Hillary Clinton Pro GMO

Hillary Clinton Pro GMO | YOU'RE LUCKY I'M NOT PRESIDENT BECAUSE I'D HAVE MADE IT SO YOU COULD STILL BE ABORTED | image tagged in hillary clinton pro gmo,hillary clinton,abortion,baby | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
3,034 views, 71 upvotes, Made by SydneyB 4 months ago hillary clinton pro gmohillary clintonabortionbaby
Hillary Clinton Pro GMO memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
12 ups
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | SAYING ABORTION IS A WOMEN’S HEALTH ISSUE IS LIKE SAYING ADULTRY IS A FRIENDSHIP | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups, 3 replies
i.imgflip.com/27ccsn.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups
So true!
reply
2 ups
Futurama Fry Meme | THE DEFINITION KEEPS SHIFTING, DOESN'T IT? | image tagged in memes,futurama fry | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
False analogy. Africans and Jews had been fully developed and born.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1gpco3.gif (click to show)

I agree! I'm glad you caught that false analogy.
I've said for years that arguing for the "person-hood" of a developing human fetus is bad argumentation, especially for bible believing Christians.

(This is my reasoning as someone with a biblical worldview) I came to this conclusion after arguing for the being of God (called the divine nature) and the Persons who share in the being of God.

In Scripture there is one divine nature or being of God. There are three individual persons which share that divine nature.

Each of those individuals has a mind, will, and emotions. They are each able to individually exercise the attributes of the divine nature. Only one of them has a physical and developed body: Jesus Christ.

So the developed body is not what constitutes a person. It is the mind, will, and emotions that makes a person, which a fetus does not have.

However, the fetus is one of the earliest stages in the life of a human being. From a biblical stand point, it is the life of the being of the human that makes that life precious and valuable.

As Americans we (are supposed to) recognize that humans have certain inalienable rights, the first of which is "to life." So when a human life starts, it should be protected.

Don't say, "We don't know when human life starts," because that would mean you disagree with "modern science." http://abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

You don't have to read the article, scroll about 3/4 through the page and see quotations from modern textbooks concerning when human life begins.
reply
2 ups
They are truly two distinct and separate issues: humanness and personhood. Humanness is scientifically verifiable. Humanness begins at conception, because the fertilized egg has unique DNA. It is human DNA. Personhood is not scientifically verifiable. I would say that personhood is an abstract concept, pertaining to the value society places on each individual human. Personhood comes with rights and protections. A fertilized egg, in my opinion, does not have the same rights as a baby, for a number of reasons. Comparing a fertilized egg to a Jewish adult or African adult is comparing apples and oranges.

"Each of those individuals has a mind, will, and emotions." ... "Only one of them has a physical and developed body: Jesus Christ."

If all three have a mind and emotions but only one has a physical body, that means the other two don't have physical bodies. If they don't have physical bodies, how do they have a mind or emotions? How can a mind exist apart from a physical brain?

"So the developed body is not what constitutes a person. It is the mind, will, and emotions that makes a person, which a fetus does not have."

I would argue that it is both body and mind that make a person. But if the mind, will and emotions are what make a person, then someone who is totally brain dead would not be a person, either.

If life begins at conception, then shouldn't miscarriage be treated as manslaughter? Manslaughter is unintentional, yet a human dies. Miscarriage is unintentional, yet a human dies.

I agree with modern science that fetuses and embryos have human DNA. But that doesn't answer philosophical questions on the issue.

I should add that this is a topic I certainly need to do a lot more thinking about.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
why is birth and development a case for whether or not someone is a person?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Because at the earliest stages of development, such as a newly-fertilized egg, I don't believe that that should be treated the same as a baby that has fully developed and been born. If you burn down a house, you will be charged more severely than if you torch a stack of lumber which COULD become a house.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yet, in both cases it is morally wrong.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I don't believe terminating a newly-fertilized egg is morally wrong
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Most abortions terminate the life of a fetus, not a newly fertilized egg.
reply
1 up
I agree
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Yet he says he doesn't know when it becomes a person. Brother.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That's true
reply
0 ups, 5 replies
Just to clarify, I was speaking of you.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're confusing a syllogism for circular reasoning. I made a syllogism.

Premise 1: murder = illegal
Premise 2: abortion =/= illegal
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion =/= murder

You said "Abortion is not murder. Therefore, it is legal. Therefore it is not murder."

I never said "therefore, abortion is legal"
0 ups
So abortion is not legal?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"...Which means meh it might be murder, but it's a person's right to murder anyway."

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I never said it's a person's right to murder.
0 ups
You say it's a woman's right to abort a baby, right? And you don't know if that baby is a person or not. That means it might be murder. But hey it's the woman's choice, even if it is murder.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I know you were. I was acknowledging that I can't say for sure exactly when "personhood" is attained.
0 ups
Which means you don't really know if all those are babies being murdered. Which means meh it might be murder, but it's a person's right to murder anyway.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Please try to keep up. You said "Abortion is not murder. Therefore, it is legal. Therefore it is not murder."

In other words, you accused me of saying that abortion is legal *because* it's not murder. I never said that. What I said was that abortion is not murder *because* it is legal. You got it completely backwards.
0 ups
Oops. My mistake.
Abortion is legal. Therefore it is not murder. Therefore it is legal. Circles are fun. Man, and I've been accused of that falacie.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Abortion is not murder. Murder by definition is illegal. Abortion is legal. Therefore abortion is not murder.

Also, I never said "it's the woman's choice, even if it is murder"
0 ups
Circular reasoning alert!

Abortion is not murder. Therefore, it is legal. Therefore it is not murder.
0 ups
Circular reasoning alert!

