Conservative, Pro-Life, Nerd.

I used to not care about how many followers I had, but now that I’m only 484 away from 1776…

goandannouce:

What science tells us about the unborn
Four features of the unborn
Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don’t grow.
Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to “look” human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.
Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman’s body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman’s body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.
A whole organism
Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism—an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.
Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism—a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.
The full article:


felix963

goandannouce:

What science tells us about the unborn

Four features of the unborn

Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don’t grow.

Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to “look” human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.

Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman’s body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman’s body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.

A whole organism

Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism—an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.

Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism—a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.

The full article:

felix963

(via thepoliticalhippie)

thelastcenturion-thesortinghat:

afanoffandoms:

people dont blog about the princess bride enough

she doesn’t even try to walk down she just dives head first onto a fucking hill buttercup what even god i love this movie

(Source: chucknoblet, via scifibookworm)

Anonymous said: What if someone can do one or two things? Should they get paid less? Even if that means they'll starve?

Depends on those one or two things. The person will get paid a fair price for the work they do. They are free to find another job if it’s not enough, or scrape by until they have the experience and skill to move up. If they’re really stuck, maybe due to a disability, there are charities that will help them and that’s what charity is for. Not just charities that feed and clothe, but charities that help people develop skills and find better jobs.

Anonymous said: Bssn reading your economics. Pretty optimistic hopes. People aren't that good!

Are you talking about my long post with the graphs?

Capitalism assumes greed and self-centeredness, not altruism. However, it does give plenty of room for charity.

Essentially, it thrives off our basic human nature while allowing those rare moments where we do something selfless.

Even the greed itself can be good. For instance, when Walmart opens in underdeveloped areas, it brings increased infrastructure with it. Walmart has that infrastructure built so that it can do business better, but that infrastructure benefits people and businesses in the area too.

Anonymous said: So people who can't work are worthless in your fantasy world? Should they starve?

No, they shouldn’t starve. That’s why we have charities that support those people and help them develop job skills if possible so that they can work.

Smoothie season is over, tea time is here.

Smoothie season is over, tea time is here.

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

kelincihutan:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

felix963:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

This is Tim, owner of Tim’s Place. He has Down Syndrome, but he’s not sad or suffering. He’s happy and loving, and he shares that love with everyone he meets through his restaurant, where he says the hugs are more important than the food. 

Richard Dawkins said yesterday on Twitter that, if you have the choice, bringing people like Tim into the world is immoral. He recommends having preborn babies who might end up like Tim ripped apart in the womb or given a heart-attack-inducing drug. That’s the moral and civilized thing to do, he says. 

The twitter user who had originally asked him what he thought then continued to ask whether people with Autism should be aborted before birth if the mother knows while she’s still pregnant. He says that people with Autism have a lot to contribute, while people like Tim don’t.

So apparently, your contribution to society is what makes you valuable. Or is it your emotions

Dawkins was quick to cover his tracks, insisting that he didn’t wish that anyone currently living with DS had been aborted. 

But his comments still stand. He hasn’t backed down from what he thinks “the right thing to do” after a prenatal DS diagnosis is. In Dawkins’ view, it’s immoral to bring someone like Tim into the world. Despite the fact that our ability to care for people with DS has greatly increased over the last few decades and people with DS now have a much greater quality of life, it’s apparently immoral for their mothers not to kill them in the womb.

If Dawkins had his way, we’d be facing a future without people like Tim. I don’t want that. Do you?

I’m not even sorry that I agree with him. He’s saying if you have the option to work towards eliminating disorders which people are predisposed towards passing down to their children, like Down Syndrome, you should.

No one is saying that people with Down Syndrome deserve death. But if the child is still in the womb, and you know ahead of time, you are perpetuating a problem. And Down Syndrome IS a problem. If you ask anyone with Down Syndrome if they could choose to have Down Syndrome or to not have it, they’d rather not have it.

They are not puppies you take pictures with and post online so that everyone knows how kind of a person you are. These are PEOPLE who are developmentally challenged and they can tell you that it pretty much sucks. Stop talking about Down Syndrome like it’s just a variation of human. That’s like saying children born with cerebral palsy is just a variation of human. It’s not. It fucking sucks.

The problem is that we’re not talking about curing DS. We’re not even talking about preventing someone from getting it in the first place.

We’re talking about human children in the womb who may or may not actually have DS being killed because of something they may or may not have that doesn’t make them any more or less human or valuable.

Abortion kills a living human being. And people like Dawkins are convinced that it’s better to kill “it” [the human child] than to let “it” [the human child] be born with DS.

Also, just to clear things up, DS isn’t hereditary. There are risk factors like the age of the mother that are involved, but people with DS, if they have kids, aren’t going to pass it on to their children.

Just to clear things up, there IS a genetic predisposition towards Down Syndrome. Yes, it can also be random, but there is also a predisposition for it.

We have differing opinions on what abortion is. In my book, if there is no brain activity yet, it’s not “alive” in the way that we define it.

I’m not going to agree with any statement saying that people with DS are inherently less valuable because that’s so relative.

And we do have ability to test that a child is almost certainly going to be born with DS. So it’s not a “may or may not” situation. It’s a “probably” situation.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s your book or my book. Biologically speaking, the preborn child is alive and human with his or her own unique DNA. Heck, that’s how you’re able to test in the first place! That child is an individual, unique and inherently valuable.

