Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[Ned]

This pregnant girl I know has made a separate Facebook account just for her unborn child.

It's beginning to annoy me so much that I've decided to set up an account as a coat hanger, add the unborn child and poke them.

I know its a joke, and I'm all for crude jokes, but this is ####### disgusting.

 

[tommyboy]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.

But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

Seriously? Who is against birth control, aside from catholics (who probably aren't REALLY against it anymore)?. I mean, I don't think I've ever met someone who has admitted to being against birth control, and I live in Tennessee.

Wasn't that one of the main objections to Obamacare by conservative Christians? That they were "forced" to offer birth control to employees through insurance? Wasn't that the point of the whole Hobby Lobby lawsuit?

no, it was about a abortifactants as well

 

[jon_mx]

Has this thread progressed beyond BST comparing fetuses to ear wax yet? That may be the most ####### stupid arguement made here in a long time.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Has this thread progressed beyond BST comparing fetuses to ear wax yet? That may be the most ####### stupid arguement made here in a long time.

Biologically speaking (which is what the other poster was doing), lots of things are human and are not legally considered people.

Sorry you find that stupid. Not surprised though.

 

[jon_mx]

Has this thread progressed beyond BST comparing fetuses to ear wax yet? That may be the most ####### stupid arguement made here in a long time.

Biologically speaking (which is what the other poster was doing), lots of things are human and are not legally considered people.

Sorry you find that stupid. Not surprised though.

Yea. I find it really stupid to compare a human waste product to a living being.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Has this thread progressed beyond BST comparing fetuses to ear wax yet? That may be the most ####### stupid arguement made here in a long time.

Biologically speaking (which is what the other poster was doing), lots of things are human and are not legally considered people.

Sorry you find that stupid. Not surprised though.

Yea. I find it really stupid to compare a human waste product to a living being.

That was the point, to be outlandish in wake of the concern of only a particular something being a human product/byproduct.

He even went into the DNA argument... to which earwax, amazingly enough, has DNA. Its of keratin, like your hair.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I still don't see the problem with planning parenthood.

 

[tommyboy]

Planned Parenthood new sales pitch: "Now With Extra Crunch!"

 

[Van Dyman]

Kinda curious which companies buy the fetus parts for research, what kind of research they are doing, and how much money they expect from this investment. It could get weird.

 

[(HULK)]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

 

[(HULK)]

I will say I personally don't mean to get fired up about this subject, and at times I call people murderers, which isn't helpful to the discussion. It's a sensitive subject, and there aren't many subjects that anger me this much. But I do have to respect the fact that other people have different viewpoints, and have (even though I can't understand it at all) somehow gotten past the moral issues with abortion that I have.

I don't think their actions are right, but you attract more bees with honey, so I need to work on my approach on this subject.

And yet again, you're only confirming my viewpoint. We're talking about murder here (according to you.) Not some random act, open to interpretation, but MURDER. If you regard something as murder, you don't go around respecting opposing viewpoints. Our society correctly regards murder as the worst crime someone can commit.

I don't respect the viewpoint...but I respect the fact that they have a viewpoint. And the best way to perhaps change or attract people to your viewpoint is not to call them all murderers.

I think it's murder when the US drone bombs some hospital and kills a bunch of kids in the name of fighting terrorism. But I'm not going to go protesting, or try and change the laws...There are a lot of things that are far out of my control. In the end, God is the judge.

Isn't making god the judge an abdication of responsibility?I'm no fan of collateral damage either, and I also do nothing about it as well. As I don't believe in a cosmic judge, I just kind of accept it as an unfortunate symptom of a system that does historically better than the systems we've had in the past.

 

[(HULK)]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

They're not.Let's be clear: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. There are no investors who get a dividend, no stock market listing, no salaries that are dependent on income, NO INCOME. Any money received by PP, either through donations, fees, or government aid, goes straight into PP. It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

newsflash, being a non profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit, or even try to.

Wrong. It is exactly what it means. Profit does not equal revenue.In this instance, this revenue enables money to be spent elsewhere meeting their agenda.

 

[(HULK)]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

Neither is an infant. Dead in under a day without care.

 

[jon_mx]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

They're not.Let's be clear: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. There are no investors who get a dividend, no stock market listing, no salaries that are dependent on income, NO INCOME. Any money received by PP, either through donations, fees, or government aid, goes straight into PP. It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

newsflash, being a non profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit, or even try to.