Abortion is not murder. Therefore, it is legal. Therefore it is not murder.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
That makes a lot of sense; I always love a good analogy! (even when I don't agree with it, it does help me to get a sense for where you're coming from)

I read your reply to james3v6, and I noticed you agreed that human life begins at conception, but that you are uncertain as to when "personhood" begins. If there is uncertainty on that matter, then shouldn't caution lean towards the side of life?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm glad you liked my analogy. I find it does help to make some things easier to understand, even if, like you said, you may not agree with the argument itself.

As far as "shouldn't caution lean towards the side of life", I definitely see your point. And yes, I suppose I would agree with that. However, I still believe that there is a certain point in human development before which it is definitely not a "person".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And what would you say that point is? Personally, I must admit that I think being able to have a clear-cut point some time after conception would be very convenient and solve a lot of moral dilemmas, but I've yet to find one.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Unfortunately, I really don't know. What I do know is that a number of different factors must be considered:

-ability to feel pain
-presence of a nervous system
-presence of a brain
-viability outside the womb

All these, and more, must be taken into consideration when determining that point in time after which abortion should be far less frequent, if not prohibited.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
The ability to feel pain is a highly inconsistent and unreliable factor, seeing as we cannot know for certain a person's perception of pain (only their reaction to it), not to mention that many fully developed adults could be killed painlessly in their sleep.

The nervous system and brain start developing at a very early stage (with the spinal cord being identifiable only three weeks after conception https://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp). Many people try to argue that the systems are not fully developed, but the important thing to note is that they have at least formed and are present (and that not even newborns or even older children have "fully developed" brains)

Viability is probably the least consistent factor there is, seeing as a child delivered from a full-term pregnancy would be not be viable if not for its mother's continued support after delivery. Not to mention that advancements in medical care and the quality of hospitals are constantly improving the survival rates for infants born earlier and earlier.

When it comes to debates like this, I think a distinction that is important to make is the difference between legal policy and morality. Certainly, legal policy should be based heavily on morality, but there are still a few differences between the two.

One critical difference is that morality can often be somewhat unclear. Even someone like me who believes in an objective standard of morality must admit that there are many cases that are almost impossible to judge one way or the other in a satisfactory manner. In contrast to that, legal policy has to be very explicit and clear-cut. While moral arguments could theoretically take into account "personhood", it is far more difficult to codify such a factor into law (whereas "life" and "human" are far more simple by comparison).

(and please don't take this to mean that I do not think that law should be able to handle nuanced cases. What I am trying to say is that law must be decisive and clear-cut in order to handle the nuanced cases that it will inevitably have to deal with)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't deny that those systems start developing early. But there is a point in development where they don't exist at all.

Clearly a baby can't survive on its own without care. When I said viability, I meant its ability to survive at all, regardless of medical care.

"When it comes to debates like this, I think a distinction that is important to make is the difference between legal policy and morality. Certainly, legal policy should be based heavily on morality, but there are still a few differences between the two."

I absolutely agree. For example (on a different topic), I think denying a gay person a wedding cake is immoral, but I don't think it should be illegal.

If you believe in an objective standard of morality, why would there be any moral issues that are not 100% clear?

I also agree that laws must be well-defined and explicit, so that they can handle individual cases that will have gray areas and nuance.
1 up
Glad to find some common ground on the legality/morality issue. As for why I think that some moral issues are not entirely clear, the reason is because I believe humanity lacks a perfect sense of morality. I think that in any case, there is a definite moral right or wrong, but our own natural biases make it difficult to pinpoint those definite morals 100% of the time. It goes back to the adage of how "everyone is the main character of their own story"
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Thank you for clarifying that. That's a respectable answer.

And thank you for that link. I checked out what that website had to say about hunan development. In my last comment I forgot to add that although they are called Just Facts, they did have an obvious conservative bias (which to their credit they admitted to). One clear example of this is when discussing racism, they went on a lengthy bit about the supposed connection between evolution and racism, even dredging up quotes from over a century ago to make their (irrelevant) point.
0 ups
I hadn't noticed that bit about racism (I had only read the part on prenatal development).

My thoughts on racism and evolution are that racism does not rely on evolution (it relies on pride and hate), but that it often uses any excuse it can find (with evolution being one of those excuses)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
OK, so I officially do NOT like this.

This is wrong for some reason(s) I can't explain.

But it's still funny as hell. :-D

+1, viewed and upvoted.
reply
2 ups
Thanx bro. I officially like that. Peace.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Abort Hillary & Obama
reply
0 ups
Hear hear
reply
0 ups
Your political opinions are some of the most viable, and level-headed I have ever heard. We get so many-- too many libtards on this site that say things such as "what you're doing is an ad hominem fallacy...", "evidence for evolution doesn't have to be present, it can be recorded priorly, just like...", and "Abortion has been declared a constitutional right; no lawmaker can..."; like, wtf are these libtards even talking about?! And they get so triggered when we respond with our facts, just like the ones you just stated; I mean, I have never, ever heard such an America-loving statement such as "Abort Hillary & Obama"; it's just so, so packed with evidence that the libtards wouldn't even understand what you're talking about! You-- you should be a Supreme Court Justice! Above all the candidates I have reviewed, I think you are the most qualified to be in our political system! "Abort Hillary & Obama".. I love it! Amen, brother! Abortion is murder! Say your statement with me: Abort Hillary and Obama! LOUDER!! ABORT HILLARY AND OBAMA!!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'm pretty sure abortion hasn't been banned yet.
reply
0 ups
I meant at that child's current age... after birth.
Flip Settings
Hillary Clinton Pro GMO memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
YOU'RE LUCKY I'M NOT PRESIDENT; BECAUSE I'D HAVE MADE IT SO YOU COULD STILL BE ABORTED
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back