How much brain activity does someone need to be considered human? This isn’t something we can be relative on, because it’s literally a matter of life and death. We need to be clear on whether someone is or isn’t a person, because to do otherwise would be disastrous.

Did you know that brain activity is measurable as early as 6 weeks? Check out EHD.org, you might be surprised what you find.

And I personally know two people who were “supposed” to have DS, and neither of them do. Both have told me how their parents were encouraged or even pressured to abort. Thank the Lord they didn’t. One of them is going to be one of my bridesmaids in July.

The initial DS test is practically useless statistically speaking, and the second, more accurate test carries fairly high risk of miscarriage, which no woman should feel obligated to take. Even then, it’s not perfect.

Eugenics is such a horrible mentality.  Yes, some people have serious disorders.  That makes them different, not expendable.  Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something, and that something is probably awful.

If eugenics can be used to eliminate serious disorders, then go eugenics!

Where do we stop with eugenics? Schizophrenia is partially hereditary, should we kill all schizophrenics to keep them from reproducing and lessen the burden on society?

Who said anything about killing people who have already been born? No one is saying that. Use whatever inflammatory words you want but I’m just going to state that “abortion” and “murder” are not the same thing. Cluster of cells destined to become a person if allowed further growth: Not a person.

Should we maybe discourage reproduction by making them aware of the risks? Absolutely.

HIV can also be passed to genetic offspring. There is a way to help prevent that now I believe, but prior to that, there was nothing stopping you from passing that onto your child. If you wanted to willingly pass on HIV to your child just because you wanted to have a damn baby of your very own, you could. I don’t think we should take away that right but it’s a pretty shitty thing to do that.

And yes, that is a good comparison in the sense that you can now live a long and happy life with it. It doesn’t affect your value in the world. And most people with HIV would rather be alive than dead. But they wouldn’t be doing any favors by perpetuating it.

If this is a cluster of cells, so am I.

This is a fetus at 15 weeks, usually the earliest point at which an amniocentesis test is performed. The Down Syndrome babies you say it’s fine to kill look like this. They have heartbeats and brain activity, and they have the four lobes of the cerebral cortex

In about 6 weeks, this baby will be capable of surviving outside the womb with intensive medical care. What makes this baby different from a newborn in regards to his or her value?

I personally feel that I would abort that.

Would it be an easy decision to make? Probably not. I would grapple with it. But if I were to be pregnant with that right this second, I would abort it. Him or her. Whatever pronoun you want to use.

My saying that is absolutely irrelevant seeing as I can never be pregnant. But I would never tell someone else that they ABSOLUTELY have to make a decision on the subject that I would want them to make.

Would you kill a newborn with DS? If not, what makes the 15-week-old different?

What makes it different is that it is still a fetus. Not a newborn. Why are you equating them as the same thing?

You just said why they’re different. The difference is that six-week period.

When it’s your fetus, YOU keep it alive and growing inside of you. I would terminate the pregnancy.

What is a fetus? And what happens in that 6-week fetus that changes the value of the living thing?

You’re talking to me about the value of living things when we terminate the lives of cats and dogs and dozens of other various species.

Yes. I’m comparing this to cats and dogs and I don’t think that’s a stretch. Humans are animals. That is not debatable. Bringing up the idea that they are “animals” is not an argument. I’m not assuming you’ll bring that up but just in case you do. The standard view is that cats and dogs are less valuable because they have a lower capability for intelligence. So let’s not bring that up because that would be a losing argument for defending whether or not to abort a DS child. Because then it becomes a question of what is too low of intelligence to be considered valuable. And I’m not going to get into that.

You’re putting me in the difficult position of essentially asking me what I would do as a mother. Considering I can never be a mother and, being gay, I won’t ever run into a situation where I’m accidentally a father, my personal opinion on the value of my hypothetical fetus is completely irrelevant because I will never unwillingly have one. But if I was a mother and I learned that my child had DS, I probably would not follow through with the pregnancy. Now let’s say someone was willing to take the child. Fine. But I don’t want a child of mine out there and I don’t want to continue carrying a child that I don’t want to raise. And that would be my personal decision. If it resides in my body and it’s still connected to my body, it is my decision to make. No one else’s. You do not decide what happens with whatever is inside of me.

And I will fight against you and and others like you who try and decide what happens with the things in another person’s body. You’re deciding that women’s bodies should be no-kill shelters but with fetuses instead of domestic animals. And you’re making that assertion against that hypothetical mother’s will.

It is not your decision. It is only the mother’s decision. That is fundamentally where we disagree.

I’m not asking you what you would do as a mother. I’m not talking about a comparison between humans and cats. I’m asking you what the significant difference is between a 15-week fetus and a newborn that makes it okay, in your mind, to kill one and not the other.

Would you be okay with a woman killing her newborn child because the child had DS? If not, I want you to explain the moral difference between the fetus and the newborn with a little more detail than “well, it’s a fetus.”

rocksaltgunblr:

biruskis:

If the Winter Soldier was responsible for the Kennedy assassination and Magneto tried to STOP the Kennedy assassination then that must mean somehow Magneto lost a fight to a guy wITH AN ENTirE ARm MADE OF METAL

THIS IS WHY MARVEL SHOULD BE ITS OWN STUDIO, NOT SELLING DIFFERENT FRANCHISES TO DISNEY, SONY, AND FOX

Maybe, knowing that Magneto was trying to stop them, Hydra somehow detached the arm or somehow shielded it.