Planned Parenthood lobbies for post abortion rights [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Planned Parenthood lobbies for post abortion rights


Gonetodarkside
04-30-2013, 17:09
LiveLeak.com - Planned Parenthood Lobbies For Post Birth Abortion Rights

the decay of society.

norton
04-30-2013, 20:02
Yes, but our dear leader gave them a "God Bless You".

janice6
04-30-2013, 20:06
Why is it that the post birth abortions are wanted by the very persons that should have been included at their birth.

IceAxe
04-30-2013, 20:10
"post-birth" ? OK .... I've got a whole list of candidates in DC for whom I'd like to invoke this policy.

typeiiivw
04-30-2013, 20:12
Pure evil, my fear is people of the future will look back on us like I look back on Germans of the early 1940's. "Why didn't you do something for those poor babies". I am not participating in the atrocity, but am I complacent?

JAS104
04-30-2013, 20:33
Honestly guys this is too messed up for me to get into.

IMO...late term abortions are murder. Nothing else to say about it.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Lnguyen9
04-30-2013, 20:58
All abortions are murdered. The **** up thing is it calls itself planned parenthood. There is nothing parenthood about killing innocent defenceless babies.

JAS104
04-30-2013, 22:04
All abortions are murdered. The **** up thing is it calls itself planned parenthood. There is nothing parenthood about killing innocent defenceless babies.

I don't have kids yet... But to think a doctor could believe my future child could die because of anyone's say so makes me furious. I understand this is a sensitive topic, but my fiancÚ would keep the kid God forbid she got pregnant... And I'd accept it as a consequence of my actions and raise my kid the best I could. Late term abortions are nothing but murder.
Sure someone will attack me for this, but it's how I feel.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

NeverMore1701
04-30-2013, 22:20
There's not a single day that passes without me wanting to post-birth abort some moron or another.

Harper
04-30-2013, 22:41
I don't understand what situation they were discussing. If the child has some reasonable probability of survival then aren't they talking about late term abortions? If that's the case isn't the question really about whether late term abortions should be legal? It seems like an arbitrary distinction between terminating the fetus in the womb or a couple minutes later on the table.

FloridaGun
04-30-2013, 22:53
If, abortion ever becomes totally outlawed. Future generations will look back with total disgust, similar to the 1940s.

FloridaGun
04-30-2013, 22:58
It seems like an arbitrary distinction between terminating the fetus in the womb or a couple minutes later on the table.


No, this is pivotal. This is about the principle of if a human is lawfully able to be "aborted"/"murdered" outside the womb. It is irrelevant if is minutes, hours or even years after leaving the womb.

BlackPaladin
05-01-2013, 01:34
Hehe, a BUNCH of dirtbag GTers some time ago,

(and I am not one bit saying it is the ones posting in this thread so far, aka, you guys are probably ok)

were ALL about pro choice and making decisions when THEY wanted to. So, a bunch of GTers on the other side of the fence said, wrong choice, your stepping on a slippery slope. Guess what dirtbags, if this garbage is true, then we are already on the slip and slide.

This is the decadence that IS society, what the hell are you supposed to do though, people don't like to hear "no".

Dennis in MA
05-01-2013, 09:35
Looks like either. . .

They SPECIFICALLY put her up there b/c she didn't know enough to properly answer the questions.

OR

She's up for an Academy Award next winter.


How can you not understand the question - "what do you do with a living baby that you f'd up the abortion on??? It's now alive AND outside of the mother." She played dumb way too well.

I'm really surprised the doc that performed SERIOUSLY late abortions and would regularly kill kids outside the womb story hasn't hit the mainstream. REALLY surprised.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/jury-begins-deliberations-in-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnells-murder-trial/2013/04/30/69d18b38-b1d9-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

Scary - it's getting to look more common:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/01/media-skips-coverage-of-videos-showing-abortion-staffers-oking-infanticide/

Harper
05-01-2013, 10:07
No, this is pivotal. This is about the principle of if a human is lawfully able to be "aborted"/"murdered" outside the womb.

