Skip to content

Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?

November 8, 2010

The main argument of the anti-choice movement boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal. This assumption is deeply flawed.

At the outset, let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1. That’s why we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions. Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than “it,” much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart.

However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives2. Even though it has little relevance for the actual practice of abortion, the assertion that fetuses are human beings has a potentially great impact on the rights of women.

Deconstructing Anti-Choice Language

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective “human” and the noun “human being,” giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: “But isn’t it human?” —as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it’s a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote3. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes (I’ll expand on this point later). Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.

Anti-choicers also use the phrase “humanity of the fetus,” by which they may mean its physical human qualities, but it’s ambiguous, maybe purposely so. In this context, the word “humanity” implies compassionate human feelings and virtues, such as pathos or love. The term seems cleverly designed to elicit sympathy for a fetus, and assign it human-like qualities it simply does not have. The ability to feel joy, sadness, anger, and hatred are an integral part of our “human beingness,” and we do not learn to develop such sophisticated emotions until we start socially interacting with others.

An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: “It’s a life”—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman’s body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs. Simply calling a fetus “a life” says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying “a human being,” which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.

The same problem afflicts the anti-choice phrase: “Life begins at conception.” Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn’t stopped since. A fertilized egg is simply life continuing in a modified form—only one small step removed from the separate sperm and ovum, both alive before joining together, and both representing the unique genetic potential of a human being. In an anti-choice context, the term “Life begins at conception” can only be translated as: “A human being starts at conception.” Once again, this is begging the question. Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.

Is a Fetus a Human Being?

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before “quickening”, an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman’s body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

Does a Fetus Have a “Right to Life”?

Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent “right to life.” But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman’s life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their “right to life” definition in order to accommodate a woman’s rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women’s rights are more important than the “right to life” of fetuses.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone’s life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will7. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy8. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy—people have a right to non-procreative sex9. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)

Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn’t automatically overrule a woman’s right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one’s moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere “inconvenience”), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.

If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live. This is alien to the anti-choice assumption that all life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they’d never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for leading dysfunctional lives10. Many people believe that being forced to live is a violation of human dignity and conscience. To be truly meaningful, the right to live must include the flip side, the right to die.

Ultimately though, to have a “right to life” requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must “get a life” before one has a “right to life.” A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host. I’m not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent11—if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.

Can a Fetus Be a Legal Person with Rights?

Anti-choicers like to demand legal rights for fetuses. Significantly, there is no support for fetuses as legal persons in international human rights codes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Virtually all national constitutions do not treat fetuses as persons or citizens. American citizenship is limited to those “born or naturalized in the United States” (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word “Everyone” in the Canadian constitution has been deemed by the courts not to include fetuses12.

Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn’t every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.

Anti-choicers might argue that special laws or legal exceptions could be written for fetuses to accommodate their unique characteristics, but the very fact that exceptional laws for fetuses would have to be created proves that they are incapable of having the same legal status as real persons.

If anti-choicers want fetuses to share the same human rights as the rest of us, this means they should enjoy the constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and other basic freedoms. Since fetuses are physically incapable of believing, speaking, or assembling, they cannot have or exercise any constitutional rights. This puts them in a totally different category than regular human beings. To give another example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” Fetuses obviously cannot qualify for such a right on their own. Ironically, the Charter also says “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”— if fetuses did have rights, this would outlaw forced pregnancy!

The biggest challenge in giving legal rights to embryos arises when trying to decide whose rights would take precedence when they conflict—the woman’s or her zygote’s. The idea that a grown woman’s value and status can be equated with, or overridden by, a cluster of undifferentiated cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not only bizarre, it’s insulting. We are treading on dangerous moral and legal grounds when we exchange a woman’s actual rights in favour of an embryo’s theoretical rights.

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, tried to balance the rights of women and fetuses by allowing states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except to protect the life or health of the woman. But this balancing act was a sham—women’s right to choose would not be infringed in practice, because Roe v. Wade only prohibited the mythical “casual” late-term abortion invented by anti-choicers. In the real world, healthy pregnant women with healthy 8½ month fetuses do not casually demand abortions, and doctors do not casually agree to do them. To suggest otherwise is an insult to both women and doctors. Unfortunately, because of its faulty assumption that fetuses need to be protected from women’s irresponsible decision-making, Roe v. Wade opened the door to the passage of many laws making it harder to access abortions, as well as a weakening of the decision itself by later Supreme Court rulings. Women’s liberty and bodily integrity have been violated accordingly.

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that the state has an interest in protecting fetal life, but this should be done through guaranteed access to pre-natal care, health care, and education for pregnant women, not by restricting abortion. Pitting the rights of women against their fetuses harms them both—for example, women will avoid pre-natal care entirely if they fear being arrested for endangering their fetus by drug abuse. Canadian courts have wisely backed away from trying to give any protections to fetuses in such circumstances, because they realize it might infringe on women’s established human rights. As a result, pregnant women in Canada enjoy exclusive rights over their bodies. To turn the tables and demand legal rights for fetuses is a direct call for the legalized oppression of women, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and personhood. This loss of rights and identity would occur not just during a nine-month pregnancy, but would, by logical necessity, reach to some extent into women’s lifelong role as mothers and mothers-to-be.

Ironically, anti-choicers are trapped in a fatal contradiction here—women are undeniably human beings; yet anti-choicers are quite willing to sacrifice the human rights of women in favour of fetuses, whose status as human beings is highly questionable. If they can’t even respect the lives and rights of born human beings, why should we trust their alleged concern for fetuses as human beings?

Does a Fetus Have a Social Identity?

A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another’s body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person’s existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history.

