Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

[Harambe]

Hey, I just use science to help me with that one. I know, right? Science.

Science is cool. I work with that. Does science have a definition of human being?

 

[Archie Moses]

Someone that doesn't breath oxygen, or ingest food on their own clearly can't be human.

You ask who am I to decide on who humans are, yet you clearly try and define it. BTW, paralyzed people and many others with disabilities can't breathe or eat on their own. Are they humans?

 

[gandalfe]

watching liberal scum defend planed parenthood's selling of human organs is familiar to those who know history. because thats how the nazi party rationalized Hitlers atrocities

Is this really Godwin's first appearance in this thread? It can't be, and yet, I can't seem to muster up the give-a-crap to go back and look.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Is this really Godwin's first appearance in this thread? It can't be, and yet, I can't seem to muster up the give-a-crap to go back and look.

it took a while since the founder is a nazi. i thought everyone knew that

 

[Archie Moses]

So how do all of you anti "murder" folks feel about in vitro fertilization? What about all those embryos that get frozen and eventually disposed of?

Are you consistent in your morals? Or is it only murder in one case but not the other?

I stick by what I said (although I did rescind my murder claim. It's the same thing as killing, but since it's legal, it's technically not "murder.") Life begins at conception (I mean, according to science), therefore, if life is disposed of afterwards, it's still falls into the category of killing. Not everyone (3%) have extra embryos made who go the route of IVF though. Again, like I've said before in this thread, I get how people make these decisions and I can be completely objective and understanding. What I don't get though is when people cant admit to what it is and why others are disgusted by killing innocent life. Just own up to it. Disposing of embryos isn't disposing of waste or garbage. It's disposing of life.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I stick by what I said (although I did rescind my murder claim. It's the same thing as killing, but since it's legal, it's technically not "murder.") Life begins at conception (I mean, according to science), therefore, if life is disposed of afterwards, it's still falls into the category of killing. Not everyone (3%) have extra embryos made who go the route of IVF though. Again, like I've said before in this thread, I get how people make these decisions and I can be completely objective and understanding. What I don't get though is when people cant admit to what it is and why others are disgusted by killing innocent life. Just own up to it. Disposing of embryos isn't disposing of waste or garbage. It's disposing of life.

actually murder and killing where a religous term first(abrahmic religions) before the where a legal term.
murder: unjustified taking of a live
killing: taking of a live.

so you can stick by what you said

 

[gandalfe]

I stick by what I said (although I did rescind my murder claim. It's the same thing as killing, but since it's legal, it's technically not "murder.") Life begins at conception (I mean, according to science), therefore, if life is disposed of afterwards, it's still falls into the category of killing. Not everyone (3%) have extra embryos made who go the route of IVF though. Again, like I've said before in this thread, I get how people make these decisions and I can be completely objective and understanding. What I don't get though is when people cant admit to what it is and why others are disgusted by killing innocent life. Just own up to it. Disposing of embryos isn't disposing of waste or garbage. It's disposing of life.

So, what do you call it when a woman has a miscarriage?

 

[gandalfe]

it took a while since the founder is a nazi. i thought everyone knew that

Citation needed.

Margaret Sanger may have been a racist, and was certainly in favor of eugenics. (And also opposed to abortion.) And, by all accounts, a thoroughly unpleasant woman. But not actually a member of the Nazi party.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Citation needed.

Margaret Sanger may have been a racist, and was certainly in favor of eugenics. (And also opposed to abortion.) And, by all accounts, a thoroughly unpleasant woman. But not actually a member of the Nazi party.

ooh if that's the requerment of being a nazi. then no she is not.
but if a believe system makes u nazi then yes she is. cus she believes in the things those guys believed in.


btw some nazi party members where not all about eugenics etc etc. so they are nazi without being nazi.



but fact remainds margatret sanger is a vile nazi-like humanbeing

 

[gandalfe]

Blah blah blah.

Unlike you, I believe that words have meanings, and you can't just reconstruct them to be whatever you want. So, no, you can't just call someone a nazi because you don't like them. Or a fascist. Or a communist.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Unlike you, I believe that words have meanings, and you can't just reconstruct them to be whatever you want. So, no, you can't just call someone a nazi because you don't like them. Or a fascist. Or a communist.

funny comming from a liberal
since they redefine words all over the place.

 

[Archie Moses]

So, what do you call it when a woman has a miscarriage?

A miscarriage?!?!

 

[RandyForRubio]

So, what do you call it when a woman has a miscarriage?

A tragic loss of life.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I am not arguing with that logic. I agree that hurting someone is not a reason for moral decisions.

Why not? I think Siro's argument is not that hurting someone cannot be a reason for moral decisions, but that it is not the predominant reason, and invoking this as THE standard cannot cover any number of possible immoral acts.

Clearly, harm is a criterion, but it's importance as a criterion in not universal.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1) Watch the video. Watch the lady discuss this while she's eating a salad like it's no big deal. It is sickening.

2) These organs aren't going to kids. They're going to companies like Pepsi for research.

3) travel costs or whatever, they're getting reimbursed for what they're giving. That makes it a commodity.

4) I do not understand how we have people here that will rally for somebody like Caitlyn Jenner, but won't say a damn thing about these babies. At least be consistent.

I think you'd be equally disgusted listening to Dr.'s talk in detached clinical way about organ harvests of dead people, even dead children killed tragically. Or medics talking in detached clinical way about combat fatalities.

Are you similarly disgusted watching NCIS and listening to Ducky talk in a detached clinical way about and to the corpses on his examiner's table?

I don't see this at all as a matter for outrage or disgust. It is how professionals in medical science and other fields who deal with death and such things on a daily basis talk.

I don't see, either, how moral consistency requires someone who supports LGBT rights to also be anti-abortion, even anti-late term abortion. They are two entirely different issues with entirely different moral issues at stake.

With the said, and speaking solely of late term abortions, I oppose them, they disgust me, and I would consider laws that made them difficult to get outside of absolute medical necessity for health of mother (or some other extreme circumstance).

I also do not like abortions; the fewer the better. With that said, however, I do not believe fetuses (or more extremely blastocytes) have rights, and I am very, very uncomfortable with the state interjecting itself into what is one of the most private and personal decisions women must make about their own bodies, nor more generally interfering with a woman's reproductive choices.

Talking about moral irony, one might also wonder why those who proclaim so loudly about getting the government out of their lives are so enthusiastic about government imposition on the control of one's body on such personal and intimate matters. I mean, what could possibly be a more personal and intimate area of one's individuality that government could violate other than control or ownership of one's own body?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Many cases where it's for rape? I believe it's less than 1% of all cases.

Interesting factoid, I think it's something like 80% of PP are in minority neighborhoods. This last year in NYC, there were more black babies aborted than were born. Now this isn't about black, white, asian or anything...it's just...that is so sad to me.

I'm guessing that the large % of PP in minority neighborhoods reflects the general lack of access of minority women to reproductive health care. I'm a bit skeptical about the statistic of more black babies aborted than born. It could be true, but it rings more like propaganda than fact to me.

I'm guessing that there's a reasonably strong correlation between income/wealth and abortions. I can think of a number of hypotheses why this would be the case.

I believe, however, that the trends line for # of abortions is falling.

I'm just curious, IF you were made King of the world with absolute power, would you force women with unwanted pregnancies to carry to term and deliver?

What about if the woman was a very poor single mom with 4 children already? What about if a prenatal screen found serious defects in the unborn child, such as a defect that would make it's life miserable and short but would impose significant medical care costs on the parents? What about if the parent was a poor, single mother?

I understand you oppose abortion, but I'm just trying to understand how dogmatic you are about it, or if you allow that there are circumstances where you (as absolute powerful King) would allow it, or if your proscription against it would be universal.

I would pose the same question to others who are staunch anti-choice advocates.

(You may have already answered this in another post, if so, forgive me.)

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

All sting operations are "dishonest" in that the people doing the sting are generally undercover. Nobody shows up, hey, I'm a reporter, I need you to be completely candid with me!

And no, as I mentioned, why are there different "transport costs" for different organs? Sounds a lot like pricing no? Woman NEVER mentions the term "transport costs." Also doesn't cover changing the procedure to harvest more organs, which is illegal. You WANT to be deceived on this, which is OK I guess.

I have no problem with such sting operations. They can, however, easily be taken out of context depending on how they are presented.

Apparently, however, the right is conflicted on this issue. The right (or elements on it) are agitating (or have even proposed or passed) laws prohibiting activists from doing sting organizations in meat production facilities. So apparently it's not the sting part their opposed to, it's who gets stung.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Upstanding organization with a great history?

I'm assuming you don't know a lot about its founder.

I'm assuming you know a lot about the characters of some of our Founding Fathers? Jefferson, for example, owned, sold and had whipped human beings. Doesn't make what he helped create any less worthwhile.

Or, to put things closer to home,

I can think of a founder of a prominent local organization that was a serial adulterer, who sent men on missions and took their wives as his own, and who manipulated women under his power into bed. I guess that means that the organization he created can't be any good either. Right?

 

[DutchJazzer]

What about if a prenatal screen found serious defects in the unborn child, such as a defect that would make it's life miserable and short but would impose significant medical care costs on the parents? What about if the parent was a poor, single mother?

we could be missing out on the next stephen hawking! he would have been aborted?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm assuming you know a lot about the characters of some of our Founding Fathers? Jefferson, for example, owned, sold and had whipped human beings. Doesn't make what he helped create any less worthwhile.

Or, to put things closer to home,

I can think of a founder of a prominent local organization that was a serial adulterer, who sent men on missions and took their wives as his own, and who manipulated women under his power into bed. I guess that means that the organization he created can't be any good either. Right?

You must not have read my posts on Joseph Smith