Why does life not begin at conception?


This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why do pro-choice people say life does not begin at conception when it does? Why not use one of the million stronger arguments other than basing their stance on a lie?”

I wrote this piece about five years ago and was just reminded of it by receiving a new upvote today while trying to decide what was next on the que. It’s collected a few comments that, if you’re interested in reading further, can be viewed at its original location: “https://www.quora.com/Why-do-pro-choice-people-say-life-does-not-begin-at-conception-when-it-does-Why-not-use-one-of-the-million-stronger-arguments-other-than-basing-their-stance-on-a-lie/answer/Antonio-Amaral-1

Life begins at conception is the lie of anti-abortion hypocrites.

No matter how you slice and dice and dance around the hair-splitting, moving goalpost surreality inhabited by anti-abortion hypocrites, there is no rational justification for any of their idiotically myopic and arrogantly self-serving propositions.

“Life”, in the context of a child, is either a human life replete with every human characteristic or a lump of flesh no different than a tumor. You don’t get to have it both ways.

The human child-making process is precisely that: it is more often terminated spontaneously without will than with intent. Intent changes nothing about the fact that a significant proportion, if not technically the majority of all such processes do not complete. We see it everywhere in nature. It is reality in an unvarnished light.

Imbuing cells in development with absent characteristics is an intellectual and moral betrayal of oneself and humanity. Wishful thinking is not reality. A fetus is not a child; while every child born is entitled to being loved and supported by parents who want them. To do less by forcing a development process is a hypocritical abuse of a life which leads to a multiplicity of victims…

…and for what? So that you can pretend you’ve charged like a hero into saving an innocent? The harsh reality is that you haven’t saved anyone but you have condemned innocent victims to hardship and society to increased social problems like crime and poverty.

If you stop and think about the issue of innocent children needing someone to defend their lives, you would lead a charge to save real children who are dying every few seconds due to preventable causes. Anti-abortion hypocrites never seem to care, however, about children after they are born.

Where do you get off pretending like you know better than the pregnant mother if that child will have a fair chance at a fulfilling life or a life of so much misery they commit suicide or go on a shooting spree or choose a life of crime as a way to get back at a world which didn’t want them nor cared about whether they lived or died?

How dare you lie about life beginning at conception?

Life is a continuum with no finite starting and stopping points beyond the individual’s experience. Each one of us is born and each of us dies. Those are the only boundaries we will ever experience.

If conception is life, then so are sperm and ovum. Not only is the anti-abortion hypocrisy self-serving and myopic bollocks, it’s an arrogant betrayal of one’s fellow humans and humanity as a whole.


There is absolutely nothing redeeming in the anti-abortion position. Anti-abortion hypocrites are inhuman monsters.:

Florida Christians Want to Kill Women Who Have Abortions

Why is the American left so obsessed with abortion?

This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why is the American left so obsessed with abortion when contraception is so freely available and easy to apply?”
Other answers (about 55 at the time of this posting) to this question can be read via the following link: “https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-American-left-so-obsessed-with-abortion-when-contraception-is-so-freely-available-and-easy-to-apply

People have given incredibly poignant answers to this disgusting question, but you don’t care what they have to say. It’s all just rhetoric to you. It means nothing to you because you don’t have to personally deal with the reality of being denied access to life-saving treatment.

Your fake profile name already suggests you’re only interested in pushing buttons and watching the left get triggered.

The suffering of others holds no weight for you unless it becomes a part of your experience.

That’s just how you are… but that’s not what’s so disgusting about this question.

It’s horrifying that you’ve been so broken that you’re okay with contributing to the murder of innocent women… but that’s also not what’s disgusting about your question.

Have you noticed how all the answers aren’t actually about abortion?

They’re all about saving lives and explaining how important it is to have access to healthcare.

But you don’t care about that, just like you don’t care about the lives you’re responsible for ending with your attitude toward abortion.

No.

Your question proves you revel in all that.

You are okay with women dying because you believe that’s justice.

It’s just righteousness to you that they die.

