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

a reply to: bbracken677

A few possibilities that are counter to what you wrote above:

... or people might believe that viability is the best compromise point in an overall horrible situation.

... a zygote is "alive," until the dice rolls and the "zygotean individual" is in the 50% that get naturally aborted by the body.

... births, sadly, do not always result from fertilized eggs if "left alone."

Why would you even make a statement like that you must know to be false?

Three questions before I give up.

Does a "fetal individual" deserve to die just because it was the result of rape or incest?

Does a "fetal individual" have the "right" to kill its mother if carrying same to term would have that result?

Please tell me that you aren't the kind of person who believes that murder is "okay" sometimes. (Rape, incest, danger to mother)

originally posted by: Ignatian
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.

And exactly how many of these were at 12 weeks or less of gestation. You know, when 90% of procedures are performed in the U.S.?

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".

That's a sweet visual. I like the appeal to emotion fallacy perpetrated here. It ignores the fact though that 97% of services provided by planned parenthood have nothing to do with abortions. One of their biggest focuses is on pregnancy and STD prevention and education on how to stay that way. Another big chunk of their services includes prenatal care for women who are *gasp* going to have a baby to make sure both mother and child are as healthy as possible and this tends to be primarily low income women who wouldn't have many other options. Yeah... they're such a heinous organization. Totally should be shut down amiright?!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand the compromise point as you put it, but that isnt presented normally as a compromise.

The zygote is alive until...blah blah blah... Immaterial. the 50% you mention that do not survive are a natural thing and has nothing to do with the intentional death from abortion. Not knowing any more about this particular subject my first guess would be the zygote that "dies" naturally was the result of natural selection. It was not strong enough to survive. I dont find the fact of 50% of zygotes dying naturally an issue even distantly related to abortion.

You say that births do not always result...blah blah.. You are really stretching here, arent you? We could discuss all kinds of natural or unnatural reasons a pregnancy does not result in a healthy birth... are they pertinent to the question of an intentional abortion? Possibly...but is not related to the point I was making. I know you are smarter than that.

Your last 3 questions? Lets start with the last: I already stated my position on this. It is a rare situation, (as are the previous 2 situations...but always gets tossed out there like some kind of ignorant gotcha!) but in the case of a pregnancy threatening the mother's life there are no good answers. Therefore, the abortion should be an option for the parents to exercise. Main point, it being their choice... a hard choice, perhaps, but theirs to make. Not the govt's...not some unrelated individuals, or some impersonal panel, or Joe freaking Blow's decision but theirs. This, again...plays no part in the discussion at hand. I have mentioned "recreational abortion" at least once, if not more than once in this thread. My position is quite clear. I do not endorse murder...but there are times when hard choices have to be made.

How often does a pregnancy result from rape or incest? Truly... is this the heart of the discussion? Is a mother's health dependant on an abortion the heart of this discussion? Or is this supposed to be just some gotcha? It's not... these occasions are rare and rarer and do not reside in the heart of the question. At least, as far as I am concerned.

If you ever believe a war is just, yourself, than you obviously believe that murder is "okay" sometimes.

Are these the best pro-abortion arguments you have? Mom's health, incest, rape? Natural selection, viability?

I know you can do better than this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah...I missed this one.

You do understand sarcasm, particularly when combined with an allegorical point?

Yes, I thought so.

So your post was intentionally obtuse.

a reply to: bbracken677

The zygote is alive until...blah blah blah... Immaterial. the 50% you mention that do not survive are a natural thing and has nothing to do with the intentional death from abortion. Not knowing any more about this particular subject my first guess would be the zygote that "dies" naturally was the result of natural selection. It was not strong enough to survive. I dont find the fact of 50% of zygotes dying naturally an issue even distantly related to abortion.

I believe that a woman's choice is very much a part of "natural selection".

a reply to: bbracken677

Let me just add this:

Pick the barbaric act:

1) Protecting the rights of a defenseless individual from the irresponsible and careless actions of another.

2) Protecting a life from murder.

3) Advocating the indiscriminate murder of defenseless individuals for the sake of recreational sex and/or convenience.

Now...pick the actions of a civilized society.

If you have a problem here, perhaps you should seriously examine your motives.

a reply to: bbracken677

Now...pick the actions of a civilized society.

These are the actions of every civilized society that has ever existed.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.

A Brief History of Infanticide.

originally posted by: bbracken677



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.

Up until the first 12/16 weeks of pregnancy nothing is visible and nothing

much changes .... except for morning sickness (and not everyone gets that)

normally the only two people who know of the pregnancy are the woman

and the man responsible.

No 1 reason is just in case anything adverse happens so "don't count

your chickens" ...the fewer people that know the easier it is to recover

and move on from any disappointment.