Wrong. It is exactly what it means. Profit does not equal revenue.In this instance, this revenue enables money to be spent elsewhere meeting their agenda.

. Or millions to their CEO.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

Neither is an infant. Dead in under a day without care.

Not tue, others can care for the child without the mother anywhere around.

For an infant (child), society is then the deciding factor. Before then its the mother.

 

[(HULK)]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

They're not.Let's be clear: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. There are no investors who get a dividend, no stock market listing, no salaries that are dependent on income, NO INCOME. Any money received by PP, either through donations, fees, or government aid, goes straight into PP. It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

newsflash, being a non profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit, or even try to.

Wrong. It is exactly what it means. Profit does not equal revenue.In this instance, this revenue enables money to be spent elsewhere meeting their agenda.

. Or millions to their CEO.

You can look up their 990 and see what their CEO made. I'm guessing a couple hundred K to maybe 500K, which would be standard.

 

[(HULK)]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

Neither is an infant. Dead in under a day without care.

Not tue, others can care for the child without the mother anywhere around.

For an infant (child), society is then the deciding factor. Before then its the mother.

So, if there was an alternative to take an early stage fetus out of a woman and put it in a machine which would bake it until it was full term, would you then want to outlaw abortion?

 

[SIDA!]

MSNBC says that future videos are going to show racially-charged footage. Whatever that means.

It means MSNBC will do everything it can to tell us that we didn't see on the video what we thought we saw.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

Neither is an infant. Dead in under a day without care.

Not tue, others can care for the child without the mother anywhere around.

For an infant (child), society is then the deciding factor. Before then its the mother.

So, if there was an alternative to take an early stage fetus out of a woman and put it in a machine which would bake it until it was full term, would you then want to outlaw abortion?

No, I wouldn't say to ban abortion, but I would encourage such an additional option being available. And the host still making the decision.

 

[(HULK)]

FYI, Planned Parenthood in 2012 had $159M in revenue, paid it's President just under 500K all in (including all benefits), and had a salary and benefits expense of $34.7M for the whole organization.

That's pretty typical for a nonprofit. No one is linking their personal pockets with fetus sales profits.

 

[(HULK)]

Big Steel, I'm avoiding too many nested weird as I'm mobile. If that is what you think, then we have very different thoughts about it. Nothing else to be said IMO

 

[SIDA!]

Some people need to read the Snopes link or watch the unedited video.

I quoted it above, the conclusion was "Undetermined" before the release of the second video.

Snopes links to this article:

The group’s second statement on the video, which was provided to The Hill on Tuesday, confirms it is Deborah Nucatela, senior director of medical services, who appears in the video, but fiercely disputes that the conversation was about selling body parts.

“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.

So we're paying the mothers? The explanation sounds worse than the allegation.

I'm also a little confused as to why a fetus has body parts. According to Roe, when does a fetus become human? These aren't human, but we can use the tissue and body parts for human research?

yeah, they are still biological.

Ok good, biologically speaking, they are human.

So is your ear wax.

Ear wax is not a separate creature, it's a secretion formed by your own body in an effort to protect your ears.

But it is also not a person and is a biological derivative of the host.

A human fetus does contain DNA from the mother, but it also contains DNA from the father, and when combined, creates a separate creature, albeit one that must rely on the mother for growth for the first 9+ months of its existence.

Yep. Its not its own life.

What does this even mean, exactly?

When does its life become its own then and why?

 

[jon_mx]

I've never really understood being ok with activity X if it's done for $0 but being against activity X if it's done for >$0.

Both are disgusting but it poses a great moral conflict of interest if PP is trying to profit off this practice.

They're not.Let's be clear: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. There are no investors who get a dividend, no stock market listing, no salaries that are dependent on income, NO INCOME. Any money received by PP, either through donations, fees, or government aid, goes straight into PP. It's deliberately dishonest to suggest that anyone is attempting to "profit" here.

newsflash, being a non profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit, or even try to.

Wrong. It is exactly what it means. Profit does not equal revenue.In this instance, this revenue enables money to be spent elsewhere meeting their agenda.

. Or millions to their CEO.

You can look up their 990 and see what their CEO made. I'm guessing a couple hundred K to maybe 500K, which would be standard.

It is about $500k plus about 18 other executives who make over $250k plus numerous local affiliate CEOs in the $259k range.

