I Sell Dead Babies

[Gamingphreek]

Well it a good thing your money isn't paying for abortions then. Also it was already decided on, and its legal. If you don't like abortions, don't get one.

I have a feeling your hesitation to killing people doesn't extend to the military though.

It actually is. I pay taxes and Planned Parenthood gets substantial Federal Aid. Did you miss that part?

With respect to the military, I have a problem with unjust killings. If, tomorrow, we invaded France just because, I would have a major problem with it. If the military deliberately targeted civilians and didn't do everything reasonably possible to avoid collateral damage, I would have a problem with it. Pushing Saddam back in the Gulf War, I don't have a problem with.

That's funny, I don't see the words "child" or "baby" anywhere in that definition. But then again, I'm not a crazypants pro lifer either.

Here, let me post it again and put the relevant terms in bold to make it easier.
"a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born"

If someone refers to you as an adult (which I am assuming you are), does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a child, does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a 'fetus', does that negate the fact that you are a human being?

That's pretty good. 'It should only be up for a vote if the current outcome is one I don't agree with.'

A woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is a right protected by the Constitution. You're welcome to try and change the Constitution if you want, but you will fail.

I'm not sure how you derived that from, "This is a Constitutional Representative Republic". If there is an issue I support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to support it. Conversely, if there is an issue that I do not support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to repeal it. This is actually how the government works.

And despite what you said, the Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion at all. The courts may have set precedent that abortion might be applied under a particular amendment, but that isn't at all the same. Why would I need to change the Constitution when people like you didn't change it to define a 'right to an abortion' in the first place?

You think something becomes your business because you think it's immoral? You might want to rethink that.

If parent is arguing with a child and he/she decides to take out a gun and shoot said child, I'm assuming, by your logic, that each and every person who witnessed the event should completely and totally ignore it since the act in its entirety doesn't affect them at all. Your approach to determining when to stand up for something doesn't seem to be valid.

A fetus does not meet the legal definition of a person as it pertains to abortion. The fetus has no legal right not to be aborted.

Additionally, trying to say that everything from an embryo to a fetus to a newborn are all humans at different stages of development is not useful in the terms of this discussion. As has been gone over here many times, fertilized embryos are obviously not people, and no person actually believes they are. You are free to decide that something meets your personal standard of personhood at some point, but you aren't free to impose it on others.

The point at which the embryo is fertilized, despite what some arbitrary judges say in a court, is when it becomes a human embryo - that is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. An unfertilized egg will not spontaneously begin to grow, whereas a fertilized egg is already growing into a person.

The species of a creature simply does not change regardless of where a given creature is in it's development. If it is a human embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Human. If it is a bear embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Bear.

It's weird that you think forcing women into subjugation is moral. It's in fact sick as fuck that you think that.

Not that it would matter, but (aside from cases of rape which we are not addressing here) did the woman just spontaneously get pregnant, or did they choose to engage in an act of procreation?

As to the 'sick' comment, I assume, by your logic, it isn't at all sickening to you listen to the technician crush an aborted child's skull and ask if they can sell the brain.

Certainly, saving a child's life should take precedence over 9 months of inconvenience brought on directly by the actions of the mother (again, except in the case of rape which we aren't discussing here). There is even this great concept called adoption where a woman who, ultimately, didn't want the child, can give the child away and be absolved of all responsibility.

-GP

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I wish I wasn't constantly confronted by persuasive evidence that religion makes people stupid. I don't want to believe that, but it's really hard sometimes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Oh and acorns aren't oak trees you stupid shit.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Oh and acorns aren't oak trees you stupid shit.

I'm assuming you missed this part (I bolded the relevant part):

The point at which the embryo is fertilized, despite what some arbitrary judges say in a court, is when it becomes a human embryo - that is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. An unfertilized egg will not spontaneously begin to grow, whereas a fertilized egg is already growing into a person.

-GP

 

[dank69]

It actually is. I pay taxes and Planned Parenthood gets substantial Federal Aid. Did you miss that part?

With respect to the military, I have a problem with unjust killings. If, tomorrow, we invaded France just because, I would have a major problem with it. If the military deliberately targeted civilians and didn't do everything reasonably possible to avoid collateral damage, I would have a problem with it. Pushing Saddam back in the Gulf War, I don't have a problem with.