No 2 reason is if the pregnancy comes as a shock/surprise it is in that

window of time most women make the decision to have a termination.

To be or to not be pregnant??


There is the answer to my saying she *Chose* to be pregnant ?

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?

Abortion is Legal ... murder is not.

Irresponsibility? Depends on which side of the fence you stand?

What appears irresponsible to one person might actually be the

responsible thing to do!.... Who has the right to judge ? ....

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah...I missed this one.

You do understand sarcasm, particularly when combined with an allegorical point?

Yes, I thought so.

So your post was intentionally obtuse.

Obtuse?

You were either advocating for child murder, or you were making light of it.

If it's "obtuse" to have a severe issue with that, then I am.

The murder of children is not a "sarcastic" topic. It's a disgusting one.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That was EXACTLY my point!

There is no difference between abortion and the murder of children.

Now you get it.

a reply to: eletheia

I see...so having recreational sex without protection is behaving responsibly?

I see........ You are right... apparently some people have a very distorted view of what behaving responsibly means.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: eletheia

I see...so having recreational sex without protection is behaving responsibly?

I see........ You are right... apparently some people have a very distorted view of what behaving responsibly means.

Sorry, but who exactly is the judge of "responsibly" and what that means, and why the hell are you in someone's bedroom or wherever anyway?

a reply to: windword

I see...since others have done it then it must be alright.

Most excellent!

Murder has been committed by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization.....

Murder must be ok then! I think I will load up and head to a theater.

(for those of you insufficiently equipped to deal with sarcasm...I am not planning on performing a barbaric act such as shooting people in a theater... I was making a point. I presented an allegorical instance illustrating the stupidity of the premise)

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was EXACTLY my point!

There is no difference between abortion and the murder of children.

Now you get it.

Got it, bought the t-shirt, gave it to a homeless kid.

Abortion is murder. Fine. Where do you stand on abortions in the case of rape, incest and danger to the woman's life?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So you think that unprotected recreational sex is behaving responsibly? Particularly one which results in an abortion?

Seriously? Can you actually say that with a straight face?

Apparently you do not grasp the concept of behaving responsibly. Look it up...google is a wonderful thing.

Is raping the environment behaving responsibly? How about raping another person? How about shooting another person? How about depriving another living being of life because you cant keep it in your pants? Or..perhaps dont have the patience to run to the drugstore...or a woman who is not regularly taking her birth control. Or perhaps has not attempted to get a prescription for contraceptives? It's on both of the participants to see to it that contraception is in place prior to recreational sex.

It doesnt take a genius to understand the concept of behaving responsibly. This isnt a religious question, it isnt a question of politics, it is a question of common sense and personal ethics. Provided you a personal system of ethics.

Would you steal from a neighbor if provided the opportunity and knew for a fact you would never get caught? If the answer is yes, then ... well... I will stop right there.

Behaving responsibly means, for one thing, being accountable for your own actions. Not taking a life because you screwed up and do not want the inconvenience of having to raise a child. Would you kill one of your children merely because he/she is inconvenient? Of course not... so why would you kill a fetus? Cause you dont know the fetus? Cause you have no emotions invested in the fetus? Cause you can have it done and no one else will know about it in your circle of peers?

a reply to: Gryphon66

jesus...I already answered that. Did you not read the post? Apparently you stopped half way through. I am not repeating myself.

a reply to: windword

OH no you don't!

By your definition if I pick up a pistol and shoot someone that is me exercising natural selection. Sorry...that is wrong on multiple levels.

Do you know what natural selection is?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: eletheia

I see...so having recreational sex without protection is behaving responsibly?

It has been known for a man to make promises he wont, or doesn't intend to

keep'

I know of a case where a couple were actually trying to get pregnant, and

when the thin blue line appeared .... He went AWOL.

There must be a hundred and one other reasons??

I see........ You are right... apparently some people have a very distorted view of what behaving responsibly means.

Views are always different from different perspectives I try not

to be judgemental.

a reply to: ~Lucidity


Just a quick remark: I read the bottom of your post and there in rather bold letters is:

Deny Willful Ignorance

And yet you ask who exactly is the judge of responsibly...... As if having unprotected recreational sex resulting in a pregnancy and an abortion is considered responsible behavior in any world other than Bizzarro world.

a reply to: eletheia

People are effed up...there are any number of reasons to abort a child. Does the presence of a reason, any reason, make murder acceptable? It might, given life and death situations, but I do not happen to believe that abortion should be the answer in most cases.

In the situation you present, the mom was not the irresponsible one. The dad was. Does the irresponsible actions of the father make it fine and dandy that mom is ok making a decision resulting in the death of her child?