 

[Kal El]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

They don't care. To them, we're crazy for reading an old book and being influenced by it and the One behind its writing, and they'd rather listen to the opinions of human beings, because that somehow makes more sense.

 

[SIDA!]

rockaction, eugenic arguments might be used by some professor in an ivory tower somewhere, but most people that are pro-choice don't use them.

I'm pro-choice for moral reasons:I believe a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses and the state has no right to interfere. Whether or not the fetus is actually a baby is irrelevant to me. So long as it's in her body, the woman has the right to terminate.

So a woman who is full term and ready to give birth can elect to have an abortion and you are cool with it? Good to know.

 

[Scoresman]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

They don't care. To them, we're crazy for reading an old book and being influenced by it and the One behind its writing, and they'd rather listen to the opinions of human beings, because that somehow makes more sense.

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

 

[SIDA!]

rockaction, eugenic arguments might be used by some professor in an ivory tower somewhere, but most people that are pro-choice don't use them.

I'm pro-choice for moral reasons:I believe a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses and the state has no right to interfere. Whether or not the fetus is actually a baby is irrelevant to me. So long as it's in her body, the woman has the right to terminate.

well, we could argue this all day but its not worth it. All I can say is you sure show a complete lack of empathy for whomever the father may be.

rockaction, eugenic arguments might be used by some professor in an ivory tower somewhere, but most people that are pro-choice don't use them.

I'm pro-choice for moral reasons:I believe a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses and the state has no right to interfere. Whether or not the fetus is actually a baby is irrelevant to me. So long as it's in her body, the woman has the right to terminate.

well, we could argue this all day but its not worth it. All I can say is you sure show a complete lack of empathy for whomever the father may be.

No, that's not true. I'm very empathetic, believe me.

I honestly never saw this rebuttal coming.

 

[SIDA!]

So far in this thread, Planned Parenthood has been called baby murderers, monsters, and compared to Mengele.

How can we have an honest and rational discussion when this sort of rhetoric is used?

What if our honest opinion is that they are murderers? Why is this so hard to understand?

That is YOUR opinion. The Supreme Court, and the majority of Americans, disagree with you.

Therefore your opinion + 50c gets you a cup of coffee when it comes to anyone else's lives but your own.

How is that so hard to understand?

Because nine lawyers in 1973 don't get to determine a national debate and deter the valid opinion of the majority of Americans that disagree with the subsequent jurisprudence that flowed from that decision?

Less than 20% of americans currently view Abortion as something that should be illegal in all circumstances.

Kind of a red herring since I don't really know anybody who is against abortion in all cases although I do know there are some out there that take such a position.

 

[Kal El]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

They don't care. To them, we're crazy for reading an old book and being influenced by it and the One behind its writing, and they'd rather listen to the opinions of human beings, because that somehow makes more sense.

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

And here we go. If you don't believe, that's fine. I do, however, so as both a Christian and a father, I'm strongly against the ill treatment of unborn lives, which if I recall my stats correctly, means that the number of aborted children in this nation is approaching 60 million, most of them minorities. That means over the past 50 years, the equivalent of Tokyo's population has been killed thrice over. That's just in this country.

 

[SIDA!]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.

But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

Are you serious?

Since I don't want to get a timeout...I will simply say it is fascinating to watch you lecture others about absurd arguments and hyperbole only to read crazy stuff that you fabricate and put forth as "gospel".

 

[SIDA!]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.

But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

Seriously? Who is against birth control, aside from catholics (who probably aren't REALLY against it anymore)?. I mean, I don't think I've ever met someone who has admitted to being against birth control, and I live in Tennessee.

Wasn't that one of the main objections to Obamacare by conservative Christians? That they were "forced" to offer birth control to employees through insurance? Wasn't that the point of the whole Hobby Lobby lawsuit?

Will I get a timeout if I call you a tool?

Since when does being forced to offer birth control equal being against birth control...and more importantly, how does this even remotely support your moronic statement above that most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose birth control.

Once again bringing your "A" game, Tim.

 

[Kal El]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

Are you serious? Since I don't want to get a timeout...I will simply say it is fascinating to watch you lecture others about absurd arguments and hyperbole only to read crazy stuff that you fabricate and put forth as "gospel".

Tom likes to think he knows more than everyone else, I've discovered. For the record, most believers like myself have no problem with birth control, and in fact my wife and I used it quite often until my vasectomy. It's just easier for Tim to deal with generalizations.

