Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

I agree. That's why we shouldn't try to define it to justify some terminal action on the life of a child.

 

Wrong. There is no reason to refute personal attacks.

 

That's why we allow terminal action on parts, not a living child.

 

You're screaming as loudly as you can to tell people that abortion is bad based on your stereotypical view of abortion as "lifestyle" advancement? Because THAT's what really gets a mother going: you being a complete stranger and laying on a thick moralizing stream of judgement?

I mean, with your opinions of mothers being that bad, I can see how you could justify imprisoning them. Have you ever even had one shred of proof to your point of view or is it based on general feeling?

Here's the thing: if you don't know what the answer is, maybe you shouldn't imply that you'd jail 1/3 of American women to get it.

This is what I said:

I think everybody in the world can agree that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies if a good thing. I have no idea where you got the notion that I preferred abortion to birth control. I was pointing out that the pre-Roe v Wade consensus has a lot of elements that'd you'd have to agree with implictly. Here's one: if you strip PP of funding, one of the largest Title X provider of contraceptives goes down. You've said that you support everything PP does except for abortions, well, in a perfect world of yours that criminalizes abortion service providers, who provides contraceptive access to the poor?

Have you even thought of the implications of your positions and what they'd look like in policy?

I'm not pro-life. I'm pro-fact. I don't think I'm a moral paragon just because the facts (as of this moment) tell me one way over another. You can paint yourself on the moral high ground all you want with your simple "abortion is bad bad bad" judgement. What outcomes are even you advocating for at this point beyond the fantasy of "reducing the abortion rate with your moral outrage"?

Support contraceptives to the hilt and medical research if you really want to reduce the abortion rate, both induced and spontaneous. Fight discredited restrictive abortion laws and "abstinence thinking". Look to the facts and not opinions.

I don't know what camp that puts me in but neither do I care.

Do you think the fact that medical research uses induced fetal tissue encourages more abortions? If not, then the simple answer is there is no cost to induced fetal tissue transfer and only benefit.

The moral high ground is bulls**t. What are the results, I really don't give a s**t how anybody feels one way or another, especially if their feelings are driven by no facts on the ground. The pro-choice side does seem, to me at least, to at least be slightly more fact-driven.

Tell that to the scienticts responsible for decreasing infant mortality 10x.

If you're nauseated by positive outcomes, it's only because you think in stereotypes, not facts and don't want to be confronted with victories that contradict your thinking.

 

Coming from the "man" who said to me:
"You act like an impertinent young person."
"your panties are in a wad"
"You go, bad girl, and be a 22nd Century Marvel"
"does not make you popular at parties"

I love it! Your hypocrisy truly knows no bounds!

And while I'm replying, how on earth does me being in my 40s work towards proving your suspicions that I'm an impertinent young man? Your logical skills are suspect. It's a good thing your hypocrisy overshadows it so much most people won't notice! Have a great day!

 

Your party has cut school lunch programs which were already underfunded, and they have cut welfare and food stamp programs. They are not enough. You are strange - you say they should stop having children yet you are against them having abortions.

You want them to punish them for having babies and then making those babies starve. So twisted and disturbing.

The crazy idea for saying that a zygote or a blastula is the same as a new born baby comes from your church - no where else. So yes, it is church doctrine that is driving you.

Yes it is being unscientific, because there is no science or logic in the world that says a zygote or blastula is a baby. Earliest signs that there might be a thinking feeling human being in a womb is the beginning of the third trimester based on scientific understanding on when a nervous system is connected and electrical activity. So if you said, he no abortions after the 2nd trimester, I could see the logic in that and would think - at least there's a rationality being applied here. You don't have any of that, it's just "the potential for a life is the same thing as a life". That doesn't even make any sense.

Define abortion.

So you agree that one cell is not a living creature? That the morning after pill isn't some murderous drug women take?

Is destroying a blastula the same thing as murdering a 5 month old baby?

Surely you can't be arguing that?

 

This had reached an absurd level.

Giddyup isn't sure if 1/3 of women should be imprisoned for murder?

What about those that 53% that support abortion being legal, are they complicit? What about the employees in abortion clinics? The boyfriends and spouses that are aware that a woman is having an abortion and don't stop them? The research labs that took aborted fetus tissue for research?

The numbers are staggering... To the point that there is a real possibility that your wife or mother or daughter killed a baby based on the raw percentages. That real possibility has to horrify you to the point that you have to just dismiss it.

 

Lady, you've been snarky from the start. Threads before this one.

I never called you a man. You made a mountain out of a molehill because I didn't answer a single question you had just posted. That's what I was pointing out. I gave a response later.

Being in your 40s proves nothing to me. I had no idea. I was speculating based on your impatience that you were immature.

I said it doesn't merit a reply. You "chose" to reply. Live with it.

 

Lulz, you're amazing. You honestly don't see that you just hand-wave away anything that doesn't fit your ridiculously narrow world-view? It doesn't warrant a response because you have nothing to counter it. That's hand-waving. That's dismissing valid points because you don't like them. That's not how discussions work. You and Outlier are cut from the same cloth. He never answers questions he doesn't like either. I asked him several times for answers to these questions and got no actual responses other than the same canned bull****. You respond in exactly the same manner. "Oh, I answered, but it wasn't an answer you like" sort of tripe. It's ridiculous and sad and the intellectual equivalent of just standing there with your fingers in your ears going "lalalalala" when someone says something your cognitive dissonance struggles with.

