2246 preserved fetal remains found in abortionist's garage

[RaleBulgarian]

Wait, wait, wait....the medical community says that two humans can create a fetus that isn't human?

The law doesn't recognize unborn humans as persons. It's science fiction that a pregnant woman has anything other than a human fetus inside of her.

You’re clearly easily confused, so I’ll try to explain in words you might understand; a fetus is not a human. Once born, the baby is classified as a human.

You’re welcome.

 

[Josie]

You’re clearly easily confused, so I’ll try to explain in words you might understand; a fetus is not a human. Once born, the baby is classified as a human.

You’re welcome.

You clearly have no grasp of basic biology. What species is the fetus, then?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You clearly have no grasp of basic biology. What species is the fetus, then?

You really are slow. A fetus isn’t a human. It is a potential human. Same as a pile of mechanical/electrical/electronic parts isn’t a car until the assembly process is complete. Understand?

 

[Lursa]

I'm sorry that you can't acknowledge the serial killer point she's making. But is she wrong when she says that if these were human adults, we would call someone who killed thousands a "serial killer"? Not everyone believes as you do that killing thousands of unborn humans through abortion is okay. Why is Klopfer storing medically preserved fetal remains in his garage okay?

Not remotely the same UNLESS he had murdered them. If he collected the remains legally...no different. And AFAIK, he collected these legally. Do we know what his motive for that was yet? I agree it's creepy but there may be some scientific curiosity behind it. Who knows? Maybe we'll find out, maybe not but people collect all sorts of things that I dont understand. If you are attaching some special significance to human remains, I personally dont so I doubt I'd agree with you there.

You don't like Desanctis's pro-life view, and so you describe her as blinded by bias. If you can't understand (whether you agree with her or not) why she drew the comparison as she did, I'd say that your own bias is blinding you. She must be "dramatic" and "hyperbolic" because you don't agree with her.

I can understand it tho, because I have read similar hysteria and manipulation here many times. I called her out on it. I never wrote that she or her perspective was unique.

Oh! So Desanctis is not considering abortion from a "factual" basis, and she's too unreasonable to realize that there are remains after abortions? :doh

No, I was responding to HER comment that pro-choice people ignore that and believe it's all sanitized. I do of course note that pro-life people are notorious for personalizing the unborn and lying about what the vast majority of abortions actually consist of: not the dismemberment of "babies" that is the pro-life hue and cry, but the painless flushing of a pea-sized or smaller unborn from the womb.

And you think that what Klopfer stored were thousands of pea-sized fetuses? If so, how did his wife and legal authorities know exactly what they were?

Please read better...I spoke to that specifically, and addressed what it would be 'today.' And then I even asked that same question.

And now you dismiss what Klopfer did as irrelevant because the discovery of thousands of fetal remains isn't "useful." Do you know whether transporting fetal remains is illegal? I do not, but I would call learning whether Klopfer broke the law "useful," not just to legal authorities but also to psychologists and psychiatrists. Why did Klopfer do this? Why didn't his wife know? Were laws broken? What could have been his point? Respect for the dead and not wishing for the remains to be incinerated or end up in a landfill?

Please read betterer. It was 'my' comment about learning something useful. OTOH, now that you bring it up...why didnt she? Because she's indulging in her manipulative rhetoric and/or blinded by bias.

And I consider the rest of your response there about the same as mine...good questions that would be useful to answer. WHich I have ALSO acknowledged more than once on this topic. :doh

Congratulations...this post from you pretty much puts you in the same category as Klopfer. Overly defensive and dramatic, blinded by bias, and thus driven completely off-target.

 

[Josie]

You really are slow. A fetus isn’t a human. It is a potential human. Same as a pile of mechanical/electrical/electronic parts isn’t a car until the assembly process is complete. Understand?

Again -- what species is the fetus, then? He/She already has been assigned a gender and has a DNA profile at conception. What species of DNA is it?

 

[Lursa]

Minnie you are aware that even RvW doesn’t agree with you. There are limitations. I think it hinges on viability and that status is changing.

That status has not changed...every attempt to do so recently, in the states that passed laws lowering the time/trimester for abortion, have been blocked. Because they're unConstitutional.

And there's no evidence yet that any of these specimens were even near viability.

So your post is not particularly relevant.

 

[Iron_Merc]

These people are sick, very sick.

They actually believe that a fetus is "subhuman"

In the same way that Hitler believed Jews were "subhuman"

What was the problem with having piles of dead jews lying about in war time Germany? Absolutely nothing. Totally Justified and authorized.

LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN IT WASNT COLD BLOODED MURDER.

 

[Overitall]

That status has not changed...every attempt to do so recently, in the states that passed laws lowering the time/trimester for abortion, have been blocked. Because they're unConstitutional.

And there's no evidence yet that any of these specimens were even near viability.

So your post is not particularly relevant.

Thanks for your post. Enjoyed reading it.

 

[Lursa]

Over 2,000 dead human bodies found in a house and it isn't newsworthy? They're just like dead rats to you, aren't they?

2000 dead rats found in a house would be newsworthy too.

 

[Lursa]

Thanks for your post. Enjoyed reading it.

It's nice to be appreciated.

 

[Overitall]

It's nice to be appreciated.

I know.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

These people are sick, very sick.

They actually believe that a fetus is "subhuman"

In the same way that Hitler believed Jews were "subhuman"

What was the problem with having piles of dead jews lying about in war time Germany? Absolutely nothing. Totally Justified and authorized.

LEGAL DOES NOT MEAN IT WASNT COLD BLOODED MURDER.

Your theatrics aside, a fetus isn’t a subhuman. “Pre-human” or “human in progress”, maybe, but definitely not subhuman.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Again -- what species is the fetus, then? He/She already has been assigned a gender and has a DNA profile at conception. What species of DNA is it?

The species isn’t in question. The proper/correct identification is where you appear to be confused. A fetus can be correctly identified as a “human fetus”, but cannot be correctly identified as a “human” anymore than the pile of automotive parts I used as an analogy can be correctly identified as a car.

Nota Bene incorrectly identified a human fetus as an “unborn human”. As there is no guarantee of the outcome of the pregnancy, that term is flawed. Potential human would be a correct alternative phrase.

 

[Josie]

The species isn’t in question. The proper/correct identification is where you appear to be confused. A fetus can be correctly identified as a “human fetus”, but cannot be correctly identified as a “human” anymore than the pile of automotive parts I used as an analogy can be correctly identified as a car.

Nota Bene incorrectly identified a human fetus as an “unborn human”. As there is no guarantee of the outcome of the pregnancy, that term is flawed. Potential human would be a correct alternative phrase.

So many strange, unscientific hoops that have to be jumped through to justify your position.

 

[Josie]

“Pre-human” or “human in progress”

:lamo

 

[Lursa]

The species isn’t in question. The proper/correct identification is where you appear to be confused. A fetus can be correctly identified as a “human fetus”, but cannot be correctly identified as a “human” anymore than the pile of automotive parts I used as an analogy can be correctly identified as a car.

Nota Bene incorrectly identified a human fetus as an “unborn human”. As there is no guarantee of the outcome of the pregnancy, that term is flawed. Potential human would be a correct alternative phrase.

I have found over the years that attempting to force the pro-life sector to acknowledge this difference is difficult. They do understand the distinction between human noun and human adjective forms but they CHOOSE to use it broadly for more emotional (and attempts at legal) manipulation. Same with 'human being.'

It's not worth the time and effort...using it broadly enables them to avoid or at least bob and weave around the actual issues regarding abortion. Once they (most of them anyway) figured out that they cannot legitimately use their religion as a reason to make elective abortion illegal, they jumped on the 'science' bandwagon and then claim we cannot legally kill any humans. Which then has to be explained to them, ad infinitem, is also wrong, with many examples proving them so.

I use my terms very accurately or I go with 'unborn.' I explain that science applies no value and is objective and that how society values people is subjective.

But they work very hard to prevent you from nailing them down on the usage of human. If you cant get them to concur on definitions...they never have to acknowledge that the unborn are not equal to the born...legally, physiologically, ethically and thus, it's not a 'fact' that they must be treated as such or recognized with rights.

I also dont object to 'unborn' baby, since they are qualifying it accurately.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So many strange, unscientific hoops that have to be jumped through to justify your position.

Why do you think that?

:lamo

You laugh at logical, fact based terms, but are okay with nonsensical ones. No surprise.

 

[Fletch]

Making up terms does nothing to support your argument. Neither the medical community or law recognizes your faux term.

But simple logic does. They are human and not yet born. That makes them unborn humans.

 

[Fletch]

The species isn’t in question. The proper/correct identification is where you appear to be confused. A fetus can be correctly identified as a “human fetus”, but cannot be correctly identified as a “human” anymore than the pile of automotive parts I used as an analogy can be correctly identified as a car.

Nota Bene incorrectly identified a human fetus as an “unborn human”. As there is no guarantee of the outcome of the pregnancy, that term is flawed. Potential human would be a correct alternative phrase.

The 'outcome' is irrelevant. What a woman carries is a human life in its earliest stages of development. Its an unborn human whether you like it or not.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I have found over the years that attempting to force the pro-life sector to acknowledge this difference is difficult. They do understand the distinction between human noun and human adjective forms but they CHOOSE to use it broadly for more emotional (and attempts at legal) manipulation. Same with 'human being.'

It's not worth the time and effort...using it broadly enables them to avoid or at least bob and weave around the actual issues regarding abortion. Once they (most of them anyway) figured out that they cannot legitimately use their religion as a reason to make elective abortion illegal, they jumped on the 'science' bandwagon and then claim we cannot legally kill any humans. Which then has to be explained to them, ad infinitem, is also wrong, with many examples proving them so.

I use my terms very accurately or I go with 'unborn.' I explain that science applies no value and is objective and that how society values people is subjective.

But they work very hard to prevent you from nailing them down on the usage of human. If you cant get them to concur on definitions...they never have to acknowledge that the unborn are not equal to the born...legally, physiologically, ethically and thus, it's not a 'fact' that they must be treated as such or recognized with rights.

I also dont object to 'unborn' baby, since they are qualifying it accurately.

Well said. You, Minnie and others here, do a good job pushing back against the irrational emotional arguments of otherwise intelligent people with facts and logic.

 

[Fletch]

I have found over the years that attempting to force the pro-life sector to acknowledge this difference is difficult. They do understand the distinction between human noun and human adjective forms but they CHOOSE to use it broadly for more emotional (and attempts at legal) manipulation. Same with 'human being.'

It's not worth the time and effort...using it broadly enables them to avoid or at least bob and weave around the actual issues regarding abortion. Once they (most of them anyway) figured out that they cannot legitimately use their religion as a reason to make elective abortion illegal, they jumped on the 'science' bandwagon and then claim we cannot legally kill any humans. Which then has to be explained to them, ad infinitem, is also wrong, with many examples proving them so.

I use my terms very accurately or I go with 'unborn.' I explain that science applies no value and is objective and that how society values people is subjective.

But they work very hard to prevent you from nailing them down on the usage of human. If you cant get them to concur on definitions...they never have to acknowledge that the unborn are not equal to the born...legally, physiologically, ethically and thus, it's not a 'fact' that they must be treated as such or recognized with rights.

I also dont object to 'unborn' baby, since they are qualifying it accurately.

When does a human become a human?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

But simple logic does. They are human and not yet born. That makes them unborn humans.

Look up the definition of “human”. It doesn’t include fetuses.

The 'outcome' is irrelevant. What a woman carries is a human life in its earliest stages of development. Its an unborn human whether you like it or not.

I acknowledge you’re correct in the second sentence, but you are factually wrong in the third. And it has nothing to do with what I think.

 

[Lursa]

When does a human become a human?

Human noun form or human adjective form?

The unborn are Homo sapiens, having that DNA. That is a human (noun).

 

[Fletch]

Look up the definition of “human”. It doesn’t include fetuses.

Nor does it exclude them. Here is your definition
human adjective
hu·​man | \ ˈhyü-mən , ˈyü-\
Definition of human (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans (see HUMAN entry 2)
the human brain
human voices
problems that have occurred throughout human history
2: consisting of humans
everyone held hands and made a human chain
3a: having human form or attributes
the statue is more human than the beings at his feet
— Clifton Fadiman
b: representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature
human kindness
a human weakness
such an inconsistency is very human

I acknowledge you’re correct in the second sentence, but you are factually wrong in the third. And it has nothing to do with what I think.

If your argument that what grows in the womans body is not human, what is it? Are you saying its possible for a woman to give birth to something other than a human? So you thinks its possible a monkey could pop out of there?

 

[Fletch]

Human noun form or human adjective form?

The unborn are Homo sapiens, having that DNA. That is a human (noun).

Then they are unborn humans