 

[Scoresman]

Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

They don't care. To them, we're crazy for reading an old book and being influenced by it and the One behind its writing, and they'd rather listen to the opinions of human beings, because that somehow makes more sense.

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

And here we go. If you don't believe, that's fine. I do, however, so as both a Christian and a father, I'm strongly against the ill treatment of unborn lives, which if I recall my stats correctly, means that the number of aborted children in this nation is approaching 60 million, most of them minorities. That means over the past 50 years, the equivalent of Tokyo's population has been killed thrice over. That's just in this country.

I dont know what's more ethically contemptible, aborting those 60 million fetuses, or supporting an addition of 60 million orphans into the world. It's already incredibly (sometimes prohibitively) expensive and difficult for couples to adopt, I cant imagine having that magnitude more orphans out there.

 

[SIDA!]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.

But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

says who?

The All-Knowing One...

 

[SIDA!]

When is the moment a life begins? When it leaves it's mother's body seems like an arbitrary choice.

When it develops a sense of self makes some sense, but that is typically 6 or 7 months after birth, and I don't think most of us are okay with intentionally putting down a 3 month old.

When it has a brain? If it doesn't have a sense of self, why does having the organ that will eventually give it one matter? When it has a heart? Thats completely arbitrary as well. When it can survive on its own outside the mother? I don't think thats great either cause I've never met an infant that could survive without constant care.

At conception seems like the most logical option to me.

Why do you think conception is less arbitrary than viability? Or birth?

The person or future person in question begins existing at that moment.They don't suddenly exist at birth.

As I said, the only other rationale point is when they become self aware. But, since that doesn't happen until at least half a year after birth, I can't see people supporting that position.

That's begging the question. You are assuming that a fetus is a human life without proving its a human life.

What is a fetus if not a human life? It's not a tumor or parasite. It is definitely human, and definitely alive. I don't think that is disputble. However, it is not sentient.

Its nothing without its host.

Which brings us full circle on why women get to decide.

Neither is an infant. Dead in under a day without care.

Not tue, others can care for the child without the mother anywhere around.

For an infant (child), society is then the deciding factor. Before then its the mother.

The same can be said about a full-term baby in the womb. So, to be clear you agree with Tim and think that abortion should be allowed up until the moment of delivery?

 

[Kal El]

" post="18200388" timestamp="1437495676"]

" post="18200366" timestamp="1437495187"]

" post="18200355" timestamp="1437494968"]Made up? False?

Out of context, using scriptures that aren't in the bible, and more importantly, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I'm not going to go through each of the scriptures, because you have no desire to see it anyway except the way that fits your agenda, which is an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

" post="18200355" timestamp="1437494968"]Kai El says we need to follow the word of the good book. I was just getting some more words to follow pertaining to the treatment of children once we are forced to have them.

Picked all the "out of context" and negative ones, huh? Decided to overlook all the positive scriptures, I guess. Anyone, have fun with your rambling.

Could you provide a list of the parts of the bible that you guys follow unwaveringly as the infallible word of God, and then a list of the ones you ignore?

It's hard to keep up sometimes. TIA.

If you're honestly interested to know how a bible believer feels about the scripture you quoted about "eating afterbirth" or whatever it was....just ask. If you don't honestly want to know, then lets not waste our time and move on.

They don't care. To them, we're crazy for reading an old book and being influenced by it and the One behind its writing, and they'd rather listen to the opinions of human beings, because that somehow makes more sense.

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

And here we go. If you don't believe, that's fine. I do, however, so as both a Christian and a father, I'm strongly against the ill treatment of unborn lives, which if I recall my stats correctly, means that the number of aborted children in this nation is approaching 60 million, most of them minorities. That means over the past 50 years, the equivalent of Tokyo's population has been killed thrice over. That's just in this country.

I dont know what's more ethically contemptible, aborting those 60 million fetuses, or supporting an addition of 60 million orphans into the world. It's already incredibly (sometimes prohibitively) expensive and difficult for couples to adopt, I cant imagine having that magnitude more orphans out there.

So you're more comfortable with the knowledge that there are 60 million dead children that if their mothers had possibly been counseled prior to their abortion, they might be with either their parents or another family that would love them? Not to mention that they would all be contributing to the tax base either here or abroad. Pretty sure supporting the murder of 60 million babies is far more contemptible.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The same can be said about a full-term baby in the womb. So, to be clear you agree with Tim and think that abortion should be allowed up until the moment of delivery?

