View Full Version : Have you guys seen this? Planned parenthood under fire
WickedWillis
07-14-15, 16:21
Allegedly, Planned Parenthood's Federation of America's senior director of medical services Deborah Nucatola, has a nonchalant conversation about harvesting the organs from babies. I know this will and can be very controversial on here but I feel this group will show enough restraint and maturity to discuss it. Here is the article;
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/republicans-seize-on-planned-parenthood-video/ar-AAcY5pN
It's just dark.
There really are two slippery sloped on this issue and that is one of them.
If we ever returned to a 1930s socialist mentality I could see ghouls breeding babies to harvest organs, stem cells, etc. Not that anyone today isn't willing to do it, and not that it isn't happening right now in other parts of the world. We should remember what kind of person Margaret Sanger actually was when it came to topics like eugenics.
On the flip side, I wouldn't want a a human baby defined as "from the moment of conception" or even when the "cells split" as some people would like. I'd hate for the mother to have to die in favor of the pregnancy because it is a law and nobody should be forced to keep a pregnancy that was the result of rape, incest or anything along those lines. I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control.
And there isn't a lot of reasonable "common ground" between the extremes which makes it that much more difficult. In the meantime perhaps we can send Deborah Nucatola to Kosovo to learn first hand why harvesting organs nonchalantly is wrong.
Another article. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-parts-and-that-shouldnt-shock-you-at-all/
WickedWillis
07-14-15, 16:46
There really are two slippery sloped on this issue and that is one of them.
If we ever returned to a 1930s socialist mentality I could see ghouls breeding babies to harvest organs, stem cells, etc. Not that anyone today isn't willing to do it, and not that it isn't happening right now in other parts of the world. We should remember what kind of person Margaret Sanger actually was when it came to topics like eugenics.
On the flip side, I wouldn't want a a human baby defined as "from the moment of conception" or even when the "cells split" as some people would like. I'd hate for the mother to have to die in favor of the pregnancy because it is a law and nobody should be forced to keep a pregnancy that was the result of rape, incest or anything along those lines. I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control.
And there isn't a lot of reasonable "common ground" between the extremes which makes it that much more difficult. In the meantime perhaps we can send Deborah Nucatola to Kosovo to learn first hand why harvesting organs nonchalantly is wrong.
Steyr I always appreciate your point of view on things. The highlighted segment is EXACTLY how I feel about abortion.
Steyr I always appreciate your point of view on things. The highlighted segment is EXACTLY how I feel about abortion.
I think that is where most people are at. In a perfect world irresponsible people would have to put down their bong, get a real job, move out of their parents basement and take care of the child they are now responsible for.
Problem is irresponsible people are typically not capable of being responsible which is why they either have four children with four different "baby mamas" or have four children from four different fathers. For the most part they see their children only as a "benefit" to obtain money and services from the government, most of which benefit the parent more than the child.
In addition to the financial burden placed on everyone else, the unwanted and / or poorly raised children (irresponsible people generally are not capable of raising responsible children) become a next generation burden on society as they emulate their parents in most respects.
It's a horrible conclusion, but I'd rather fund the abortions than fund the life long costs of flunkie kids. It's a vicious cycle that traps the vast majority of children born in those circumstances and dooms them to the fate of their parents or worse.
I just wish we could get effective birth control in place to prevent the need for abortion. For example, I think EVERYONE receiving in social services or benefits should be required to have a Norplant.
I think that is where most people are at. In a perfect world irresponsible people would have to put down their bong, get a real job, move out of their parents basement and take care of the child they are now responsible for.
Problem is irresponsible people are typically not capable of being responsible which is why they either have four children with four different "baby mamas" or have four children from four different fathers. For the most part they see their children only as a "benefit" to obtain money and services from the government, most of which benefit the parent more than the child.
In addition to the financial burden placed on everyone else, the unwanted and / or poorly raised children (irresponsible people generally are not capable of raising responsible children) become a next generation burden on society as they emulate their parents in most respects.
It's a horrible conclusion, but I'd rather fund the abortions than fund the life long costs of flunkie kids. It's a vicious cycle that traps the vast majority of children born in those circumstances and dooms them to the fate of their parents or worse.
I just wish we could get effective birth control in place to prevent the need for abortion. For example, I think EVERYONE receiving in social services or benefits should be required to have a Norplant.
I would agree with this. I am not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control but in the end it is probably the best solution for the child and society as a whole. It pains me to say that but given the fact that the child will most likely be neglected and or abused and one day continue the cycle perhaps it is for the best.
When I first saw this video today I was shocked at how nonchalant this woman was discussing the subject. It is amazing to me that some people can view children in such a way.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 17:17
I'm sorry but if harvesting aborted baby organs isn't pretty much in the same ballpark as ISIS blowing up a baby to train their soldiers then I guess I just didn't get the memo on what's barbaric anymore.
I'm sorry but if harvesting aborted baby organs isn't pretty much in the same ballpark as ISIS blowing up a baby to train their soldiers then I guess I just didn't get the memo on what's barbaric anymore.
It is barbaric and according to this article a federal crime.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/shock-video-catches-planned-parenthoods-top-doctor-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
WickedWillis
07-14-15, 17:31
I'm sorry but if harvesting aborted baby organs isn't pretty much in the same ballpark as ISIS blowing up a baby to train their soldiers then I guess I just didn't get the memo on what's barbaric anymore.
No apology necessary
Steyr I always appreciate your point of view on things. The highlighted segment is EXACTLY how I feel about abortion.
Isn't that essentially what all the pro-life groups are pushing for? Abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and etc?
sevenhelmet
07-14-15, 18:16
I think that is where most people are at. In a perfect world irresponsible people would have to put down their bong, get a real job, move out of their parents basement and take care of the child they are now responsible for.
Problem is irresponsible people are typically not capable of being responsible which is why they either have four children with four different "baby mamas" or have four children from four different fathers. For the most part they see their children only as a "benefit" to obtain money and services from the government, most of which benefit the parent more than the child.
In addition to the financial burden placed on everyone else, the unwanted and / or poorly raised children (irresponsible people generally are not capable of raising responsible children) become a next generation burden on society as they emulate their parents in most respects.
It's a horrible conclusion, but I'd rather fund the abortions than fund the life long costs of flunkie kids. It's a vicious cycle that traps the vast majority of children born in those circumstances and dooms them to the fate of their parents or worse.
I just wish we could get effective birth control in place to prevent the need for abortion. For example, I think EVERYONE receiving in social services or benefits should be required to have a Norplant.
I agree with this, but find late term abortions and what is linked in the OP to be absolutely abhorrent. IMO, if what comes out after an abortion looks like a small human being, you just committed murder. I'm not arguing that life begins at conception, as I understand many forms of female birth control (pills and IUDs) allow the egg to be fertilized, i.e. conception to occur, but prevent the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterine wall. Someone in the know please correct me if I'm wrong. By a strict "post conception" definition, that's no different than late term abortion, but they are not ethically or biologically the same thing in my opinion.
This is slightly off-topic, but people who oppose birth control AND abortions seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth, and/or not looking at the situation realistically. Would that all people could abstain/exercise good judgment, but that's simply not a reality. Furthermore, 2 kids is plenty for my wife and I, and we aren't about to take a vow of chastity for the rest of our lives. I vote proper education and application of birth control, which results in fewer abortions, and hopefully zero late-term abortions.
Isn't that essentially what all the pro-life groups are pushing for? Abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and etc?
Not really. That might be what some advocate, but some want much more.
The other big issue is who decides.
I can understand the POV that the mother decides since it is her body carrying the baby. But what about the fathers rights. What if the father discovers he made somebody pregnant and WANTS the child which is part his. What if he is completely prepared to provide for the mother and the child and wants to be that "responsible parent"? Does he really get no say in the matter? Can a vindictive female decide for him that he won't have a child?
It's a complex enough debate deciding to what extent the actual parents get to make the decision. And somehow just saying "my body, my decision" just doesn't seem like enough justification to get 100% of the decision.
About the only thing worse is letting the government or community get involved and have some say so as well. Obviously we don't want to get into a time and place where we have post birth abortions simply because the parents are in agreement and that is why we have done are best to decide on a "no turning back now" point in the pregnancy. I don't think we will ever have a perfect solution to a complex problem that is made worse by irresponsibility, but I think we could easily come up with even worse solutions...we've certainly done it in the past.
Isn't that essentially what all the pro-life groups are pushing for? Abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and etc?
There are many hard liners that advocate that all abortions are wrong but for the majority would concede to specific cases that you mentioned.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I tend to agree with this, but find partial birth abortions and what is linked in the OP to be absolutely abhorrent. I wouldn't let someone with those views in my house, or anywhere near my kids.
And that's is because it IS abhorrent.
It is one thing to discuss bringing some good from abortion. If an aborted baby can have organs donated to save another baby that is one thing. If I was a parent of a newborn that needed a kidney to live I would probably be willing to do almost anything. It isn't much different from getting a kidney from a child killed in a car accident. It's a horrible, horrible situation no matter what because even if it saves your child, you still know a baby died somewhere along the lines in the equation.
The real problem also isn't one of "Hey instead of just throwing this aborted baby away, let's save the life of another baby if we can and try and get "some good" out of this terrible thing." If that was the case, most of us would opt to save a life with a lost life if we could.
The problem once again is people, including the ones devoid of humanity who will do anything for money. If you think popping out kids just so you can get some extra welfare money is horrible, and if you think getting pregnant so you can "negotiate a settlement" with that rich couple who want to adopt your child is horrible, well wait till people get pregnant so they can put a "baby kidney" on the auction block. And don't kid yourself, there are thousands of people who would be willing to do it.
And sadly it is happening right now, in many places in the world. It can be a sick place sometimes.
sevenhelmet
07-14-15, 18:31
All any of us can do is make sure that kind of depraved attitude doesn't invade our own friends and family.
Isn't that essentially what all the pro-life groups are pushing for? Abortion only in cases of rape, incest, and etc?
Sadly no. And this is one of the reasons the issue is so divisive still. I am friends with people that insist that even in this case it should not be permitted and that there are no cases where an abortion could save the life of the mother.
I am pro life, but as with any issue it is never black and white. There has to be some exceptions because these situations DO happen.
I'm in agreement with you Steyr.
I certainly hope the hard liner element in the pro-life movement is a small one without influence. Especially with regard to incest. What a life for that mother and child!
All any of us can do is make sure that kind of depraved attitude doesn't invade our own friends and family.
I would go a step further and say that making sure people like Deborah Nucatola and guys like Kermit Gosnell are kept from being involved in the fields in question. These are the kind of people you DON'T want involved. But medical ethics can always get a little tricky in some fields.
Nice place to meet for lunch. I think it was called the Wannsee Villa or something like that.
Averageman
07-14-15, 19:18
The other big issue is who decides.
I can understand the POV that the mother decides since it is her body carrying the baby. But what about the fathers rights. What if the father discovers he made somebody pregnant and WANTS the child which is part his. What if he is completely prepared to provide for the mother and the child and wants to be that "responsible parent"? Does he really get no say in the matter? Can a vindictive female decide for him that he won't have a child?
It's a complex enough debate deciding to what extent the actual parents get to make the decision. And somehow just saying "my body, my decision" just doesn't seem like enough justification to get 100% of the decision.
About the only thing worse is letting the government or community get involved and have some say so as well.
I raised my Son by myself from the time he was 4 months old. It's not a joke, you can do it if you choose to.
I would hate to think had his Mom decided it was "Her body and Her Choice." how much of life I would have missed out on.
SomeOtherGuy
07-14-15, 19:43
What's not said so far (or I missed it) is WHO would want to buy parts of an aborted fetus. It sounded as if some sort of stem cell firm was another potential buyer. Can anyone fill me in?
I'm in agreement with you Steyr.
I certainly hope the hard liner element in the pro-life movement is a small one without influence. Especially with regard to incest. What a life for that mother and child!
Aries - why 'what a life for the mother and child!' The mother's life is already pretty screwed up because of the incest, an abortion will just add to the misery. Sure there are many potential physical and developmental problems with and child born of an incestuous relationship, but not every child manifests them, and many of the problems are not profound.
I'm not a hardliner, but I've known two women who either had an abortion or gave a baby up for adoption when they were teenagers, it was the pivotal point in both of their lives. What Planned Parenthood doesn't tell you is that those memories aren't washed down the drain with the remains of the aborted baby. My high school friend who had the abortion remembers it to this day - although it is not something we talk about openly at reunions. The other gal seems to have weathered her baby's adoption pretty good, her family chose the parents and she has seen her son, but never contacted him. I'm sure now that we are all a lot older she wishes he would search her out, but she doesn't share the same anguish as my first friend.
In today's world there is a very, very, very reduced need to have abortions other than for birth control.
JMO
Edited to add: Most pregnant women, given the choice between their health or the health of their child, will choose the child over themselves. There have been a couple stories that reached National news in the last year or so about women with cancer who have forgone treatment in order to have their child, even though it meant death to them; locally I remember at least one in the last year with the same circumstances - refusing chemo until after the child was born. I'd die for one of my kids, wouldn't you?
Leaving with a tasteless joke: 'What do you call devout Catholics who practice the rhythm method?' 'Parents.' Told to me by my buddy, who is a devout Catholic and currently parent of a basketball team with no subs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-14-15, 20:47
Someone needs to stand in front of a Planned Parenthood dressed as a doctor and yelling out 'Baby parts, get your baby parts! Hearts, lungs, arms & legs and livers- get them here while they're still warm!", with a big placard with the $30-$100 prices on them. Have a plate of chicken livers- pop one in your mouth, call it Planned Parenthood sushi.
Call the local TV stations and get on the national news and the top of Drudge.
I raised my Son by myself from the time he was 4 months old. It's not a joke, you can do it if you choose to.
I would hate to think had his Mom decided it was "Her body and Her Choice." how much of life I would have missed out on.
And that is exactly what I was talking about. It's almost bizarre that a father would get "no say at all" regarding a child that is also his. Really tricky subject of course, by the same token I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a woman being forced to have a baby she doesn't want because the father does.
Again, the solution is a degree of responsibility that far too many people don't posses.
What's not said so far (or I missed it) is WHO would want to buy parts of an aborted fetus. It sounded as if some sort of stem cell firm was another potential buyer. Can anyone fill me in?
Anyone with a baby that needed any kind of transplant.
Why is a human being to be killed because he/she is not wanted? Do we not hold these truths to be self-evident: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Abortions are almost never justified, and in 99% of cases, they're used solely as birth control means.
God's wrath awaits America for allowing for far too long the legalized murder of our children. The abomination of abortion in the U.S. is making Hitler look like an amateur.
Anyone with a baby that needed any kind of transplant.
More common than many realize:
Though claims of organ trafficking are hard to substantiate due to lack of evidence and reliable data, cases of illegal organ trade have been tried and prosecuted in the past. It is estimated that 42% of organs that are transplanted are from illegal human trafficking. "Trafficking in Human Organs in Europe: A Myth or an Actual Threat?" Meyer, Silke (2006), European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 14 (2): 208–229.
Criminal networks increasingly engage in kidnapping of people, especially children and teens, who are then taken to locations with medical equipment where they are murdered and their organs harvested for the illegal organ trade.
A young girl has been smuggled out of Africa and sold for organ harvesting, authorities have revealed. It is the first case of a child being trafficked into Britain for the express intention of providing organs for people desperate for a transplant, reports the Telegraph. The girl, whose identity has been protected, was taken from Somalia and smuggled into the UK so that her organs could be removed and sold. http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/little-girl-sold-for-organ-harvesting/
In 2014 an alleged member of the Mexican Knights Templar cartel was arrested for the kidnapping and deaths of minors. Children were found wrapped in blankets and stuffed in a refrigerated container inside a van. Various accounts have stated the individual is part of a network that kidnaps and kills minors after which their organs are removed. Other sources of income are drug trafficking, extortion, illegal mining and illegal logging. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/17/cartel-mexico-organ-trafficking/6548691/
There are several other sites which allege kidnappings or adoption of street children or homeless orphans for organ harvesting purposes. Primarily for kidneys. I read a story years ago about Brazilian street children being adopted by Israeli citizens for organ harvesting, however I can not find it now to ascertain it's validity. Currently there are several sites which have stories on organ harvesting which mention Israeli involvement, a little reading reveals these sites' anti-Semitic attitudes so no current credible sources on that.
Why is a human being to be killed because he/she is not wanted? Do we not hold these truths to be self-evident: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Abortions are almost never justified, and in 99% of cases, they're used solely as birth control means.
God's wrath awaits America for allowing for far too long the legalized murder of our children. The abomination of abortion in the U.S. is making Hitler look like an amateur.
Well because we currently don't consider a mass of cells to be a human being. As noted the debate over when that mass of cells becomes a human being is where the current problem exists and we have arrived at our best reasonable definition that satisfies most people. Extremists on both sides are not happy.
Do you consider a fertilized embryo sitting in a freezer to be a "human being"? Where do you draw the line?
Probably useful at this point to provide current definitions of late term abortion since that is the main controversy:
A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. The exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term, however, is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late". Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term. The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.
The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a "grey area".
Well because we currently don't consider a mass of cells to be a human being. As noted the debate over when that mass of cells becomes a human being is where the current problem exists and we have arrived at our best reasonable definition that satisfies most people. Extremists on both sides are not happy.
Do you consider a fertilized embryo sitting in a freezer to be a "human being"? Where do you draw the line?
Who's we? I'm not in the business of satisfying Godless people. Life begins at conception with the development of the embryo, which begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. God's wrath will fall on those hands that shed innocent blood.
There really are two slippery sloped on this issue and that is one of them.
If we ever returned to a 1930s socialist mentality I could see ghouls breeding babies to harvest organs, stem cells, etc. Not that anyone today isn't willing to do it, and not that it isn't happening right now in other parts of the world. We should remember what kind of person Margaret Sanger actually was when it came to topics like eugenics.
On the flip side, I wouldn't want a a human baby defined as "from the moment of conception" or even when the "cells split" as some people would like. I'd hate for the mother to have to die in favor of the pregnancy because it is a law and nobody should be forced to keep a pregnancy that was the result of rape, incest or anything along those lines. I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control.
And there isn't a lot of reasonable "common ground" between the extremes which makes it that much more difficult. In the meantime perhaps we can send Deborah Nucatola to Kosovo to learn first hand why harvesting organs nonchalantly is wrong.
Great post but please consider,why should should we abort/kill a baby just because it's father was a rapist.
Who's we? I'm not in the business of satisfying Godless people. Life begins at conception with the development of the embryo, which begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. God's wrath will fall on those hands that shed innocent blood.
We in the context of my post was society.
So in your mind a frozen embryo that is not implanted is murder?
Great post but please consider,why should should we abort/kill a baby just because it's father was a rapist.
Because nobody should be forced to carry his child. You wouldn't let somebody live in your home just because they broke in. Why on earth should a woman be forced to host a pregnancy that was a criminal act that she wanted no part of?
Sure you can say it isn't the unborn's fault, but if I have to choose between the two, I'm going with Victim A before Victim B. If you want to convict the rapist for murder as a result of the abortion, I'm fine with that.
I'm in agreement with you Steyr.
I certainly hope the hard liner element in the pro-life movement is a small one without influence. Especially with regard to incest. What a life for that mother and child!
What you call the hard liner element is at least the ideologically consistent constituency; if abortion is wrong/murder in 99% of cases because of the life of the child, it's wrong in the other 1% of the cases, regardless of the relationship of the father to the mother (rapist, relative, whatever).
You are correct that it is a minority position, however; and that's not likely to change.
Averageman
07-15-15, 06:56
I raised my Son by myself from the time he was 4 months old. It's not a joke, you can do it if you choose to.
I would hate to think had his Mom decided it was "Her body and Her Choice." how much of life I would have missed out on.
And that is exactly what I was talking about. It's almost bizarre that a father would get "no say at all" regarding a child that is also his. Really tricky subject of course, by the same token I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a woman being forced to have a baby she doesn't want because the father does.
Again, the solution is a degree of responsibility that far too many people don't posses.
If you have this discussion with some of the more hard line abortion proponents you will run in to, "It doesn't matter what the Man wants or if he can raise the child, it's the Woman's body so it's her choice."
That one always kind of burned me. I don't even know how to articulate a response worth of a logical argument at that point.
I think the idea that the Father who contributed 50% of the biological material to make this kid happen should have some sort of say in it, especially when and if he is willing to raise the child on his own. At some point in "It's her body", it becomes "It's her convenience."
The idea that my Son could have become a mish mash of fetal tissues distributed here and there rather than the vital, intelligent Man he has become was totally based upon the whim of his teenage mother at the time. That scares me.
BoringGuy45
07-15-15, 08:24
One problem with the "abortion only in the case of rape" argument is that if this were the law of the land, we'd have even more women falsely yelling "rape" than we do now! The sex was completely consensual, both parties were of legal age, both were completely sober, both didn't even regret it the next morning. A while later, she misses her period, finds out she's pregnant and she can't get it terminated on the grounds of "I don't want a baby," so she accuses him of rape. She gets the abortion, and to follow up and make sure she doesn't get slapped with making a false report to get an abortion, she follows through and gets him thrown in jail for the rest of his life. All the while, the community is telling her how brave she is and what an inspiration to women she has become.
I have no problem with morning after pills or any procedure that stops the fertilization from actually developing into a fetus, and I think they should be available in any case to eliminate the above scenario. However, when it comes to ending a life, that's where I draw the line in pretty much all cases.
I'm in agreement with you Steyr.
I certainly hope the hard liner element in the pro-life movement is a small one without influence. Especially with regard to incest. What a life for that mother and child!
Abortion is rarely justified, and used primarily as birth control means. Alternative options are always available in instances of rape and incest. In instances of rape or incest, the innocent party, the child, is murdered for sake of convenience.
We in the context of my post was society.
So in your mind a frozen embryo that is not implanted is murder?
Removing an embryo from the womb is murder.
Removing an embryo from the womb is murder.
If it's not a life when you choose to take it, it's not a life when a drunk driver takes it. The double standard is what kills me.
And if a woman doesn't want her child, but the father does, she shouldn't have had sex. Actions have consequenses. Maybe it's not fair she has to carry it, but she's the women, that's how life happens here on earth.
We should define life at some point and it's the same no matter what. If I get in an accident and kill a prego woman before that time, if one life.
It's also funny the left is for abortion, a means to lower the black population, but the flag is the real evil, not them.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-15-15, 11:21
Anyone with a baby that needed any kind of transplant.
I'm confirming with an SME, but I don't see anyway that the parts this woman is talking about used for transplants. She doesn't know where the parts are going and isn't prepping them for transplant.
Doc Safari
07-15-15, 11:27
Abortion is racist. Way more minority babies are aborted than white ones.
Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on this?
Does Obama make phone calls to the families of aborted babies like he did the black youths killed by cops?
Amazing inhuman double standards are a way of life in America.
I suggest everybody watch the full video. Apparently the short version that's only a couple minutes long, is heavily edited. Full video shows a very different overall tone. I'm not defending or condemning anything or anybody just saying that the whole video should be watched
SomeOtherGuy
07-15-15, 11:36
I'm far from any medical expertise but I also can't see how aborted fetal tissue could be used for direct transplants. I suspect some kind of medical research or production from the tissue but await hearing from someone with expertise (or access to expertise).
Abortion is racist. Way more minority babies are aborted than white ones.
Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on this?
Does Obama make phone calls to the families of aborted babies like he did the black youths killed by cops?
Amazing inhuman double standards are a way of life in America.
Someone else posted this in another thread, and it may bring things into focus:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.at/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html
Abortion is rarely justified, and used primarily as birth control means. Alternative options are always available in instances of rape and incest. In instances of rape or incest, the innocent party, the child, is murdered for sake of convenience.
In instances of rape and incest, what are the alternative options other than hosting the unwanted pregnancy?
I'm far from any medical expertise but I also can't see how aborted fetal tissue could be used for direct transplants. I suspect some kind of medical research or production from the tissue but await hearing from someone with expertise (or access to expertise).
Here is the first problem I can see.
If we take tissue from anything other than a late term abortion I have to wonder if any of that material is viable. I don't think undeveloped organs are going to be of much use for transplants. So that means, if we want to try to save "other babies" we must wait until the pregnancy is viable, and in most cases this translates to a very late term abortion, in fact the later the term the more likely you are going to be to have a successful transplant.
That is the actual scary part of the nonchalant discussion.
And if we go down that road, "partial birth" and "as late as legal" abortions are going to provide the most useful material for successful transplants. And that is only a few degrees difference from an organ farm with deliberate pregnancies for parts.
Removing an embryo from the womb is murder.
OK, now I know where you stand.
At risk of a bad joke, does it become "risen from the dead" if re implanted and brought to term?
What of an embryo created outside the womb? Is that also murder?
One problem with the "abortion only in the case of rape" argument is that if this were the law of the land, we'd have even more women falsely yelling "rape" than we do now! The sex was completely consensual, both parties were of legal age, both were completely sober, both didn't even regret it the next morning. A while later, she misses her period, finds out she's pregnant and she can't get it terminated on the grounds of "I don't want a baby," so she accuses him of rape. She gets the abortion, and to follow up and make sure she doesn't get slapped with making a false report to get an abortion, she follows through and gets him thrown in jail for the rest of his life. All the while, the community is telling her how brave she is and what an inspiration to women she has become.
I have no problem with morning after pills or any procedure that stops the fertilization from actually developing into a fetus, and I think they should be available in any case to eliminate the above scenario. However, when it comes to ending a life, that's where I draw the line in pretty much all cases.
And this is another reason laws are the way they are now. People will always abuse any legal system to get what they want. So yes if abortion was only available in cases of rape, incest and the like, you would have a lot of false accusations and probably quite a few convictions of innocent men because a girl claimed rape in order to qualify for any abortion.
This is just one of hundreds of problems linked to the abortion issue.
I'm confirming with an SME, but I don't see anyway that the parts this woman is talking about used for transplants. She doesn't know where the parts are going and isn't prepping them for transplant.
I believe she was advocating a hypothetical.
I sometimes ask pro-abortionists wether or not they themselves were ever conceived. It usually takes them a moment, but they eventually realise the significance of how they answer.
They know that they cannot seriously answer: "No, I was never conceived.", because that would mean that they could not actually be there contemplating the question.
But they also know that if they answer "Of course I was conceived, nine months before I was born, just like everyone else." that means that at the moment of their conception, they were.
And that would mean that they are aware that they are advocating for the brutal killing of innocent helpless unborn children.
I sometimes ask pro-abortionists wether or not they themselves were ever conceived. It usually takes them a moment, but they eventually realise the significance of how they answer.
They know that they cannot seriously answer: "No, I was never conceived.", because that would mean that they could not actually be there contemplating the question.
But they also know that if they answer "Of course I was conceived, nine months before I was born, just like everyone else." that means that at the moment of their conception, they were.
And that would mean that they are aware that they are advocating for the brutal killing of innocent helpless unborn children.
Ummm no. I have a reasonable understanding of when the egg was fertilized, embryo development occurred and the related developments of the pregnancy occurred.
I do NOT have any idea when sentience actually occurred or when I actually became...me. Certainly at the point of development when there was not yet a brain and only DNA blueprints for a brain, I probably wasn't contemplating what I wanted for lunch.
So despite your attempted word trap, we are again back at "when does a mass of cells become a human being" and opinions differ greatly. Some people believe that a fertilized egg in the freezer at a fertility clinic is an incarcerated human.
I don't know when "I" became "me." You don't know either. You may believe you know, but as you are such a proponent of scientific evidence I should point out we don't have that data yet. From the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet, that is a point of development. So obviously we aren't who we are at conception.
Ummm no. I have a reasonable understanding of when the egg was fertilized, embryo development occurred and the related developments of the pregnancy occurred.
I do NOT have any idea when sentience actually occurred or when I actually became...me. Certainly at the point of development when there was not yet a brain and only DNA blueprints for a brain, I probably wasn't contemplating what I wanted for lunch.
So despite your attempted word trap, we are again back at "when does a mass of cells become a human being" and opinions differ greatly. Some people believe that a fertilized egg in the freezer at a fertility clinic is an incarcerated human.
I don't know when "I" became "me." You don't know either. You may believe you know, but as you are such a proponent of scientific evidence I should point out we don't have that data yet. From the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet, that is a point of development. So obviously we aren't who we are at conception.
Meaning what exactly, that you are actually completely and totally denying that you were ever conceived?
As yes, we are who we are at our conception. That's the whole point. And this fact is self-evident to anyone not attempting to rationalise his beliefs or profit from its denial.
And you are also dead wrong to claim that the determination of who we are as male or female "isn't determined" at the moment of our conception.
Meaning what exactly, that you are actually completely and totally denying that you were ever conceived?
As yes, we are who we are at our conception. That's the whole point. And this fact is self-evident to anyone not attempting to rationalise his beliefs or profit from its denial.
And you are also dead wrong to claim that the determination of who we are as male or female "isn't determined" at the moment of our conception.
I think you are trying to substitute "conception" for "consciousness." I was speaking of the latter because it is what defines who a person is. Without a developed brain, there is no consciousness.
I wish you would actually take time to read what people write and address that, rather than playing word games and engaging in misdirection.
The brain begins to function at about week 10. I don't see how consciousness can exist prior to that.
I think you are trying to substitute "conception" for "consciousness." I was speaking of the latter because it is what defines who a person is. Without a developed brain, there is no consciousness.
I wish you would actually take time to read what people write and address that, rather than playing word games and engaging in misdirection.
The brain begins to function at about week 10. I don't see how consciousness can exist prior to that.
Defining who a person is, is in fact an altogether different thing as defining who is a person.
And it was sadly very predicable that you would actually complain about others "not taking the time to read what people write" right after it was demonstrated that you yourself could not even be bothered to learn that our determination as male and female is actually determined at our conception before you very ignorantly and erroneously claimed that "from the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet".
It was also very predicable that you would refuse to answer a very simple question. Are you in fact actually completely and totally denying that you were ever conceived?
Defining who a person is, is in fact an altogether different thing as defining who is a person.
And it was sadly very predicable that you would actually complain about others "not taking the time to read what people write" right after it was demonstrated that you yourself could not even be bothered to learn that our determination as male and female is actually determined at our conception before you very ignorantly and erroneously claimed that "from the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet".
It was also very predicable that you would refuse to answer a very simple question. Are you in fact actually completely and totally denying that you were ever conceived?
For the love of Yahweh, this is why I can't have a discussion with you.
con·ceive
kənˈsēv/
verb
past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived
1.
become pregnant with (a child).
"she was conceived when her father was 49"
(of a woman) become pregnant.
"five months ago Wendy conceived"
synonyms: become pregnant, become impregnated
"they were unable to conceive"
2.
form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
"the dam project was originally conceived in 1977"
synonyms: think up, think of, dream up, devise, formulate, design, originate, create, develop; More
I never denied, or suggested, my mother became pregnant which satisfies definition number one. As for definition number two, depending upon the specific usage of the word I may or may not have been conceived. I assume my pregnancy was thought about, dreamed about originated at some point and developed.
But I'm not sure if there was design involved, beyond my DNA code or that I was specifically devised which is the usage I'm assuming you are trying to steer us towards. Given the multiple definitions I simply ignored your attempted word detour.
The original point I was trying to make, is without a developed brain, a "person" and "who that person is and will be" doesn't exist yet. I understand you probably believe differently, but there is no scientific evidence to support that.
As to sex of the baby, I was referring to this.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intersex+States
All developing babies start out with external sex organs that look female. If the baby is male, the internal sex organs mature and begin to produce the male hormone testosterone. If the hormones reach the tissues correctly, the external genitals that looked female change into the scrotum and penis.
Please note the sentence that begins with IF. Meaning that doesn't always happen and as a result it isn't predetermined. Obviously outcomes such as undeveloped sex organs and hermaphrodites exist, but I was just making a basic, simple point, not trying to convolute things as much as possible.
Perhaps there was some sloppy wording on my part, perhaps I depended upon you too much to know what I was talking about and not try to make everything hinge on the definition of "is" and perhaps I should have known better than to even try in the first place.
So have a nice day.
become pregnant with (a child).
"she was conceived when her father was 49"
(of a woman) become pregnant.
"five months ago Wendy conceived"
synonyms: become pregnant, become impregnated
"they were unable to conceive"
I never denied, or suggested, my mother became pregnant which satisfies definition number one.
So you now, finally, acknowledged that you were in fact conceived, i.e. you had a physical conception, i.e. you were actually there when you were conceived by your parents.
The original point I was trying to make, is without a developed brain, a "person" and "who that person is and will be" doesn't exist yet.
Again, defining who a person is, is not the same thing as defining who is a person.
I understand you probably believe differently, but there is no scientific evidence to support that.
If you are here claiming that science supports your contention that a human being does not exist at the moment of his or her conception, then you are in fact again simply being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.
As to sex of the baby, I was referring to this.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intersex+States
All developing babies start out with external sex organs that look female. If the baby is male, the internal sex organs mature and begin to produce the male hormone testosterone. If the hormones reach the tissues correctly, the external genitals that looked female change into the scrotum and penis.
Please note the sentence that begins with IF. Meaning that doesn't always happen and as a result it isn't predetermined. Obviously outcomes such as undeveloped sex organs and hermaphrodites exist, but I was just making a basic, simple point, not trying to convolute things as much as possible.
Perhaps there was some sloppy wording on my part, perhaps I depended upon you too much to know what I was talking about and not try to make everything hinge on the definition of "is" and perhaps I should have known better than to even try in the first place.
So have a nice day.
Ah, I see, so when you posted "from the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet", what you really meant was "from the start, male or female is in fact immediately determined."
In the future it certainly will be quite helpful to know that you often mean the exact opposite of what you are actually saying.
So you now, finally, acknowledged that you were in fact conceived, i.e. you had a physical conception, i.e. you were actually there when you were conceived by your parents.
No, I acknowledge that at "some point" the mass of cells became a child.
Again, defining who a person is, is not the same thing as defining who is a person.
And it is my assertion that a mass of cells is NOT a person, yet.
If you are here claiming that science supports your contention that a human being does not exist at the moment of his or her conception, then you are in fact again simply being intellectually dishonest, and you know it.
I disagree. And I was NOT stating that science supports my view, I stated there is no scientific support for your view that a mass of human cells that hasn't yet developed a brain is a human being. Of course some people believe that a fertilized embryo in a freezer is a human being.
Ah, I see, so when you posted "from the start, there isn't even a determined male or female yet", what you really meant was "from the start, male or female is in fact immediately determined."
In the future it certainly will be quite helpful to know that you often mean the exact opposite of what you are actually saying.
Again, have a nice day. Seriously.
[QUOTE=Doc Glockster;2150230]Abortion is racist. Way more minority babies are aborted than white ones.
Where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on this?
Does Obama make phone calls to the families of aborted babies like he did the black youths killed by cops?
Amazing inhuman double standards are a way of life in America.[/QUOTE/
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/thenegroproject/
There really are two slippery sloped on this issue and that is one of them.
If we ever returned to a 1930s socialist mentality I could see ghouls breeding babies to harvest organs, stem cells, etc. Not that anyone today isn't willing to do it, and not that it isn't happening right now in other parts of the world. We should remember what kind of person Margaret Sanger actually was when it came to topics like eugenics.
On the flip side, I wouldn't want a a human baby defined as "from the moment of conception" or even when the "cells split" as some people would like. I'd hate for the mother to have to die in favor of the pregnancy because it is a law and nobody should be forced to keep a pregnancy that was the result of rape, incest or anything along those lines. I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control.
And there isn't a lot of reasonable "common ground" between the extremes which makes it that much more difficult. In the meantime perhaps we can send Deborah Nucatola to Kosovo to learn first hand why harvesting organs nonchalantly is wrong.
I thought this would be a good time to resurrect your original post in this thread - particularly the bolded portion. I find it peculiar that you complained about the lack of reasonable common ground. Meanwhile, you spent a ton of bandwidth arguing in support of abortion from a position of rape, incest, and life of the mother which collectively represent less than 5% of abortions (it's probably lower depending on if you use life vs health of the mother).
If we outlawed abortion for birth control after 6 weeks, we would essentially shut down the abortion industry. So, rather than arguing around the margins of the abortion debate, why don't you instead focus on the 95% which is the meat of the issue and the platform of much of the pro-life movement.
I thought this would be a good time to resurrect your original post in this thread - particularly the bolded portion. I find it peculiar that you complained about the lack of reasonable common ground. Meanwhile, you spent a ton of bandwidth arguing in support of abortion from a position of rape, incest, and life of the mother which collectively represent less than 5% of abortions (it's probably lower depending on if you use life vs health of the mother).
If we outlawed abortion for birth control after 6 weeks, we would essentially shut down the abortion industry. So, rather than arguing around the margins of the abortion debate, why don't you instead focus on the 95% which is the meat of the issue and the platform of much of the pro-life movement.
Ironically I did address it, right above the sentence you bolded.
"I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control."
And then in subsequent posts I went into detail about the 95% (assuming that is the case) of other abortions for social and economic points of view as well as other considerations.
But that attempt at a "reasonable discussion" sorta got hijacked by people advocating a "pro life" position even in the instance of rape and others arguing that human life begins the moment an egg is fertilized.
I apologize if I didn't discuss abortion in a broader sense or focus on aspects that you consider most important. Feel free to start that discussion, you can have the thread. I've pretty much stated my positions on the issue as much as I am going to, I'm really not that heavily invested in the topic and have probably spent more time discussing it than I wanted to.
And you are correct, if you outlawed abortion you'd shut down the industry in a matter of weeks. But that wouldn't solve the problem of irresponsible people getting pregnant, nor would it end abortion. It would simply be one more illegal activity that irresponsible people engage in.
Of course the original topic was some ghoul at PP discussing the wonderful positive potential of abortion in terms of harvested organs. But we've gotten pretty far off track from that one.
And you are correct, if you outlawed abortion you'd shut down the industry in a matter of weeks. But that wouldn't solve the problem of irresponsible people getting pregnant, nor would it end abortion. It would simply be one more illegal activity that irresponsible people engage in.
Of course the original topic was some ghoul at PP discussing the wonderful positive potential of abortion in terms of harvested organs. But we've gotten pretty far off track from that one.
I agree, I don't think you will ever totally eliminate abortion. However, I don't think that greatly restricting abortions would result in the rebirth of the coat hanger abortion industry as it existed decades ago. Yes there will always be irresponsible people, but if abortion were restricted, more women would exert more reproductive responsibility.
But then again, I've talked with women who've had abortions, and I've talked with RN's who changed from pro-choice to pro-life, simply because they heard one too many aborted babies cry during third trimester abortions. Yep, the brains supposed to be scrambled before the child is born - doesn't always work that way. Abortion is bad, not just because of Religion, but because we, humans, have intellect and know better.
I agree, I don't think you will ever totally eliminate abortion. However, I don't think that greatly restricting abortions would result in the rebirth of the coat hanger abortion industry as it existed decades ago. Yes there will always be irresponsible people, but if abortion were restricted, more women would exert more reproductive responsibility.
But then again, I've talked with women who've had abortions, and I've talked with RN's who changed from pro-choice to pro-life, simply because they heard one too many aborted babies cry during third trimester abortions. Yep, the brains supposed to be scrambled before the child is born - doesn't always work that way. Abortion is bad, not just because of Religion, but because we, humans, have intellect and know better.
You have more faith in irresponsible women than I do. I've met one person who has had SIX abortions. If people were capable of learning reproductive responsibility you would "think" five abortions would be sufficient to get them there.
If you outlawed abortion, she's simply have six (or more) children, and I'd hate to be one of those kids.
And I can honestly understand nurses becoming pro life, they are typically educated and responsible people. In a better world mostly populated with responsible and educated people the need for an abortion would be rare. Sadly that isn't the case.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-15-15, 22:50
I think getting into the minutia of the particulars is now what this is about. It isn't about the bigger picture of abortion.
It is about the using the parts of a unborn baby for science experiments. Do the mom's know, where does the money go and what is the research.
Is this something that we want going on as a society.
As much of a problem as I have with this Pope, during JPIIs time they laid out some really dense and well thought out positions on implications of all this stem cell, cloning and experimentation. It wasn't religious knee jerk admonitions of some of these practices, but real world implications that get pretty scary, very quickly. Bush's restrictions on stem cell funding seemed cruel to the uninformed until you get down to the realities of using these fetal stem cells- especially in light of other avenues for procuring stem cells.
The focus should be on these practices and protections for women who are treated as little more than veal calf providers.
Ironically I did address it, right above the sentence you bolded.
"I just wish horribly irresponsible people would stop using it as a means of birth control."
And then in subsequent posts I went into detail about the 95% (assuming that is the case) of other abortions for social and economic points of view as well as other considerations.
But that attempt at a "reasonable discussion" sorta got hijacked by people advocating a "pro life" position even in the instance of rape and others arguing that human life begins the moment an egg is fertilized.
I apologize if I didn't discuss abortion in a broader sense or focus on aspects that you consider most important. Feel free to start that discussion, you can have the thread. I've pretty much stated my positions on the issue as much as I am going to, I'm really not that heavily invested in the topic and have probably spent more time discussing it than I wanted to.
And you are correct, if you outlawed abortion you'd shut down the industry in a matter of weeks. But that wouldn't solve the problem of irresponsible people getting pregnant, nor would it end abortion. It would simply be one more illegal activity that irresponsible people engage in.
Of course the original topic was some ghoul at PP discussing the wonderful positive potential of abortion in terms of harvested organs. But we've gotten pretty far off track from that one.
The reason why I'm off track is that I'm trying to follow your arguments which seem to fall into the line of: 1) We don't really know when a fetus becomes a human life so abortion is not really amoral, 2) Abortion may serve some benefit to society in that it culls unwanted children that would otherwise suffer a life of hardship and be a burden on society, and yet 3) this Dr. at PP is for some reason a ghoul because she talks about abortion like I talk about removing an appendix. Why is she a ghoul in your eyes? I mean, why do you care if she sells some fetal tissue if its just a clump of cells? Am I a ghoul for selling my jizz at the sperm bank (yeah, chicks dig my boyz)?
Since you seem surprised that this lady can sip wine and eat steak while discussing aborted fetal tissue, let me break it down this way - she actually believes what you claim to believe. That is to say, fetal tissues to her really are just clumps of cells like an unwanted tumor. This is no different than Nazis who actually thought that Jews were sub-human rodents. In all honesty, she demonstrates a lot more intellectual consistency than people on this forum who say that abortion should be legal, then act disgusted when someone brings up the next logical step of their conviction which is the harvesting of unwanted tissue for profit - waste not, want not.
I think getting into the minutia of the particulars is now what this is about. It isn't about the bigger picture of abortion.
It is about the using the parts of a unborn baby for science experiments. Do the mom's know, where does the money go and what is the research.
Is this something that we want going on as a society.
As much of a problem as I have with this Pope, during JPIIs time they laid out some really dense and well thought out positions on implications of all this stem cell, cloning and experimentation. It wasn't religious knee jerk admonitions of some of these practices, but real world implications that get pretty scary, very quickly. Bush's restrictions on stem cell funding seemed cruel to the uninformed until you get down to the realities of using these fetal stem cells- especially in light of other avenues for procuring stem cells.
The focus should be on these practices and protections for women who are treated as little more than veal calf providers.
Those who deal in the business of dead children are partnering with Satan. America will not go unpunished for her sins.
I think getting into the minutia of the particulars is now what this is about. It isn't about the bigger picture of abortion.
It is about the using the parts of a unborn baby for science experiments. Do the mom's know, where does the money go and what is the research.
Is this something that we want going on as a society.
As much of a problem as I have with this Pope, during JPIIs time they laid out some really dense and well thought out positions on implications of all this stem cell, cloning and experimentation. It wasn't religious knee jerk admonitions of some of these practices, but real world implications that get pretty scary, very quickly. Bush's restrictions on stem cell funding seemed cruel to the uninformed until you get down to the realities of using these fetal stem cells- especially in light of other avenues for procuring stem cells.
The focus should be on these practices and protections for women who are treated as little more than veal calf providers.
Here is the problem for the 10% of pro-choice proponents who can put up some simblance of an arguement: you must first maintain at all costs that a fetus is not human; it's nothing more than a clump of cells. If they concede that the cells are somehow special, they open the door to people who can destroy them with logic and the science (actually, it's fairly easy to get them on the science, but most of them try to run out the clock of one's patience with requests to clarify the basics of biology). There follow-on position is: since the tissues are in no way special, then harvesting them for science must be a good thing.
Fortunately, there are a lot of angles to fry this PP witch. Probably the best angle is to go after them on the issue of consent since it bypasses the morality of abortion entirely. I have $10 that says that PP didn't get informed consent to use the tissue for profit or non-profit educational purposes in every instance. That's a big no-no in most states...
The reason why I'm off track is that I'm trying to follow your arguments which seem to fall into the line of: 1) We don't really know when a fetus becomes a human life so abortion is not really amoral
Well I can clear that right up for you. We really don't know when a fetus becomes a human being and I don't think there is a "number X" that applies in every case. I just don't think nature is going to provide us with a magic number even if we had a way to make the determination.
As for abortion being amoral or not, that is another variable as "morality" is defined across a broad spectrum by people and cultures. I'm not terribly invested in the subject so I probably seem somewhat ambivalent about it. In my "perfect world" abortion would rarely be necessary and only done in cases where the mother was at risk of death or the child would have severe disability or similar issue and the parents chose not to bring it to term. Sadly my "perfect world" doesn't exist and never will.
I strongly wish abortion wouldn't be used as a form of birth control but again that would require my "perfect world." So in this imperfect world, I'm willing to accept the fact that irresponsible people get pregnant all the time and I have to choose what is worse, abortion or dumbshits having dozens of children.
Then there is the additional concern of bringing government into the decision making process regarding irresponsible people who are pregnant.
The thing I'm MOST troubled by is "later term" abortion. I can think of very few examples where it would be justified and most of those examples are extremely unlikely. If you are going to terminate a pregnancy, I think the window should be reasonably short.
2) Abortion may serve some benefit to society in that it culls unwanted children that would otherwise suffer a life of hardship and be a burden on society, and yet 3) this Dr. at PP is for some reason a ghoul because she talks about abortion like I talk about removing an appendix. Why is she a ghoul in your eyes? I mean, why do you care if she sells some fetal tissue if its just a clump of cells? Am I a ghoul for selling my jizz at the sperm bank (yeah, chicks dig my boyz)?
Really thought I had answered this. In the first example we are talking about unintended pregnancies as a result of irresponsibility and similar things.
The good doctor is a ghoul because she is walking down a road that quickly involves people deliberately getting pregnant so that they can market the organs of the aborted pregnancy. To me, that is so many more degrees of evil than "oopsie I got preggers again" that it really isn't even fair to discuss them both in the same way.
Also, and here we are getting out of my expertise related to medical issues, but it seems that for an organ to be useful the pregnancy must be viable (I think stem cells are the only exception so you tell me if I'm right or wrong on that). So that means in order to have donor "baby organs" people wait until they have a viable pregnancy to terminate it and that goes very much against what I think is acceptable. Deciding to end a pregnancy in the first 10 weeks to me is much different than deciding to end it after 24 weeks. Because at some point, we are no longer talking about a mass of dividing cells.
Since you seem surprised that this lady can sip wine and eat steak while discussing aborted fetal tissue, let me break it down this way - she actually believes what you claim to believe. That is to say, fetal tissues to her really are just clumps of cells like an unwanted tumor. This is no different than Nazis who actually thought that Jews were sub-human rodents. In all honesty, she demonstrates a lot more intellectual consistency than people on this forum who say that abortion should be legal, then act disgusted when someone brings up the next logical step of their conviction which is the harvesting of unwanted tissue for profit - waste not, want not.
Actually I'm not surprised at all by her actions. Child organ harvesting is a fact of life in the shittier parts of the world. Hopefully my clarifications on my views of abortion explain why I support abortion in some cases but don't support people like her or Dr. Gosnell.
Here is the problem for the 10% of pro-choice proponents who can put up some simblance of an arguement: you must first maintain at all costs that a fetus is not human; it's nothing more than a clump of cells. If they concede that the cells are somehow special, they open the door to people who can destroy them with logic and the science (actually, it's fairly easy to get them on the science, but most of them try to run out the clock of one's patience with requests to clarify the basics of biology).
So I have a question. I will do my best to use correct terms as I know you have a medical background.
Following fertilization and the creation of a single cell embryo (zygote), when the cells divide and create a morula, do you consider that to be a human being? Is it in your mind no different to end the pregnancy then (approx. 3 days) than in the "late term" after 16-24 weeks?
No, I acknowledge that at "some point" the mass of cells became a child.
And it is my assertion that a mass of cells is NOT a person, yet.
Which simply means that you actually believe that you were never conceived, which simply again demonstrates the utter incoherence of the entire pro-abortion argument, which was the point.
As philosophy professor Peter Kreeft has formulated, there are 4, and only 4, possibilities.
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
4. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.
What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.
From: "The Apple Argument Against Abortion" http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
Since 4 is scientifically impossible, (science can never prove that we don't begin our lives at the moment of our conception) that necessarily means you are advocating either for murder, manslaughter, or for criminal negligence.
Which simply means that you actually believe that you were never conceived, which simply again demonstrates the utter incoherence of the entire pro-abortion argument, which was the point.
As philosophy professor Peter Kreeft has formulated, there are 4, and only 4, possibilities.
Since 4 is scientifically impossible, (science can never prove that we don't begin our lives at the moment of our conception) that necessarily means you are advocating either for murder, manslaughter, or for criminal negligence.
Didn't I already tell you to have a nice day?
Btw, Number 4 is NOT a scientific impossibility any more than the other three. As we lack the data to prove or disprove any of the 4 examples. All four are possibilities either way.
But thanks for attempting a word game that allows you to declare me a murderer based upon my views which you don't happen to agree with. Haven't you had a few problems in the past with name calling.
Seems to me there are only two possibilities.
You make baseless statements in order to try and pigeonhole somebody and then declare they must be "this or that" and then use the presumption that they must be "this or that" to then qualify them as a murderer, child molester, rapist or other savory reputation builder.
You then believe this exempts you from the whole personal attack rules of this forum because after all you carefully constructed a flow chart predicated on half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo so it must be true when you declare somebody to be whatever you decide they are.
So either this is a willful plan on your part and you deliberately do it every single time despite warnings not to from staff and moderators or you are completely unaware of your repeated pattern of attempted character assassination without any real foundation and that means you are probably possessed by Satan right now.
And I'm not sure which it actually is, but I don't want to risk debating abortion with somebody currently possessed by the devil. So please have a good day, or as good a day as somebody operating under the direct control and influence of Satan is capable of having.
So I have a question. I will do my best to use correct terms as I know you have a medical background.
Following fertilization and the creation of a single cell embryo (zygote), when the cells divide and create a morula, do you consider that to be a human being? Is it in your mind no different to end the pregnancy then (approx. 3 days) than in the "late term" after 16-24 weeks?
My views have not changed since the last time I fielded your questions here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?137632-Abortion-Killing-babies-not-amoral-or-differet-from-abortion!/page12
Didn't I already tell you to have a nice day?
Ah, you didn't mean it, you never do.
Btw, Number 4 is NOT a scientific impossibility any more than the other three.
No, that is simply incorrect. The reason #4 is NOT a scientific possibility is because it is in fact not #3. One does not need science to determine that one is unsure of something, and you know this, which means you are simply again trying to muddle words in an attempt to conceal obvious facts that you would rather not be true because they absolutely refute your arguments..
As we lack the data to prove or disprove any of the 4 examples. All four are possibilities either way.
Which was in fact again the very point. The position you must necessarily hold is 4, which is a scientific impossibility because science can never prove that a human person does not exist at the moment all of us are conceived. It has not the competence, scientifically or otherwise, to make that determination despite your slightly differently worded "yuh-huh" retort.
But thanks for attempting a word game that allows you to declare me a murderer based upon my views which you don't happen to agree with.
I see, so instead of deciding to actually demonstrate how the argument is logically insupportable or even invalid, you decide to instead go for the whole hurt feelings angle? OK. :rolleyes:
You make baseless statements in order to try and pigeonhole somebody and then declare they must be "this or that" and then use the presumption that they must be "this or that" to then qualify them as a murderer, child molester, rapist or other savory reputation builder.
You then believe this exempts you from the whole personal attack rules of this forum because after all you carefully constructed a flow chart predicated on half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo so it must be true when you declare somebody to be whatever you decide they are.
The reason you claimed I made a "baseless statement" without actually indicating which statement you are claiming is baseless, is because I never made one, and you are simply again being intellectually dishonest.
You, just like everyone else, absolutely must hold one of these 4 positions.
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
4. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.
There simply is no 5th option, and you know it.
You can rant and rave that this is in some mysterious way "pigeonholing" you, but since you in fact know that there is no 5th option, and thus you must, necessarily subscribe to one of these 4 possibilities, that also means, necessarily, that your claim about "pigeonholing" is simply emotive nonsense born of the frustration of not actually being able to refute any of it.
But please, go right ahead and prove me wrong and quote anywhere where I "qualified" anyone here as a "murderer, child molester, or rapist" as you very deliberately dishonestly claimed.
On the other hand, your penchant for making baseless statements is becoming legendary. To wit:
You then believe this exempts you from the whole personal attack rules of this forum because after all you carefully constructed a flow chart predicated on half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo so it must be true when you declare somebody to be whatever you decide they are.
That entire quote is simply a completely baseless not even slightly disguised histrionic character attack, and in fact you full well know it.
Look, let's try this again. There are 4 and only 4 logical possibilities.
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
4. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.
What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.
From: "The Apple Argument Against Abortion" http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
So..
Do you agree or not, that these are the only 4 logical possibilities? If not, why not?
Do you agree or not that if possibilities 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true, then the corresponding cases are also necessarily true? If not, why not?
So after reviewing the posts I actually found where you stated your position.
Well I can clear that right up for you. We really don't know when a fetus becomes a human being.
OK, that means, necessarily, that you subscribe to possibility 2 or 3.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
Which correspondingly means,
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Which you very emotionally flat out attacked as so much,
half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo
I honestly believe that the reason you responded that way, and why you keep evading my questions and instead resort to post these attacks,
you are probably possessed by Satan right now.
is because you are honestly frustrated that you can't actually refute any of this, logically, philosophically, scientifically, or otherwise.
And BTW, that you very intentionally decided to post that particularly vicious personal attack which you know to be especially offensive to all christians probably demonstrates more than anything else what your true character is really like.
Look, let's try this again.
Actually, let's not. I tried to explain to you politely a couple times now why I'm not interested in discussing this any further with you.
Ah, you didn't mean it, you never do.
I meant it then, I mean it now. Not interested in playing your stupid word games, it's not a discussion but an opportunity for you to tell me what I'm thinking and what I mean by what I say. I'm honestly not interested in that.
So once again, as politely as I'm capable of, have a nice day.
My views have not changed since the last time I fielded your questions here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?137632-Abortion-Killing-babies-not-amoral-or-differet-from-abortion!/page12
Ok, so I looked up your answer.
For the purposes of this discussion, I consider abortion to be the killing of an embryo AFTER implantation (others may disagree) which essentially completes conception.
So it seems there is a time when it is JUST a mass of dividing cells and a later time when it is something more significant (after implantation using your criteria).
So why were you criticizing us that are willing to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages (such as before implantation)?
Actually, let's not. I tried to explain to you politely a couple times now
"Explain"? You have not even bothered to explain why you have decided not to actually even attempt to address, much less challenge or refute, the philosophical defence of the pro-life position.
So sorry, but no, your attacking the argument as "half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo" is not any kind of an 'explanation'.
I meant it then, I mean it now. Not interested in playing your stupid word games, it's not a discussion but an opportunity for you to tell me what I'm thinking and what I mean by what I say. I'm honestly not interested in that.
Either you really (and bizarrely) actually don't believe that you were ever conceived, or you do. And I think we both know that is it rather childish to label that as some sort of "stupid word games", and in fact nothing more than an attempted misdirection on your part.
You already made this statement.
Well I can clear that right up for you. We really don't know when a fetus becomes a human being.
Which means, again necessarily, that you subscribe to either possibility 2 or possibility 3 of the 4 possible logical positions on abortion.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
Which correspondingly means,
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
You can play the hurt feelings card all day long, but that does not change the fact that you have never even attempted to demonstrate any logical fallacies in this philosophical defence of the pro-life position.
And again, since you know full well that we christians actually do believe in the reality of Hell and Satan, your very intentionally offensive and repugnant attack of
you are probably possessed by Satan right now.
especially in a post in which you were critiquing me for personal attacks made in the past, rather reveals more about your true character than you had intended.
"Explain"? You have not even bothered to explain why you have decided not to actually even attempt to address, much less challenge or refute, the philosophical defence of the pro-life position.
So sorry, but no, your attacking the argument as "half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo" is not any kind of an 'explanation'.
Either you really (and bizarrely) actually don't believe that you were ever conceived, or you do. And I think we both know that is it rather childish to label that as some sort of "stupid word games", and in fact nothing more than an attempted misdirection on your part.
You already made this statement.
Which means, again necessarily, that you subscribe to either possibility 2 or possibility 3 of the 4 possible logical positions on abortion.
Which correspondingly means,
You can play the hurt feelings card all day long, but that does not change the fact that you have never even attempted to demonstrate any logical fallacies in this philosophical defence of the pro-life position.
And again, since you know full well that we christians actually do believe in the reality of Hell and Satan, your very intentionally offensive and repugnant attack of
especially in a post in which you were critiquing me for personal attacks made in the past, rather reveals more about your true character than you had intended.
Let me try this one last time.
Just as you were wrong about the sincerity of my "Have a nice day" comments.
Just as you were completely missed the fact that the "possessed by Satan" comment was intended as a counter example of the ridiculous assumptions being made and not a genuine accusation.
You are also presuming to know what I'm thinking and deliberately ignoring or truly not understanding what I'm saying. As a result there is no point in continuing this with you.
So, for hopefully the last time, have a nice day.
PS, I don't believe Satan actually exists so I it doesn't say as much about my character as you are asserting. Feel free to substitute the Easter Bunny.
PS, I don't believe Satan actually exists so I it doesn't say as much about my character as you are asserting.
Except that not only do we christians believe in the reality of Hell and Satan, but you also know that we do. So yeah, it really, really, does.
And that may actually be my first double "really" on these forums. So, there's that.
skijunkie55
07-16-15, 13:46
So i brought this up today to a liberal acquaintance of mine, after he posted this article which pretty much defends the practice of using chopped up babies for research.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/15/media-calls-out-deceptively-edited-video-claimi/204426
The fact that these babies, ie. human beings, are still used for research is ok in his book, but the issue of whether or not they were "donated" vs "sold" is where we are going to stop and raise an issue... I mean hell, we "donated" weapons to mexican cartels and ISIS in recent years, so because we didn't sell them it's ok! /sarcasm.
No conversation at all about the moral and ethical concerns of harvesting babies for research, he just wanted to attack the undercover "journalist" who "lied" because PP donates body parts and doesn't sell them.
Liberals and social media will be the end of America.
I haven't read all the long replies, but I saw "just a mass of cells". Thats what we are, so why is murder illegal? When is a fetus a person? When a drunk driver kills a fetus (kills, right?) Isn't it not murder?
If it's not alive, what why are abortionist crushing things? They certainly are not killing anything, right?
I rarely get into this debate, as it is such a cluster-fvck. No one is changing their mind on either side and everyone feels as if they are 100% right regardless of the reality of what an abortion is and does.
Anyone who defends the "pro-choice" position should ask themselves how they would feel if their parents made that choice and aborted them- oh wait, you would not have had a chance to be alive- in other words: DEAD. So no feeling, thinking or anything else. How can you logically and honestly defend denying life by aborting it?
I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN HONEST ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM A PRO-CHOICER- just a bunch of BS. So would you personally be okay if your parents aborted you? Philosophically speaking- as you exist right now, but if they aborted you- you wouldn't; and this would be fine with you as someone who DOES exist currently- to be snuffed out before your awareness of your own existence? That would not be murder? For your life to have never been allowed to be?
For something that is or would become a person/human life to be denied that existence by the will of man- that is not wrong?
Let's think about this from a different perspective: if time travel existed; would it not be murder for one to go back in time and have you aborted in the past so you wouldn't exist in the future? Just throwing away a "mass of cells" right?
Be honest with yourselves; the percentage of abortions due to rape/incest/etc is MINUSCULE compared to the percentage of abortions that are "after thought birth control".
Irresponsible assholes cleaning up their "mess" in the most tragic and disgusting way.
That's all I will say in this thread, I hope people really think about what the act of abortion is and not take it so lightly. I for one am glad I have the ability to express myself, to be aware of my existence, to experience life, love, hate, friendship and cogitate on the entire plethora of the human experience- and I have my parents who DID NOT abort me to thank for that. I'm going to go shooting now, which I wouldn't be able to do if I had been aborted.
Thank your parents for not aborting you, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have an opinion one way or the other on the subject...
Except that not only do we christians believe in the reality of Hell and Satan, but you also know that we do. So yeah, it really, really, does.
And that may actually be my first double "really" on these forums. So, there's that.
You are trying very hard to have this argument. Have a really, really nice day.
I rarely get into this debate, as it is such a cluster-fvck. No one is changing their mind on either side and everyone feels as if they are 100% right regardless of the reality of what an abortion is and does.
Anyone who defends the "pro-choice" position should ask themselves how they would feel if their parents made that choice and aborted them- oh wait, you would not have had a chance to be alive- in other words: DEAD. So no feeling, thinking or anything else. How can you logically and honestly defend denying life by aborting it?
I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN HONEST ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM A PRO-CHOICER- just a bunch of BS. So would you personally be okay if your parents aborted you? Philosophically speaking- as you exist right now, but if they aborted you- you wouldn't; and this would be fine with you as someone who DOES exist currently- to be snuffed out before your awareness of your own existence? That would not be murder? For your life to have never been allowed to be?
And I have an answer. It would be like before I was born. I wouldn't exist. There would be no "me" to feel anyway about it, either way. I couldn't be upset by it, I couldn't be ok with it...I wouldn't exist. I wouldn't know the difference.
It's a lot like when my parents decided to not have a third child. That child doesn't exist, never existed and will never exist. Is their a cosmic entity out there somewhere "upset" that they weren't allowed to be born to my parents?
And if there is some alternate plane of existence, where the unborn and deceased inhabit, and I was waiting to be born and somebody pulled the plug on me, at least I would know that existence continues in some other form, which is a lot more than we know for certain in this current existence.
Hope that qualifies as a satisfactory answer even though it is based primarily on philosophical assumptions lacking the existence of any real evidence with which to form an opinion.
And I have an answer. It would be like before I was born. I wouldn't exist. There would be no "me" to feel anyway about it, either way. I couldn't be upset by it, I couldn't be ok with it...I wouldn't exist. I wouldn't know the difference.
It's a lot like when my parents decided to not have a third child. That child doesn't exist, never existed and will never exist. Is their a cosmic entity out there somewhere "upset" that they weren't allowed to be born to my parents?
And if there is some alternate plane of existence, where the unborn and deceased inhabit, and I was waiting to be born and somebody pulled the plug on me, at least I would know that existence continues in some other form, which is a lot more than we know for certain in this current existence.
Hope that qualifies as a satisfactory answer even though it is based primarily on philosophical assumptions lacking the existence of any real evidence with which to form an opinion.
So knowing now as you do exist, you would be okay say if your mother went back in time and convinced herself to abort you? If time travel existed and your mother said to you she would go back and abort you- you would have no issue with this, just a choice for her to make- screw it after she did it you wouldn't exist anymore to have an opinion- so who cares?
Obviously if you were aborted you would have no opinion- that's the point, you do exist, but wouldn't if aborted. How is this not seen as wrong?
In your opinion- there is no difference between deciding to not have a child and by your own will aborting what WOULD become a child?
BuzzinSATX
07-16-15, 16:01
34161
I'm a believer that once it is "alive", it's a human fetus. And as long as it's a human fetus, then it's technically a human, albeit one that cannot live outside the womb or on some form of life support. But developed or not, it's not like it's gonna turn into a cat, or a snake, or a fish....it's going to develop into a human.
But Liberals will go to extreme measures to protect wild creatures, including their unborn eggs, and even their breeding and nursing grounds (ANWR in AK), but an unborn human can be disassembled, dissected, and sold or thrown away?
That's hypocritical no matter how you look at it.
That's just my $0.02 you got for free...not looking to debate... You won't change me, and I doubt I will change you if we disagree.
Take Care,
Buzz
So knowing now as you do exist, you would be okay say if your mother went back in time and convinced herself to abort you? If time travel existed and your mother said to you she would go back and abort you- you would have no issue with this, just a choice for her to make- screw it after she did it you wouldn't exist anymore to have an opinion- so who cares?
Obviously if you were aborted you would have no opinion- that's the point, you do exist, but wouldn't if aborted. How is this not seen as wrong?
In your opinion- there is no difference between deciding to not have a child and by your own will aborting what WOULD become a child?
Well if time travel existed I'm going to travel back in time which will create an alternate existence in which I could never be aborted because I have already altered the time line and created a new one.
But those are hypotheticals based upon things that don't exist. If we get into hypotheticals that don't exist, I have LOTS of options and probably can't be aborted even if she tried. In fact I could go back and kill her grandfather and she wouldn't exist, but ironically I'd still exist in my new alternate time line reality.
So we have to discuss things as they actually are, and the answer to your question is "I wouldn't exist, so I couldn't know the difference."
Now I know you won't be satisfied with that answer because it doesn't play into your "What if YOU were an abortion" object lesson. So we will go to imagination land and I will contemplate my abortion based upon my current existence, to me it would be like a child killed in Africa because his mother was attacked and eaten by a lion. Would it be my first choice? No, but life sucks like that and if I magically ceased to exist because my mother had some kind of metaphysical retroactive abortion then it really wouldn't matter because again I'd "cease to exist" so there would be no "me" to be upset about it.
So I guess we need to focus on the anguish of contemplating my impending metaphysical retroactive abortion (for lack of a better term), and really in the grand scheme of things is that any more traumatic than the death we will all face eventually? We live, form values and attachments while trying to find an acceptable meaning and purpose in life and despite our success or failures everything we love or care about is lost with our death.
So I imagine it would be kind of like that. I would prefer not to be metaphysically retroactively aborted, but not any more or less than I'd prefer not to die or see my loved ones die. In fact, if I could guarantee that the people I really cared about would not have to die and all I had to do was be metaphysically retroactively aborted, I might take that deal. Of course, objectively even that benefits me very little as I will suddenly cease to exist and won't be able to appreciate that I saved my loved ones, I won't know anything about them as I would no longer exist.
The only way the "what if you were an abortion" object lesson works is if you believe in some kind of afterlife, and if I was convinced there was an afterlife it really would remain a pointless exercise as I'd simply exist in the afterlife and would see my loved ones soon enough in the afterlife.
You are trying very hard to have this argument.
Nah, not really, you've already lost, and I rather suspect that not only do you know this, but that fact is probably what caused you to shift gears there for a few posts into histrionic overdrive.
And no, it wasn't just that you actually and bizarrely believe that you were never conceived, it was and is the fact that you know that you cannot demonstrate any logical fallacies in Dr. Kreeft's philosophical dismantling of the entire pro-abortion argument.
There are 4, and only 4 possibilities.
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
4. The fetus isn't a person, and we know that.
What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.
From: "The Apple Argument Against Abortion" http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_apple.htm
There is no 5th possibility, and you know it. And you actually already stated in a previous post.
Well I can clear that right up for you. We really don't know when a fetus becomes a human being.
Which means, necessarily, that you subscribe to possibility 2 or 3. And again, you full well know this.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don't know that.
3. The fetus isn't a person, but we don't know that.
Which correspondingly means,
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don't know that, abortion is manslaughter. It's like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you're not sure is fully evacuated. You're not sure there is a person there, but you're not sure there isn't either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn't know there was a person there, but you didn't know there wasn't either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn't a person, but you don't know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren't. But you didn't care; you didn't take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Since you were not remotely capable of refuting any of this, you simply decided to lash out, and labeled this logically sound defence of the pro-life position as only so much..
half assed philosophy, bullshit and inuendo
Those words were you admitting that you had lost.
Cheers.
Well if time travel existed I'm going to travel back in time which will create an alternate existence in which I could never be aborted because I have already altered the time line and created a new one.
But those are hypotheticals based upon things that don't exist. If we get into hypotheticals that don't exist, I have LOTS of options and probably can't be aborted even if she tried. In fact I could go back and kill her grandfather and she wouldn't exist, but ironically I'd still exist in my new alternate time line reality.
So we have to discuss things as they actually are, and the answer to your question is "I wouldn't exist, so I couldn't know the difference."
Now I know you won't be satisfied with that answer because it doesn't play into your "What if YOU were an abortion" object lesson. So we will go to imagination land and I will contemplate my abortion based upon my current existence, to me it would be like a child killed in Africa because his mother was attacked and eaten by a lion. Would it be my first choice? No, but life sucks like that and if I magically ceased to exist because my mother had some kind of metaphysical retroactive abortion then it really wouldn't matter because again I'd "cease to exist" so there would be no "me" to be upset about it.
So I guess we need to focus on the anguish of contemplating my impending metaphysical retroactive abortion (for lack of a better term), and really in the grand scheme of things is that any more traumatic than the death we will all face eventually? We live, form values and attachments while trying to find an acceptable meaning and purpose in life and despite our success or failures everything we love or care about is lost with our death.
So I imagine it would be kind of like that. I would prefer not to be metaphysically retroactively aborted, but not any more or less than I'd prefer not to die or see my loved ones die. In fact, if I could guarantee that the people I really cared about would not have to die and all I had to do was be metaphysically retroactively aborted, I might take that deal. Of course, objectively even that benefits me very little as I will suddenly cease to exist and won't be able to appreciate that I saved my loved ones, I won't know anything about them as I would no longer exist.
The only way the "what if you were an abortion" object lesson works is if you believe in some kind of afterlife, and if I was convinced there was an afterlife it really would remain a pointless exercise as I'd simply exist in the afterlife and would see my loved ones soon enough in the afterlife.
Fair enough. Like I said, I rarely wade into this debate- no good comes of it and regardless of logic, opinion, etc- woman will continue to extinguish future life as a form of "whoops, I don't want a kid birth control"...
Those words were you admitting that you had lost.
Cheers.
It's actually become funny now. But hey...CHEERS. Believe whatever makes you happy, including your beliefs that you know what I'm thinking.
Fair enough. Like I said, I rarely wade into this debate- no good comes of it and regardless of logic, opinion, etc- woman will continue to extinguish future life as a form of "whoops, I don't want a kid birth control"...
I think we have seen that is the wisest thing.
I rarely get into this debate, as it is such a cluster-fvck. No one is changing their mind on either side and everyone feels as if they are 100% right
I think that about covers it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.