Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

Richard Jeni, a multi-millionaire comedian who blew his own brains out, pointed out the ostensible irony of anti-death penalty/pro-choicers and vice versa. Carlin in one of his few explicitly partisan moments opened an act ranting about conservative anti-abortionists' stances on child welfare and said if you're a poor kid, pro-life is pro-****ed. The alleged hypocrisy in either direction is false, because abortion and the death penalty each uniquely affect specific gender, racial and economic subsets in ways that make them decisions about more than just ending a life.

 

The point is, you can't simply said, heart beat = life.

The definition of when life starts isn't going to be settle anytime soon.

 

Where's your proof? I'm digging to find out what you know about the pictures, but so far you don't seem to know anything.

 

If for us, suddenly our heart beat stops = death. Why not the same for heart beat on = life?

 

I mean, you are against food stamps right? You dodge the question because you are trapped.

You can make a human being out of a skin cell someday. It's called cloning. Every cell in your body has the information to create another one of you. A sperm has half. So does and egg. When they come together, they form the complete set of DNA to code a human which is in every cell in your body.

The only difference is the chemical signals that the cells are exposed to which control division and development. Life is a process. What makes us special isn't a sperm + egg = life. It's things like empathy and experience.

But none of this can make sense to you, because you live in a reality where your church tells you how to think.

 

Even if this was true, (which I definitely disagree with personally) your point is well taken.

Since their is certainly controversy surrounding the question of "When life begins" it seems prudent and logical that until that question is definitively answered the best course of action is to assume it starts at conception.

After all, none of us wants to kill humans right?

 

Every sperm is sacred.

While I do think there can be debate over "when life begins". The idea that "life begins at conception" makes no sense. First off, conception is a process, not a specific point in time. But conception does not equal a baby being born eventually if left alone. 30% of zygotes fail to implant in the uterus. And 25-50% of those that do will be naturally aborted before the woman even knows she's pregnant. Factor in the problems that happen in a normal pregnancy and only about 30-35% of fertilized eggs become babies.

Conception does not equal life. If it did, then we should be mourning a lot more dead "babies". It only equals the potential for life, though only in the right conditions, and even then the odds aren't great. But sperm also has the potential for life, also only in the right conditions, and even then the odds aren't great. And if having the potential for life is the same thing as life, then my right hand is a mass murderer.

 

I know little about the pictures except that they depict the processes used in abortion. With that the pictures have done their job. The woman whose video I posted a few days ago survived that scalding in a later-term abortion and is productively living out her years.

Why would I need to prove something that is immaterial? Are you trying to deny this reality?

 

Again, you are ignoring the context and you didn't address my question. Nature seems to have a plan for all this.

 

No, I'm not against food stamps and I'm not trapped. I am greatly concerned, as you should be, about any such program creating a dependency and entitlement mindset, but there are legitimate times of need for assistance. I never "dodged" the question.

We can make margarine, too, but it's not butter. So are you saying that it's okay to have been making policy for decades on a possible future outcome that might be okay?

I'm the one that has been touting empathy so I find it hugely ironic now coming from you when you can so glibly kill all those babies. The union of the sperm and egg does make us special. Nothing else creates a human child. If that's not special, what is?

You are either stubborn or stupid; I'll give you the benefit of stubborn for now but you are losing ground on that debate. Your continued accusation doesn't make something true. It just makes you look disingenuous.

Did you ever think that your own Church of Science is justifying the deaths of these babies for the sake of an ever-greater accumulation of knowledge?

 

Statistically, it is most likely that slightly more baby girls are aborted while very few females get the Death Penalty. The poor probably get the short stick on both of these matters. I don't think that is the conclusion you want us to come to though...

 

"Nature" is not a sentient entity and therefore is incapable of a "plan"

Death does not occur when your heart stops beating, tens of thousands of people have been revived from stopped hearts. Death, like life, is a series of processes, one shutting down over time and one starting up over time. They aren't defined until the process is completed.

Great debates have gone before us on when life begins. By the agreement of most experts it had been defined as "viable outside the womb" or around 22-24 weeks for humans.

The final determination of the relative morality of an abortion is the consent of a doctor informed mother. Why anyone would suppose to make the decision for her is vexing.

 

There are natural laws, some of which we may not comprehend. The path of a tornado may seem random because we cannot deeply enough fathom the laws and so not quickly enough ascertain the path... but that doesn't make it random. That is but our limitation.

"Viable outside the womb" is an arbitrary standard that sets up a desired outcome. That timeline certainly has some legitimacy as being factually accurate but its application in a life or death matter is part of certifying a desired outcome.

An equally fair question is why does the mother get to make a life and death decision regarding the baby's life? Oh, I can't ask that because you've already re-drawn the lines for "the final determination of the relative morality." You do realize that there is no imperative to "re-draw" the lines unless there is a new motive afoot?

 

Your whole first paragraph has nothing to do with his statement. What are you on about with all of that? And in response to one of your other posts, we can make humans via nuclear transfer. No sperm is required. We've done it with lots of animals already. Would a baby born via this method not be a sacred life?

Your second paragraph us hypocritical at best. Your side arbitrarily assigns a beating heart as the start of life. Your own argument works just as well against you there. As for drawing and redrawing, you're doing the same, you know. Just double-talk and hand waving.

 

Why do you need to prove that the pictures you're showing are from the currently legal abortion process when you're trying to make a case against the currently legal abortion process? Is that really your question?

 

The purpose is to shock and horrify, that is why graphic images are used. If you are going to rely on graphic images, at least make them accurate, not miscarriages and late term abortions after viability.

 

giddy's right to lie serves a higher purpose.

 

He doesn't have to draw a line. The zygote is alive(not dead) and human after conception, this is not debatable. A zygote may not be able to survive outside the womb but neither can a fish survive outside water. Pro choice = pro ending of human life. The line was only drawn to provide a moral safe place where people who call themselves pro-choice are willing to end human life.

Are you for the ending of human life?

 

Technically "sentient" is about feeling... which has nothing to do with planning. So I took him to mean something akin to organized thinking which is required for planning and I think that collaborative natural laws suffice there. Split hairs all you want!

Someone else said a "beating heart." I didn't say nor do I particularly think that "my side" says that. Most pregnancies are "discovered" WAY BEYOND a first heart beat. Nice try though!

Is your whole mission in life to seek and destroy?

 

You (and others) were pressing the matter. I thought, said, and said again that it is entirely unimportant. The purpose of the pictures is to reveal the true nature and consequence of the procedure-- legal or otherwise.