Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

[Deleted member 848]

Not sure why I engage with babe when the dude is 100% convinced I am a Marxist communist. LMAO. What a moron.

 

[TroutBum]

Not sure why I engage with babe when the dude is 100% convinced I am a Marxist communist. LMAO. What a moron.

He's not a moron, far from it actually. He does, however, have some insufferably moronic ways of seeing the world.

Overall, I give him 8 fins out of 10.

 

[babe]

Not sure why I engage with babe when the dude is 100% convinced I am a Marxist communist. LMAO. What a moron.

You can imagine yourself as you please. I stick with the facts.

modern "progressive" politics embraces a lot of what the communist ideologues of a hundred years ago preached. "Communist" and "Marxist", however, are words that are no longer in fashion, so you don't find very many people being proud of those labels.

communists of old were trained to be dishonest and to deny the facts, and fight back when anyone exposed some inconvenient fact and it appeared it would discredit the cause. The cause was more important than truth, and any assertion that could deflect opposition, or advance the cause, was necessary in order to achieve the inevitable, inexorable march of history.

People who make use of "history" as a cause, with the assertion that "history" is some wonderful marching force for human progress, get that from Marx, if not from some concurrent sort of source. It has achieved it's rhetorical usefulness mostly in the cause of socialism/Marxism ideology.

Of course you are not a "Marxist" or a "Communist", you are smarter and a new generation of thinker who has on your own account achieved the same perspective. Well, in some few observations I've thought to mention, and which always gets this kind of intense denial. I really don't think I have tried to assert that you carry a card as a member of the Communist Party, or that you actually have a copy of Das Kapital under your pillow or a wall-size print of Marx papering your bedroom wall. I real Das Kapital once, and I've had a few friends who were, actually, card-carrying communist ideologues. The ones I called "friend" bemoaned "State Capitalism" regimes like China and Russia and Cuba, and yearned for the pure ideal of a world without either corporate interests or fascist governments.

Perhaps you are unaware of the historical origins of some political streams of thought?

 

[Deleted member 848]

You can imagine yourself as you please. I stick with the facts.

modern "progressive" politics embraces a lot of what the communist ideologues of a hundred years ago preached. "Communist" and "Marxist", however, are words that are no longer in fashion, so you don't find very many people being proud of those labels.

communists of old were trained to be dishonest and to deny the facts, and fight back when anyone exposed some inconvenient fact and it appeared it would discredit the cause. The cause was more important than truth, and any assertion that could deflect opposition, or advance the cause, was necessary in order to achieve the inevitable, inexorable march of history.

People who make use of "history" as a cause, with the assertion that "history" is some wonderful marching force for human progress, get that from Marx, if not from some concurrent sort of source. It has achieved it's rhetorical usefulness mostly in the cause of socialism/Marxism ideology.

Of course you are not a "Marxist" or a "Communist", you are smarter and a new generation of thinker who has on your own account achieved the same perspective. Well, in some few observations I've thought to mention, and which always gets this kind of intense denial. I really don't think I have tried to assert that you carry a card as a member of the Communist Party, or that you actually have a copy of Das Kapital under your pillow or a wall-size print of Marx papering your bedroom wall. I real Das Kapital once, and I've had a few friends who were, actually, card-carrying communist ideologues. The ones I called "friend" bemoaned "State Capitalism" regimes like China and Russia and Cuba, and yearned for the pure ideal of a world without either corporate interests or fascist governments.

Perhaps you are unaware of the historical origins of some political streams of thought?

care to explain why you don't think i believe in God? Or responding to my other post in general?

 

[babe]

care to explain why you don't think i believe in God? Or responding to my other post in general?

Am I just wrong? OK, I was wrong. Sorry.

I guess I should have realized you take Allah seriously, actually. I have a prejudicial judgment system wherein I routinely look for certain markers to define others on the beliefs. It presumes certain things I find commonly associated with beliefs I understand pretty well, which may not correlate very well with religions I'm not all that familiar with. Am I right that you are from a Moslem family from somewhere north of Greece, the former Yugoslavia? And even going to western colleges with heavy doses of secular courses, science and all that, has not fundamentally eroded that basic identity? I guess I can see where someone can hold forth on a subject from a college-based standpoint discussing accepted facts and western logic and trending to grand social ideals of a secular nature, and still be "religious". Mostly, Christians who do that have to be above say IQ 140 or they just can't maintain the two levels of belief, and commonly just relax back to their traditional values.