Here, let me post it again and put the relevant terms in bold to make it easier.
"a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born"

If someone refers to you as an adult (which I am assuming you are), does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a child, does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a 'fetus', does that negate the fact that you are a human being?



I'm not sure how you derived that from, "This is a Constitutional Representative Republic". If there is an issue I support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to support it. Conversely, if there is an issue that I do not support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to repeal it. This is actually how the government works.

And despite what you said, the Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion at all. The courts may have set precedent that abortion might be applied under a particular amendment, but that isn't at all the same. Why would I need to change the Constitution when people like you didn't change it to define a 'right to an abortion' in the first place?



If parent is arguing with a child and he/she decides to take out a gun and shoot said child, I'm assuming, by your logic, that each and every person who witnessed the event should completely and totally ignore it since the act in its entirety doesn't affect them at all. Your approach to determining when to stand up for something doesn't seem to be valid.



The point at which the embryo is fertilized, despite what some arbitrary judges say in a court, is when it becomes a human embryo - that is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. An unfertilized egg will not spontaneously begin to grow, whereas a fertilized egg is already growing into a person.

The species of a creature simply does not change regardless of where a given creature is in it's development. If it is a human embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Human. If it is a bear embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Bear.



Not that it would matter, but (aside from cases of rape which we are not addressing here) did the woman just spontaneously get pregnant, or did they choose to engage in an act of procreation?

As to the 'sick' comment, I assume, by your logic, it isn't at all sickening to you listen to the technician crush an aborted child's skull and ask if they can sell the brain.

Certainly, saving a child's life should take precedence over 9 months of inconvenience brought on directly by the actions of the mother (again, except in the case of rape which we aren't discussing here). There is even this great concept called adoption where a woman who, ultimately, didn't want the child, can give the child away and be absolved of all responsibility.

-GP

How convenient for you that choosing to engage in sex doesn't run the risk of you being subjugated to a parasite for forty weeks. Now you can preach about what you think others should do in a situation you will never have to face yourself.

 

[dphantom]

I'm assuming you missed this part (I bolded the relevant part):



-GP

Maybe give him a break. He has used that example before still doesn't know the difference between an acorn and a human embryo. He will catch up sooner or later I hope.

perhaps he is a nut that aspires to greater things.

 

[dank69]

I'm assuming you missed this part (I bolded the relevant part):



-GP

Are you saying you think an acorn is like an unfertilized egg and not a fertilized egg?

 

[dphantom]

How convenient for you that choosing to engage in sex doesn't run the risk of you being subjugated to a parasite for forty weeks. Now you can preach about what you think others should do in a situation you will never have to face yourself.

wrong yet again. First one is making a choice. By that you assume responsibility for your choice. Second, the man does have responsibility for the next 18 years and 40 weeks.

Do not want a child, do not have sex. Pretty easy.

 

[dank69]

wrong yet again. First one is making a choice. By that you assume responsibility for your choice. Second, the man does have responsibility for the next 18 years and 40 weeks.

Do not want a child, do not have sex. Pretty easy.

What responsibility does the man have for the first forty weeks? None, compared to the woman's burden. That is why it is her choice, not his, as it should be.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm assuming you missed this part (I bolded the relevant part):



-GP

Oh I saw it, but it isn't relevant. In the United States the objects of rights and duties are persons, and persons are born. A fetus is an "unborn child" like you're an "undead corpse".

In other words you're just ignorant. Now that you've been educated any further repetitions of these false facts will be taken as outright lying.

Not like you'd be the first liar for Jesus I've met though...

 

[fskimospy]

It actually is. I pay taxes and Planned Parenthood gets substantial Federal Aid. Did you miss that part?

With respect to the military, I have a problem with unjust killings. If, tomorrow, we invaded France just because, I would have a major problem with it. If the military deliberately targeted civilians and didn't do everything reasonably possible to avoid collateral damage, I would have a problem with it. Pushing Saddam back in the Gulf War, I don't have a problem with.

You realize that abortions are a tiny part of what planned parenthood does, right?

Here, let me post it again and put the relevant terms in bold to make it easier.
"a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born"

If someone refers to you as an adult (which I am assuming you are), does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a child, does that negate the fact that you are a human being? If someone refers to you as a 'fetus', does that negate the fact that you are a human being?

