Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

Liberal logic is so junior high and dumb.

Planned parenthood are taking aborted children's parts and using them in babies.

 

How many women have posted in this thread?

 

The irony with your level of understanding and how you phrased this.

 

Once it is a "baby," it has rights already. Until then, the woman has the choice.

 

Have you seen a couple's reaction when the baby kicks for the first time in her womb?

Did you know the the baby has a heartbeat at 6 weeks? And abortion is legal up to 12 weeks?

Oh... but it isn't a baby and it has no rights.

Riiiiiiight.

 

I love this, mostly because your very next sentence is a direct contradiction...

Nations with a liberal abortion rate also have liberal leanings on both contraception and education. "That policy umbrella" includes those things as well as abortion.

No, easy access to abortion assures that women don't face undue risks when engaging in a perfectly legal medical procedure.

We regulate them so that the people performing abortions are qualified medical personnel in licensed facilities. That way, there is appropriate oversight just as there is for every other medical procedure.

I know what you're trying to say, but this made little sense.

There is demand for abortion already. There was demand for decades, perhaps centuries, before Roe v. Wade and a huge part of the reason the SCOTUS made that decision was because people were getting "back alley" abortions and dying when those deaths are easily preventable. The court rules that a woman has a right to choose whether to bring a fetus to term and bear it, you don't get to choose for her.

Having sex is also an act of nature. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, one engages in sex without taking adequate contraceptive steps. When this happens, the woman gets to choose whether to choose to bring the fetus to term or now. You don't get a say in the matter, it is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

The problem is unwanted pregnancies. Abortion exist because of this problem.

Address the cause, not the symptom.

 

So, GladiatorRowdy, if I'm in favor of extensive sex education and birth control handed out like Halloween candy then am I the holder of a "liberal" abortion policy, too? I didn't think so.

I SEE YOU HIDING IN THERE.....

 

I don't overlook a d@mn thing. Adoption is available to any woman who chooses it.

To many women, having the government force them to use their uterus to bring a fetus to term would qualify as "punishment." You don't get to force such a punishment on anyone.

They are still children at that point. Part of being a child (as well as part of being a citizen) is having to live under the rules which are established. If an 18 year old wanted to hang out at Starbucks all day, she would have that choice, she deserves that choice, just as she deserves the choice of whether to become a mother or not.

 

Not even remotely, and your simplistic, two sentence posts won't ever blow my "logic," never mind "to bits."

No, I wouldn't allow choice past a certain point. There are more than two positions for the policy lever on this issue, and the line should be explicit. That line will exist somewhere between conception and birth and if I were Emperor of the United States, I would use viability of the fetus as a starting point.

 

Have you ever seen a woman's reaction to a pregnancy which is unwanted? She doesn't give a flying f#$% about your hypothetical couple.

Did you know that fetuses aren't viable until 21-22 weeks or more? Why exactly is the first heartbeat a reasonable place to draw the line for when abortion should be allowed?

No, it is a fetus, and no, it has no rights.

Try again, rookie.

 

Horse****! You go into that moaning about a lifetime of responsibility which, as a matter of fact, cannot include the adoption option as that can mean releasing the baby and the attendant responsibilities just days after birth.

We have limitations and demands put on us all the time. What is that old calculation... typically on some day in May the average American finally begins working for himself rather than the government. Sometimes I'd just like to punch someone in the face, but the government forces me to leave my own hand in my pocket.

Ah, the rules, that is what we are debating.

 

You are certainly the holder of two "liberal" abortion policies. Conservatives are generally against contraception, especially provided to minors or that which is supplied without charge. Conservatives are also generally resistant to sex education and as a result, people don't have all the tools they should possess should they choose to have sex.

Your stance on abortion itself is certainly conservative, but two out of three ain't bad.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k5hWWe-ts2s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night with all this blood in your hands, bud.

 

I haven't "moaned" about a lifetime of responsibility. What I am on about is the right a woman has to choose whether or not to become a mother. You don't get to make that choice for her.

Women have the right to choose abortion if they are so inclined. The "lifetime of responsibility" is but one factor that women consider when choosing whether to become a mother. What if they just don't want to be a mother?

Again, she gets to make that choice after consultation with her doctor, her God, and anyone whose opinion she respects. I guarantee she doesn't respect your opinion on her uterus.

There are limits on abortion as well.

March. By your logic, you could say that the average American finally begins working for themselves rather than their landlords at some point in March as well and that "argument" would be just as valid as yours.

The social contract forces you to leave your hand in your pocket. The government merely enforces the contract.

No, we can't debate the "line" to which I referred above, because you insist that the line should exist much closer to conception than is reasonable.

 

No blood on my hands at all.

It must really suck to be so incapable of generating a reasonable argument that you are forced to appeal to emotion.

 

1. Yes you have. When you automatically jump to the lifetime of responsibility argument, you have leapfrogged over the adoption option.

2, So it's okay to discuss limits on abortion then...

3. Why did the social contract on abortion change? Could it change back?

4. So, as I've often experienced with you, you want to extinguish the debate because a pro-Life stance is "unreasonable." I see...

 

Abortion "itself" is the focus of this discussion. I knew you guys were hiding behind that other stuff and borrowing its success to prop up "liberal abortion laws."

 

For clarification, is your proposal that women be required to take their pregnancy to term (i.e. make abortion illegal) if they get pregnant at all or is the 6 week heartbeat that you mentioned your threshold for when abortion should be illegal?

 

I didn't set any threshold, and to me it is immaterial. No need to "define" the obvious. In my "perfect" world, the notion of an abortion shouldn't even exist because people don't go around extinguishing little lives-- especially ones of their own creating Should the mother's life be at risk then she would truly have a choice to make.

 

So you'd go with a definition that changes over time, as scientific advancements take place? You should really spend time thinking through your position -- your logic is flimsy.