Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

Artificial environment vs naturally occurring...

I don't know what you mean by artificial environment. I don't know if you even know.

Human isn't at the point where human created processes can totally replace nature processes. The self-beating heart is highly leveraging nature process. Human put the right conditions in place and let nature take its course. IVF and similar approaches are perfect example. In the near future, very possibly male-only genes are put into the right conditions and nature take it course... and violate a baby that has the genetic makeup from two males. Gay couple producing babies. Pretty wacko isn't it?

If nature has a plan for all of it, everything that has happen and will happen and is possible is part of nature plan. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

Is this why people don't feel like engaging in a "debate" with you? The whole If___x____ then ____y____ philosophy doesn't work here. You began your response with an appeal to emotion, which I guess is your method of making some sort of point, but that approach fails to align with counter-beliefs as well as your overall claims on the topic. The emotion-laced undertone is completely separate from this discussion about the inaccurate labels associated with those of us who are categorized as pro-choice. I contend that no one is inherently "pro-abortion," unless they are sociopaths or individuals who support murder. "Pro-choice" does not necessarily have to relate to the concept of abortion, but for argument's sake, I'll roll with it. Really, though, "pro-choice" argues, rather simplistically, for the ability to "choose." Your parallel to theoretical crimes, as they relate to the notion of choice is, once again, totally off base.

Supporting any person's right to choose, whether that be college, or a decision for their body has nothing to do with enabling (your word). It seems like you are trying to attain leverage with a false reach towards complex rhetoric or your conception of linguistics and meaning. If you look at the issue down to its core and pump your brakes with the scenario-heavy drivel (adoption, rapists, etc...), you would acknowledge that only the fringe of society are pro-abortion. Please, say that aloud. Do you really believe that people celebrate or affirm abortion in the realm of appreciation?

Absolutely not. There are the roughly 50% of us who support the right to choose, free from whatever false connotation that some try to group with it. You express your views with an obvious flaw in logic as your ideas are derived mainly from your own strong emotions. It's like you purposely ignore what choice entails and attempt to challenge it with some brief, fictional anecdote that sidesteps the true meaning of the "pro-choice" perspective. If you separate yourself from that for a moment, you might arrive at a more objective belief system. That's what we're seeking, right? Objectivity. To get there, on any issue, emotions have to be placed away temporarily. I was hesitant to respond to you because of this, but I'll play for a minute.

You mention accepting what my "tolerance" has set into motion. It's interesting that you use the term "tolerance," when you and I have a difference of opinion, it seems, about the word "choice." It is almost as if you substitute your own meaning into words that already have shared meanings and a cohesive understanding. According to your logic, "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion" and "tolerance" yields the same meaning as "murder." This is just not the case, and moreover, I find it mildly-offensive --based on your logic--that you assume that I am indifferent towards murder. Your post (and previous posts in this thread) are suggestive of this because of a reliance on your belief structure which has a formulaic fallacy of thought. (If x, then y)

This ideation strays from what you and I truly disagree about, but like your previous posts in this thread, it seems like this is your way of countering an opposing view with an attempt at responding without bias. You mask the literal meaning of "choice" through any given number of scenarios that I could find on "Law and Order" or, again, through your own methods of forcing language to shape your preexisting beliefs. You can create and dissect language all day (not with me, lol), but you are only convincing yourself of something that you already believed before entering this thread. Maybe you cannot see things progressively, or it is possible that your views come from a traditional frame of reference. I cannot imagine viewing the world, or women's rights, in the same manner. Choices/freedom is what we've always sought, so I question your belief in limiting the same freedoms to women.

I am most definitely "pro-choice," but I am somewhat able to understand how you have arrived at your claims, even if they rely extensively on your own, unique solicitation to theoretical emotions or made-up scenarios that are metacognitively desirable to you.

You should try, in the least, to understand that being pro-choice does not "make" me pro-abortion whatsoever. In the same respect, you referring to yourself as "pro-life" does not mean that you value life any more than I do. These labels, when considered in the incorrect mindset, are dangerous and downright inaccurate. I wonder if the "pro-life" movement thinks that they're on some sort of pedestal in comparison to those of us who support choice. In reality, it's possible that I support life equally, if not more, because I value the physical, emotional and mental health of the woman who's blessed to have the choice to give birth. That's the whole problem with the label and you trying, and failing, to portray the opinion of "pro-choice" as being supportive of murder.

The entire If_____, then_____ structure is a fallacy of thinking in this case. I simply support the ability/right/request for ALL women to make a choice without interference, especially interference by a man. So, I can play your game, too, but just for another moment.

Does all of this make me a feminist? Maybe, but I would much rather support women, and their right to choose, instead of believing myself to be an intellectually- superior being. I would rather not take part in enacting policies which, truthfully, insult female intelligence, through the refusal of allowing women the freedom of choice. That's just me, though. Like the essence of "choice," you are free to believe that you know "better" than a given woman about babies and birth, or that your right to choose (insert anything here) holds more weight than that of a woman. That's really what you're implying when you hope to deny the right to choose.