At least that’s what you want to believe even though you struggle to accept that, and your doubt shows through the cracks in an attempt at an innocent facade in your question.

You ask why people on the left are obsessed with abortion, but they’re not.

Not one of these answers shows an obsession with abortion.

They show concern for life.

Don’t you find it strange that the alleged “pro-life” people who are supposed to value life don’t value it at all?

Yet, somehow, they have focused on forcing women to undergo a full birth in all cases because they hate abortions… while they claim to be defending a child’s life — as they ignore living children dying every five seconds due to preventable causes. (That’s at least ten-to-fifteen children that will have died in the time you spent reading this answer.) You blatantly lie about caring about life, and you lie in this question about who’s doing the obsessing over abortion.

It’s not the left who’s obsessed with abortion.

You “pro-lifers” have been obsessed with abortion since Roe v. Wade was instituted.

Once that protection for women was instituted — and to be clear, it was instituted to protect women from dying unnecessarily — the American left stopped thinking about abortion. Women were getting the treatment they needed… so there was no point in having to think about it any longer.

The anti-abortion crowd didn’t stop thinking about it, though. They became even more obsessed with it and hunkered down on a fifty-year strategy to repeal the law and ban abortion.

Throughout all that time, they’ve never bothered to learn why abortions happened. They have maintained precisely the same depraved attitude you demonstrate within this question.

You sincerely believe abortion is just another form of contraception, and worse, you don’t care what the reality is. You mock the nightmare of having to undergo an abortion procedure while comparing it to the contraception you’re also blocking access to.

You’re obsessed with women who undergo abortion procedures because you believe they’re trying to weasel their way out of unwanted pregnancy… and you assume that’s not supposed to be permitted… even if they’re rape victims and not the whores you want to believe they are.

That’s what makes you evil… your hypocrisy, your iniquity, and your insistence that your disparaging fiction is reality without caring in the least about the horrifying experiences women suffer through as you gleefully kill them with your indifference.

That’s right… you are a murderer, just as if you pulled the trigger on a gun to end their lives by your hand. Your support of denying women the life-saving treatment they need means you have, according to this quick AI summary, been responsible for the unnecessary deaths of almost two thousand women as a consequence of your obsession with abortion.

Your obsession with abortion is responsible for almost the number of lives lost on 9/11.

You’re worse than a terrorist because you behave as if you are protecting lives instead of destroying them and committing manslaughter with your depraved ignorance.

No one on the left is obsessed with abortions, but you already knew that. You want to wipe your hands clean of the evil that you and your ilk have been perpetuating… you know what you’re doing is wrong, and you’re having fun with it… and that’s what makes this question and you so inhumanly disgusting.

What are the implications of a two-party system on democracy in the United States?


This post is a response to a question initially posed on Quora and can also be accessed via “https://donewiththebullshit.quora.com/What-are-the-implications-of-a-two-party-system-on-democracy-in-the-United-States-1

Well, that’s simple… Gridlock.

You’ve been watching it in action for a couple of decades now.

Whatever one party initiates, the other dismantles.

The fine arts of negotiation and compromise no longer exist because one party views that as submission while the other regards that zero-sum game attitude toward cooperation as toxic and prone to counterproductive and even destructive initiatives that create problems without solving any.

For example, there is no rational justification for abortion restrictions. The entire issue is a non-issue stoked up to an irrationally unhinged fervour based on two misanthropic lies, that abortions are a lazy excuse for birth control by whores, and that they are acts of murdering babies. Neither perception resembles anything remotely true or anywhere near accurate renditions of reality.

They are lies stoked for the simple reason of creating political alignments on the vector of hating one’s fellow citizens. Since about 80% of the population is against abortion legislation, it’s been hijacked by the tyranny of a minority and leveraged as a power grab for a political party. The overblown abortion issue is a political wedge and a fundamental betrayal of a democratic system. This would not be possible in a multiparty system.

A two-party system is a recipe for conflict. In contrast, multiparty systems have been denigrated as being incapable of progress. The reality is that multiparty systems encourage negotiation and compromise among varying ideologies that more accurately reflect the expressions of individual beliefs than the aggregated pools of power occurring within a duopoly.