What is "this" you are referring to? Are we talking about the passage of some law or supreme court case? Again, what is the context of the discussion in the video?

Bushflyr
05-01-2013, 10:58
Again, what is the context of the discussion in the video?

The context of the "discussion" in the video is a couple of idiotic anti-choicers attempting to use a hypothetical situation to drag an inflammatory sound bite out of a lawyer and only succeeding in making themselves look foolish. :upeyes:

Deployment Solu
05-01-2013, 11:01
There's not a single day that passes without me wanting to post-birth abort some moron or another.


I truly understand. There are always some people whom you'd like to make their Birth Certificate a worthless document!!!LOL!!!

Dennis in MA
05-01-2013, 11:08
The context of the "discussion" in the video is a couple of idiotic anti-choicers attempting to use a hypothetical situation to drag an inflammatory sound bite out of a lawyer and only succeeding in making themselves look foolish. :upeyes:

Look at my links - it isn't hypothetical. They want you to BELIEVE it is.

OctoberRust
05-01-2013, 11:12
The context of the "discussion" in the video is a couple of idiotic anti-choicers attempting to use a hypothetical situation to drag an inflammatory sound bite out of a lawyer and only succeeding in making themselves look foolish. :upeyes:


That's what it sounds like.

More abortion = less crime! Just like more guns = less crime. :supergrin:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

norton
05-01-2013, 19:52
Pure evil, my fear is people of the future will look back on us like I look back on Germans of the early 1940's. "Why didn't you do something for those poor babies". I am not participating in the atrocity, but am I complacent?

Even pro choice supporters know deep down the sacrifice of the future generation for the sake of convenience is wrong.

Cali-Glock
05-01-2013, 20:40
Planned Parenthood = mass murderers.

MotoGlock
05-01-2013, 20:50
Honestly guys this is too messed up for me to get into.

IMO...late term abortions are murder. Nothing else to say about it.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)


Not even late term.

I remember two cases I watched on TV (I think ID chanel)
where the male in the relationship slipped on of those abortion pills to his girlfriend during the early stages and was convicter of MURDER!
The other case the male was a doctor I believe and he was injecting is GF with some substance to induse and abortion becasue he did not want it and again was convicted of murder. I'm too lazy to look up the cases, sorry.

But the point is these same people fight for the right of the woman to do the same thing.
Pathetic!

tsmo1066
05-01-2013, 21:06
Not even late term.

I remember two cases I watched on TV (I think ID chanel)
where the male in the relationship slipped on of those abortion pills to his girlfriend during the early stages and was convicter of MURDER!
The other case the male was a doctor I believe and he was injecting is GF with some substance to induse and abortion becasue he did not want it and again was convicted of murder. I'm too lazy to look up the cases, sorry.

But the point is these same people fight for the right of the woman to do the same thing.
Pathetic!

There are also cases where men murder their pregnant wives or girlfriends and get charged with a double homicide as a result. From a strictly legal perspective, the double-standard seems pretty glaring in treating the termination of an unborn early-term baby as murder in one case, but a simple 'choice' in another.

FloridaGun
05-01-2013, 23:00
but a simple 'choice' in another.


I agree with you that the legal double standard needs to be fixed.

When it comes to the matter of the term "choice", Hitler "chose" to murder hundreds of people. Just because he "chose" to mass murder, that doesn't make his killings "OK". Same thing with abortion, just because a woman "chose" to slaughter her unborn child, doesn't make it right.

If I "chose" to shoot a 4 year old in the head, does the fact that I "chose" to do so make it allright? Hell No!

Liberals are good at framing the argument in their favor with labels to win over the low information voters, such as acusing the opposition of being "anti-choice" and "against women's rights".

Ronny
05-01-2013, 23:07
I don't have a problem with it provided it's to prevent serious defects. Too many women don't get the proper prenatal screenings that would alert them to end the pregnancy promptly. And besides that every so often a birthing error messes up the baby so bad that it might as well be a defect. It is better to start over and try for a healthy specimen.