I have observed the countless ways in which you, and those who are like-minded, attempt to divert the pro-choice/pro-life discussion, so I don't feel obligated to entertain it much more. I don't want to get into all of this as you think it applies to religion, partisan politics or your personal code of alleged morality. We're just not going to be able to agree. In my opinion, those with differing views cannot find compromise with your belief because it relies heavily on emotion and attempts at parallels that become null and void. The label-shaming that's given off is really language manipulation. It's not a worthwhile debate after awhile, lol. I just cannot fathom how you stand by the underlying consequences of your convictions.

By not respecting the right to choose, and based on what you wrote, the value you place on the intellect of women is horribly disappointing. I don't falter, in any sense of the word, with my confidence in a woman's ability to make the best choice possible, because she has the right to make a choice. Perhaps you and I differ in our opinions about the immeasurable sensibility and wisdom that women evidence, in relation to pregnancy, if they so choose that route, along with their livelihood and ability to nurture both children and adults. I know you value female intelligence to a certain extent, but it is plausible that you underestimate the cognitive makeup of women. You certainly entertain the idea that women are unable to make effective choices, when provided with the right to choose as it pertains to pregnancy or otherwise.

Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with you, and although I deem your views on "choice" to be incredibly insulting to all women, you seem to legitimately believe all that you post. In that sense, I can respect you for truly believing what you post.

I'd rather just rock with women and respect the tough decisions they make, knowing damn well that, as a man, I'm in no position to instruct them on what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

It's not a just a man's world anymore. Women are on the same platform, thankfully.

 

You must be against gun control, right? You don't want to take away the choice of people to own guns when a large percentage of the country disagrees, do you?

 

Why at conception? Why not even earlier? Life starts at the time of cell creation. Sure cell die off constantly, but after conception, the failure rate is quite high. Or, how about go to a world wide interdependent view. Life is absolutely dependent on natural resources. Destroying resources is killing off ungodly # of potential new life.

From my perspective, I consider it a possibility (faith related beliefs) and so I personally act in that way. A very personal choice that stay within me and only me. I cannot force others to make my personal choice.

It would be much easier to support strong anti-abortion laws, if all considerations is given to support any unwanted pregnancies from conception to birth all the way to adulthood.

 

So you are for growing entitlement programs? There are many malnourished children and kids who are not getting what they need in various forms. What is your stance on that?

Are you saying that a cloned human being is not equal to a non-cloned human being? It is more than possible some point in the future, it is reality today. No one has done it for ethical reasons. But sheep have been cloned.

A zygote is not a baby. It is a cell - much like any other cell. To call it a child is ridiculous. It is no different than a skin cell. I have empathy for human life, not a religious book that was written thousands of years ago without any knowledge of the human body.

I think you need to direct this inward. Seriously.

I have no church. I am merely relying on logical rational thought. I don't hold science to be anything more than a way of thinking. I hold religion to be what it is - a way of NOT thinking.

No baby has died because of abortion. You're argument is silly because it makes no sense. You assign "baby" to a cell. That's crazy.

 

Way to take it literal. That one clearly flew over your head.

 

You have to be pretty quick to get an abortion when the potential offspring is still a single cell. Within twelve hours quick. You might be able to pull that off with Plan-B One Step (although the makers don't technically consider that an abortion). Pretty much any abortion that is getting done after making an appointment at an abortion clinic is not going to be dealing with a single cell organism.

 

Thank you for proving my suspicions.

 

Wasn't it you that wanted to undercut someone's argument that life begins at a heartbeat by pointing out that science could stimulate a few heartcells to beat before they would wither away?

Natural environment occurs in a womb not scientific glass.

 

The only reason to be pro-Choice is to allow abortion. It's a feel-good thing to use the moniker CHOICE instead. Why not be pro-Abortion and let the choice be secondary because being pro-Abortion doesn't have to mean that you opt for it? It's okay NOT to choose to abort, isn't it?

Labels are powerful things.

Opponents of the Pro-Life stance as a label in this area of discussion attempt to burden it down with a great variety of tangentially related matters from pre-school programs to food stamp programs to free college education as if all that would de facto rise from the birth of a child.

If parents would be parents to their little creations, we wouldn't have nearly the problems we have. Killing off the babies might "solve the problem" but it is terrible for the baby.

Why on earth would one divorce one's emotions on this topic? Little humans are being scalded and dismembered and decapitated for the sake of someone's right to choose. If you are not disgusted by that, check your heart.

Understandably, facing that makes people uncomfortable. They do the best and most they can not to face the reality that they have created by allowing choice.

No, it's not a man's world anymore. Statistically speaking, without emotion, more than half of the aborted children are probably little girls. Think they love this power of choice that you all revel in?

