Liberals Are Science Deniers When It Comes To The Unborn; A Heartbeat Does Not Mean Life?; UPDATE: Little Green Footballs Proves My Point
-
In the wake of an abortion doctor repeatedly practicing infanticide and Planned Parenthood being exposed again for tolerating evil in the name of abortion, one thing has become clear. Liberals are the true science deniers because of their denial about the science of the unborn. Of course they like to criticize Conservatives for being man made global warming deniers. Liberals even fantasize about killing people who deny their view on global warming. The Left, particularly feminists, are in such denial about the science of the unborn that not even a beating heart constitutes having a life worthy of life. From Feministing:
Ohio lawmakers will soon introduce a new abortion bill that would make abortion illegal as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, a move that some commentators say would mean a complete ban on abortion.
The “Heartbeat” bill will apparently be introduced later this month, right before Valentine’s Day (Get it? Hearts! Why let an unprecedented attack on women’s bodily autonomy get in the way of your seriously tacky marketing?) by Republican Representative Lynn Wachtmann. The bill is the first of its kind in the country, and if it passes we can expect copycats from other strictly anti-choice states like Texas and Oklahoma.
As Marty points out, this bill is, at first glance, less restrictive than the absurd “personhood” bills we’ve seen in the last few years, most notably in Colorado. Those bills grant constitutional rights to fertilized eggs and embryos, which of course do not have heartbeats. But the “heartbeat” bill is far more targeted at abortion than the personhood bills, which also inhibit IVF and some intrauterine contraceptive devices. While these lighter restrictions sound better to pro-choice ears, Marty sees them as a curse rather than a blessing. “With ‘Personhood,’ pro-choicers were able to hang all women’s autonomy together,” she says. “With ‘Heartbeat’ anti-choicers are trying to isolate women who want to terminate pregnancies, targeting them in isolation.”
So what exactly is something with a heartbeat if it is not alive or does not have a life worthy of life? If my four year old daughter came to me as asked if she could kill something I think I would want to know what “it” was. If she said not to worry it only has a heartbeat I would immediately stop her in order to stop a potential disaster from happening.
Pro-abortion activists like to confuse what is potential with what is actual and treating a person based on what is actual and not possible. When I am asleep I have the potential to do all things things that I do when I am awake but these things are just not currently actualized. Does that mean in my state of consciousness, while sleeping, that I give up my rights? Since my conception I have had all these potentials only they were not actualized. I think we need to treat people based on realizing that their potentials are just as much a part of them as what is actual, and those things are with us at the moment of conception.
Sadly, I do not think much will change the minds of these prenatal science deniers if a heartbeat does not mean one is alive and has a life worthy of life.
UPDATE:
And a new post at Little Green Footballs comes out against the science of a heartbeat meaning there is life. Stop being a prenatal science denier.
Related posts:







5 Responses and Counting...
Liberals do not deny that a fetus can have a heart beat. How foolish are you? I guess you don't mind that with the ban of abortion infanticide will rise after those un-wanted children are born, especially in poverty stricken communities where all funding for food stamps and shelter have been cut, slashed and burned by conservative assault on safety net programs. You people don't give a shit about those children once they are born. It is less cruel to abort than let them be born to drug possible addicted mothers or poor women who are basically slaves to a system and can not barely get a head. Or born to women who just down right did not want them. It has been proven that in countries that allow total freedom to abort and access to other birth control forms crimes is lower. Then there is the fact that you don't give a shit about children in war zone. They are prostituted, mangled by bombs, white phosphorus, bullets and land mines exploited and killed. Yet you are not anti-war. SO many children already born suffer yet you don't give one shit about that. Where is the out rage over this gaza http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images7/palesti…
or this Afghanistan http://www.politicaltheatrics.net/wp-content/uplo…
or this Iraq http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Suffer_the… or this Israel attacks http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2010/07/is… or this Darfu rhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ClPOOGRNtuQ/SHCh0BP4AQI/AAAAAAAAABU/YHfgR2bsazg/s400/Darfur%2BIn%2BActivism%2B2%2BScream%2Bcopy%5B1%5D.JPG
Until you start vehemently protest against war…then you need to STFU about unborn fetuses. They do not suffer like children that are already here. Why don't you fight for them???????
Until you start vehemently protest against war…then you need to STFU about unborn fetuses. They do not suffer like children that are already here. Why don't you fight for them???????
You need to read my posts on adoption to see if I care about children outside of the womb.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/category/adop…
Look, we all know Todd is a bigot when it comes to Christians that don't share what he incorrectly believes is the Bible's view on abortion.
And the Bible justifies abortion?
"I think we need to treat people based on realizing that their potentials are just as much a part of them as what is actual."
Well I have the potential to win the Nobel Prize, so where's my f**king reward.
And all prisoners have the potential to stop committing crimes, so we should set them all free,
This type of sloppy reasoning is particularly pathetic on a site which includes "philosophy" in its title.
Leave a Reply