Harper
05-01-2013, 23:15
The context of the "discussion" in the video is a couple of idiotic anti-choicers attempting to use a hypothetical situation to drag an inflammatory sound bite out of a lawyer and only succeeding in making themselves look foolish. :upeyes:

Yeah, if performing a late term abortion is wrong then what is a botched late term abortion then performing one outside the womb? Attempted murder plus murder? Is it less criminal if you succeed on the first attempt? Doesn't make sense.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 08:02
I agree with you that the legal double standard needs to be fixed.

When it comes to the matter of the term "choice", Hitler "chose" to murder hundreds of people. Just because he "chose" to mass murder, that doesn't make his killings "OK". Same thing with abortion, just because a woman "chose" to slaughter her unborn child, doesn't make it right.

If I "chose" to shoot a 4 year old in the head, does the fact that I "chose" to do so make it allright? Hell No!

Liberals are good at framing the argument in their favor with labels to win over the low information voters, such as acusing the opposition of being "anti-choice" and "against women's rights".

Just like liberals are good at framing an argument, you're good at comparing apples to asteroids.


If a fetus can live on its own, then great let it live. If it can't, and the host doesn't want it living off them, there you go; the host has that choice.

Moral issues aside, since morality is subjective and generally constructed by your environment and what you were or were not exposed to more abortion = less crime. Generally screw ups get abortions. That's less future children on welfare, less future children robbing me, and less future children murdering and raping at a higher rate than those raised in suitable homes.

Dennis in MA
05-02-2013, 08:16
Just like liberals are good at framing an argument, you're good at comparing apples to asteroids.


If a fetus can live on its own, then great let it live. If it can't, and the host doesn't want it living off them, there you go; the host has that choice.

Moral issues aside, since morality is subjective and generally constructed by your environment and what you were or were not exposed to more abortion = less crime. Generally screw ups get abortions. That's less future children on welfare, less future children robbing me, and less future children murdering and raping at a higher rate than those raised in suitable homes.

By your logic, severe Alzheimer's patients and those on life support should have the plug pulled. They can't make it on their own and someone doesn't want to care for them. I mean, ultimately it will mean cheaper health insurance for us, so we've got that going for us, right?

Be very very careful what slope you are willing to slide down on this one. I'm not saying you are a doody-head or that you are totally wrong or that I'm not going to type to you anymore. Just be VERY careful.

(I've learned abortion threads end poorly at GT. It always ends with "I'm enlightened, you're moron." "No I'M enlightened and YOU'RE the moron!" LOL)

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 08:19
By your logic, severe Alzheimer's patients and those on life support should have the plug pulled. They can't make it on their own and someone doesn't want to care for them. I mean, ultimately it will mean cheaper health insurance for us, so we've got that going for us, right?

Be very very careful what slope you are willing to slide down on this one. I'm not saying you are a doody-head or that you are totally wrong or that I'm not going to type to you anymore. Just be VERY careful.

(I've learned abortion threads end poorly at GT. It always ends with "I'm enlightened, you're moron." "No I'M enlightened and YOU'RE the moron!" LOL)


By my logic, let the patient's family decide if they should be taken off life support. Just like letting the host of the fetus decide if the fetus should be taken off life support. As long as the gov't isn't funding it...

Dennis in MA
05-02-2013, 08:22
What if the person made their wishes clear beforehand? OR FORGOT to make them clear.

It's a scary slippery slope. When we start trading life for $, we are treading on thin ice. There are plenty of debates to have without bringing $ into it.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 08:27
What if the person made their wishes clear beforehand? OR FORGOT to make them clear.

It's a scary slippery slope. When we start trading life for $, we are treading on thin ice. There are plenty of debates to have without bringing $ into it.


If wishes are in a legally binding document before hand, then it's left up to the law and terms of that contract they wrote up.

A fetus on the other hand, does not write up terms and contracts.

