Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

That's just a semantic argument. Call them unborn baby parts, call them fetus tissue, it's all the same thing.

 

Fantastic! That's $120,000 a month they can spend helping people. Seems like a win-win here.

 

So its not baby parts. Glad to get past that.

Now, have there been any medical advances that were the result of research using fetal tissue?

 

Which child lost its life?

 

You seem to have reading comprehension problems. It would be better if you'd work on that.

 

Maybe if I repeated inane phrases like "kid games" endlessly you would follow along better...

 

Don't get it twisted, you are the one failing to follow along. You are playing semantic "kid games" here, "unborn baby parts" and "fetus tissue" are the exact same thing. I'm hoping at some point you will grasp that obvious fact.

And don't take this as if I'm against it, I personally don't care one way or the other. In fact, I would fully support selling unborn baby parts for profit in order to provide poor people with free abortions in an effort to get them to successfully breed less. It would be the best thing for the world and we could call it a crime prevention measure.

 

So you consider confusing a serious discussion regarding fetal tissue research with "baby parts" and "killing babies" simply as "semantics"? And you accuse me of twisting things? Perhaps a quick look in the mirror is in order.

OK, so we now know your personal views on a very serious topic (abortion) and on poor people. Not surprised mind you...

 

ಠ_ಠ ...

 

That is a semantic argument. Its' an attempt to whitewash what is actually happening. One could say "killing an unborn baby" or say "terminating a fetus" or "terminating a pregnancy" and they are saying the same exact thing, the only difference is one way sounds a whole lot worse than the others.

When it comes to abortion, the discussion should be about if there is an acceptable time to kill an unborn baby, not a semantic argument over calling it an unborn baby or a fetus. The discussion about selling unborn baby parts for profit is similar. It should be about the actual issue, not a semantic argument over calling something an unborn baby or a fetus. What you call it doesn't add or subtract from an argument over what to do with the remains....it's just noise.

I've never hidden my personal beliefs on the subject. There's a large part of the population that I personally wouldn't want to breed, if they choose not to, or want to choose to kill their offspring before they are born, great. People born in poverty are a lot more likely to become criminals and hurt others, less people born into poverty is a really good thing.

Also, one of the best ways to end up in poverty is by having children too soon, or by having too many of them.

I think the idea of abortion is abhorrent, but one can't deny the benefits of it.

 

This discussion is about using tissue derived from terminated fetuses for medical research. Research provides medical benefits. Anything beyond that discussion is "noise."

Not wanting poor people to breed... to breed.

That pretty much says it...

 

I think the parents might disagree with you.

 

I never suggested otherwise, the issue always was about if clinics should sell organs and tissue from the dead unborn babies. You're the one that took an issue with the terminology used, which as you've admitted, is just noise.

Yet another time you take issue with terminology.....is it that you don't know what words mean?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breeding

Oh, the definition of "breeding" is quite clear. I think it is telling you dehumanize poor people by using a term meant for animals and plants. Perhaps there are other groups of people you also think shouldn't "breed?"

 

The definition of "breed" is to produce offspring; procreate; engender. Could it be used for animals other than humans or plants? Certainly, but the word simply means to procreate and it doesn't dehumanize anyone.....any more than calling an unborn baby a "fetus" does.

I can see why you struggle with how things are phrased in that you have a simple minded understanding of what words mean.

 

I didn't struggle at all. In fact, I provided Webster's definition of breeding. Perhaps your complex mind missed that citation, or divined a hidden definition amongst those provided by Webster.

To further help you out, here's the definition of fetus:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

Perhaps your complex mind will have better luck with this citation...

 

funny your source of outrage about the 'dehumanization' of something in this thread

 

as to "fetus" per your own citation

why again do you have a problem with people saying "unborn baby" instead of fetus?

Your struggle is real.

 

My mistake, that was from Dictionary.com rather than Merriam-Webster...either way, the point stands that you are making semantic arguments which amount to noise rather than substance.