3rd Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood V.P. Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: westcoast


My ONLY objection to abortion is this: It is murder.

For me, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with CHOICE. It has to do with a grotesque, inhuman and barbaric act that results in a painful, horrific death. Choice? Really? Your're going to accuse me of wanting to control another person because I think it's wrong for them to murder their baby?

Your mentality sickens me.

For me, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with CHOICE.

*CHOICE* is by its very nature it the prerogative of each individual ....

Your CHOICE is different to their CHOICE


You think >>>> It is wrong for them to murder their baby

They are >>>> terminating a foetus, not a baby.


Bottom line is freedom to CHOSE you cannot pin your

CHOICE or morality on to another.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Why not exend the range of abortion to include birth +5 years? There is little difference between a 5 year old and a fetus. The new born is not capable of fending for itself any more than a fetus is.
At least if the age of legal abortion is extended to 5 years old, then people who change their minds about whether to have a bably will have more time to decide whether to eliminate their child or not.
The pregnancy was an accident? Oh well, even though it is not the kids fault, he will, as a fetus or as a newborn, pay the price for the parents lack of responsibility.
In the case of health reasons... then I would support abortion and only then. The rape scenario happens so seldom as to not even be worthy of discussion. Most often rapes do not result in a pregnancy.

a reply to: bbracken677

The new born is not capable of fending for itself any more than a fetus is.

The difference is, anyone can take care of newborn, or a five year old. No one but the mother can carry a fertilized egg, an embryo, or a fetus to term.

The rest of your commentary is such hyperbole isn't not even worth addressing.

a reply to: windword

That's simply not true. Many babies have been extracted from their mother's womb via C-section at a very early stage of development, because of various complications. These children can be held in the palm of your hand, they're so small. They can be given the medical attention they so deserve by our modern medical miracles. That baby is not in physical contact with its mother any longer. But it's a BABY. A human being.

But, down the street at the planned "parent"hood, a baby at that same age could be getting its brains sucked out with a needle, so the skull crushes easier on the way out during "delivery".

*puke*

a reply to: Ignatian

Many babies have been extracted from their mother's womb via C-section at a very early stage of development, because of various complications.

That's right, and elective abortions are NEVER done after viability.

As a matter of fact, those babies of which you speak, weren't aborted, even though they and their mothers were in such stress that a premature and emergency C-Section had to be, and could be performed, because they were developed enough and healthy enough to survive outside of the womb.

Late term abortions happen when those criteria are not met. But, we've had this conversation before. You'd let a woman die before performing a life saving abortion on her fetus that has no hope of survival.

a reply to: windword

You have no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: Ignatian
and you do??

a reply to: Ignatian

Oh. So you're okay with abortion to save a woman's life?

a reply to: bbracken677

Am I reading that you wish to murder children, Bracken?

I can't read what you said any other way.

Care to explain?

originally posted by: bbracken677

Morality has nothing to do with it. Why not exend the range of abortion to include birth +5 years? There is little difference between a 5 year old and a fetus.

If you cant see the difference between a foetus and a 5 year old child

there is little to be gained by way of any explanation to you

The new born is not capable of fending for itself any more than a fetus is.

No but a new born is actually able to survive out side of the mothers

uterus with outside help...

An opportunity for all the anti abortionist to be able to *practice what they

preach*

At least if the age of legal abortion is extended to 5 years old, then people who change their minds about whether to have a bably will have more time to decide whether to eliminate their child or not.

^^^^^^^^ Not worth engaging in to someone who cant tell the difference

between a foetus an a child

a reply to: windword

No, we save women's lives. It's that simple.

a reply to: eletheia

There is very little difference between a fetus and a child. In case you didnt "get it" I do not favor murdering children... it's called allegory.

If you refuse to accept that a fetus represents an individual life, then there is no hope for you.

Oh, and your remark that a child is able to survive outside the uterus without outside help... next baby you have (assuming you do) try allowing the child to fend for itself, for it's own survival. From birth a child is no more capable of survival than a fetus until is is capable of feeding itself and that assumes it is successful at getting food on it's own without any outside help. What age would that be? Are you saying that any child incapable of foraging for itself and feeding itself (notice the use of IT) if killed would not be considered murder?