So an acorn is an oak tree then, gotcha.

I'm not sure how you derived that from, "This is a Constitutional Representative Republic". If there is an issue I support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to support it. Conversely, if there is an issue that I do not support that the Government has weighed in on policy-wise, I can and should be able to vote to repeal it. This is actually how the government works.

And despite what you said, the Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion at all. The courts may have set precedent that abortion might be applied under a particular amendment, but that isn't at all the same. Why would I need to change the Constitution when people like you didn't change it to define a 'right to an abortion' in the first place?

Because the right was always there. You're trying to take away something that was already in the Constitution. If you're going to go with the idea that things need to be explicitly written into the Constitution to count, you're going to find yourself missing a lot of important rights you probably like, haha.

If parent is arguing with a child and he/she decides to take out a gun and shoot said child, I'm assuming, by your logic, that each and every person who witnessed the event should completely and totally ignore it since the act in its entirety doesn't affect them at all. Your approach to determining when to stand up for something doesn't seem to be valid.

Nope! I would argue that they represent a danger to me, thus making it my business. Cheating on your spouse is immoral, so I guess that's your business too, huh?

See how quickly that gets silly?

The point at which the embryo is fertilized, despite what some arbitrary judges say in a court, is when it becomes a human embryo - that is a human in his/her earliest stages of development. An unfertilized egg will not spontaneously begin to grow, whereas a fertilized egg is already growing into a person.

Or maybe the judges are right and you are wrong. What makes you think you can just hand wave away authoritative, reasoned judgment just because it tells you things you don't like?

Human embryo's aren't humans, and that's why we don't give them the same protections we give full people. The idea that we WOULD give them equal protections is absolutely insane, and even the most ardent pro-life person doesn't actually believe we should treat them the same as people when it comes down to it.

The species of a creature simply does not change regardless of where a given creature is in it's development. If it is a human embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Human. If it is a bear embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Bear.

Not really. Somewhere between 50% and 80% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body. So really, an embryo most likely WON'T develop into an adult human. Doesn't that make treating them as such even sillier than it already was?

Not that it would matter, but (aside from cases of rape which we are not addressing here) did the woman just spontaneously get pregnant, or did they choose to engage in an act of procreation?

Why does a woman's choice to engage in sex have anything to do with it? Unless your actual goal is to control women and their reproductive choices, how a woman became pregnant is irrelevant.

Maybe we should include rape though! The whole 'rape exception' shows exactly how amoral the 'pro life' movement really is and what its real motivations are.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

wrong yet again. First one is making a choice. By that you assume responsibility for your choice.

False. People only assume responsibility for breaches of duty. Don't you guys learn ANYTHING?

Do not want a child, do not have sex. Pretty easy.

"Pregnancy and childbirth are the just desserts for those loose women that have sex before she's properly possessed by a man."

Sick fucks.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans view unwanted babies as a just punishment for sex.
Oh, and they prefer that fetal tissue be discarded rather than saving human lives.
But they are the party of morals. Because they say they are.

 

[abj13]

The species of a creature simply does not change regardless of where a given creature is in it's development. If it is a human embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Human. If it is a bear embryo, it will eventually develop into an Adult Bear.

Sorry, that is not inline with any kind of scientific basis. A single fertilized egg could be one, two, three, four, or zero future individuals. Twinning occurs after fertilization, while many conceptuses spontaneously abort. In fact, there's evidence that the majority of conceptuses fail, and never reach the end of gestation. This is true for any mammal, including "bear embryos" or whatever lame example you are trying to use.

Trying to confer full rights to something at a stage where it can suddenly can become two, three, four, or zero actual individuals is one of the most subjective positions to take.

 

[Paratus]

wrong yet again. First one is making a choice. By that you assume responsibility for your choice. Second, the man does have responsibility for the next 18 years and 40 weeks.

Do not want a child, do not have sex. Pretty easy.

Well you could be abstinent or you could simply be responsible.

Personally when we haven't wanted a child we have been 100% successful in not having one.

I am curious on whether you agree with the personhood amendments and if so how do you reconcile that with personal responsibility and the fact 50% of fertilized eggs don't make it to be born?