In earlier times, even infants may not have been valued members of the society yet. Infanticide has been a common practice throughout history as a way to select for healthy, wanted babies, and conserve scarce resources for the rest of the tribe. The human species is estimated to have killed 10 to 15 percent of its born children13. Plus, infant mortality rates from natural causes were so high that babies were often not officially welcomed into the community until months or even years after birth, when their survival was more assured14. Of course, this is not an advocacy of infanticide. I’m simply saying that personhood, or the point at which one becomes an “official” human being, is a value judgment made by society according to social custom and necessity. It is a social construction incapable of empirical proof. Generally, modern industrialized societies find birth to be the most convenient and logical place to assign personhood, because that’s where a person starts an independent existence, but perhaps also because of our low infant mortality rates. Even so, babies do not have an established social identity to the same degree as older children or adults, probably because of their still-undeveloped human abilities and potential.

Is a Fetus a Human Being Physically?

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood15.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course, there are striking physical similarities between a fetus and a newborn, such as well-developed hands and feet at a relatively early stage, and the overall structural form. As birth approaches, a fetus looks more and more like a newborn, until there is no significant difference by about 30 weeks gestation. But anti-choicers focus exclusively on these similarities, while ignoring the differences. For example, a hugely popular anti-choice photograph shows the perfectly formed, tiny feet of a 10-week old fetus held gently between someone’s thumb and forefinger. There is no sign of the rest of the early fetus, which barely looks human at all. Anti-choicers try not to use pictures of embryos and early fetuses precisely because they look far less human than later ones (when they do, they usually enlarge them to make the embryo or fetus look the same size as a baby). Even the more commonly-used photos of later-term fetuses tend to deliberately shield from view anything that detracts from human-like qualities, such as the placenta or the oddly-shaped torso. (Also, women and their uteruses are completely erased from all such pictures.)16


Are Eggs and Embryos Stable Individuals?

Embryonic existence is very precarious. Zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos have a high failure rate, which throws cold water on the anti-choice claim that every fertilized egg is sacred. Scientists estimate that 55 to 65% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted in the first few days or weeks of a pregnancy, usually without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant17. It’s called “fetal wastage.” Another 10 to 15% of pregnancies are miscarried in the months to come. Fetal wastage occurs because early embryonic forms have a high defect rate—most early miscarriages are caused by genetic defects in the fertilized egg. This shows that eggs and embryos do not yet qualify as human beings according to Nature herself—at best, they represent tryouts for the human race.

Embryos are capable of splitting into two, to form twins, and may even recombine later18. This does serious damage to the idea of unique personhood, and the common anti-abortion belief that a “soul” is infused into a zygote at conception. Do twins share the single soul they got at conception, or is the second twin belatedly given its own soul after cell division? If the latter, which soul is lost if the embryos recombine? These questions are unintelligible if embryos are human beings, but simply moot if they are not.

As mentioned before, we are more than our genes, so the fertilized egg cannot represent a “complete” human being as anti-choicers would have it. We are not yet ourselves at conception. Whatever a pregnant woman eats, drinks, inhales, and does, has a huge impact on the specific human being a fetus will turn out to be. Our brains, personalities, abilities, and physical traits are shaped by our environment as well as by genetics. Further, anti-choicers claim that nothing is added to the fertilized egg except nutrition, but this is a misunderstanding of how embryos develop. The dramatic development that turns a zygote into a newborn is not simply growth—it is a radical, turbulent, and constant metamorphosis, with individual cells reproducing, migrating, and evolving specific functions at specific times. The end result is like a complex symphony by a billion musicians that began with a single, one-note instrument.

Can such a contingent and changeable entity really be identified as the same full and unique human being at every stage?

Life Is a Crap Shoot

Anti-choicers would not be convinced by the evidence in this article, because it doesn’t refute their emotional conviction that a fertilized egg represents a real and unique human being, just like themselves. They identify with a fertilized egg (it’s where we all came from, after all) and feel horror and anxiety at the thought that they themselves might have been aborted. But life is a crap shoot. If your parents had decided not to have sex the night you were conceived, you wouldn’t have existed. If your father had worn a condom, you wouldn’t have existed. Or, you could have been conceived, then miscarried. If you had been aborted, your mother may have had a later sibling who wouldn’t have existed without your abortion. And so on. Ultimately, if you hadn’t been born, it wouldn’t matter to you, the same way it can’t matter to aborted fetuses that they weren’t born. The non-existent don’t regret their non-existence, and when the living start worrying about the non-existent, they descend into irrational nonsense.

Moreover, the difference between a fertilized egg, and a sperm and an unfertilized egg, is relatively minor. The sperm and ovum each represent the potential for a human being. But men release billions of doomed sperm over a lifetime, and virtually all of women’s thousands of eggs go to waste. The number of potential, unique human beings forever lost to the world is astronomical, and although our sheer luck at being alive seems miraculous, it is pointless to lose sleep over such matters—and even more pointless to oppress half the world’s population just so a few more of these gazillion potential human beings can exist.

This is not to say that human life doesn’t have value. Of course it does, but only the value that we ourselves bestow on it—in biology, life is cheap, life is wasteful, and death is vital. Nature does not value humans any more than worms, and in all species, vast numbers of eggs and seeds don’t stand a chance of reaching maturity19. Life has been cheap throughout human history too—it’s only modern medicine that has allowed us to keep most of our babies alive for the first time. Why shed futile tears over spilt milk and the biological facts of life? Instead, let’s focus on protecting the rights and improving the quality of life of born human beings.

Conclusion

Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man’s land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women.

Endnotes

For a more detailed biological perspective, see Eileen’s article How Can a Paradigm Affect Your Rights as a Woman? which examines the paradigms through which we view the fetus within the pregnant woman: either as in “integrated single unit” or a “dual organism”, and how that affects women’s rights.

