Former Abortion Clinic Owner: We Pushed Sex Ed on Kids to Create a Market for Abortion

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

Case specific and no assignation of any rights or status as a result of that specific definition. The letter and intent of the law is clear. It confers no legal standing on the fetus and does not imply such is the case. The law does not define a fetus as a person in the case of legal abortion.
law.onecle.com...

I have no idea why you are making that argument since I already stated abortion is exempt. I said several posts ago I was responding to his claim that they have no protections whatsoever, which is false, they do. They do not have protection as far as abortions are concerned. So if you wish to keep arguing this does not protect them from abortion you are welcome to do so, but you are arguing alone. Here are my two quotes showing I never argued they have any protections against abortion, and that the laws in question have no bearing on abortion.

So the string of posts in question has nothing to do with abortion, it is pointing out his error in stating there are no protections given to any child until it has been born.

It has no bearing on abortion

There are no circumstances where jewelry, or in his argument a garage, is defined as a person. So it's a disingenuous argument to state there is no difference, there is.

An unborn child is afforded SOME protections and rights, but not as much as a child that is born, and most of the protections do not apply to mothers (although I can see a civil case where a child sues their mother as an adult for damages as a result of the mother's behavior causing the child irreversible harm).

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I assume you are willfully ignoring all the times it has been unsafe.

Specifically not, since I acknowledge that legal abortion can be dangerous. My contention, which you are unable to refute and so have to keep avoiding, is that it is less dangerous than illegal abortion.

Doyou disagree with that proposition? Can you give a straight answer?

Callous? No; I simply don't think we should make killing people easier for anyone. I find it callous that anyone does.

You want to enact a law that will likely not reduce the number of abortions and will certainly hurt more people. That is callous, no matter how you spin it to yourself.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is the main method employed by the pill to prevent conception or implantation?

Why does that matter? What difference would it make to you?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

An unborn child is afforded SOME protections and rights,

What rights are those?

a reply to: windword

This is a point on which the two sides disagree. The issue here is, if someone believes those methods are killing a baby, and that's against their religious beliefs, then their company should not have to pay for the method for an employee.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is the main method employed by the pill to prevent conception or implantation?

Why does that matter? What difference would it make to you?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

An unborn child is afforded SOME protections and rights,

What rights are those?

I already sourced it, and showed where they are considered a PERSON. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is the main method employed by the pill to prevent conception or implantation?

Why does that matter? What difference would it make to you?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

An unborn child is afforded SOME protections and rights,

What rights are those?

I already sourced it, and showed where they are considered a PERSON. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the facts.

That's not an answer.

You asked, Does the PILL prevent conception or implantation?

I asked you, What difference would that make to you.

You have only sourced the fact that Christians can be both pro-life or pro-choice and that they can't agree on the definition of "conception".

Fact: If you're okay with women using hormonal birth control methods like the PILL, IUDs and the Morning After Pill, then you are, in fact, pro-choice. There are many pro-choice Christians.





LadyGreenEyes:

This is a point on which the two sides disagree. The issue here is, if someone believes those methods are killing a baby, and that's against their religious beliefs, then their company should not have to pay for the method for an employee.

If you're referring to the Supreme Court case addressing Hobby Hobby's complaints, that has nothing to do with this thread. This thread, if you remember, is about sex ed causing more abortions.

a reply to: windword

Why are you linking them all together? I do not believe in the morning after pill.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I assume you are willfully ignoring all the times it has been unsafe.

Specifically not, since I acknowledge that legal abortion can be dangerous. My contention, which you are unable to refute and so have to keep avoiding, is that it is less dangerous than illegal abortion.

Doyou disagree with that proposition? Can you give a straight answer?

Callous? No; I simply don't think we should make killing people easier for anyone. I find it callous that anyone does.

You want to enact a law that will likely not reduce the number of abortions and will certainly hurt more people. That is callous, no matter how you spin it to yourself.