If you don't agree with fetal personhood ignore the question

 

[Subyman]

Abstinence is a hill from which fortunate people can shame others IMO. The fact is teens have unprotected sex because they are either ignorant or immature. Some teens are shamed into not having sex through religion. Some simply don't have the self esteem to get laid. While others truly have a grasp on the weight of that decision and decide to wait or properly protect themselves. Abortion is needed because, frankly, teens/young adults are really dumb when it comes to understanding consequences. They typically don't see further than next week.

Practically everyone has sex. Abstinence is such a farce and IMO a great way to not get the most out of your youth

 

[Gamingphreek]

You realize that abortions are a tiny part of what planned parenthood does, right?

This is, inherently, a flawed argument. Consider the following:

Imagine if Auschwitz guards defended themselves by saying "We only gas people 5% of the time."

Ted Bundy also would like to point out that he only spent less than 1% of his time murdering people.

Should we bring back the Ku Klux Klan because they only were lynching people on a part time basis?

So an acorn is an oak tree then, gotcha.

Comparing a plant to a mammal --in this case, a human-- is inherently flawed. I would say "Apples and Oranges", but even they share more similarities than an acorn and a human embryo.

That said, if I'm not mistaken, I believe an acorn has not yet been fertilized and has also not begun germination; thus, it is not a tree yet.

Because the right was always there. You're trying to take away something that was already in the Constitution. If you're going to go with the idea that things need to be explicitly written into the Constitution to count, you're going to find yourself missing a lot of important rights you probably like, haha.

It actually wasn't, a court interpreted that a right that was explicitly defined implicitly defined other rights. This is where we get the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' from.

Nope! I would argue that they represent a danger to me, thus making it my business. Cheating on your spouse is immoral, so I guess that's your business too, huh?

See how quickly that gets silly?

How are they a danger to you? He/she hasn't attacked anyone not involved in the conflict after all.

I hate to break it to you, but in 21 states cheating on your spouse is actually against the law. Not only that, a person can make an issue his/her business - that doesn't necessarily mean that the other person will agree with it

In the case of abortion, the ones directly impacted are the father, mother, and child. Since the child doesn't have the ability to plead for life, I think it is the duty of other good and decent people to speak for the child since he/she cannot. Speaking for those who cannot is, arguably, one of the tenants of a moral society.

Or maybe the judges are right and you are wrong. What makes you think you can just hand wave away authoritative, reasoned judgment just because it tells you things you don't like?

What gives Government and those appointed by the Government the ability to redefine what is right or wrong. What is morally acceptable to one person, may not be morally acceptable to another (including those on the court). Aside from legal repercussions, what compelling reason does someone have to think that a person with a degree in an appointed position is any more capable of defining morals than anyone else?

That said, it is painfully obvious that you are attempting to lead me on in bringing faith into a discussion where you and others like you just plan on attacking me based on it.

We aren't going to agree here, so what are you hoping to achieve? I am a Christian an believe there are moral absolutes and I reject moral relativism. You are the exact opposite. Are there any further points you would like to debate here?

Human embryo's aren't humans, and that's why we don't give them the same protections we give full people. The idea that we WOULD give them equal protections is absolutely insane, and even the most ardent pro-life person doesn't actually believe we should treat them the same as people when it comes down to it.

What Pro-Life people have you talked to? The whole premise of the movement is [correctly] that "life begins at conception".

Not really. Somewhere between 50% and 80% of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body. So really, an embryo most likely WON'T develop into an adult human. Doesn't that make treating them as such even sillier than it already was?

X% of children in this world will die before they are 18 (I say 'X' both because I don't know the statistic, and because it shouldn't matter). Does this mean we should just kill them now since they "most likely WON'T" develop into an adult human?

Why does a woman's choice to engage in sex have anything to do with it? Unless your actual goal is to control women and their reproductive choices, how a woman became pregnant is irrelevant.

Well, sex is a reproductive act, so I think that question should answer itself.

Maybe we should include rape though! The whole 'rape exception' shows exactly how amoral the 'pro life' movement really is and what its real motivations are.

Oh I'm not excluding it at all. I don't believe abortion should be an option even in cases of rape and incest. I was simply trying to avoid bringing in every facet of the topic into a post where we can barely adequately address it on an internet forum as it is.

Without getting any further into it, I certainly can sympathize (not empathize) with the small percentage of women who become impregnated when raped. Assuming that abortion isn't an option, those women (victims) should be given every ounce of support everyone else in society can muster - they would be truly virtuous, courageous heroes. At the end, if the (understandably) can't bring themselves to keep the child, this is the perfect case for adoption.

