But they leave us alone not because of respect, but because when you have a morally indefensible position it's very difficult to argue. And abortion is hardly morally indefensible. The best you can do with it is argue it from selfishness, ie my body, my choice. Hardly moral.
Now, in their latest post yet more hissing and spiting over people daring to hold the opinion that the unborn baby is human. But, with the qualifier of "fully developed".
Of course a fetus isn't fully developed. It wouldn't be a fetus if it was fully developed. If people are arguing that unborn babies are fully developed human beings it's because they don't have a toolkit of the exact terminology that should be used in the debate. But if you think about it, a baby isn't fully developed either. What age does a human being get to before they are fully developed - eighteen, twenty-five?
However, a fetus is fully human, that is a biological fact. It's not a kitten or a puppy or a walnut, it's a human being. There is no point at which it is not human. To get all upset at people thinking a fetus is a "fully developed human being" is to get upset that people see the fetus as human at all.
The last lot that redefined human beings as non-humans and sub-humans so that those human beings could be killed were defeated in WW2. That pro-abortionists hold similar views on the lack of humanity of unborn babies shows just how inhuman they themselves have become. No wonder they don't like us talking to them.
Related link: Abortion and the Ick Factor ~ The Hand Mirror
When I pointed out that it is actually physically possible for an unborn baby to smile, and in fact more likely the younger the baby is, and could even be quite possibly evidence of a dream-state and that both my babies had smiled from a very young age even before it was supposedly physically possible, I got a very nasty reply. Apparently I was "trolling" and I should really leave them alone, as they leave us alone.
But they leave us alone not because of respect, but because when you have a morally indefensible position it's very difficult to argue. And abortion is hardly morally indefensible. The best you can do with it is argue it from selfishness, ie my body, my choice. Hardly moral.
Now, in their latest post yet more hissing and spiting over people daring to hold the opinion that the unborn baby is human. But, with the qualifier of "fully developed".
What astonished me was the lack of simple biological knowledge that many arguing against abortion displayed. Things like the so-called fact that a fetus at seven weeks' gestation (i.e. roughly 5 weeks after conception) is a fully developed human being.
Of course a fetus isn't fully developed. It wouldn't be a fetus if it was fully developed. If people are arguing that unborn babies are fully developed human beings it's because they don't have a toolkit of the exact terminology that should be used in the debate. But if you think about it, a baby isn't fully developed either. What age does a human being get to before they are fully developed - eighteen, twenty-five?
However, a fetus is fully human, that is a biological fact. It's not a kitten or a puppy or a walnut, it's a human being. There is no point at which it is not human. To get all upset at people thinking a fetus is a "fully developed human being" is to get upset that people see the fetus as human at all.
The last lot that redefined human beings as non-humans and sub-humans so that those human beings could be killed were defeated in WW2. That pro-abortionists hold similar views on the lack of humanity of unborn babies shows just how inhuman they themselves have become. No wonder they don't like us talking to them.
Related link: Abortion and the Ick Factor ~ The Hand Mirror