1. Medical World News. 1987. Abortion Clinic’s Toughest Cases. pp 55-61. March 9.

2. I do not consider the religious perspective in this article, because if the claim that a fetus is a human being depends on sectarian religious doctrines, it cannot have any legal authority in our secular culture. I would argue that the claim does primarily come from religion, but this is a major topic that deserves its own book.

3. Stages of embryonic development: A zygote is a single-celled fertilized egg. A blastocyst is the fertilized egg after cell division. At implantation, it becomes an embryo through to the eighth week of development, and a fetus from eight weeks to birth.

4. Robinson, B.A. 2000. Christian Beliefs on Abortion: Past and Present. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

5. Except in rare, narrowly defined circumstances on the condition that the fetus has a subsequent live birth, for example, allowing a fetus to later inherit so as to honour the intent of a deceased person (not to give a fetus personhood). U.S. Supreme Court. January 22, 1973. Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun opinion. http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/410b1.htm6

6. Rosen, Judith C. A Legal Perspective on the Status of the Fetus: Who Will Guard the Guardians? In Abortion Rights and Fetal ‘Personhood’. Doerr, Ed and James W. Prescott, editors. 1990, 2nd ed. Centerline Press, Long Beach, California. pp 29-50.

7. McDonagh, Eileen L. 1996. Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent. Oxford University Press, New York, NY; and Jarvis Thomson, Judith. 1986. In Defense of Abortion. Reprinted in Rights, Restitution, and Risk. Ed. W. Pavent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Massachusetts.

8. Tribe, Lawrence H. 1990. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. pp 131-132.

9. Legalized birth control implicitly provides the right to have sex without reproducing. In the U.S., this right is constitutionally-protected (U.S. Supreme Court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965; and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972.) Most abortions are caused by failed contraceptives, but regardless, consent to sex does not entail consent to pregnancy, any more than consent to swimming implies consent to drown.

10. David, Henry P. et al., eds. 1988. Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion. Springer Publishing Co., New York.

11. McDonagh, pp. 68.

12. R.v. Morgentaler (1988); Borowski v. Attorney General of Canada (1987); Tremblay v. Daigle (1989); Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. Ms G. (1997); and others.

13. Milner, Larry S. 1998. A Brief History of Infanticide. Society for the Prevention of Infanticide. http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

14. Morgan, Lynn M. When Does Life Begin? A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Personhood of Fetuses and Young Children. In Abortion Rights and Fetal ‘Personhood’. Doerr, Ed and James W. Prescott, editors. 1990, 2nd ed. Centerline Press, Long Beach, California. pp 89-107.

15. Bennett, Michael V.L. Personhood From a Neuroscientific Perspective. In Abortion Rights and Fetal ‘Personhood’. Doerr, Ed and James W. Prescott, editors. 1990, 2nd ed. Centerline Press, Long Beach, California. pp 77-79.

16. Condit, Celeste Michelle. 1990. Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. pp. 85-89; and Newman, Karen. 1996. Fetal Positions: Individualism, Science, Visuality. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. pp 8-18.

17. Rolfe, Barbara E. 1982. Detection of Fetal Wastage. Fertility and Sterility. Vol. 37, No. 5, pp 655-660, May; and Bonnicksen, Andrea. 1989. In Vitro Fertilization: Building Policy from Laboratories to Legislatures. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 150.

18. Condit, pp. 211.

19. Anti-choicers might claim that such death and wastage is natural or God-ordained, but that abortion is “playing God”, and this makes it wrong. But we play God every time we fly in an airplane, take antibiotics, breed a new type of dog, predict a storm, and build a fire. Human beings take control of their destiny and manipulate nature in a way that animals cannot—this is what makes us human beings. If we can’t be in charge of our reproduction too, we are no different than animals. (And if anti-choicers further say that this still doesn’t make abortion “right,” I would argue that safe, legal abortion is one of the greatest moral advances of the 20th century.)

About these ads
45 Comments leave one →
  1. freethinker2008 permalink
    November 8, 2010 3:38

    froivinber, you said: “An embryo is not a human.”

    OK. So if an embryo or fetus is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL…
    NOT A PERSON….and NOT A HUMAN, then what are YOU???

    A bacterium? A protist? A fungus?
    Oh, I remember…an APPENDIX! LOL

    OMG! See how STUPID & IGNORANT you are? LOL

    • November 8, 2010 3:38

      That stupid rant means nothing at all. It’s good you’re now admitting that an embryo is not an individual, a person, a human or a concerned citizen. That’s a sign that you’re now gradually evolving…

      Again, let’s apply your logic:

      So if a MICROBE or a PLANT is an organism, then it is an INDIVIDUAL.

      “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is an individual, then it is a PERSON.” — WRONG. An embryo is not an individual, stupid.

      “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is a person, then it is a HUMAN.” — WRONG AGAIN! En embryo is not a individual and a person.

      “So if EMBRYO or FETUS is human, then it has LEGAL RIGHTS.” — WRONG AND WRONG AGAIN, stupid! An embryo is not a human.

      “So if EMBRYO or FETUS has legal rights, then concerned citizens should voice out his/her RIGHTS TO LIVE!” — THIS IS PURE STUPIDITY. An embryo is not “CONCERNED CITIZENS”. Lmao!

      Then you are a microbe.

      • freethinker2008 permalink
        November 8, 2010 3:38

        Oh. Are you mad at me? Please don’t be.

        OK. Let me reiterate.

        So if an embryo or fetus is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL…
        NOT A PERSON….and NOT A HUMAN, then what are YOU???

        Go on. I promise I won’t laugh. LOL Oops.

      • November 8, 2010 3:38

        Of course I’m not mad at you. I’m enjoying this while doing my homework. However, I have to call you on your stupidity. Everything you posted here reeks of stupidity. Let’s just call a spade a spade.

