Send your cumrags to TX Gov. Abbott!

jexblackmore (57) in politics • 8 years ago

Be wary of apathy! Texas and Indiana mandate their citizens bury abortion remnants. This is an attempt to establish the legal precedent of fetal personhood. Take action! Send your used condoms and cumrags to Governor Abbott's office at: Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711 #CUMRAGSFORCONGRESS

All samples will be collected by the legislature and sent to Jesus!

Read about the legislation here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html

politics activism feminism news notmypresident

8 years ago by jexblackmore (57)

$0.06

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago

Not sure this one will take off since sperm aren't humans... good eye-catcher though. If there's one thing you guys know how to do, it's get attention. :)

$0.04

4 votes

[-]

steemlocomotive (47) · 8 years ago

A sperm is as much a potential human as an egg or a zygote.

$0.00

2 votes

[-]

jexblackmore (57) · 8 years ago

A fetus is a 'potential' human, just as sperm is a 'potential' human.

$0.00

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

Neither sperm nor eggs are potential humans alone. A fetus, on the other hand, is and only needs to be protected and nourished like children of later ages do.
I've definitely enjoyed and been supportive of other stunts the church has done that have been more effective. Would love to see more in the future. This one doesn't strike me as being very productive. I'd consider your campaign to protect children from assault in schools to be a much better use of time and energy.

$0.03

4 votes

[-]

steemlocomotive (47) · 8 years ago

Many cells in the body can be coaxed into becoming stem cells and those cells can be made into eggs that can begin division without the need for a sperm cell. Wouldn't that make a large number of cells in the human body potential humans?

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

@steemlocomotive No, the mother is merely a source of nutrients. She doesn't have to manually manipulate the development of the cells to become something other than what it already naturally would. Your term "host" is more accurate, since the relationship is more like that of a tapeworm and the person it resides within (except that in most cases, people invite the fetus to take up residence within them so the relationship is consensual rather than a parasitic one).

$0.00

[-]

steemlocomotive (47) · 8 years ago

A mother is an external agent. A fetus isn't going to grow and develop without a host.

Suppose I take some of my own stem cells and start them dividing on a Petri dish? Are they fetuses or not?

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

@steemlocomotive According to the dictionary entries I read, it's called a fetus 2 months after conception... so no, a few cells in a Petri dish wouldn't be a fetus. Also, a batch of stem cells in a dish cannot grow naturally into a person. A whole lot of deliberate manipulation would be required from third parties.

$0.00

[-]

logic (67) · 8 years ago

Person in a coma used used to be alive, sentient being.
Animals are alive beings. Those with neuro development higher than insects are sentient. Neither those animals nor humans (animals) deserve to die.
4 month old fetus is not a sentient animal\human. It has never even been awake (born) and cognitively experienced the environment (person in a coma has).
Some rigid dictionary definition of one word does not describe complex scientific understanding of what a sentient animal is. You talk about unimportance of "aesthetic" similarities but then refer to definition of the word from dictionary. That is contradiction.
The difference between newborn baby and 4 months old fetus is not an aesthetic difference. These two have completely different levels of development of their systems such as nervous, cardiovascular etc. Fetus is not a well developed newborn. Your simplistic and scientifically illiterate denominating of complex subject is one of the reasons why the value system in our society is still backward like in middle ages. Regardless of current technological advancements and scientific understandings.
There is zero logic in your assertion. It seems just to be a mindless repetition of some simplisistic opinion conditioned by your lifestyle experiences. Opinion that you seem very attached to because you derive your sense of identity and lifestyle belonging from it.
Abortion should be allowed with a decision left solely to mother. When the fetus is over 5-6 moths old then it should be advised to mother not to have abortion unless there is health risk to mother, mother was raped, there is no possibility for anyone to raise the child sustainably or the child is suspected to be born with serious disease/disorder. In the end, it is mother's decision.
No one, including father should have a right to stop the abortion.

$0.00

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

@logic

Person in coma is still a live sentient being.
Agreed (although the jury seems to still be out in regards to insect sentience. Looking forward to that one being settled better).
A fetus definitely is an animal although its sentience is debatable because our ability to remember and express past experiences is practically nonexistent until we get to be around two years old so there's no way to verify this yet). The past health and awareness of the person in the coma isn't relevant to its present state. Something is no less dead just because it used to be alive.
The meaning of the word is what this is all about. My initial point was merely that sperm aren't humans but fetuses are. No need to fear dictionaries. They can help us to avoid all kinds of misunderstandings. I see no contradiction but, by all means, explain if you disagree. All this is about is properly understanding objective reality and discussing it accurately. I made no moral judgments or anything else to support your notion that I'm arguing from an emotional position that's rooted in some sense of identity or whatever else. As a side note, one might suggest that your perceived a moral judgement where there was none because of your own hypersensitivity, which could be rooted in guilt or a fear of your own identity's framework being challenged... but I guess that would getting into a whole other topic.
Of course, the older a person is, the more physically developed it is (until the brain is finished forming in our early twenties). You just said that a fetus doesn't "resemble" a newborn, which is an observation about its appearances. My point was that such a differentiation is irrelevant to the question of whether or not its human, which was the question at hand.
Calling something illogical, mindless, or simplistic doesn't make it so and has no place in any serious debate.
If you want to tackle moral questions about killing others, we can certainly do that too... although this discussion hasn't been about that thus far so it would mean venturing into a whole other subject.

$0.00

[-]

logic (67) · 8 years ago (edited)

Fetus is not a human. It does not even resemble newborn until 4 months old. Even then its brain is not cognitively developed to show any signs of sense of self awareness or response to external communication. You cannot kill something which is not even human yet. What makes us human is developed cognition and self awareness. Fetus has non of these.
Plese, educated yourself about what science already knows about fetus. We are not living in medieval ages.

$0.00

1 vote

[-]

piedpiper (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

-Opinions of aesthetic similarity to a newborn are irrelevant just as size, communication abilities, and self-awareness are.
-Someone on life support in a coma may respond to communication or demonstrate self awareness but that doesn't change them into something other than a human, after all.
-Of course you can kill something that's not human. All animals can be killed, regardless of their species.
-"Developed cognition and self awareness" aren't requisites for being human according to any dictionary I've seen.
-You are correct in observing that we're not living in the middle ages. It's a wholey irreverent statement to the topic at hand, but it's accurate nevertheless. Gold star.