Let's jump back to the Alzheimer's theory though. Say an elderly man has that an is on life support. He didn't write up a will, and to keep him on life support cost $$ the family simply does not have. Where do you propose they/we get this money from? If they can't acquire donations from private entities, are they entitled to gov't money for this? Are they entitled to the gov't forcing the hospital into keeping this patient alive; and passing the cost onto other consumers?

At the end of the day, both sides are a slippery slope, like I just pointed out on the "keeping it alive" part of your analogy to the elderly.

frank4570
05-02-2013, 08:35
Even pro choice supporters know deep down the sacrifice of the future generation for the sake of convenience is wrong.

I'm not convinced more occupants for the "projects" and trailer parks are going to improve our society or culture.

SC Tiger
05-02-2013, 08:44
LiveLeak.com - Planned Parenthood Lobbies For Post Birth Abortion Rights (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f8_1367355592)

the decay of society.

Dear Lord. These people are absolutely, bat-#### crazy.

I'm no abortion rights supporter (tend to lean pro-life) but my God these people have lost their minds. How on Earth can you justify this?

ETA - Ok, I admit, I posted before watching the video. Having seen the video all I can say is ...

Dear Lord. These people are absolutely, bat-#### ####ing crazy.

I'm no abortion rights supporter (tend to lean pro-life) but my God these people have lost their minds. How on Earth can you justify this?

There has even been an argument (not in this clip) that parents should be able to abort a child up to TWO YEARS OLD!!!!!! Anyone who could actually do that deserves two shots to the ####ing head!!!!!

Sorry for the language, even though I self-censored.

SC Tiger
05-02-2013, 08:50
I don't have a problem with it provided it's to prevent serious defects. Too many women don't get the proper prenatal screenings that would alert them to end the pregnancy promptly. And besides that every so often a birthing error messes up the baby so bad that it might as well be a defect. It is better to start over and try for a healthy specimen.

I smell troll post but still....

Leaving my loathing for abortion out of it, that is a terrifying prospect. Sounds like selective breeding.

Who decides what is a defect? Is there a checklist to abort or not? Who plays God so to speak? I can't think of a single human being who is even close to qualified.

frank4570
05-02-2013, 08:55
Dear Lord. These people are absolutely, bat-#### crazy.

I'm no abortion rights supporter (tend to lean pro-life) but my God these people have lost their minds. How on Earth can you justify this?

She said they are concerned because the bill would cause restrictions which might be impossible to meet, urban clinics being far from hospitals etc etc etc. I'm not at all insisting that what she said was remotely honest, just sayin'.
She clearly refused to answer the question they repeatedly asked her.
Personally, I think if the abortion is being performed on a fetus that is able to "struggle for life", there shouldn't be an abortion. But as usual, both sides have dug in their heels on both sides of their extremes.

Booker
05-02-2013, 09:00
In a court room in the soon to be future:

Judge:
Mr Smith, you have been charged with Murder.

Mr Smith:
It wasn't Murder, your Honor, it was a Post-Birth Abotion.

Judge:
What's the difference?

Mr Smith:
I wore a white coat!

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 09:01
If a fetus can live on its own, then great let it live. If it can't, and the host doesn't want it living off them, there you go; the host has that choice.



The problem with this logic is that no child under the age of two or three is physically capable of "living on its own". Without constant adult feeding, intervention and care, no young baby can survive on its own either inside or outside the womb. They will all die within a few hours (newborn) or a few days (toddler) at best.

So is killing toddlers now a morally acceptible "choice" since they, too cannot survive outside of the womb for any realistic period of time?

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 09:03
The problem with this logic is that no child under the age of two or three is physically capable of "living on its own". Without constant adult feeding, intervention and care, no young baby can survive on its own either inside or outside the womb. They will all die within a few hours (newborn) or a few days (toddler) at best.

So is killing toddlers now a morally acceptible "choice" since they, too cannot survive outside of the womb for any realistic period of time?