        You said: “So if an embryo or fetus is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL…
        NOT A PERSON….and NOT A HUMAN, then what are YOU???”

        I’m an individual or a person because I’m not a fetus, a zygote or an embryo- or simply part of my mother’s body. I have all the characteristics of a human being. You (and a fetus) haven’t because you look at yourself as merely an organism (perhaps a microbe or a plant). I have a fully developed brain, an embryo doesn’t have a fully developed brain like yours. The survival of an embryo or a zygote depends upon the survival of the woman. I don’t depend on the biological survival of anyone else. Maybe you do because you’re an embryo or a parasitical organism.

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        froivinber, you said: “I have a fully developed brain…”

        Don’t flatter yourself too much. A bacterium, protist, fungus or an APPENDIX like you don’t have any brain cell. But you don’t know that because you’re pathologically BRAINLESS. And you flunked on Biology 101, remember? LOL

        And you said: “I’m an individual or a person because I’m not a fetus, a zygote or an embryo- or simply part of my mother’s body.”

        What? “An embryo- or simply part of my mother’s body”? Let me remind you that ORIGINALLY you said, “Fetus is…part of the woman’s internal organ.” That line clearly defines your stupidity and ignorance, remember? OMG! You’re caught LYING. And that’s one sure-fire tactic of a LOSER. LOL

        Moving on. How can you even be a “person” if you ignorantly think “embryo” is just a “piece of tissue” like tonsils? Or a vestigial structure like appendix? And what medical procedure your mother took when she gave birth to you – APPENDECTOMY or TONSILLECTOMY? LOL

  2. xyxy permalink
    November 9, 2010 3:38

    @Freethinker2008:
    What’s your stand in abortion? Do you think it is morally acceptable? Should women be given the choice to abort a fetus if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of its mother, like in ectopic pregnancies?

    @All:
    Any thoughts regarding parasitic twins?

    • November 9, 2010 3:38

      @xyxy

      The question should BETTER be rephrased as:

      What’s your stand in abortion? Do you think it is morally acceptable? Should FROIVINBER’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FROIVINBER if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?

      Now I think this question is addressed to that LYING PATHETIC APPENDICAL PUS.
      Remember: froivinber believes that an embyo or fetus is just “tissues”, “part of a woman’s internal organ”, and it’s just the same as “tonsils” and “appendix”. LOL And after giving those IRRATIONAL & UNSCIENTIFIC factoids, froivinber still has the NERVE to think he has a BRAIN??? LOL

      So any STUPID or IGNORANT answer, froivinber? LOL

      • xyxy permalink
        November 9, 2010 3:38

        Not funny.

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        Why is it not funny, froivinber? I mean, xyxy? Whatever.

        If that LYING PATHETIC BRAINLESS froivinber GENUINELY believes in his PRO-ABORTION stance, then why can’t he answer this REPHRASED question AFFIRMATIVELY?

        And IF, that’s a BIG IF, froivinber really thinks that he is arguing with “reason” and really knows “science”, then HE SHOULD ADMIT IN PUBLIC that embryo or fetus is NOT just “tissues”; NOT “part of a woman’s internal organ”; and NOT IN A MILLION YEARS the same as “tonsils” or “appendix”.

        Well, that is IF he really has a BRAIN. :)

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        Wow! This lunatic Freethinker/Free-farter thinks all of my commenters are sockpuppets! Lol!

        Well, I don’t wanna waste any more time with a lunatic embryo or an “organism like you.

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        See? That LYING PATHETIC LOSER, froivinber, CAN’T answer the question:

        “What’s your stand in abortion? Do you think it is morally acceptable? Should FROIVINBER’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FROIVINBER if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?”

        And why can’t he answer? Because froivinber has NO BRAIN, and a FAKE pro-abortion supporter.

        OMG! You are a FRAUD! Shame on you, LOSER! LOL

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        If you wanna know, just read my posts. It’s impossible to argue with an organism or an embryo like you. It’s impossible to reason with a dishonest/freefarting organism or an embryo like YOU. It’s a waste of time. You can say all you want. Any sane, thinking HUMAN BEING, not an embryo or an organism, can easily understand my stand on abortion.

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        So if we can go back in time to your prenatal months, I wonder how would YOU FEEL if you know that YOUR OWN MOTHER has decided to ABORT you.

        Can you HONESTLY say, IT’S OK MOM. THAT’S MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

        Well, I will leave you alone for now because you have a LOT OF THINKING to do.

        God Bless. :)

      • November 9, 2010 3:38

        uLOL!

      • xyxy permalink
        November 10, 2010 3:38

        @Vince: You are WRONG! Freetroll2008 is not an embryo, he is a parasitic twin.

  3. November 10, 2010 3:38

    Still NO ANSWER?!
    Well, I’m NOT surprised. LOL

    But of course, FROIVINBER, (or any member of the PRO-ABORTION MOB SQUAD) CANNOT RESPOND to this extremely PERSONAL question because it requires INTELLECT and HONESTY that he absolutely LACK since birth. And besides, the FATAL question is TOO COMPLEX that it will only OBLITERATE any remaining brain cell within his PRIMITIVE CRANIUM. LOL

    But do you know the reason WHY HE CANNOT RESPOND?

    First, let me repost the question and call it FROIVINBER’S DILEMMA:

    “Should FROIVINBER’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FROIVINBER if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?”

    Now, here are froivinber’s possible answers and corresponding consequences:

    If froivinber says NO,
    then he BETRAYS his PRO-ABORTION stance,
    and allows HIS OWN MOTHER with ectopic pregnancy to just DIE!

    If froivinber says YES,
    then he becomes a SACRIFICIAL PIG for his PRO-ABORTION GOD,
    by permitting HIS OWN MOTHER to KILL HIM!

