Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Fletch Supermodel Kathy Ireland On Abortion



Supermodel Kathy Ireland appeared on the Mike Huckabee show and talked about becoming a Christian and on how her stance changed from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life. Her defence of unborn life is very cogent and easy to understand.

I dove into the medical books [...] What I learned is, at the moment of conception, a new life comes into being. The DNA - the genetic blueprint - is there, the sex is determined, the blood type is determined, the unique set of fingerprints is there. And, I picked up the phone, called Planned Parenthood, 'help me out here, give me your best argument!'

And, the best arguments, 'well, it's just a clump of cells if you get it early enough. It doesn't even look like a baby.' We're "clumps of cells" and that unborn human being does not look like a baby, the same way a baby does not look like a teenager; a teenager does not look like a senior, but that unborn human being looks EXACTLY the way unborn human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. And this human life continues to grow and change. Some people say, well, if you get it at a certain stage, it's OK. According to the law of biogenesis, all life comes from pre-existing life and each species reproduces after its own kind, therefore, human beings can only reproduce other human beings. So, it doesn't start out as one species and suddenly become a human being somewhere along the way. 

H/T LifeSiteNews

6 comment(s):

Fletch said...

LRO, I'm sorry, but you're wrong, especially comparing an abortion to the "removal of unwanted tissue". It's a baby, and is how a baby is supposed to look at that age. It can't be anything else. If you did not interfere with it, it would continue growing until the mother gives birth. I was once that small at that stage of life, and you were once that small at that stage of life - it is a scientific fact. And if your mother had removed that "unwanted tissue", then you wouldn't be here today. "That is science". *mic drop*

Leftrightout said...

So a "Supermodel" is the fount of all wisdom on biology? Or did becoming a xtian suddenly make her more knowledgeable than the scientists?

No intelligence is required for modelling or becoming a xtian, it seems.

I randonly opened up to the gospel of Matthew... Wow, that's some randomness, isn't it. Not Genesis? Not Numbers? Not Isaiah?

I dove into the medical books [...] What I learned is, at the moment of conception, a new life comes into being.

Then she didn't read well, she didn't comprehend. Life is not something that "comes in to being". Life is continuous. Before conception both the egg and the sperm were alive.

Furthermore, at the point the egg and sperm fuse, there is still no pregnancy. The zygote or the blastocyst can still be expelled, and it is not until the blastocyst attaches to the endometrium that pregnancy can be said to have commenced. And yes, we have just a small bundle of cells, with the potential to become a human, but at this stage it is not a bay, it is not a human, it is not a person. And that is the science.

According to the law of biogenesis, all life comes from pre-existing life...

Well, we know that this is not true. We know that at least once life has come from non-life on this Earth. It may also have happened elsewhere in the Universe and it may yet happen again. There is absolutely nothing in the human body, or in fact in any of the other myriad life forms on Earth that did not exist prior to life. Every chemical was already there.

each species reproduces after its own kind ...

"Kind" is a faux scientific term often used by creationists, it has no meaning in reproductive biology. A Man is a kind of human, a woman is a kind of human, both are part of the species homo sapiens.

So, it doesn't start out as one species and suddenly become a human being somewhere along the way.



So she is totally unaware that at one point in its development a foetus will have gills? At another, a tail? Boy, just what books did she read? And no, it doesn't start out as a fish, but the gills show the evidence of evolution.


She is just another vapid airhead with an opinion bereft of fact.

Leftrightout said...

Those who believe that abortion is a woman's right will not yield to reason.

Reason does not provide any argument against abortion; reason provides arguments that favour abortion.

They will not yield to science.

There are no scientific arguments that oppose abortion.

They will not yield to moral arguments.

There are no moral arguments that oppose abortion.

The fact that a woman chose to engage in behavior that was designed by nature to produce a child makes no difference.

Procreation is not the sole function of sex. There are many other reasons to indulge in sexual activity, not the least pair bonding, comfort and exhilaration. The vast majority of sex acts do not result in conception.

Abortion is not murder. Abortion is a simple medical procedure. It is no different to an appendectomy, a removal of unwanted tissue. And that is science.

I cannot think of any reason why abortion for sex selection is any different to abortion to weed out Downs, provided it is the choice of the woman and not mandated by the state.

To put it in words simple enough for you to understand - It's not your business or my business what women do with their bodies. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

William Stout said...

Those who believe that abortion is a woman's right will not yield to reason. They will not yield to science. They will not yield to moral arguments. This is because the belief that abortion is the woman's right to choose believe this based solely on faith, even if they are atheists. It is not faith in God that motivates them, but faith that they are right in their opinion. In essence, abortion has become their religion. In that sense, it is akin to idolatry.
The fact that a woman chose to engage in behavior that was designed by nature to produce a child makes no difference. She would be awarded choice after choice if necessary to end her unborn child's life. Some on the left even refuse to call her child, a child. They instead prefer to use terms like "fetus" or "parasite." The latter has fallen into disfavor lately due to it's negative connotations.
A reasonable person could ask, if this is idolatry, then what is being worshipped? And the answer to that is death and the numerous justifications given for abortion all boil down to justifications for murder in order to alleviate the guilt of having murdered. How can those who are pro-choice live with themselves for approving of murder? Situational ethics. One set of ethics for situation x and one for situation y. Problem solved.
But the one sticking point for those who advocate for abortion is this, if it is a woman's right to choose, and it is her body, then why isn't it ok to select out females for abortion? They usually stammer for a while and then resort to "it just isn't" or some variation. As I said, it all boils down to faith.

GL said...

Welcome back, and hope the whole team is ready to blog some more.

Peter said...

Reason does not provide any argument against abortion; reason provides arguments that favour abortion.


Reason will provide any arguments you want, providing that they follow logically from the initial premises.

There are no scientific arguments that oppose abortion.


There are no scientific arguments either in favour or against any moral stance whatsoever.

There are no moral arguments that oppose abortion.


There are a number of moral arguments that oppose abortion, that is why it is a controversial topic.

Abortion is not murder. Abortion is a simple medical procedure. It is no different to an appendectomy, a removal of unwanted tissue. And that is science.


The only coherent statement science could make here is that a foetus is different to an appendix, in that the biological life of the foetus is distinct from the life of its mother's body, which is not the case with an appendix. What the moral significance of that difference is, by definition can't be determined scientifically.

To put it in words simple enough for you to understand - It's not your business or my business what women do with their bodies. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.



Saying "if you don't like abortion don't have one" is like saying "if you don't like slavery don't keep slaves". It's only valid if you don't think the choice matters much one way or the other. This is precisely the point that pro-life and pro-choice people disagree on. You seem comfortable enough with sex-selective abortions but many feminists aren't because to abort a female foetus is to devalue it because of its female sex. How about women who choose to abort a homosexual foetus, if an in-vitro test for homosexual tendency becomes available? There are also women who take hormones in the belief that this will make homosexuality for the baby less likely. Then there are women who drink while pregnant. Is it really true that anything a woman does with her body is only her own business?


I'd say yes it is, in the same way that you are allowed to swing your fist any way you like as long as it doesn't touch anyone's face. A woman's right to do what she wants with her own body ends at the point where it begins to impact another body, even if that body is very small.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.