Also...as far as the law goes, if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer is charged with 2 murders. How awful that we would consider a killed fetus a murder.

a reply to: bbracken677

There is very little difference between a fetus and a child. In case you didnt "get it" I do not favor murdering children... it's called allegory.

Actually there is. A child/person has taken a breath. It is no longer relying on and/or attached to the biological support of its mother.

If you refuse to accept that a fetus represents an individual life, then there is no hope for you.

Oh okay. So, bbracken has just broken the code, everybody! Somewhere between 9 and 12 weeks an embryo magically becomes an "individual life"! Whew! Glad we got that straight!

Oh, and your remark that a child is able to survive outside the uterus without outside help... next baby you have (assuming you do) try allowing the child to fend for itself, for it's own survival. From birth a child is no more capable of survival than a fetus until is is capable of feeding itself and that assumes it is successful at getting food on it's own without any outside help.

You still don't get it! While the "potential person", at whatever stage you want to name, is still in the womb, there is no one else that can carry that pregnancy but the mother. When that fetus is removed from the mother, anyone else can take care of that new born person.

a reply to: bbracken677

Then lets remove the 8 week old fetus alive and give it the same care we would give to a child that has gestated for 9 months. Let see what happens.

originally posted by: bbracken677


There is very little difference between a fetus and a child. In case you didnt "get it" I do not favor murdering children... it's called allegory.

There is a vast difference between a foetus and a child.

Its like comparing apples to oranges or better acorns to oak trees!!

Oh, and your remark that a child is able to survive outside the uterus without outside help...

Did I say that??

I'm sure if you re-read my post you will find I said "A new born is actually

able to survive outside of the mothers uterus WITH outside help*

the help the anti abortionists are SO keen to give a woman contemplating

abortion.

Also...as far as the law goes, if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer is charged with 2 murders. How awful that we would consider a killed fetus a murder.

Too Right....because if a woman is pregnant SHE has decided to be pregnant

and not seek a termination. She is a person with a *potential* person within

her.

Q: When does human life begin?

A: At conception.

Q: Why is it that a human body spontaneously aborts around 50% of all fertilized ova?

A: That's not an intentional act! That's nature!

Q: So, do you believe that your god created humans and designed every aspect of them?

A: Of course!

Q: So, you believe it was your god's intention that 50% of fertilized ova are spontaneously aborted?

A: Of course not, God doesn't want any babies to die!

Q: Then why would your god design the system that way, so that 50% of the "babies" die in the first few weeks?

A: Why are you attacking me for my Christian faith!!!

Q: ....

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ignatian

Many babies have been extracted from their mother's womb via C-section at a very early stage of development, because of various complications.

That's right, and elective abortions are NEVER done after viability.

As a matter of fact, those babies of which you speak, weren't aborted, even though they and their mothers were in such stress that a premature and emergency C-Section had to be, and could be performed, because they were developed enough and healthy enough to survive outside of the womb.

Late term abortions happen when those criteria are not met. But, we've had this conversation before. You'd let a woman die before performing a life saving abortion on her fetus that has no hope of survival.

Actually, late term abortions are not permitted now, but in the past they were. In fact, partial birth abortions were legal at one time.

The fact is, if partial birth abortions were legalized now there would be just such barbarism occurring in clinics and hospitals across the country.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph!

Just an FYI: I am pretty sure your post does not relate to me. I am not particularly religious, however, as you know from past discussions I am very high on individual rights.

In the case of abortion I side with the rights of the baby, fetus, child.... however you wish to describe the person that two people managed to create through some form of irresponsibility. I, for one, do not believe that the child should pay the ultimate price for having crap for parents.

I happen to believe that our society, that we as thinking, caring people should not be behaving as barbarians and ending a life merely because it is or has become an inconvenience.

Does morality come into play? Yes, to a degree... but I keep thinking what would be the case had my mother had me aborted: 5 wonderful people, to date, would not exist. My 2 daughters, one of which is a bleeding heart liberal whom I love to death, who is a psychologist at a penitentiary not because she can make more money there, but can help more people there. The other who is more conservative, but yet I love her just as much and who has brought 3 children into this world who are wonderful, smart grandchildren... I would give my life for any of the 5 in a heartbeat.

