Devio
pro-liferevolution:

uncleuzi:

Pro-fucking-choice

From:  http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/06/eggs-acorns-and-silkworms-refuting-pro.html

These analogies only work if you avoid those pesky “difficult concepts”  from science: concepts like fertilization, species classification, and  biological development.Let’s start with the egg. They’re right:  it isn’t a chicken, because it hasn’t been fertilized. Hens lay eggs  whether or not they’ve conceived; this means that farmers can avoid  chicken reproduction by simply keeping the roosters separate from the  hens, without hurting egg production. The eggs sold in supermarkets are  almost always unfertilized. What you’re eating is the stuff that would  have nourished the chick before hatching, had a chick been conceived.  (As our dear friend Phil puts it, “Eggs are chicken period. Have fun erasing that mental image.”)If you were to break open an egg that was fertilized, you’d reveal something rather unfamiliar to your breakfast table:See the beak and the tiny little bird foot? Chicken. Very young chicken, but still chicken.Let’s  move on to the acorn. “An acorn is not a tree” is one of the oldest,  easiest-to-refute, unoriginal, nonsense pro-choice statements in the  book. It relies on a simple linguistic confusion. The word “tree” can be  used in two subtly different ways. One use is to designate species: oak  trees, pine trees, etc. Another meaning designates the adult stage of  the plant, as in “I planted a sapling last August, and now it’s a tree.”  An acorn is not an adult tree. It IS a member of its species: oak,  pine, or whatever the case may be. Likewise, unborn children are human,  but they are not adults (and obviously, pro-lifers have never claimed  that they are).The silkworm example is just ridiculous. Of  course a part of the raw materials used to make a dress is not a dress.  But embryos and fetuses are not “raw materials” for making people. The  raw materials are the nutrients that we ingest— prenatally through the  umbilical cord, in infancy through breast milk or formula, and so on. We  don’t “come from” unborn children; we once were unborn children.This brings us to the final image. It appears that this image depicts a moment just before fertilization; the sperm hasn’t yet gone in to mingle its DNA with the  egg’s DNA. So, ironically enough, the pro-choicers are actually right  about this— just not for the reasons they think.But let’s  pretend that it were really an image of the moment of fertilization.  Human fertilization (also known as conception) creates new members of  the human species. Newly conceived human beings are of course not adults  yet, but neither are they mere raw materials. They are simply young,  and look exactly how they are supposed to at this stage of their lives.  At conception, they possess all the genetic information that will guide  them through the prenatal period, infancy, childhood, adolescence,  adulthood, and old age. Every person, including you, can trace back his  or her existence as an individual to this event.Pro-lifers are  at a disadvantage here. In general, people tend to prefer simplistic  ideas to ones that take more time to explain, even if the latter has  science on its side. The abortion movement has made very good use of  misleading images and language. It’s up to us to improve public  understanding, one person at a time. Please share this post with your  friends.

pro-liferevolution:

uncleuzi:

Pro-fucking-choice

From:  http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/06/eggs-acorns-and-silkworms-refuting-pro.html

These analogies only work if you avoid those pesky “difficult concepts” from science: concepts like fertilization, species classification, and biological development.

Let’s start with the egg. They’re right: it isn’t a chicken, because it hasn’t been fertilized. Hens lay eggs whether or not they’ve conceived; this means that farmers can avoid chicken reproduction by simply keeping the roosters separate from the hens, without hurting egg production. The eggs sold in supermarkets are almost always unfertilized. What you’re eating is the stuff that would have nourished the chick before hatching, had a chick been conceived. (As our dear friend Phil puts it, “Eggs are chicken period. Have fun erasing that mental image.”)

If you were to break open an egg that was fertilized, you’d reveal something rather unfamiliar to your breakfast table:See the beak and the tiny little bird foot? Chicken. Very young chicken, but still chicken.