I'm sure you and the others supporting your opinion will curse at me and call me any number of names, but I didn't want you to think that I was hiding my views because they were controversial.

My responses are in bold.

-GP

Edit: I'm not sure why the bold tags don't appear to be working. I went back and reformatted the post to use multi-quote. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Subyman]

My responses are in bold.

-GP

Oh yes, and the rest of the time the Nazis were helping the Jews responsibility set up their family. :hmm:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Suppose I met a hungry homeless man. Suppose I invite him into my home and feed him a nice warm meal. I even let him shower and sleep in my spare room for a night.

Am I now under a legal obligation to continue feeding and sheltering this person for the next 9 months? What if I knew also that in my sleep he was sneaking into my room with a syringe to inject me with some foreign chemicals?

 

[Blackjack200]

Not that it would matter, but (aside from cases of rape which we are not addressing here) did the woman just spontaneously get pregnant, or did they choose to engage in an act of procreation?

As to the 'sick' comment, I assume, by your logic, it isn't at all sickening to you listen to the technician crush an aborted child's skull and ask if they can sell the brain.

Certainly, saving a child's life should take precedence over 9 months of inconvenience brought on directly by the actions of the mother (again, except in the case of rape which we aren't discussing here). There is even this great concept called adoption where a woman who, ultimately, didn't want the child, can give the child away and be absolved of all responsibility.

-GP

Isn't it great how the truth always comes out in the end?

Those sluts... they should be ashamed!

 

[Subyman]

Suppose I met a hungry homeless man. Suppose I invite him into my home and feed him a nice warm meal. I even let him shower and sleep in my spare room for a night.

Am I now under a legal obligation to continue feeding and sheltering this person for the next 9 months? What if I knew also that in my sleep he was sneaking into my room with a syringe to inject me with some foreign chemicals?

So you murder him?

Bad analogy IMO.

 

[CitizenKain]

wrong yet again. First one is making a choice. By that you assume responsibility for your choice. Second, the man does have responsibility for the next 18 years and 40 weeks.

Do not want a child, do not have sex. Pretty easy.

Or continue to have sex and do whatever because again, its not your business. Or birth control can fail. Still, not your business. I know the idea

And despite what you said, the Constitution actually doesn't mention abortion at all. The courts may have set precedent that abortion might be applied under a particular amendment, but that isn't at all the same. Why would I need to change the Constitution when people like you didn't change it to define a 'right to an abortion' in the first place?

There is nothing in there saying you can't have an abortion either. So that means its constitutional to allow someone to have one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, sex is a reproductive act, so I think that question should answer itself.

Is it, though? How come sex so rarely results on reproduction, then? Do you wanna take a guess at the total number of instances of vaginal intercourse and compare it to the number of pregnancies that result from them? Anecdotally, I can say that exactly 0% of the times I've had vaginal intercourse has reproduction occurred.

Cue the 0 for 0 jokes...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So you murder him?

Bad analogy IMO.

If it is the only way to defend my person from his violations to my body, it isn't murder. It's self defense. Analogy holds.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Abstinence is a hill from which fortunate people can shame others IMO. The fact is teens have unprotected sex because they are either ignorant or immature. Some teens are shamed into not having sex through religion. Some simply don't have the self esteem to get laid. While others truly have a grasp on the weight of that decision and decide to wait or properly protect themselves. Abortion is needed because, frankly, teens/young adults are really dumb when it comes to understanding consequences. They typically don't see further than next week.

Practically everyone has sex. Abstinence is such a farce and IMO a great way to not get the most out of your youth

How is abstinence something that only fortunate people can engage in. Last time I checked, aside from cases of rape, you can choose whether or not to have sex. Fortune or luck doesn't have any ground to stand on.

Based on your statement, it seems that you are arguing that since "teens/young adults are really dumb", we need to give them the license to kill another being so they are inconvenienced or learn from their mistakes.

I'd also take this opportunity to say that I fully disagree with any Christians shaming anyone for sinning (in this case, sex outside of marriage). Christians shouldn't endorse the sin, but should recognize that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and should, therefore, strive to help one another "go and sin no more" (as Jesus said).

-GP