No. I prefer the thoughtful approach we currently use.

And damn you guys put words in other peoples mouth at every turn on this subject.

 

[SIDA!]

The same can be said about a full-term baby in the womb. So, to be clear you agree with Tim and think that abortion should be allowed up until the moment of delivery?

No. I prefer the thoughtful approach we currently use.

And damn you guys put words in other peoples mouth at every turn on this subject.

What words did I put in your mouth? I asked a question based on an earlier statement.

So, what exactly is your position on late term "fetuses"? I don't want to put words in your mouth so please articulate your position.

I don't know what you mean when you say the current thoughtful approach to this specific aspect of the abortion debate.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

 

[Scoresman]

Well for one thing, human beings actually exist.

And here we go. If you don't believe, that's fine. I do, however, so as both a Christian and a father, I'm strongly against the ill treatment of unborn lives, which if I recall my stats correctly, means that the number of aborted children in this nation is approaching 60 million, most of them minorities. That means over the past 50 years, the equivalent of Tokyo's population has been killed thrice over. That's just in this country.

I dont know what's more ethically contemptible, aborting those 60 million fetuses, or supporting an addition of 60 million orphans into the world. It's already incredibly (sometimes prohibitively) expensive and difficult for couples to adopt, I cant imagine having that magnitude more orphans out there.

So you're more comfortable with the knowledge that there are 60 million dead children that if their mothers had possibly been counseled prior to their abortion, they might be with either their parents or another family that would love them? Not to mention that they would all be contributing to the tax base either here or abroad. Pretty sure supporting the murder of 60 million babies is far more contemptible.

I don't necessarily share your belief that abortion is murder as an absolute so we're not going to agree. I agree, however, that if I did share that belief, that would be the more contemptible option.

Still, "contributing to the tax base" isn't enough of a reason to justify bringing a child into this world, IMO. If there weren't tons of unadopted orphans who weren't getting adopted because of all the red tape bureaucratic bull#### that is the adoption process, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. I shudder at the thought of up to 60 million more orphans cluttering up foster homes while perfectly reasonable couples have to wait years to adopt one of them.

 

[SIDA!]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

So, what is your position? Again, I don't want to be chastised for putting words in your mouth.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

 

[SIDA!]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Nice to see the anti-libertarian big government loving pro-lifers are still around.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

Nope. I dont really know Tims positions.

If it were up until birth, I'd be willing to make that concession also. Though I may argue against it as the best course.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remind me again, under the ACA the Feds can approve what tests and procedures a facility or hospital can offer and what they can charge for them, right? Or is medical treatment outside the purview of government oversight? Can't remember. TIA.

 

[SIDA!]

I just answered that question with my previous post.

I prefer the thoughtful approaches we currently use.

You realize that depending upon which state you live in, the laws (e.g. the thoughtful approach) varies, right? One state cuts it off at X number of weeks while another state allows you to get an abortion up till birth.

Thus, saying you prefer the thoughtful approach doesn't really tell anyone anything about where you stand on late term fetuses/abortions.

Yes. I prefer that its legal and willing to make concessions for implementation on exacting minutia.

Hmm...so, earlier when I asked if your position on allowing abortions up until birth mirrored Tim's and you said "no," you really meant to say "yes"?

Nope. I dont really know Tims positions.

If it were up until birth, I'd be willing to make that concession also. Though I may argue against it as the best course.

Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Okay...let's ignore Tim for a moment. Yay!

Your position is that it is okay for a woman to have an abortion at any time up until the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, correct?

 

[jon_mx]

I honestly think that the people living 200 years from now will look back at abortion as a barbaric practice. (These future people only get pregnant when intentional as their birth control is rock solid).

This is very interesting.But isn't it ironic that most of the same people who currently find abortion to be barbaric are also typically opposed to birth control?

Are you serious? Since I don't want to get a timeout...I will simply say it is fascinating to watch you lecture others about absurd arguments and hyperbole only to read crazy stuff that you fabricate and put forth as "gospel".

Tim is the king of hyperbole, straw-men and gross over-generalizations.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok I got it now, BST follows the Little Piggie Rule - if it cries let it go.

At that point it's not a waxy, parasitic growth with sellable arms, legs, liver, cranium, it's a real live person!