A toddler does not need a body to survive directly off of. Your analogy is another apples to asteroids.

.....If you have a toddler and don't want him/her, you put him/her up for adoption. Try pulling a fetus out of the mother, then giving it to a family that actually wants it to take care of it. It won't survive, sorry....

series1811
05-02-2013, 09:15
Pure evil, my fear is people of the future will look back on us like I look back on Germans of the early 1940's. "Why didn't you do something for those poor babies". I am not participating in the atrocity, but am I complacent?

It sure makes it a lot easier to understand how so many Germans were okay with looking the other way, doesn't it?

I too, think historians will look at this period a couple of hundred years from now, and be horrified that we were so close to being civilized, and yet still did it.

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 09:27
A toddler does not need a body to survive directly off of. Your analogy is another apples to asteroids.



That is incorrect. Without an adult body to feed it, clothe it, shelter it and protect it, a human toddler will die within hours...days at the very most.

Newborns and early toddlers are every bit as incapable of surviving outside of the womb as a late-term, 8th or 9th month fetus.

Hauptmann6
05-02-2013, 09:30
Even pro choice supporters know deep down the sacrifice of the future generation for the sake of convenience is wrong.

Right, because overpopulation and forcing people to raise kids they don't want = a good thing.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 09:31
That is incorrect. Without an adult body to feed it, clothe it, shelter it and protect it, a human toddler will die within hours...days at the very most.

Newborns and early toddlers are every bit as incapable of surviving outside of the womb as a late-term, 8th or 9th month fetus.


Your analogy is flawed.

Take a toddler away from a mother who doesn't want the toddler anymore, and give it to another family that does. The toddler will live, given the family takes care of it.

Take a fetus from a mother's womb w ho doesn't want it anymore, and give it to a family. See if that fetus lives when they try to take care of it.

.....You're not really that obtuse, are you? :dunno:

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 09:33
.....If you have a toddler and don't want him/her, you put him/her up for adoption. Try pulling a fetus out of the mother, then giving it to a family that actually wants it to take care of it. It won't survive, sorry....

Whether it is you, or an adopted family, your statement above acknowledges that a toddler does indeed need direct involvement from a third party to survive and is not viable outside of the womb without it.

A fetus can be taken from its mother early and kept alive through adult intervention as well. Premature babies have been delivered early or taken via c-section for thousands of years and many survive...but again, that's with adult intervention.

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 09:38
Your analogy is flawed.

Take a toddler away from a mother who doesn't want the toddler anymore, and give it to another family that does. The toddler will live, given the family takes care of it.

Take a fetus from a mother's womb w ho doesn't want it anymore, and give it to a family. See if that fetus lives when they try to take care of it.

.....You're not really that obtuse, are you? :dunno:

You need to study up on the topic. C-sections and premature baby deliveries are not a 21st century invention. they have been around since AT LEAST the days of the Pharoahs and many of these babies survived.

Yes, you can most certainly take a child out of the womb before the due date and have it survive - with adult intervention, of course.

Without adult intervention, however, all children under the age of 3 would die, 100% of the time. Why? Because neither fetus's, newborns or toddlers are viable outside of the womb without constant adult support and intervention.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 09:39
Whether it is you, or an adopted family, your statement above acknowledges that a toddler does indeed need direct involvement from a third party to survive and is not viable outside of the womb without it.

A fetus can be taken from its mother early and kept alive through adult intervention as well. Premature babies have been delivered early or taken via c-section for thousands of years and many survive...but again, that's with adult intervention.


You're beating around the bush badly.

Can an aborted fetus survive by simply having a mother and father feed it, clothe it, etc? If you answered no to this, the rest of what you're saying is a flawed analogy and a straw man argument at best.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 09:40
You need to study up on the topic. C-sections and premature baby deliveries are not a 21st century invention. they have been around since AT LEAST the days of the Pharoahs and many of these babies survived.

Yes, you can most certainly take a child out of the womb before the due date and have it survive - with adult intervention, of course.

Without adult intervention, however, all children under the age of 3 would die, 100% of the time. Why? Because neither fetus's, newborns or toddlers are viable outside of the womb without constant adult support and intervention.

You need to learn how to read. We're talking about aborted fetuses. Not premature birth. Refer to my previous post.

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 09:59
You need to learn how to read. We're talking about aborted fetuses. Not premature birth. Refer to my previous post.

You're dodging. We're talking about viability outside of the womb, and the fact remains that newborns and toddlers are no more 'viable' outside of the womb than is a late-term fetus.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 11:21
You're dodging. We're talking about viability outside of the womb, and the fact remains that newborns and toddlers are no more 'viable' outside of the womb than is a late-term fetus.


I'm not dodging. You're comparing apples to asteroids, and I'm not falling for the trap a 5th grader could even see coming.


It's the same trick question you're using that liberals use about universal background checks, and turn it into something it's not.

I think I got off enough information through the previous posts where I covered what I need to cover for those sitting on the fence over this issue. You can continue on, but it's moot until you can differentiate between an abortion and a premature birth.

Harper
05-02-2013, 12:46
The problem with this logic is that no child under the age of two or three is physically capable of "living on its own". Without constant adult feeding, intervention and care, no young baby can survive on its own either inside or outside the womb...

The issue isn't if a child is totally independent, the issue is whether or not the the fetus should be legally considered an individual person. An individual is a "single human being, as distinguished from a group... a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item." Fetuses (except late term) are not indivisible entities. They literally cannot be divided from the woman, which by definition is a prerequisite to be considered an individual. The point of being divisible from the mother is where the fetus becomes an individual and therefore has individual rights.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 13:02
The issue isn't if a child is totally independent, the issue is whether or not the the fetus should be legally considered an individual person. An individual is a "single human being, as distinguished from a group... a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item." Fetuses (except late term) are not indivisible entities. They literally cannot be divided from the woman, which by definition is a prerequisite to be considered an individual. The point of being divisible from the mother is where the fetus becomes an individual and therefore has individual rights.


.....but...but... The toddlers, n stuff. :dunno:

SC Tiger
05-02-2013, 14:10
By my logic, let the patient's family decide if they should be taken off life support. Just like letting the host of the fetus decide if the fetus should be taken off life support. As long as the gov't isn't funding it...

Flaw in your argument as I see it...

One is a natural process. It is natural for a child to be concieved, develop and then be born.

There is nothing natural about being kept alive by a ventelator, heart bypass machine, or whatever else they use.

To me the question comes down to this - when is the child alive? This does not necessarily mean "able to survive away from the mother" as I see it. I prefer to err on the side of life - if I don't know for sure if the child is considered "alive" I assume he or she is.

Also, if you stroll around a NICU (which will get you arrested if you try without family in there, but anyway) you will be shocked at how early a child can be born and survive. It's with artificial help, but still...

SC Tiger
05-02-2013, 14:15
I don't have a problem with it provided it's to prevent serious defects. Too many women don't get the proper prenatal screenings that would alert them to end the pregnancy promptly. And besides that every so often a birthing error messes up the baby so bad that it might as well be a defect. It is better to start over and try for a healthy specimen.

Leaving my abhorance for abortion out of it, that is one scary post. It turns the creation of life into a science experiment.

Ask yourself this - if we start selecting which child will be allowed to be born and which isn't, how long before others start having the right to make that decision, for "the good of the race (humans)"?

At what point will a doctor say "Mr. and Mrs. Doe, we have determined that your child will have insert-genetic-defect-here and we are required to abort the pregnancy."

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 14:24
Flaw in your argument as I see it...

One is a natural process. It is natural for a child to be concieved, develop and then be born.

There is nothing natural about being kept alive by a ventelator, heart bypass machine, or whatever else they use.

To me the question comes down to this - when is the child alive? This does not necessarily mean "able to survive away from the mother" as I see it. I prefer to err on the side of life - if I don't know for sure if the child is considered "alive" I assume he or she is.

Also, if you stroll around a NICU (which will get you arrested if you try without family in there, but anyway) you will be shocked at how early a child can be born and survive. It's with artificial help, but still...

No one said anything about "natural". There's plenty of unnatural things we do as humans, so are you against all of those unnatural things we do, because you can't have it both ways.

Great! If they can be kept alive after the fetus is cut away from the mom who doesn't want it, then put it on that artificial help. Something tells me that's not fiscally viable, though.

Really, if you want to get technical, life starts in the nut sack. If you're doing anything sexual that does not result in reproduction, it's unnatural. Let's go all the way! Sex that has nothing to do with reproduction and is just leisure, is immoral and unnatural.

OctoberRust
05-02-2013, 14:25
Ask yourself this - if we start selecting which child will be allowed to be born and which isn't, how long before others start having the right to make that decision, for "the good of the race (humans)"?


There's a big difference between leaving a choice to the individual, and giving the gov't the authority to make such choices for us.

tsmo1066
05-02-2013, 15:14
The issue isn't if a child is totally independent, the issue is whether or not the the fetus should be legally considered an individual person. An individual is a "single human being, as distinguished from a group... a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item." Fetuses (except late term) are not indivisible entities. They literally cannot be divided from the woman, which by definition is a prerequisite to be considered an individual. The point of being divisible from the mother is where the fetus becomes an individual and therefore has individual rights.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. It is the pro choice side of the argument that routinely holds forth the "viability outside of the womb" standard as being one of the determining factors in deciding whether a fetus is "OK" to abort or not. I'm simply pointing out that it is a flawed argument.

norton
05-02-2013, 17:07
Right, because overpopulation and forcing people to raise kids they don't want = a good thing.

Over population in American society is a myth. If anything, we are underpopulated. No wonder our govt turns a blind eye -not matter who is in charge-to illegal immigration.

How many of us would not be here today if our ancestors had the "choice".

Harper
05-02-2013, 18:43
To me the question comes down to this - when is the child alive?

I don't think that can be it. Life isn't enough to classify killing as murder. It must be an individual person. Killing a squirrel isn't murder. Attacking someone and cutting off their hand or some other body(it's living tissue) part isn't murder. Like OctoberRust said, sperm are alive.

Ronny
05-02-2013, 23:05
I smell troll post but still....

Leaving my loathing for abortion out of it, that is a terrifying prospect. Sounds like selective breeding.

Who decides what is a defect? Is there a checklist to abort or not? Who plays God so to speak? I can't think of a single human being who is even close to qualified.

I think even you and I could come up with a list we'd agree on. I'm not thinking a cojoined toe would qualify but certainly the big defects as well as a couple artificial ones such as fetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal crack addiction. When I volunteered for phi betta kapps service hours at a group home for severely disabled children I changed my opinion the subject of late term abortion. A 9 year old girl I spend some time with coloring and singing to in a strapped in wheel chair, literally barely even aware that I was there, with no motor or bowel control. I find real life more disturbing that post birth "abortion". 99% of people are never exposed to how messed up permanently institutionalized babies are. Most people only encounter say a down syndrome guy at the local supermarket, smiling and enjoying life. Truth is when it comes to birth defects or retardation those are only the lucky ones we might ever encounter on a day to day basis.

Ronny
05-02-2013, 23:13
Leaving my abhorance for abortion out of it, that is one scary post. It turns the creation of life into a science experiment.

Ask yourself this - if we start selecting which child will be allowed to be born and which isn't, how long before others start having the right to make that decision, for "the good of the race (humans)"?

At what point will a doctor say "Mr. and Mrs. Doe, we have determined that your child will have insert-genetic-defect-here and we are required to abort the pregnancy."

I don't know. I have spent time with people who had IQs under 15-20 , who had no arms, that could barely lift their own heads, and who can never do anything but watch cartoons from their wheelchairs between diaper changings. Any one of those defects is serious but when they're all in the same person... I don't see any reason it needs to be a slippery slope. Regarding your statement about it turning life into a science experiment, well, I freely admit that's probably a defensive mechanism. If you ever spend time with these wretched souls you'll either force a certain scientific detachment on yourself, or cry regularly. The lives of these people is more horrible than any kind of abortion, pre or post birthing.

JW1178
05-02-2013, 23:31
The thing about being a liar is that it takes good memory. Under stress this can be much harder. I'm sure she was well qualified and trained but under stress she slipped and shown her true colors, and the true colors of PP. Especially when you see nothing wrong with what you are doing.

One of the late term abortionist is on trial, Kermit Gosnell, and could recieve the death penalty for murdering eight babies. Media blackout on that one. I hope the execute him. If they don't want to execute, I would be fine with them just skipping the execution and going straight to burrial or cremation.

Harper
05-02-2013, 23:51
Ask yourself this - if we start selecting which child will be allowed to be born and which isn't, how long before others start having the right to make that decision, for "the good of the race (humans)"?


This reminds of how Giant Pandas in the wild will often abandon one cub in the event it has twins because it can't care for two. There are a few species that do this. Pretty interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/science/09mama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

JW1178
05-02-2013, 23:58
This reminds of how Giant Pandas in the wild will often abandon one cub in the event it has twins because it can't care for two. There are a few species that do this. Pretty interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/science/09mama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Humans are one. I was watching a documentry about some tribes in the Amazon and how when times get tough they will bury alive children. Really sick crap. Saw an actual video of it and it was a bit unreal to watch. One boy ran and dug his sister out and took off running with her.

series1811
05-04-2013, 06:49
There's a big difference between leaving a choice to the individual, and giving the gov't the authority to make such choices for us.

Not to the child. Dead is dead, no matter by whose hand.

rockapede
05-04-2013, 08:55
Right, because overpopulation and forcing people to raise kids they don't want = a good thing.

I could, most likely, better my local society by shooting every meth addict I arrest. In some measurable ways it would be "a good thing." Would that make it right?

It may well be "better" for society in some ways to allow and encourage all forms of abortion. Does that make it right?

JimBean
05-04-2013, 10:44
There has even been an argument (not in this clip) that parents should be able to abort a child up to TWO YEARS OLD!!!!!! Anyone who could actually do that deserves two shots to the ####ing head!!!!!


Where is Michael Moore's outcry to release the pictures?

okie
05-04-2013, 11:57
If people wore condoms whilst having sex there wouldn't be much need for abortions:whistling::supergrin:

ND40oz
05-04-2013, 16:19
You can continue on, but it's moot until you can differentiate between an abortion and a premature birth.

In these cases, there is no difference between an abortion and a premature birth. What the abortion provider is doing is artificially prematurely starting labor, waiting for dilation and then going in and aborting the fetus. If they don't get to the fetus in time to abort it, you have a birth, which is what this entire line of questioning is referring to. What does the clinic do when they caused the premature birth by not aborting the baby when it was still inside the womb?

Harper
05-04-2013, 17:21
In these cases, there is no difference between an abortion and a premature birth. What the abortion provider is doing is artificially prematurely starting labor, waiting for dilation and then going in and aborting the fetus. If they don't get to the fetus in time to abort it, you have a birth, which is what this entire line of questioning is referring to. What does the clinic do when they caused the premature birth by not aborting the baby when it was still inside the womb?

It's an illogical distinction that both sides are hung up on.

method
05-04-2013, 20:54
I'm not convinced more occupants for the "projects" and trailer parks are going to improve our society or culture.


Unfortunately, those are the types who typically don't get abortions.

The types that think the mere act of having kids is something admirable, which is reinforced by the automatic status that is bestowed upon them by society for popping out a kid.

The types that think being a grandparent at the age of 35 is normal and great, and think that piercing your baby girl's ears is classy. Typically poor, uneducated, don't-care-to-improve-their-lot-in-life trash.

The types that shouldn't have kids, period.