I just fail to understand how people can be so casual, so heartless, so barbaric. But that's me...

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: bbracken677


There is very little difference between a fetus and a child. In case you didnt "get it" I do not favor murdering children... it's called allegory.

There is a vast difference between a foetus and a child.

Its like comparing apples to oranges or better acorns to oak trees!!

Oh, and your remark that a child is able to survive outside the uterus without outside help...

Did I say that??

I'm sure if you re-read my post you will find I said "A new born is actually

able to survive outside of the mothers uterus WITH outside help*

the help the anti abortionists are SO keen to give a woman contemplating

abortion.

Also...as far as the law goes, if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer is charged with 2 murders. How awful that we would consider a killed fetus a murder.

Too Right....because if a woman is pregnant SHE has decided to be pregnant

and not seek a termination. She is a person with a *potential* person within

her.

You are right... I totally misread that. Perhaps inserting the meaning I expected, as opposed to actually reading what you wrote. I apologize for the error.

However, your last paragraph is not logical.

You claim that a pregnant woman is pregnant because she chose to be... that is not necessarily true at all and is clearly nothing more than an assumption. Not to mention, whether the child is wanted or not plays no bearing on whether charges will be brought for the loss of life regarding the fetus.

It is no different than assuming that a woman seeking an abortion did not choose to be pregnant, even though she took no precautions. Statistics show that most of those seeking abortions did not use any contraceptive. Some are choosing to end a pregnancy which was ok previously but for various reasons is no longer wanted.

In both the above cases, it is the irresponsible actions of the mother and father that results in an abortion.

Is irresponsibility a sufficient reason for terminating a life? Is irresponsibility a sufficient reason for murder?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Directly regarding your post... I will ignore everything after the first Q&A, since they do not pertain to me or my position whatsoever....

When does life begin? That is such an interesting and divisive debate!! I welcome anyone who can enlighten me and add to my knowledge. I am not going to claim to be all knowing, but I do know quite a bit about the subject. Shall we say, more than the average bear

There are those that want to focus on viability simply because that serves their purpose... it rationalizes their decision or belief. At least, in my opinion.

It is clear that the zygote is alive... reproducing cells, on an ever more complex level . Following a genetic pattern that is contributed by both mother and father. If left alone, a birth will result and a new person emerges hopefully into a loving family... not always the case though, but that is another debate, perhaps, for another time. Nevertheless, the potential for another Einstein or Beethoven, or DaVinci, or Joe or Josephine Smith is present.

So...we know the fetus is alive, it fits all the definitions, although one could describe the fetus as a parasite and, indeed, does fit the bill nicely.

The genetic makeup of the fetus is not the same as the mother's, anymore than it is the same as the father's. So, by that perception, it is a different entity entirely, yet dependant on mom for sustenance. Much the same as a newborn...it's just the dynamics of providing sustenance are a bit different.

To me, it is clear that the fetus is an individual for all the above reasons and then some.

At the very least, the fetus represents (and some do not seem to understand the concept) an individual life. At the most, it IS an individual life. This is the crux of the question, IMO. Given the above, is a fetus an individual? Being attached to mom is hardly a criteria that should be considered. In the case of twins born attached in some way, are they not still 2 individuals? Seems that born is the critical word.....

The whole fetus/non-viable/miscellaneous argument supporting abortion seems to me to smack of nothing more than rationalization. I am sure you (Gryph) see examples of such daily in your life. You are a smart person... one I respect although not always am I in agreement with. If you examine the arguments in favor of abortion you will find yourself, perhaps, recognizing just another form of rationalization... at least I would hope you would. Maybe not. People are people and are entitled to their own opinions.

Seldom if ever will anyone's view be changed by an online discussion... but I find them entertaining, and, at times, I learn something new. Perhaps that is why I like you, you have taught me a few things regarding history that clarified my perceptions.

At any rate...I am rambling now.

a reply to: kaylaluv

*facepalm*