Congressman’s Bizarre Argument For Banning Abortion: Fetuses Masturbate
 

And how do the get in to positions of power?


Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX)

As the House of Representatives prepares on Tuesday to consider huge legislative restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, one GOP congressman is using the idea that fetuses can masturbate to argue for more abortion restrictions.

On Monday evening, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), an Ob/Gyn by trade, told his colleagues to, “Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” as RH Reality Check reports:

They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?

The House’s bill uses the scientifically disputed idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks as the basis for effectively ban all abortions after that time. Several state legislatures have passed similar bans, though just last month an appeals court struck down a ‘fetal pain’ bill in Arizona, finding that the law was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.



I whack off therefore I am.

fetus = baby

don't let the liberals mix words

Fetus = child

It's never too late for an abortion.

The argument is that the purposeful movements of a fetus demonstrates a minimum level of sentience which entitles it to protection as a human being.

Babies jacking it is merely an example to illustrate the larger concept. It's bizarre only to those who don't grasp what the example implies.

I wouldn't use the word 'bizarre' I'd use the word 'misleading' instead.

The entire argument is a crock of crap and anyone who is ignorant enough to fall for it should never come back out the next time they go to church.

Middle-school level biology you learn that even single celled organisms respond to basic stimuli.

If you don't jack off in your mom you're probably a gay, imo.

Which I'm pretty sure justifies the abortion in most states.

This is actually the crux of the debate that took place. The question presented was whether or not a fetus can experience pain. Burgess offered his testimony to suggest that the ability to feel pleasure likely coincides with the ability to feel pain.

Thus, it is fair to consider his comment on point to the discussion. It wasn't being offered as an absolute proof of anything. It was offered as a consideration to the question which was under debate.

Yet these are the same people who vehemently defend a bunch of other shit that's done to babys/infants and take the exact opposite stance. Standard bible-thumpers standing on the convenient side and flipping back only when it's convenient to go back.

What are you getting at? I'm not sure how that comment properly relates to the discussion of whether or not Burgess' testimony was misleading or bizarre.

It'll take more than unfocused recrimination if you want to open a discussion on political hypocrisy.