    Now you know why he’s DEAD QUIET.
    He can’t say NO. He can’t say YES. He’s TRAPPED!
    How can anyone choose between being as a MURDERER & DEAD MEAT? LOL

    • xyxy permalink
      November 10, 2010 3:38

      “Should FROIVINBER’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FROIVINBER if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?”

      Me! Me! I wanna answer! LLOLOLOLzzzz

      YES, his mother should be given the choice. Even my deeply religious Catholic grandmother would prefer her own life.

      What would he feel?
      - He wouldn’t feel anything. Do you remember feeling anything when you were an embryo?

      What would he think?
      - He couldn’t think. Do you remember being able to think when you were an embryo?

      Would he be a “sacrificial pig”?
      - NO. Cos:
      #1 — He’s not a pig (hindi sya baboy! LOL)
      #2 — He’s not a human being (HUMAN+BEING, according to his def.). Just an embryo.
      (if you’re referring to ” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good?”)

      Why is he not responding?
      - Cos you’re a TROLL by internet definition.

      Now, “Should FREETHINKER2008’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FREETHINKER2008 if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS/HER MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?” What would you, FREETHINKER2008, feel? LOL.

      • November 10, 2010 3:38

        Oh there you are froivinber, I mean, xyxy! LOL

        Yeah, I see you rephrased MY REPHRASED QUESTION which I’d cleverly rephrased out of your original question, remember?
        But newsflash. It’s NOT WORKING anymore! LOL

        Anyway, why did it take you 24 looooooooooong hours to respond?
        Too complicated for your primitive cranium I guess? LOL
        Remember, yesterday your only reaction was a BORING line, “Not funny.”
        And now this CAMPY answer? LOL

        But you know what? froivinber TRIED DESPERATELY TO EVADE this dreaded question but still he managed to blurt out MORE CREATIVE ANSWERS than you. (that is, if he is not you. LOL)

        froivinber’s answers were:

        1. “…Well, I don’t wanna waste any more time with a lunatic embryo or an organism like you.”

        2. “…STUPID and LUNATIC. Dealing with you would be a waste of time. ”

        But his 3rd answer is MY FAVORITE…short but with an atheist PASSION…

        3. “uLOL!”

        Imagine that. An “appendical pus” can talk and swear like that? LOL LOL LOL

      • November 10, 2010 3:38

        First, you’re crazy.

        Second, you’re a crazy troll.

        Third, I don’t know your problem.

        Fourth, tell me what you want to learn.

        Fifth, you still have lots of pending issues in my “anti-religion posts”.

        Sixth, I don’t have any interest in dealing with someone who doesn’t know how to argue properly.

        “Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood.”

      • xyxy permalink
        November 10, 2010 3:38

        >”Oh there you are froivinber, I mean, xyxy!”
        — LOL I might as well be MsLibertyBelle or MC Ramirez, or that dude named Freethinker2008!

        “Anyway, why did it take you 24 looooooooooong hours to respond? Too complicated for your primitive cranium I guess?”
        — You talkin to me XYXY? Bitch please. Who the eff are you to demand a 24 hour limit? Troll.

        >“Not funny.”
        — Seriously, I did not giggle, even just a bit. I was expecting more.

        >” froivinber TRIED DESPERATELY TO EVADE this dreaded question but still he managed to blurt out MORE CREATIVE ANSWERS than you.”
        — I thought I was good enough with answers!!

        >”Imagine that. An “appendical pus” can talk and swear like that?”
        — Imagine that. And embryos are capable of “wondering” why they’re mothers aborted them.

        >”CAMPY”
        — COCKY you~

        SO what’s it gonna be:
        “Should FREETHINKER2008’S MOTHER be given the choice to abort FREETHINKER2008 if it’s “a threat to the biological survival” of HIS/HER MOTHER, like in ectopic pregnancies?” What would you, FREETHINKER2008, feel?

        >”But newsflash. It’s NOT WORKING anymore! ”
        — What? You mean to say that this expires after one or two uses? Sheesh. You just borrowed my question.

        Will you be like froivinber and evade this dilemma?

  4. November 11, 2010 3:38

    OMYGOD! This article – Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being? – is just a 100% COPY of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE of another writer??? The title, body, and even the endnotes – they were ALL WRITTEN by JOYCE ARTHUR way back in 2001!!! LOL

    Wow, you could really FOOL anyone, thinking they’re reading your own articles. So that’s why you could EASILY post articles here anytime. All you have to do is browse on other sites for interesting articles, COPY them, and then PASTE them here on your INTELLECTUALLY-DEFICIENT blogsite. Hence, you’re just an INFERIOR IMITATOR of another writer. Nice work, EPIGONE! LOL

    I already know that you LIED many times; DENIED your pseudoscience factoids; REVISED your articles and CHANGED some lines I’d discovered with logical flaws; and even hired some PREP SQUAD to cheer you up when you CRASH & BURN. But I never thought that you would even take the path of PLAGIARISM just to argue with me. Well, I can’t blame you since your IRRATIONAL & UNSCIENTIFIC arguments CRUMBLE like your BRITTLE CRANIUM when confronted by HISTORICAL FACTS & SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS. So aside from this article, what OTHER ARTICLES you COPIED here, COPYCAT? LOL

    So all this time, I was just WASTING MY TIME here. I should NOT be arguing with you, froivinber. I should be arguing with JOYCE ARTHUR or anyone with ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. All you have here are just COPIED articles, PHONY ideologies, COPY-PASTED excerpts from philosophers & posters’ views (including mine), and other REHASHED comments. Aside from your BOGUS character, everything about you is FAKE! On top it all, you have just proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you are indeed a LYING PATHETIC BRAINLESS LOSER! LOL

    From this day on, your ILLUSION of having a brain has been TERMINATED. Moreover, your pro-abortion factoids, anti-religion idiosyncrasy, & even your microscopic credibility – ALL DIED A NATURAL DEATH.