Is that not a "fair" question?

 

My stance is 1) that idiots who cannot and will not support their children need to stop making babies and 2) that we do what we can to nourish kids.

Schools have heavily subsidized or free breakfast and lunch programs. Local churches have "backpack ministries" that send food home with kids for the weekend. There are food stamp programs.

Why have they not done it if there is no issue? Why are you asking me...

You are the only one stopping at zygote. Most abortions take place weeks after the zygote phase is a distant memory in the scientist's notebook.

You keep asserting that it is some church doctrine that is driving me. I've heard one, exactly one, message about this issue in my church and I was disappointed by the stance taken so as not to ruffle feathers of parishioners.

So just give up on this line of accusation...

Are you trying to say that being pro-Life is patently not scientific? How so?

Is that some more of that "logical ration thought" we are glimpsing?

Name one woman who has ever deliberately aborted a single cell. Waiting...

 

You have it wrong: birth control is a preferred method to abortion. And societies that embrace a healthy view of sexuality and liberal abortion policies happen to have an abundance of the former and a scarcity of the latter.

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/abortion-rate-globally-US/2015/04/15/id/638599/#ixzz3opLjuMBk

As for fetal tissue transfer or baby organ selling, whichever you prefer:

You want the bolded because---

You can stop taking the moral high road. You want to imprison 1/3 of American women (http://www.aclu-il.org/13-of-us-women-have-abortions-87-of-us-counties-have-no-provider/) for a "national ethic" (I suppose it fits the "pro-life" narrative of America as prison state) without recourse to empirical facts of how restrictive abortion laws would affect the nation's abortion rate or science that is aiming to save millions more?

Good luck with that.

 

When did I ever say anything but that birth control is preferred to abortion?

Got no problem with using normally available fetal tissue-- research the hell out of it. I do find it puzzling that you will embrace elective abortion to help try and prevent spontaneous abortion.

I never took the moral high road; I never got off it unlike others.

The advancement of science will not live or die on the amount of fetal tissue available for research.

 

Most abortions also take place before the fetal stage (typically marked as 8 weeks after gestation):



Probalistically speaking, it's much more likely for a woman to abort a zygote than a late-stage fetus.

And I'm not sure what you think you mean by "deliberately aborted a single cell", but I'm sure you're familiar with the Morning-After Pill--soon to be an imprisonable offense along with all spontaneous abortions?

 

Are you getting away from saying that 1/3 of American women deserve prison?

Why would my stance be puzzling after looking through the empirical fact that nations with less restrictive abortion laws actually do strike better at "safe, legal and rare" then nations that brutally criminalize abortion? Less abortions. Better maternal health results. Lower infant mortality. I'm for those things and they go together.

I find it puzzling that you consider yourself pro-life yet your solution is a cudgel of discredited policies without any basis in fact--and you somehow consider imprisoning 1/3 of American women for a "national ethic" as "pro-life". I suppose a woman in prison is still alive enough to warrant the moral high road.

Who are you to say that the advancement of science requires a minimum of fetal tissue transfer without asserting any factual evidence? I'm sure biotech companies and researchers just love taking fetal tissue for fun and getting involved in legal grey zones for no reason.

You've never been on the moral high road. You just think you are for some reason that is beyond me (though this applies to most everybody who can only contribute the notion that "abortion is bad" to these kind of debates).

If you provide the evidence and facts, I'll listen. Moralizing for the sake of moralizing will get you nowhere.

 

It was Sweet Lou's use of zygote in describing a one cell creature to demean it as not being a life. 6, 8, 12 weeks... you have a multi-cellular baby!

 

Heart beat by itself isn't anything but a heart beat. Heart beat is a key ingredient for life, not life. As a brain is a another key ingredient for life, but is not life.

As I said, no one is going to agree anytime soon when life starts. It's hard enough to define what life is.

 

And thank you for more hand-waving on things you have no true response to! I'll take your (lack of) response as acquiescence to all of my points. Please see yourself out.

 

That's the elephant in the room; I don't know what the answer is. Right now, I'm just screaming as loudly as I can pointing up the ugly horror that is abortion in hopes that people might curtail reckless sexual behavior and "choose" to spare their child'd life even if just to give it up for adoption.

Your stance was puzzling to me because I never criticized birth control. There was a point where I pointed out that you had intimated that abortion was a preferred method of birth control. In response you changed "of" to "to" which completely changed the message.

I find it puzzling that you would kill babies in the womb and claim to be pro-Life.

I never said such a thing. I only touted naturally available fetal tissue. The fact will be that more tissue is better. At what cost?

Get off this. Everyone is claiming their own moral high ground. Choosers will camp out on the woman's right to choose and lambaste me for compromising it.

I have a hard time getting past the selfish slaughter of babies for lifestyle. The justification of it for the advancement of science is nauseating a bit.