What part of what I stated don't you understand? I said legal abortions are not safe, and they aren't. They are poorly regulated, and there are enough know cases of serious problems to assume more are being concealed under a shroud of "privacy". As for the other, call it callous if you want. I don't think protecting someone who wants to kill a helpless person is right. Call that any label you wish.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: windword

Why are you linking them all together? I do not believe in the morning after pill.

Emergency contraceptive pills are often called "morning after pills" and sometimes even "day after pills" because you can use them after sex to prevent pregnancy. Most of the time, when someone mentions “emergency contraceptive pills,” “morning after pills,” or the “day after pill,” they are talking about using the same hormones found in regular daily oral contraceptive pills to reduce your chances of becoming pregnant if you had sex without using contraception, you think your birth control failed, or you were made to have sex against your will.

Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”. They aren’t. Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion.
ec.princeton.edu...

How Does Plan B One-Step (The Morning After Pill) Work?

Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:

It may prevent or delay ovulation.
It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.
It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.
www.webmd.com...

The Morning After Pill does not cause abortion, so why are you against it?

a reply to: windword

Maybe you missed the key word DEPENDNG when it is taken it can have the same effect. So if you can show me how a woman can prove it will stop her ovulation then I will agree. Unfortunately you can't. If you can show me how you can prove sperm have not reached the egg, which can take as little as 30 minutes, I will agree. You can't.

The main method employed is preventing implantation. With the pill it's not. If you can't see the difference then it's because you simply choose not to.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The main method employed is preventing implantation. With the pill it's not. If you can't see the difference then it's because you simply choose not to.

Perhaps you missed this part of my post:

Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”. They aren’t. Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion.
ec.princeton.edu...

Regardless, the pro-life community is staunchly against the PILL, just as much as they are against the Morning After Pill.

The Birth Control Pill is the most popular and widely used method of hormonal contraception. It involves taking a month-long series of pills—three weeks of pills containing hormones, and one without. This allows the woman to have a menstrual period. The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as "preventing pregnancy."
www.lifeissues.org... - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=windword#sthash.52bTJav7.dpuf

To confirm my point:

There isn't some pro-life stance permeating society that is responsible for the fact that there are fewer abortion, it's the fact that there is more education and more women have access to, and are using hormonal birth control methods like the PILL, IUDs and the Morning After Pills.

a reply to: windword

No, I did not miss that part. I addressed it. How did I miss something I addressed? The Pill is taken before ovulation. There is no way to be certain of your ovulation cycle for the EC pills. If you can prove you have not ovulated yet I have no issues with it.

I already proved the pro-life community is not staunchly against the pill, I sourced it. Some factions are, some are not. I proved you wrong with actual sources. I am sorry you don't like it, but what you like doesn't change what is.

What part of what I stated don't you understand? I said legal abortions are not safe, and they aren't.

So you are, indeed, unable to give a straight answer. That's telling.

They are poorly regulated

So it's better to replace them with abortions that are entirely unregulated?

and there are enough know cases of serious problems to assume more are being concealed under a shroud of "privacy".

Possibly. Although that's entirely conjecture.

As for the other, call it callous if you want. I don't think protecting someone who wants to kill a helpless person is right. Call that any label you wish.

You say that the legal abortion industry is dangerous. How much more dangerous will it be when carried out by criminals? And since there are now a similar number of abortions to when it was illegal one can assume outlawing it won't have much of an impact on numbers.

The reverse actually, if you get your desired eradication of sex ed. So what you're essentially asking for is more situations like Gosnell, more dead and harmed women, and possibly even more dead fetuses. That does seem a bit callous, to be honest.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The only thing that you've proved is that you don't know the definitions of "pro-life", "pro-choice" or "conception".

The pro-life stance, as you yourself claim to align yourself with, claims that a fertilized egg, before implantation, is a person that deserves constitutional rights. That's why you claim that you're against the Morning After Pill, because it may prevent implantation of a "sacred" fertilized egg.

From your source:

There is some controversy as to whether some birth control pills might occasionally not prevent ovulation and work instead by preventing implantation.

So, if you believe that every fertilized egg is person, and you know that the PILL might kill a human being, by preventing implantation; if you're okay with that form of birth control, knowing that some "people" will die because of the PILL, then you're not pro-life, you're pro-choice!

There are as many pro-choice viewpoints as there are pro-choice individuals, but there is only one pro-life view.

a reply to: windword

But wouldn't a person who believed that life began at implantation be effectively 'pro life' if they objected to abortions thereafter?

I appreciate that there is a dogmatism to pro life views, but it seems to me that even so there is likely to be a spread of opinion that nonetheless resides in broadly an anti-abortion camp.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I said legal abortions are not safe, and they aren't. They are poorly regulated, and there are enough know cases of serious problems to assume more are being concealed under a shroud of "privacy". As for the other, call it callous if you want. I don't think protecting someone who wants to kill a helpless person is right. Call that any label you wish.

I may be at cross purposes with you regarding this, because here in
the UK legal termination is perfectly safe.

In any event getting reliable accurate statics on abortion is nigh on
impossible due to people like yourself stigmatising the procedure .....

'As an analogy'>>
To hear men talk, none will ever admit to paying for
sex - yet there are women who make a living out of selling that
particular service?

Whilst you continue to call an embryo/foetus that can never develop
outside of *the woman, *the incubator *the host a "helpless person"
your argument is of little significance, because it is legal, within the
law and it is not murder.

www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...

a reply to: JuniorDisco

But wouldn't a person who believed that life began at implantation be effectively 'pro life' if they objected to abortions thereafter?

Not really. That's the same as someone saying "I'm pro-life. I believe life starts when a heart beat can be detected, and abortion from that point on is wrong.".

In fact, to be prolife means to insist that you can never, under any circumstance, deliberately destroy innocent human life. That’s it. That’s all. And contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be intelligently consistent on that point. When you start saying you *can* deliberately destroy innocent life for some reason, you are no longer prolife. You are simply “anti-abortion in certain cases not inconvenient to your desire for political power.”

Read more: www.patheos.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JuniorDisco

But wouldn't a person who believed that life began at implantation be effectively 'pro life' if they objected to abortions thereafter?

Not really. That's the same as someone saying "I'm pro-life. I believe life starts when a heart beat can be detected, and abortion from that point on is wrong.".

In fact, to be prolife means to insist that you can never, under any circumstance, deliberately destroy innocent human life. That’s it. That’s all. And contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be intelligently consistent on that point. When you start saying you *can* deliberately destroy innocent life for some reason, you are no longer prolife. You are simply “anti-abortion in certain cases not inconvenient to your desire for political power.”

Read more: www.patheos.com...

But that's just one guy's take on it. There seem to be anti-abortionists who are not as dogmatic on the issue.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem a particularly useful categorisation. You insisting on placing someone who believes those who abort a child should be given the death penalty, and who regularly shoots abortion clinic owners, outside the pro-life envelope simply because they don't one form of contraception, seems to me a bit pointless.

Also note that under the terms the guy posits your "life begins at heartbeat" person would qualify. He would just disagree with your man about when life started. Which is pretty much what frames the debate.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

But that's just one guy's take on it.

That is the pro-life stance. Period.

But life has to begin somewhere. We don't go from "nothing" to adulthood.

Denying the fact that life begins the moment a female egg is fertilized is sheer lunacy — or, worse, intentionally misleading. It is simply a matter of choice that millions of Americans have decided to believe that life only begins when they say it does — at the moment of birth, or in the second trimester of pregnancy, or some other arbitrary guideline.

It begins when it begins — at the moment a human being is biologically "under construction."
www.catholiceducation.org...

Life begins at the time of fertilization. That is the pro-life stance. Not, at the time of implantation, not when the heartbeat is detected, not when brain wave pattern is detected........at fertilization. PERIOD!

All the rest is a "slippery slope" and not "pro-life".

There is no such thing as "pro-abortion". There is only pro-choice and pro-life. As I said earlier, there are as many pro-choice viewpoints as there are pro-choice individuals. There is only one pro-life stance.