Another major disadvantage of a two-party system is that it limits the spread of investments the ownership class requires while choosing campaigns to finance. It’s a win-win system for them because it’s the cheapest way to hedge their bets. They can’t afford to spread their campaign investments to many parties in a multiparty system. So, their influence in politics is significantly diluted, and the will of the people is much more accurately represented by the diversity of ideological voices in Congress.

A further, much more subtle, and arguably the most profound impact on society is the homogenization of public thinking through aggregating issues into bundles. All nuance is bred out of each issue as it becomes incorporated into a party package to be accepted wholesale — like a cable deal where you can’t opt for individual strategies or solutions. It’s an all-or-nothing approach to addressing political issues that pressures the electorate to reduce the political process to the level of cheering for one’s party, like a sports team.

A two-party system cannot but lead a nation toward escalating internal strife as party positions become increasingly polarized. One party may successfully drag the other party into its ideology. However, that flexibility and willingness to accommodate the other can only go so far before the opposing party must run backwards in the opposite direction. That’s where the DNC is now, after decades of capitulating to a fascist rightwing leadership banking the complete corruption of a democratic system on the corruptibility of their opposition.

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/wednesday-september-23rd-meet-middle

BONUS — Reposted from Facebook

A Worthwhile Share, Given How Close D-Day is:

Stop Project 2025 Comic
Trump’s Project 2025 is a detailed plan to shut you up, and shut you out. Don’t let it do either. Read on, then vote.stopproject2025comic.org

Download the .pdf:

What policy proposal could combat teen pregnancies by men over 21?

This post is a response to a question posed in its full format as follows: “66% of teen pregnancies are fathered by men over 21. Do you have a policy proposal for how to combat this?”

When I worked in community development as an “Educational Counsellor” (Residence Life Coordinator), part of my role involved developing programs to address common issues affecting college-age students. Since many were away from their rural homes for the first time in their young adult lives and often were from strict homes, they spread their wings and acted out in sometimes unhealthy ways.

The overconsumption of alcohol was one of the most common unhealthy coping mechanisms many adopted. This necessitated various strategies for mitigating the effects of over-consumption, which would develop into habits over time and become addictions if one was unable to free oneself from such a toxic dependency.

This role was how I encountered a drinking cessation strategy by Homewood Health Services in Canada that used a series of posters in one of their awareness campaigns.

All the posters were designed to provide uplifting and inspirational messaging with colourful imagery and a touch of humour to appeal to that demographic’s sensibilities. One specific poster prompted me to reply to this question. I looked for it briefly online, but it was a poster from about 40 years ago, so I unfortunately cannot see it.

A brief description in which you will have to imagine a brightly coloured illustration with a chalk pastel texture. It was an image of the back of a person’s head while propped over a toilet bowl. The image was intended to convey how unpleasant over-consumption can be. I don’t remember the caption, but I remember how popular it was.

Of the various posters available for students to pick from and post on their walls, this particular poster was far and away the most popular.

I didn’t realize at first why beyond the mockery it would generate because no one likes the experience of “driving the porcelain bus,” and everyone laughs at the people who over-indulge to such a degree.

As it turned out, the poster became a type of “scorecard” in the party apartments within the residence complex. Each time someone “chatted on the porcelain phone,” they signed the poster.

It was disheartening at first because the poster was having the opposite effect it was intended for. It’s not like it encouraged people to over-consume alcohol, but it was like a ledger keeping track of the number of times one went too far.

At the end of the academic year, as students packed up their belongings, I encountered a few as they packed up and took their posters. In each case, the expressions they conveyed were that it had been quite a year and that they had enjoyed a lot of memories from their parties, except for the experience they had with a night’s discussion with “Raaalf.” The number of times they had signed the poster was like a demerit to remind them of the unpleasant experience.

They expressed regret over how much they had over-imbibed, and when they returned for their next academic year, they were far more reserved in their behaviours. Those students went from high levels of over-consumption in their first year to being much more academically committed students in their second year who had learned to drink moderately. They still socialized in their second year but were far more responsible.

The poster had worked.

It took one full academic year, but signing the poster after a night of “hurling chunks” left an indelible impression in their minds.

That’s how an education program works, slowly and with far more spectacular results than the heavy hand of imposition. When people learn to choose a healthier alternative because they want it, the results impressively outperform any authoritarian strategy.

This is what anti-abortion people don’t understand and why they’re so disgusting when they barf up ignorantly abusive disparagements such as characterizing an oppositional view as “pro-abortion.”

No one is “pro” a bad situation.

No matter how one characterizes an abortion. Nothing about it can be considered desirable, mainly by those who feel that’s their last hope. This is also why anti-abortion people are so inhumanly disgusting. They’re stealing a final lifeline of hope for someone in desperate straights… even worse is that they force medical emergencies into becoming incidents of premeditated murder by their depraved indifference.

This is why the SCOTUS rejection of Biden’s attempt to compel the state of Texas to perform emergency abortions based on a life-saving medical procedure makes them entirely unfit to lead the nation in its laws. Their responsibility to society is to establish a higher morality that respects and preserves life.

Nothing about the alleged “pro-life” is anything but “anti-life,” and nothing can make that more accurate than the numerous horrors that have already presented themselves since they betrayed women across the country and the world by extension with their reversal of Roe v. Wade.

The only policy that will effectively address the issue of teen pregnancies by young adults above the age of 21 is the policy that creates the peer pressure necessary to make those young adults who have not managed to mature beyond an abysmal level of under-developed morals afraid of being ostracized by their peers.

Nothing works more effectively than peer pressure. Education and awareness programs are the only way to achieve that kind of pressure. The more people realize the consequences of destructive behaviour, the greater the likelihood of it being mitigated “on its own” over time.

Time and patience are required to realize the benefits, but they are permanent fixtures in an evolving society. Peer pressure is how we have managed to reduce incidents of drinking and driving.

The heavy hand of an authoritarian never works. If anything, the consequence of imposition is always to make the problem worse.

Did JD Vance lie about never supporting a national abortion ban? (Bonus Post)

This post is a response to a question posed in its full format as follows: “JD Vance said in the debate that he has never supported a national ban on abortion. Does that mean that he was lying when he said (on tape) that he wanted a National Ban on abortion?”

I hadn’t intended on “upgrading” this answer to the level of a post, but the upvotes I’ve been getting suggest to me that perhaps fewer people are skilled in “reading between the lines” of what people say than should be the case with critical political issues that significantly impact people’s lives. What I’ve realized — and what prompted me to make this “bonus post” today- is that what appears blazingly obvious to me is not so for far too many others. Understanding the art of dialectics within the context of political leadership has never been a more crucial skill for people to develop as part of the critical thinking kit. Hence, my response to the question posed is below. (Plus, this is an opportunity to share a meme I created when J.D. accepted his invitation to serve as POTUS potentially.)

Does it really matter if he lied about something in one instance but not in the next?

How can you tell which is the lie and which is the truth?

How can anyone know what someone really means if you have to choose between multiple conflicting statements?

What’s the point of trying to parse them to determine their belief in an issue?

What they are saying by making conflicting statements is that they choose their words to appeal to whatever audience they are speaking to.

They practice “the art of telling people what they want to hear.”

They admit that they believe in nothing but achieving whatever goal they seek and care little about how much their actions might hurt others.

They admit they have no values beyond manipulating gullible people.

He has admitted to doing just that when he claimed to be justified in “creating stories” to get attention — even though innocent people have been put in jeopardy because of his “stories.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/jd-vance-lies-haitian-immigrants

The only valid conclusion any sane person can draw from that is they can’t be trusted because one should know that they will continue to lie to anyone and everyone they can to achieve whatever benefits they can for themselves.

It means that if he can personally benefit from a national abortion ban, he will support it.

It means he’s openly bargaining with the people who want a national abortion ban by telling them in public through his “hidden message” that if they grease his palms, he will support a national abortion ban because he doesn’t care who he will hurt in the process.