Much delusion. Many fallacy. So sad. You also don't see how much of a hypocrite you are, despite the fact it's been pointed out a dozen times or more by several people? Oh, the bad man called me names in response to my name calling. Woe is me, I'm such a victim! What a sad little man. Oh, and I thought you'd like to know, your monthly donation to PP went out two days ago.

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

This chart overwhelmingly indicates that women self-proclaim that their primary reason for choosing abortion are selfish (not ready, too immature, avoiding single parenthood, have enough children, cannot afford).

In 1987 84% of women pursuing abortion gave one of the above reasons as their primary reason. By 2004, that percentage had dropped to 82%

What happens when "judgment" meets facts?

 

I'm sorry you are so frustrated that you can't make me cave. We argue in two different worlds. You expect that I will surrender to yours, while I don't expect you to surrender to mine. That is why you are petulant and angry.

I'm here for others who may read and be moved by the alternate perspective and the realities that I am not fearful of advancing.

I've not decried medical advances but I have raised questions about the morality and the cost. If you just "waive your hands" and dismiss those questions (as you seem to do) you might as well apply for a Mengele Grant and continue work on twin studies.

I do have respect for your world and your work; you have none for mine...
but I'm the one off the deep end?

 

I expect nothing from you other than the same tired "arguments" and platitudes and tripe. I'm not sure where you get petulant and angry from. I'm grinning from ear to ear with every post I type, and not in some maniacal joker-esque fashion either. Pure unadulterated joy. Observing hypocrisy is my anti-drug!

I doubt you've changed a single mind with your posts. I doubt I have either. I'm fine with that, you're not. That's why you're all..what was it...petulant and angry! I think the scientific advances far outweigh the costs by orders of magnitude. Scrape those cells together and make something that will benefit humanity! Let's get some work done that benefits a lot of people! I have no issues with the morality either. They're already going to be scraped out so let's use it for good! It's like organ donation but instead of only helping a couple of people it could help millions! Let's do this!

Oh, and a Nazi reference? Really? Don't you know that according to the rules of the internet you lose by making that statement? It's called Godwin's Law. Look into it!

And thanks for the respect? What is it that you do, exactly, other than post tired tropes on internet message boards?

 

JUST WOW.

I don't really give a crap about scientific designations that have been used to justify destructive decisions in the life of the child.

As I recall, you said something about a " 1 cell zygote." I simply responded that no one pursues an abortion when there is just one cell. Likely the morning after pill arrives to late for that one cell destruction.

Someone jumped all over me and felt very satisfied in pointing out that the Zygote Era is generally considered to last through 8 weeks, so IN FACT many if not most abortions are committed against zygotes.

TOTAL VICTORY!? General dismay on my part.

 

Yes, I've heard of Godwin's Law and I ignore it where I feel appropriate. This issue is one of them because in the case of these unborn babies, as was the case for the Jews, the victim was thought of as being less than human. Perfect fit.

That stupid law is but another machination to try and limit the argument.

Sometimes "tired old arguments and platitudes" are just ancient truths and common sense that some are trying to create and justify a work around.

IF they are going to be scraped out, by all means use them. I'm not advocating to throw the baby out with the bath water. However, I am in favor of restricting those scraping victims. They are due a life, too.

"Observing hypocrisy is my anti-drug" and you claim not to be judgmental?

Do you ride a white horse or at least wear a red cape?

 

What happens when "judgement" meets fact is that you begin to get into insight: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Like the insight that you think the fact 23% of mothers can't afford the basic needs of life as being "selfish". Like the fact that you can categorize every percentage of "not being able to afford a baby" as being selfish.

How that insight makes you think your moralizing will change even one iota of the abortion rate is beyond me. Let me put it to you this way: what in this data makes you think you yelling "abortion is bad" will change anything to a mother who can't even afford the basic needs of life?

What in this data makes you think that you yelling for jailing women is better than providing expansive childcare and better welfare benefits?

Again, what outcomes are you advocating for? How are you using this data?

Here's a data point for you now that we are talking about facts:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-t...figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

 

Have you outlawed adoption? It can even be done for profit and lots of parents will pay for the pre-natal and birth costs, too.

People I know who have adopted, usually have to go overseas to adopt babies that have not been aborted. Too rich.

 

Different POV and assumptions.

Your view of Selfish is judgmental on your part.

A woman deciding not to have a baby because she realize she is not ready to care for one, is too immature to take care of one, is not financially capable of caring for one... CARING for one.

A woman holding the view that life hasn't start when the abortion took place, can also be viewed as being very responsible and not selfish. From that POV, having a baby that she cannot support is being irresponsible and maybe selfish while not having a baby is being responsible.

Now, if society would fully care for the actual living, I believe women would have a much easier choice. Clearly, the financial and caring capability wouldn't be an issue. But most pro-life folks are against supporting the living, so there you go.

 

ADOPTION

 

What is the purported connection between low abortion rates and liberal abortion law in European countries?

 

I love it! You even hand-wave Godwin's Law away! That's a new one for me. Kudos, good sir, kudos! And that's a false equivalency and I think you know it, at least on some level.

And they're hardly ancient "truths" or common sense. If they were this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I do ride a white horse from time to time, but capes are bad, per The Incredibles! And where did I claim to not be judgmental? I just pointed out that you were! "I also laugh heartily at your hypocrisy! JUDGEMENTAL! How dare I judge you for judging people for hundreds of posts! The nerve! You've literally judged people for years in this thread and others but have the audacity to say I'm judgmental? I think you're simply...mental!" Notice I didn't deny judging you. I own that. I just think it's awesome you judged me for judging you for judging others.