    Anyway, my deep condolences. :)

  5. November 11, 2010 3:38

    While I agree that abortion must be legalized here because this is one of the ways to fight poverty and overpopulation, I strongly disagree with your fascist, evil ideology of free market system. The government must serve the common good of the citizens and make sure that abortion is accessible to poor women. If need be, the government must control population by passing the RH bill.

    You position on abortion and your anti-RH bill stance clash with each other. You should be more consistent.

    • xyxy permalink
      November 12, 2010 3:38

      @thegreatcommune:

      “You position on abortion and your anti-RH bill stance clash with each other.”

      - Why do they clash? Please elaborate.

  6. xyxy permalink
    November 11, 2010 3:38

    Looks like somebody forgot to read closely. There with the little star is the name “Joyce Arthur”. Perhaps he was too hasty with his conclusions, perhaps he’s “cocky” as they say. But I say, he’s most probably a troll who likes to taunt people, expand blog pages with his repetitive bashing and repost annoyingly-full-of-CAPS comments in his Youtube account as if he’s talking to some imaginary person there.

    Maybe he will even come up with some lie that the blog poster inserted the “[star] by Joyce Arthur” only recently, but Google will say otherwise http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QTJs_Q6gt5gJ:fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/personhood-is-a-fetus-a-human-being/+http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/personhood-is-a-fetus-a-human-being/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

    We know not of his problem. He thinks a “prep squad” (maybe he meant “pep squad”) was behind it. He thinks everyone is against him. He has points that I agree with before… but just look at what he is now. Do I hate him? No. Why would you hate someone who is clearly exhibiting some sort of mental disorder? I pity him very much.

    • November 11, 2010 3:38

      I don’t have any problem with this. I also post articles that are not mine on my blogsite.

      This is my first time to see a freethinker who’s against abortion lol! Well, I don’t consider myself a “freethinker”. I call myself a “thinker.”

      While I agree with the social and political advocacy of the Filipino Freethinkers, I found some of their views to be weird. This is the only issue that I like about Vincenton. I strongly oppose the rest.

      However, I want abortion to be centralized or imposed by the state. What Vincenton wants is a free-market system abortion. I believe it must be imposed and guaranteed by the government. We have to fight poverty and legalized abortion is one of the best ways to fight it.

    • November 11, 2010 3:38

      @xyxy And why are you responding instead of your leader? LOL It’s cute that you try to defend that FAKE WRITER but this 100% copy of Joyce Arthur’s old article speaks loudly of PLAGIARISM. Posting Arthur’s article here even sent the message:

      HELP, MR. ARTHUR! I CAN’T DEFEND & ARTICULATE YOUR STUPID PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENTS ANYMORE. CAN I JUST COPY YOUR ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE? I PROMISE, NO ONE WOULD KNOW. OH GOD, PLEASE! LOL

      I also saw that very little sign at the bottom of this article which from the view of clueless first-time readers seem a negligible info. But ON TOP of this article, it clearly says BY FROIVINBER. So which is which, IDIOT? LOL

      Yeah, “technically he’s not fooling anyone that he wrote the article” but
      FROIVINBER IS ABSOLUTELY FOOLING EVERYONE!
      So cut the crap! LOL

      • November 11, 2010 3:38

        @ Freethinker2008

        It’s not that I’m defending Vincenton because I consider him my archenemy here in the Philippines. I don’t troll the sites of the people I dislike. I engage with them intellectually.

        I strongly oppose 99% of Vincenton’s views except with this abortion issue minus his free-market thinking. But it’s not my habit to troll. I saw how you argued religion on some previous post and man, you have a very big problem in the mind. You’re worse than any troll I’ve seen online. I’m against religion and I conclude that your defense of religion is so pathetic, ignorant and utterly SICK! And let me tell you, I’m very much willing to stand behind Vincenton when it comes to the issue of religion and when it comes to your imbecile arguments.

        This is how you should argue, Freethinker… http://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1275&sid=1980b9f0f8d521cc331b4389a61b723c&start=220

        My username there is “thegreatcommune”.

      • November 11, 2010 3:38

        freethinker2008,

        I don’t think there’s a need to answer the obvious. It’s very obvious that grudge is too obvious haha. He acknowledge the author, only a moron would say he stole the article of another person. You are you sick in the mind? haha.

        By the way, I saw your comments on this post here “Dealing with a Free-Farter Mystic: On Catholic Church, Library of Alexandria and Galileo” and the other one. I’m an agnostic and I think you are a moron haha!

        Just go back to your previous comments and see how you argued… You said nothing but plain gibberish. I really admire your passion to waste your time.

        Do you think all commenters here are morons like you? I think it’s very obvious based on what I read here… you have an agenda, but instead of putting Vincenton in bad light, you achieved the opposite.

      • November 12, 2010 3:38

        @thegreatcommune

        You said, “I don’t have any problem with this [that is, froivinber's copying of Joyce Arthur's article]. I also post articles that are not mine on my blogsite.”

        This only confirms 3 things:
        1) that froivinber and you are both IGNORANT of PLAGIARISM;
        2) that like froivinber, you are also a COPYCAT or INFERIOR IMITATOR which COPIES other thinkers’ thoughts and PRETEND they are yours;
        3) and that you are both categorically FOOLING other people without any hint of remorse for selfish purpose of deceiving everyone, especially your opponents.

        So if you COPY other thinkers’ thoughts then you have NO CONFIDENCE on your own reasoning ability because you let others speak for your DISORGANIZED thoughts. And if you’re both PROUD of plagiarizing & SHAMELESS of being a copycat, then you have no place in the civilized world. And I don’t think you would even pretend to be unaffected and arrogant without your ANONYMITY protecting your real identity. Am I right or am I right? LOL

      • November 12, 2010 3:38

        @ Freethinker2008,

        Let me deal with you, IGNORAMUS, once and for all despite the fact that you’re an ignorant, stupid TROLL.