 

[babe]

God has the right to be the biggest abortionist ever-- we as humans don't. This is some Goebbels-level reaching. IVF murders the lives of unique, living offspring. It doesn't matter if they had "a lower chance" of living-- this is an extremely ethically dangerous precedent to set on the viability of embryos. The life is existing, and you as a human (not God) chose to end it. this is murder. Sorry babe.

OK, I looked for the "other post" you asked if I cared to respond to.

Actually, Dal, I remember some things about you, and some things I highly respect. So, in your case, if you ask for a specific response to one of your comments, particularly if I've ruffled your feathers, I feel obligated to respond. People like you don't just grow on bushes or fall off the turnip trucks. I gotta respect you for your intelligence and your values, particularly for stuff like what you told me about your family.

OK, maybe I mistook your comment as sort of argumentative in the extreme of mocking others by forcing the logic into this corner of the maze. I took it that Moe was going here on purpose to establish a woman's innate human right to the sovereignty of her own reproductive capabilities, to make her own decisions on that line, to force me to admit that birth control measures and abortions are like IVF embryos.

Do you in your belief in God take it that every fertilized egg, every embryo, is fully human day one after conception? I sorta think I just don't know, and I sorta wanna think that maybe God can handle things either way, and that maybe a "soul" or "spirit" is necessarily attached to every one that makes that first step. So I give myself the latitude to make pragmatic decisions, and imagine that God looks at the intent of my heart, and appreciates the effort to help humans have babies when nothing else can do it. I don't call it murder if a woman takes the morning after pill, I call it sad the baby isn't wanted. Or sad the people can't afford to have the baby.

I resonate to some of what JeJ says, and many others, about how after a fetus has demonstrated viability, it is obligatory for us to preserve that baby's life somehow. I still wouldn't judge it as murder, as much as that baby would evoke all my human instincts to protect that life, because it's pretty clearly the case that some things are going on that I don't know, and can't judge. I wouldn't even care to call it murder if a baby is left in a dumpster by a clearly distressed or unpreprared mother. It is a failure of the creative stage, a failure of a society to teach and to protect women and give them necessary emotional and material support, and a failure to teach right "religious" values that would open up other reasonable lines of action. I think there is a crying need for those who can to reach out and help these desperate, failing humans.

One good, constructive legal measure is, at least in Utah, if a baby is left at a hospital the State will assume responsibility for that child. That one legal measure saves a lot of human lives. I can only wonder about California, where I hear many babies are left in dumpsters, whether California will do the same, and why the girls don't or won't take them there or arrange for someone to take them there.

Well, I did make the point elsewhere that I think people who have the intent to disfigure, disrespect, and destroy human life as Goebbels did, might be held in a different light than people who want to have babies and make some practical decisions like what occurs regularly with IVF. I do agree with you that this is an extremely ethically dangerous precedent to set on the viability of embryos. But let's put it in context. For most such embryos, the mother has fertility issues including low factors for implantation success, so in transferring those embryos to the womb, where they still have the best chance to live, is going to result in many otherwise inherently viable embryos not attaining implantation.

It's like throwing seeds out on a field hoping they will grow. Some don't, on no fault or failing inherent in the seed. It seems to be some sort of thing in nature, a strategy for propagation, to create more seeds, more newborn everythings, than this world can sustain. The system is programmed for stiff survival challenges being present, and for enough young or eggs or seeds, to overwhelm the difficulties of life enough to secure another generation.

Should we just tell infertile couples sorry, you're not good enough to try any technical assistance to reproduction? Genetically, that would be the law of nature, and maybe nature's God. However, I'm not willing to just stand by and do nothing for people who have problems like that. Every God-given instinct says "help them."

 

[Deleted member 848]

Am I just wrong? OK, I was wrong. Sorry.

I guess I should have realized you take Allah seriously, actually. I have a prejudicial judgment system wherein I routinely look for certain markers to define others on the beliefs. It presumes certain things I find commonly associated with beliefs I understand pretty well, which may not correlate very well with religions I'm not all that familiar with.

Unfortunately for you, your perspective of believers of the Muslim faith will be inherently slanted towards the Muslims that you've been exposed to either through interpersonal relationships (which is probably like zero) or through media representation.

Am I right that you are from a Moslem family from somewhere north of Greece, the former Yugoslavia?