Let’s move on to the acorn. “An acorn is not a tree” is one of the oldest, easiest-to-refute, unoriginal, nonsense pro-choice statements in the book. It relies on a simple linguistic confusion. The word “tree” can be used in two subtly different ways. One use is to designate species: oak trees, pine trees, etc. Another meaning designates the adult stage of the plant, as in “I planted a sapling last August, and now it’s a tree.” An acorn is not an adult tree. It IS a member of its species: oak, pine, or whatever the case may be. Likewise, unborn children are human, but they are not adults (and obviously, pro-lifers have never claimed that they are).

The silkworm example is just ridiculous. Of course a part of the raw materials used to make a dress is not a dress. But embryos and fetuses are not “raw materials” for making people. The raw materials are the nutrients that we ingest— prenatally through the umbilical cord, in infancy through breast milk or formula, and so on. We don’t “come from” unborn children; we once were unborn children.

This brings us to the final image. It appears that this image depicts a moment just before fertilization; the sperm hasn’t yet gone in to mingle its DNA with the egg’s DNA. So, ironically enough, the pro-choicers are actually right about this— just not for the reasons they think.

But let’s pretend that it were really an image of the moment of fertilization. Human fertilization (also known as conception) creates new members of the human species. Newly conceived human beings are of course not adults yet, but neither are they mere raw materials. They are simply young, and look exactly how they are supposed to at this stage of their lives. At conception, they possess all the genetic information that will guide them through the prenatal period, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Every person, including you, can trace back his or her existence as an individual to this event.

Pro-lifers are at a disadvantage here. In general, people tend to prefer simplistic ideas to ones that take more time to explain, even if the latter has science on its side. The abortion movement has made very good use of misleading images and language. It’s up to us to improve public understanding, one person at a time. Please share this post with your friends.

  1. thepro-lifewayoflife reblogged this from pro-liferevolution
  2. yarnlass reblogged this from rachaelpatrice
  3. tsunkomori reblogged this from thundercaya
  4. thegeminisage reblogged this from skillethelm
  5. stuckbythesea reblogged this from uncleuzi
  6. drinkthatchocolatemilk reblogged this from celiy
  7. smallladysavage reblogged this from thundercaya
  8. skillethelm reblogged this from thundercaya and added:
    This is dumb and makes pro-choicers look bad. The prolife refute of it is here There’s always going to be oversimplistic...
  9. thundercaya reblogged this from sword-meets-rose
  10. escapethepeople reblogged this from sanityscraps
  11. churchofthepaddedwall reblogged this from sanityscraps
  12. dormiensdraconis-hellebore reblogged this from sanityscraps
  13. sanityscraps reblogged this from sword-meets-rose and added:
    Let’s work under the assumption that a fetus is a person for a moment. Does that give it the right to use a person’s...
  14. gotaproblemwithfeminists reblogged this from sanityscraps
  15. skycry reblogged this from sword-meets-rose and added:
    even if it is, and i strongly believe it isnt until its born/able to survive outside the womb, it still doesnt get the...
  16. sword-meets-rose reblogged this from skycry and added:
    However, it is of the UTMOST importance if it’s a human being/person. Because if it is, you don’t get to murder it. If...
  17. vmsharon93 reblogged this from recruit-wango-tango
  18. casswithanass reblogged this from recruit-wango-tango
  19. celiy reblogged this from lynnlefeminist
  20. recruit-wango-tango reblogged this from lynnlefeminist and added:
    Um…what? I don’t get what is hard about it?
  21. lynnlefeminist reblogged this from uncleuzi and added:
    This is not rocket science, guys. Seriously.
  22. devioss reblogged this from pro-liferevolution
  23. daffydilly reblogged this from pro-liferevolution
  24. pro-liferevolution reblogged this from uncleuzi and added:
    From: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/06/eggs-acorns-and-silkworms-refuting-pro.html
  25. hoodrat-frm-0uterspace reblogged this from uncleuzi
  26. thesocialenigma reblogged this from uncleuzi
  27. uncleuzi posted this