Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

So you're going to force women to have babies they don't want and then you're going to force them to take care of babies they don't want. Sounds legit.

Even if you could ever break through on the principle of outlawing abortion you still fail miserably on the feasibility and practicality of it so why bother?

 

And you force those babies to surrender their only life. Really, which is worse?

Parents have multiple options and, as GladiatorRowdy pointed out, adoption is one of them. Obviously, we could/should streamline the adoption process, maybe even incentivize it... how about a free college tuition for every child who gets adopted? This would lift a burden off adopting parents but not motivate them with direct compensation.

 

those are cannibalistic animals, including the bacteria. is your lesson here that we're allowed to kill indiscriminately?

or are you saying humans shouldn't kill other humans? that doesn't make sense either because we kill each other all the time.

think harder giddy. why is it in some instances killing is condoned and in others it's not? what's the criteria? it's not "being human."

 

Sad that you think of your beliefs as sacred, while others' beliefs are a "distraction."

Yes, and as a general rule, the VAST majority share the values being "thrust." Feel free to point out another policy area where only 19% agree, but the opposite value is "thrust on us."

(I'll point out the only example I know, North of 80% of us feel like we should have more controls on gun sales, like universal background checks, but the values of the NRA are "thrust on us.")

It is a unique situation for each and every woman who is faced with the choice. As such, it is not appropriate to use a blanket, one size fits all policy when each and every set of circumstances should be taken as unique.

 

That's pretty arrogant, pretending to know that this will be the only chance the soul in that fetus will have to "live." If it dies an innocent, doesn't it go to heaven, which is presumably a damm sight better than this freaking place.

Forcing women to bear a child they don't want is worse.

I'm OK with creating more incentives for adoption, I am all for strategies which would actually reduce abortion rates.

A ban would not accomplish that goal.

 

What happen to free will? It's not true?

We aren't prohibited from any choices at all. We are typically (it does mess up sometime) given a brain, mental and physical attributes to do whatever we want. For us, it's human constructs of belief systems, of system of laws, of society standards, of position of power over others, that prohibits choices.

Well, that's convenient for you on the BS calling. Here is a flip -- your "it's a baby" is all BS. It's a huge immoral inner reasoning to justify a deeper level of beliefs and morals. Does that fit you? No? Maybe you want to consider not being a mind reader?

 

Except of course they're not babies as has been rehashed with you a million times by now. In your mind Americans are going to adopt an additional half million plus children per year when they currently adopt a little over one hundred thousand. So you're going to increase the adoption rate by three hundred percent by telling parents that in 18 years when they're no longer legally responsible for their child they'll get free tuition. That's your big plan? Who is going to pay for the prenatal care and doctor's visits for women that can't afford it? Who is going to pay for tripling the services required to adopt all these children?

 

Think harder? There's nothing to really think about. The distinctions are obviious. This is a dumb line of inquiry, but I'l game... how about being human and innocent? That separates these sweet babies from any other humans who deserve to die due to the violence they have perpetrated on other citizens.

 

How many times a day do you thrown down a carpet and pray toward Mecca? There are many examples of this kind of distinction that you embody but you only want to slander my side. That is the distraction to which I'm referring. The irony is that I'm the one being reverent about the innocent life and you are the one being irreverent about it and still the one slandering. Too much!

The wrong thing is still the wrong thing. According to Gallup in 2015 50% pro-Choce, 44% pro-Life and 6% undecided.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx

Not according to this CNN poll from a couple of weeks ago: 52% oppose and 46% favor stricter gun control.

Nothing is more unique than the life at stake. Circumstances be damned!

 

We are talking about the law here not free will.

 

You are late to the party here. According to the one study I read and posted, there are 36 families wanting to adopt for every adoption of a US child. Most adoptive parents that I know go abroad to get their children: Russia, China, Congo, Guatemala and Bulgaria off the top of my head.

 

Huh? I'm humble. Unlike you, I don't know so I respect the life conceived and you are okay with "offing" it because it "probably" or "might" have another incarnation and you call me arrogant.. too ironic!

 

None, I'm not Muslim, I'm perfectly OK with any Muslim doing so, I would not presume to try to impose my beliefs on them.

I'm not "slandering" anyone. I'm sorry if you don't like your views described accurately, but I haven't been anything less than accurate in my depictions of your opinion.

I was talking about your opinion on a ban on abortion. 4-1 against your opinion.

Again, looking at a different statistic than the one I mentioned. Even 79% of Republicans favor stricter background checks.

http://thehill.com/regulation/251037-poll-shows-bipartisan-support-for-expanding-background-checks

Nope, the circumstances are the important part. You're welcome to discount the fact that most Americans support a woman's right to choose, just as you are welcome to continue tilting at this windmill instead of doing things that might actually reduce abortion rate.

You should be aware that you'll lose, but keep up the pointless fight.

 

No, I'm OK with a woman choosing abortion because I think that decision is one that she should make after consultation with her God, her doctor, and anyone else she would like to bring into the discussion.

Unless she asks for your opinion, it isn't wanted or welcome.

 

boom! headshot

Gladiato gets so wrapped around the axle with his "logic" that he becomes incoherent and resorts to insults. Time and time again...

 

Yes, life news sounds like a great source for that bull**** figure equating fertile couples as "waiting to adopt". It surely explains why there are so many kids in the system now. Great stuff.

So who is paying for all the health care?

 

bigpuffery strikes again, with a post devoid of anything intelligent or topical.

My logic is extremely straightforward. Women should be allowed to decide what happens in their own bodies.

giddy claimed that the fetus gives up "its only life," which is a belief, not a fact. It is, without question, arrogant to think that one has knowledge about what happens after death. My opinion regarding reincarnation is just as valid as his.

...bigpuffery jumps into a thread and demonstrates that he lacks facts, evidence, or even a salient point, preferring to disparage others instead.

 

There are thousands of people that are killed without having perpetrated violence on other citizens so that you can maintain your standard of living. They're called collateral damage in wars we wage to maintain our position as top dog in the world. Those casualties were innocents (and human), your heart does not bleed for them. Nobody went to jail. Nobody was punished. More will die tomorrow.

Human and innocent? Psh, killed a bunch of those yesterday, you didn't bat an eye. That stuff happened somewhere far away, who cares as long as you're not inconvenienced?

Common dude, it can't be that hard to think up a set of cohesive criteria that separates a valuable life from an invaluable life. I thought you were well-versed in "right-to-live." How can you claim a fetus life has value if you can't enumerate the qualities that give it value over all other things that are killed regularly?

 

You take definitive, final action against the life of another on a hope and a whim. You are welcome to your opinion about reincarnation as far as it affects your life but you have converted your opinion into a fatal decision that affects another life. You have the audacity to suggest cynically that the dead baby will be in a better place-- heaven-- in a traditional life after death context.

How about erring on the side of caution when it comes to life and death?

 

I did just that. The issue here is Right to Life, meaning a baby in utero's right to life vs. her mother's right to choose.

Why can't this group stick to the topic? They want to lump this issue in with a bunch of others that, yes, deal with life and death but not in the same way.

You try to overwhelm with a loose tie-in to a bunch of tangential issues so you don't have to address this specific issue, I guess.

Sorry but I just step over "it's not a baby" like nothing was said because you cannot prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Oh, yes, you guys can perpetrate a definition to buttress your point but that is not proof only a tentative belief which should not be acted on fatally.

Why should I have to "prove" it's a baby to stop you from killing it? Seems like you should have to "prove" it's not a baby in order to be allowed to kill it .... and you can't even do that. All you can do is make the claim.