Correct, my family is from Kosovo.

And even going to western colleges with heavy doses of secular courses, science and all that, has not fundamentally eroded that basic identity?

Not the slightest, in fact. In fact, I would say my identity has been strengthened since post-secondary, and I have more strong ties to my heritage than my Albanian-Canadian peers who didn't pursue the education that I did.

I guess I can see where someone can hold forth on a subject from a college-based standpoint discussing accepted facts and western logic and trending to grand social ideals of a secular nature, and still be "religious". Mostly, Christians who do that have to be above say IQ 140 or they just can't maintain the two levels of belief, and commonly just relax back to their traditional values.

I think that's a bit of a generalization-- and while it may seem difficult, I've never really had trouble reconciling science and religion. Empiricism makes sense to me, while faith is simply something that I have always 'felt'. I don't care to go more in depth on it, so you'll have to take it at face value.

 

[Deleted member 848]

OK, I looked for the "other post" you asked if I cared to respond to.

Actually, Dal, I remember some things about you, and some things I highly respect. So, in your case, if you ask for a specific response to one of your comments, particularly if I've ruffled your feathers, I feel obligated to respond. People like you don't just grow on bushes or fall off the turnip trucks. I gotta respect you for your intelligence and your values, particularly for stuff like what you told me about your family.

OK, maybe I mistook your comment as sort of argumentative in the extreme of mocking others by forcing the logic into this corner of the maze. I took it that Moe was going here on purpose to establish a woman's innate human right to the sovereignty of her own reproductive capabilities, to make her own decisions on that line, to force me to admit that birth control measures and abortions are like IVF embryos.

Do you in your belief in God take it that every fertilized egg, every embryo, is fully human day one after conception? I sorta think I just don't know, and I sorta wanna think that maybe God can handle things either way, and that maybe a "soul" or "spirit" is necessarily attached to every one that makes that first step. So I give myself the latitude to make pragmatic decisions, and imagine that God looks at the intent of my heart, and appreciates the effort to help humans have babies when nothing else can do it. I don't call it murder if a woman takes the morning after pill, I call it sad the baby isn't wanted. Or sad the people can't afford to have the baby.

I resonate to some of what JeJ says, and many others, about how after a fetus has demonstrated viability, it is obligatory for us to preserve that baby's life somehow. I still wouldn't judge it as murder, as much as that baby would evoke all my human instincts to protect that life, because it's pretty clearly the case that some things are going on that I don't know, and can't judge. I wouldn't even care to call it murder if a baby is left in a dumpster by a clearly distressed or unpreprared mother. It is a failure of the creative stage, a failure of a society to teach and to protect women and give them necessary emotional and material support, and a failure to teach right "religious" values that would open up other reasonable lines of action. I think there is a crying need for those who can to reach out and help these desperate, failing humans.

One good, constructive legal measure is, at least in Utah, if a baby is left at a hospital the State will assume responsibility for that child. That one legal measure saves a lot of human lives. I can only wonder about California, where I hear many babies are left in dumpsters, whether California will do the same, and why the girls don't or won't take them there or arrange for someone to take them there.

Well, I did make the point elsewhere that I think people who have the intent to disfigure, disrespect, and destroy human life as Goebbels did, might be held in a different light than people who want to have babies and make some practical decisions like what occurs regularly with IVF. I do agree with you that this is an extremely ethically dangerous precedent to set on the viability of embryos. But let's put it in context. For most such embryos, the mother has fertility issues including low factors for implantation success, so in transferring those embryos to the womb, where they still have the best chance to live, is going to result in many otherwise inherently viable embryos not attaining implantation.

It's like throwing seeds out on a field hoping they will grow. Some don't, on no fault or failing inherent in the seed. It seems to be some sort of thing in nature, a strategy for propagation, to create more seeds, more newborn everythings, than this world can sustain. The system is programmed for stiff survival challenges being present, and for enough young or eggs or seeds, to overwhelm the difficulties of life enough to secure another generation.

Should we just tell infertile couples sorry, you're not good enough to try any technical assistance to reproduction? Genetically, that would be the law of nature, and maybe nature's God. However, I'm not willing to just stand by and do nothing for people who have problems like that. Every God-given instinct says "help them."