        1. You said: “that froivinber and you are both IGNORANT of PLAGIARISM.”

        Do you know the proper definition of plagiarism? Did you even finish high school? It’s a travesty that you even call your self “freethinker” when in fact you don’t even know the definition of plagiarism.

        To lecture you on this topic, here’s one good definition of plagiarism: “plagiarism is defined as “the deliberate or reckless representation of another’s words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution.” http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/plagiarism.html

        If that’s how you stupidly define plagiarism, then many professional news media like Huffington Post, Washington Post, and even the Philippine’s news media committed this act of plagiarism even they they complied with the requisite of ATTRIBUTION. In this post, Vincenton Post made proper attribution because he cited the author of the article: “By Joyce Arthur”. That is called TAG LINE, you IGNORAMUS!

        2. “that like froivinber, you are also a COPYCAT or INFERIOR IMITATOR which COPIES other thinkers’ thoughts and PRETEND they are yours.”

        Again another stupid attack. I refer you to my #1 post.

        3. You said: “and that you are both categorically FOOLING other people without any hint of remorse for selfish purpose of deceiving everyone, especially your opponents.”

        Is that FOOLING people when the blogger IDENTIFIED THE AUTHOR by citing “By Joyce Arthur”? Only an IGNORAMUS and STUPID like you would come up with that kind of IGNORANT and STUPID claim!

        IGNORAMUS Freethinker2008,

        Did you not read “By Joyce Arthur” at the end of the article? What would think of that, idiot?

        What’s that “By Joyce Arthur” means to you?

  7. xyxy permalink
    November 11, 2010 3:38

    I think I’m hearing the voice of the troll again. thegreatcommune, do you hear something? Oh well, it’s probably just the wind.

  8. November 12, 2010 3:38

    @ Freethinker troll 2008,

    I think this is the best case of PLAGIARISM committed by your fellow freethinker…

    http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-highly-appalling-plagiarism-of-the-filipino-free-farters/

  9. November 12, 2010 3:38

    Before November 8 (the date froivinber posted or shall I say COPY-PASTED Joyce Arthur’s ORIGINAL article here), I had NOT been AWARE that this article was NOT HIS. First, I had assumed that all articles here were written by froivinber as any other posters (except for his COPYCAT friends and sockpuppets, of course) especially the clueless first-timers would might assume as well. In fact, froivinber even implied that Arthur’s article was HIS. Second, prior to November 8, froivinber and I had been arguing about ABORTION from his other article – “Pro-life” Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious – since November 6.

    So let me repost froivinber’s excerpts from his recent comments here:

    November 9, 2010 3:38
    “If you wanna know, just read MY POSTS…Any sane, thinking human being, not an embryo or an organism, can easily understand MY STAND ON ABORTION.”

    Take note: froivinber used the possessive pronoun – MY – twice, to emphasize that this article was HIS, and NOT JOYCE ARTHUR’s. LOL

    After 24 hours, he reposted a segment from Joyce Arthur’s article on his recent comment:

    November 10, 2010 3:38
    “Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs…The brain is the seat of personhood.”

    So did froivinber imply anything (since November 8 until I discovered his PLAGIARISM) that this was Joyce Arthur’s article? HELL NO! LOL

    FYI, froivinber already had an abortion article prior to this one. But apparently he’s not quite happy. So after I EXPOSED his LOGICAL FLAWS or PSEUDOSCIENCE FACTOIDS as…
    1. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just “tissues”.
    2. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just “part of a woman’s internal organ”.
    3. froivinber thinks embryo or fetus is just the same as “tonsils” and “appendix”.

    …which were ALL POSTED from that old abortion article, froivinber had a “bright idea” and hurriedly posted another article, or “technically” speaking, COPY-PASTED Joyce Arthur’s ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE here.

    So the million dollar question is….WHY???

    Well, obviously WE ALL KNOW WHY!
    Right, LOSERS? LOL

    • November 12, 2010 3:38

      @ IGNORAMUS and LIAR Freethinker2008 troll:

      For your damn information, I’ve seen this post the very moment he posted it because I’ve been a regular visitor of this site to see his latest polemics against Communism and my comrades (e.i Rey Refran).

      I instantly noticed it was not his article because of the FONT and the STYLE of the blog and because he acknowledge the post’s main author by putting: ““By Joyce Arthur”.

      Your LIES won’t work for me! I think you’re worse than the misguided FASCISTS in terms of LYING!

      All your arguments against abortion are so SICK and STUPID. Also, all your arguments for religion are equally SICK and STUPID.

      Take for example your post and reply on Vincenton’s blog, “Dealing with a Free-Farter Mystic: On Catholic Church, Library of Alexandria and Galileo.”

      You merely provided the names of authors without knowing what they wrote. Vincenton is right. Do you know that Plutarch died several hundred years BEFORE THE DEATH HYPATIA and the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.

      Besides, your reply is an EPIC FAIL. The authors you provided refute and go against your pro-religion premise. But instead of arguing your case properly, you resorted to STUPID, CHILDISH attack, which clearly exposes you as a TROLL!

  10. November 12, 2010 3:38

    @ Freethinker troll,

    Further, apart from putting “By Joyce Arthur”, did he not provide link to the author’s website?

    Is this also a good example of PLAGIARISM by the Filipino Freethinkers? They simply copied a news article and posted on their website?