1) God-given 'instinct' is hardly a reasonable justification behind the legitimacy of any action (for reasons that should be obvious)
2) I find that seed example as one that is analogous, but one that does nothing to legitimize the fact that you're supporting the disposal of certain "seeds", or zygotes in order to prefer others that have some sort of tangible advantage as deemed by the selector (and as mentioned, this is a precedent with alarming ramifications).
3) I do fully believe that there is zero biological difference from a zygote @ day 1 than a newborn at day 1. The only Islamic literature that discusses when the 'soul descends upon the fetus' are accounts found outside the Quran (and thus what I deem as non-trustworthy). The DNA difference, and difference in humanity, and difference in self-sufficiency in my opinion is negligible from conception to birth.

 

[Harambe]

He's not a moron, far from it actually. He does, however, have some insufferably moronic ways of seeing the world.

Overall, I give him 8 fins out of 10.

Gettin a little soft?

 

[moevillini]

...One good, constructive legal measure is, at least in Utah, if a baby is left at a hospital the State will assume responsibility for that child. That one legal measure saves a lot of human lives. I can only wonder about California, where I hear many babies are left in dumpsters, whether California will do the same, and why the girls don't or won't take them there or arrange for someone to take them there....

those are generally referred to as "Safe Haven" laws and are in effect in all 50 states. Different states set different parameters as to the age of the infant and acceptable places. Most include hospitals, police/fire stations, churches as designated drop-off zones. I recall one state (Kansas, Nebraska or somewhere middle-America like that) where it went up to age 16 or something like that and they had a few families leaving their unruly teen-agers.

Since the whole point of these laws is that the parent remains anonymous, I'm not sure how this affects the potential adoption of the child - - I think that's probably something that varies by state law.

In Illinios I think the person who gave up the baby has something like 90 days to return to claim the baby before it is legally eligible for adoption. But again, I'm not sure how they track any of this.

 

[DutchJazzer]

TRAGIC

 

[babe]

1) God-given 'instinct' is hardly a reasonable justification behind the legitimacy of any action (for reasons that should be obvious)
2) I find that seed example as one that is analogous, but one that does nothing to legitimize the fact that you're supporting the disposal of certain "seeds", or zygotes in order to prefer others that have some sort of tangible advantage as deemed by the selector (and as mentioned, this is a precedent with alarming ramifications).
3) I do fully believe that there is zero biological difference from a zygote @ day 1 than a newborn at day 1. The only Islamic literature that discusses when the 'soul descends upon the fetus' are accounts found outside the Quran (and thus what I deem as non-trustworthy). The DNA difference, and difference in humanity, and difference in self-sufficiency in my opinion is negligible from conception to birth.

People have been "selecting" on the basis of their notions across the ages. Infanticide had not been all that uncommon, and with the help of ultrasound today, a lot more "selecting" is going on, combined with genetic testing of embryos.

Look at the dogs. All the different "breeds" resulted from human selection.

Your view, imo, is just as alarming as a "trend" in human action, as any Eugenicist, simply because it is so absolutist. Probably a good thing to be alarmed at human reason.

 

[babe]

Gettin a little soft?

while the modifier "insufferable" describes the capacities or intelligence of the observer or reader, not the writer, and I could hardly expect you to rise to the level of Trout, your question to Trout has some humorous implications, if not particularly cultivated. Should I give rep for marginal humor?

 

[str8line]

Why doesn't anyone talk about overpopulation anymore? Everyone talks about the symptoms of a sick earth but the press seem to have backed off on the root cause.

 

[fishonjazz]

Why doesn't anyone talk about overpopulation anymore? Everyone talks about the symptoms of a sick earth but the press seem to have backed off on the root cause.

I do. All the time.

 

[Harambe]

while the modifier "insufferable" describes the capacities or intelligence of the observer or reader, not the writer, and I could hardly expect you to rise to the level of Trout, your question to Trout has some humorous implications, if not particularly cultivated. Should I give rep for marginal humor?

You might have to. He got banned again, which means the implied definition is likely untrue. This leaves us with only the joke.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Why doesn't anyone talk about overpopulation anymore? Everyone talks about the symptoms of a sick earth but the press seem to have backed off on the root cause.

because the population is correcting itself and declining. it takes some time but population seems to drop.
but u want to selectively murder people to combat overpopulation?

 

[Harambe]

because the population is correcting itself and declining. it takes some time but population seems to drop.
but u want to selectively murder people to combat overpopulation?

Just you.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Just you.

is that a thrat. bring it on!

 

[Harambe]

is that a thrat. bring it on!