    Does this go with your STUPID CLAIM:

    So if you COPY other thinkers’ thoughts then you have NO CONFIDENCE on your own reasoning ability because you let others speak for your DISORGANIZED thoughts. And if you’re both PROUD of plagiarizing & SHAMELESS of being a copycat, then you have no place in the civilized world. And I don’t think you would even pretend to be unaffected and arrogant without your ANONYMITY protecting your real identity. Am I right or am I right? LOL

    PLAGIARISM 1 according to you by the Filipino Freethinkers: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/07/pope-urges-spain-to-shun-secularism-cnn-com/

    PLAGIARISM 2 according to you by the Filipino Freethinkers:
    http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/05/un-the-world-is-mostly-a-better-place-to-live-in/

    PLAGIARISM 3 according to you by the Filipino Freethinkers: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/04/belgian-rcc-aids-is-‘justice’-for-gays/

    PLAGIARISM 4 according to you by the Filipino Freethinkers:
    http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/05/we-are-allies-of-the-lgbt-community/

    I firmly believe you have Asperger’s syndrome.

    • November 12, 2010 3:38

      Why are you providing me links to Filipino Freethinkers? Hmm? Oh you mean I’m one of them? LOL It’s obviously that you hate them so why not sue them? LOL

      Sorry dear but I am NOT even associated with any of them. Basing from froivinber’s info, they’re just a bunch of irrational & unscientific atheists like you and froivinber. So what’s the difference? LOL So why will I ever associate with them if you guys have the same ignorant thinking? And if I’m one of them, why aren’t anyone of them backing me up here? Think. Just THINK! That is, if you have a brain? LOL

      Bragging aside, I’m a one-man show. No need for copycat friends or sockpuppets like you guys do here. LOL

      And you still have to answer the million dollar question…

      So after I exposed his LOGICAL FLAWS or PSEUDOSCIENCE FACTOIDS from his old abortion article….
      WHY DID FROINVINBER COPY-PASTE THE ENTIRE JOYCE ARTHUR’S PRO-ABORTION ARTICLE HERE???

      Give me a hint, will yah? LOL

      • November 12, 2010 3:38

        @ IGNORAMUS freethinker2008,

        “Why are you providing me links to Filipino Freethinkers? Hmm? Oh you mean I’m one of them? LOL It’s obviously that you hate them so why not sue them? LOL”

        Hmmm… That clearly shows you’re one of the trolls of the Filipino Freethinkers and you came here to exact revenge against Vincenton. Well, I believe that’s what they are. I don’t support such a cheap, sick attitude. You can argue your case without trolling your enemy’s site like what I do. I start to attack when someone attacks me. In your case, you weren’t attack by Vincenton. It’s your utter IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY that put your into trouble.

        I’m posting their crappy blogs here to show that you are IGNORAMUS and STUPID. You don’t even know the definition of plagiarism. You went through a great length of stupid, nonsensical drivel to expose how stupid you are.

        Even though you won’t admit it, you’re one of the newest trolls of the Filipino Freethinkers and you’re here with a mission. But you failed. Even Vincenton’s enemy would go against you because you’re insane and stupid. How can intelligent and thinking people agree with your stupid pro-religion, anti-abortion arguments? Only insane and stupid people buy them.

      • November 12, 2010 3:38

        LOL Well be my guest. Go on. Attack those stupid and ignorant fft’s as I attack your STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE. You have no idea how I’m LMAO now. LOL! Imagine, I single-handedly exposed froivinber and his copycat friends and sockpuppets’ LOGICAL LAPSES & PSEUDOSCIENCE FACTOIDS. LOL

        Remember:

        1. froivinber & company CANNOT even give me COMPREHENSIVE HISTORICAL FACTS to prove their sweeping statements against the Catholic; (only a couple of INCONCLUSIVE incidents, and that’s it? LOL)

        2. froivinber & company CANNOT answer his own loaded question about abortion; (too afraid to face the possibility of being a murder or deadmeat! LOL)

        3. and froivinber & company STILL CANNOT answer why did he COPY-PASTE THE ENTIRE JOYCE ARTHUR PRO-ABORTION ARTICLE HERE AFTER I EXPOSED HIS LOGICAL FLAWS/SCIENTIFIC FACTOIDS? LOL

        So just be humble and admit that you’re a FAILURE.
        Remember, THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!

        Happy weekend! LOL

      • xyxy permalink
        November 12, 2010 3:38

        Happy weekend! I’ll pray for you.

  11. xyxy permalink
    November 12, 2010 3:38

    Anti-atheist sentiments, I believe. Too bad I’m not an atheist. If you are in strong opposition with what you read and can’t control your urge to flame people, just fuck off.

    • November 12, 2010 3:38

      Don’t feed stupid trolls with sinister agenda. To deal with this trolling freethinker2008 is like dealing with an aborted embryo lol!

  12. November 27, 2010 3:38

    Your headline personhood: is a fetus a human being? the vincenton post one of the refreshing article I have read today, it reminds me of individuals who think through before they do something.

  13. maryhadalittlelamb permalink
    April 4, 2012 3:38

    Jesus, what a waste of space. I had an abortion and would do it again, even if it was illegal and even despite your petty arguments.

  14. Jenn permalink
    May 3, 2012 3:38

    How did we as women become so heartless towards our children? I am now pregnant with my third child…I love it as much as my other two. It has DNA, a heartbeat, a brain, ten fingers and ten toes yet it’s referred to as a “private medical decision?” Bull. Real women will fight for their children no matter how small they are. I would lay down my physical life for any one of my children in a heartbeat. Any woman who would kill her unborn child is a coward. There comes a time when people need to face the consequences of the choices that the have ALREADY made instead of being offered a “way out.” I have several friends that have had abortions…..all of them regret it…..all of them lose sleep shedding tears over their “choices.” One of them has cervical cancer as a direct result of the abortion. Abortion destroys babies and it destroys women.

Trackbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being? « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers

%d bloggers like this: