Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Tekania]

*inserts abortion debate CD into CD player*

*listens*

Pro-lifer (PL): "Abortion is wrong because the baby isn't guilty of anything and it's murder and it's against the Bible".
Pro-choice (PC): "Why not give the woman a right to choose about the baby? It's her body and her womb. Besides, it's not legally considered murder."
PL: "But it still is a baby and it's a human being, and objective morality has it that murder is bad."
PC: "It's not a baby, it's a foetus, and it's not really a conscious human being up until a few weeks before term at most any more than a sperm is."
Random Christian fundamentalist (RCF): "BLAH BLAH BLAH IMMORAL BLAH BLAH GOD'S WILL BLAH BLAH BLAH SIN BLAH BLAH SIN BLAH BLAH MURDER BLAH BLAH EVIL BLAH BLAH"
PL: "How's it not murder?"
PC: "Legally speaking, it's not murder. Therefore, it's not murder. You're neglecting the fact that it's a woman's body and she should be allowed to choose what it's used for."
PL: "It's better for women to die in agony than for foetuses that are unwanted and will be uncared for to be 'killed'."
PC: "That's misogyny, and it doesn't respect the rights of the woman."

Rinse and repeat.

Abortion Debate Platinum CD has over 150 extra hours of content. Buy it today!

For $50 dollars extra we'll include a rail spike to rupture your own eardrums with.

[Mavorpen]

ad hominem

Yeah, no. I attacked his source, and thus his argument. Learn what that word means.

[AiliailiA]

You guys are taking this way off track. Now we are talking about Roe V Wade and how it would unconstitutional to ban planned parenthood. Please re-read the original OP. Just to make it easy for you I put it at the bottom. The point of the OP was to change the morality of the people not the policy of a nation. He is not calling for the end of Planned Parenthood through government action but rather by the action of the populace which is achieved by changing the morality of the people of the U.S. If people shift their view of Planned Parenthood from the last line of defense to the epitome of sexual immorality then Planned Parenthood will be out of business. "I also experienced a time later on in my [doctoral] training in the 1960s when the culture was changing. The Vietnam war was going on. The drugs were there. Pornography came in and abortion became prevalent even though it was illegal. The morality of the country changed. The law followed up. When morality changed, it reflects on the laws. The law’s very important. We should have these laws. Law will not correct the basic problem. That’s the morality of the people.” -Ron Paul

You lost all credibility at the Ron Paul quote.

The Ron Paul quote may have been hostile. A true believer would not have chosen that particular quote: it's a train wreck.

[AiliailiA]

ad hominem

Yeah, no. I attacked his source, and thus his argument. Learn what that word means.

The phrase Blakk was looking for is "poisoning the well".

[Parchelon]

Nor should the mother have the right to destroy it.

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

Firstly, well done on constructing such a unique example. Secondly, In your example the Hobo dies because the owner of the house refuses to house him in the terrible winter, but in abortion the being in question would have been killed by the direct action of the property owner (through a doctor). Your example would (perhaps) preclude a direct killing, but would perhaps still qualify a s depraved indifference murder, which could qualify as a second degree murder. I am no legal expert, but leaving a man in the cold to die so you might be comfortable is hardly a situation where I would want the property owners rights to totally prevail.

In any event a foetus is not seeking residence in any sense of the word, it is born in residence.

[AiliailiA]

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

Firstly, well done on constructing such a unique example. Secondly, In your example the Hobo dies because the owner of the house refuses to house him in the terrible winter, but in abortion the being in question would have been killed by the direct action of the property owner (through a doctor). Your example would (perhaps) preclude a direct killing, but would perhaps still qualify a s depraved indifference murder, which could qualify as a second degree murder. I am no legal expert, but leaving a man in the cold to die so you might be comfortable is hardly a situation where I would want the property owners rights to totally prevail.

In any event a foetus is not seeking residence in any sense of the word, it is born in residence.

So the rats which invade your house can be killed. But their offspring, who were born inside your house ... they cannot be killed?

You may be offended that I would compare a fetus to a rat. But I don't care: you'd compare a human blastocyst to a rat, which is offensive to rats.

[Mavorpen]

So the rats which invade your house can be killed. But their offspring, who were born inside your house ... they cannot be killed?

You may be offended that I would compare a fetus to a rat. But I don't care: you'd compare a human blastocyst to a rat, which is offensive to rats.

If he's offended by that, I have the right to be offended by him comparing me to a fetus with his slavery comparison.

[Zottistan]

A hobo turns up on a man's doorstep, asking to be housed for nine months of some very cold, unusually long winter. The man knows that if he doesn't allow the hobo to stay in his house for the nine months, the hobo will freeze to death (for the sake of the metaphor, this is an undisputible fact). However, the man's house is small, and having the hobo live with him will cause him considerable discomfort, and he will have to feed the hobo. Does the man have a right to not allow the hobo to stay in his house? Yes. Property laws. A woman's womb is her property. The foetus is a hobo seeking residence.

Firstly, well done on constructing such a unique example. Secondly, In your example the Hobo dies because the owner of the house refuses to house him in the terrible winter, but in abortion the being in question would have been killed by the direct action of the property owner (through a doctor). Your example would (perhaps) preclude a direct killing, but would perhaps still qualify a s depraved indifference murder, which could qualify as a second degree murder. I am no legal expert, but leaving a man in the cold to die so you might be comfortable is hardly a situation where I would want the property owners rights to totally prevail.

In any event a foetus is not seeking residence in any sense of the word, it is born in residence.

I was looking at it from from a moral point of view rather than a legal point of view. In both cases (the metaphor and the abortion) the homeowner/pregnant woman caused the death of a hobo/foetus by denying it safeharbour in his/her house/womb. The point was that, if the man has a right to deny the hobo temporary residence on his property, so does the pregnant woman.

[Mavorpen]

I was looking at it from from a moral point of view rather than a legal point of view. In both cases (the metaphor and the abortion) the homeowner/pregnant woman caused the death of a hobo/foetus by denying it safeharbour in his/her house/womb. The point was that, if the man has a right to deny the hobo temporary residence on his property, so does the pregnant woman.

He needs to pick which one he wants to do. From a legal standpoint, a fetus is not a human being. He only switches to law when it's convenient for him, then he immediately switches to morals claiming that the debate isn't about the legal standing of abortion.

[Arborlawn]

If there was a state support system for all mothers, many the problems that currently arise would be resolved. In addition, a lower Age of Consent and more open use to protection available to young people would also alleviate many problems.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

If there was a state support system for all mothers, many the problems that currently arise would be resolved. In addition, a lower Age of Consent and more open use to protection available to young people would also alleviate many problems.

Lowering the age of consent seems counter-intuitive to me, though I agree with the rest of your post. Why would it work?

[Indira]

You people on Nation States are different than most Americans, most Americans would agree with atleast half of my points.

Romney plans to cut funding on planned parenthood, and most Americans want to vote for him in the upcoming election, that means that most American want, or are okay with the funding being cut for planned parenthood.

1: I'm British.

2: Sources? As far as I know, Obama's ahead.

3: NSG tends to be made up of people who seem to be a lot smarter than average. Or at least more politically aware. And the amount of inane BS in your OP (Is that flaming? I don't think so, but if I'm wrong...) is going to (rightfully) attract a LOT of flak.

[Homosexy]

Mkay hi
So.

1. Contraceptives are not for those without self control. That's ridiculous. Contraceptives are for people who want to have a sexually active life (nothing wrong with that!) and not get pregnant because they know they're not ready, they can't take care of the child, they probably don't want to have a kid with the guy they just met at the club, etc. Contraceptives are also really useful in preventing STD's, so actually, people who use contraceptives are smart, and are thinking about their life, and the life of a potential child, by making sure that they wait on the kids, and do what they can to prevent STD's.

2. Kids being a blessing depends on who you talk to, first of all. It is really sad that some women and men who want children can't, but there are other alternatives. There are lots of kids who are in orphanages, foster homes, etc who want loving parents. I think people who don't have their own kids and adopt are awesome.

3. lololol that's never going to happen. Sure, it's idealistic for some people to wait until marriage, but that's never going to happen to people who don't think sex is that big of a deal. People don't look at sex as making a child, they look at it as something they enjoy doing and a way to be intimate with their partner, etc.

4. Seriously? The earth is having a problem right now with being OVERpopulated. Kids are dropped into orphanages, etc. all over the world just for their gender. I think it'd be better for people to have less of their own kids and adopt instead if they want lots of children. Not that I have anything against large families. My parents had me, and my five little brothers and I love being part of a big family, but that's not for everyone. The human race is having no problem populating the earth.

5. Have you ever tried to get through college with a kid? Or multiple kids? Getting through college on your own is hard enough, and without financial aid and help from your parents/whoever is damn near impossible. To add a kid onto that? That's ridiculous. The economy, job market, and poverty rate is bad enough without introducing a kid to a life that is still developing. There'd be nothing but problems for the child and the parent. Planned parenthood isn't promoting laziness, it's promoting holding off on having a kid until you feel your life is ready and you can provide the best life you can for the child, which makes life better for everyone all around.

6. Planned parenthood isn't preventing people from having kids. That's not their goal. Their goal is to help people become parents when THEY want to. So the fact that people who have kids live longer has nothing to do with this argument on planned parenthood.

[Andrew Six]

This article says that a 24 y.o woman died at a "planned parent" hood clinic after recieving an abortion. http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1AVSX ... =514&ion=1
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/americ ... -abortion/

Planned Parenthood is for lazy and irresponsible people. You're probably wondering "How is it lazy and irresponsible to plan when to have children?" I'll explain why...

1. If someone does not want to have children, then don't have sex. In order to truly plan your parenthood, you need self control. Contraceptives are for those without self control.

2. Children are a blessing. Some women are infertile and can't have any. Some men are impotent, and can' impregnate a woman so those who are fully capable of having biological kids should be proud of it.

3. People should always wait until marriage instead of gambling thier chances with contraceptives. (condoms tear, pills are forgotten) there will also be less single mothers that way

4. People should have as many children as they can, and populate the Earth. Even though you might die, you wan't to have enough children to live on so that your family will continue, and not come to a end. People should be proud of haing lots of children, not ashamed of it. Besides, people can also use their eldest children to watch after the younger ones. The eldest children should receive the harshest discipline so that they can be like young parents.

5. People need to stop using children as an excuse for laziness! If someone has kids, he/she can still further their education or career if they WORK HARDER. Having kids is not the end of someones life, it is just a part of it, and they might need to work multiple jobs or attend classes at night, and just keep working hard. Children are no excuse for laziness.

6. People with children live longer. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/women- ... ger-study/
http://extremelongevity.net/2011/09/28/ ... ve-longer/

1. Yeah, right... because people actually do that...

2. Possibly the only true point in your entire post! Bravo!

3. Again, when people are doing the nasties, accidentally having children is usually one of the last things on their minds. Or, at least, it should be. Face it: Sex, whether we like it or not, is becoming an accepted part of everyday life for many people.

4. Proving that conservatism causes overpopulation. You people will cause the end of mankind.

5. And this ties into your argument how? This started out as bullshit reasons why Planned Parenthood is bad. It looks like it's ending as the usual conservative rambling.

6. Okay then. Because those statistics totally aren't influenced by the fact that people with life-threatening illnesses or life-endangering occupations would stray away from having children.

And for your beginning statement, could you please list for me the amount of times a woman has died in natural childbirth? Countless. If anything, the chance of dying after an abortion is probably less than that of natural childbirth.

[Arborlawn]

If there was a state support system for all mothers, many the problems that currently arise would be resolved. In addition, a lower Age of Consent and more open use to protection available to young people would also alleviate many problems.

Lowering the age of consent seems counter-intuitive to me, though I agree with the rest of your post. Why would it work?

If you look at many European countries, there is extreme aging. I have lived in Europe. If you notice, Spain has the lowest Age of Consent at Age 13, yet the Spanish family is characterized by having 4 grandparents, two parents, and 1 child. In countries where the aging is higher, the age of consent is generally lower. It does seem counter intuitive. However, many legal changes accompany the age of consent. For example, government benefits for children in many countries only apply to those who are of the Age of Consent, hence, if it is lower, a greater number of young mothers would be enfranchised to government assistance. Et cetera.

[Parchelon]

Firstly, well done on constructing such a unique example. Secondly, In your example the Hobo dies because the owner of the house refuses to house him in the terrible winter, but in abortion the being in question would have been killed by the direct action of the property owner (through a doctor). Your example would (perhaps) preclude a direct killing, but would perhaps still qualify a s depraved indifference murder, which could qualify as a second degree murder. I am no legal expert, but leaving a man in the cold to die so you might be comfortable is hardly a situation where I would want the property owners rights to totally prevail.

In any event a foetus is not seeking residence in any sense of the word, it is born in residence.

I was looking at it from from a moral point of view rather than a legal point of view. In both cases (the metaphor and the abortion) the homeowner/pregnant woman caused the death of a hobo/foetus by denying it safeharbour in his/her house/womb. The point was that, if the man has a right to deny the hobo temporary residence on his property, so does the pregnant woman.

Yes but depraved indifference to human life is something to be considered legally and if not morally. I mean we are talking about the comfort of one human being weighed against the very life of another. Yes both of their rights need to be considered, but the equation above still needs to be remembered.

[Intangelon]

Children are no more a "miracle" or "blessing" than you eating a sandwich and hours later a turd is born from your rectum. It's a biological process, no more a miracle when it happens to humans than when it does to rats -- and the rats usually wind up better behaved.

I'm tired of this "ain't humanity neat" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes. [/Hicks]

[Parchelon]

I was looking at it from from a moral point of view rather than a legal point of view. In both cases (the metaphor and the abortion) the homeowner/pregnant woman caused the death of a hobo/foetus by denying it safeharbour in his/her house/womb. The point was that, if the man has a right to deny the hobo temporary residence on his property, so does the pregnant woman.

He needs to pick which one he wants to do. From a legal standpoint, a fetus is not a human being. He only switches to law when it's convenient for him, then he immediately switches to morals claiming that the debate isn't about the legal standing of abortion.

I only switch to laws that I believe are actually legitimate and moral. The current laws in place are quite clear in that they state the unborn are not persons, but the issue of the debate is not what the laws say so much as are they actually right.

[Mavorpen]

I only switch to laws that I believe are actually legitimate and moral. The current laws in place are quite clear in that they state the unborn are not persons, but the issue of the debate is not what the laws say so much as are they actually right.

Do you just admitted you're cherry picking laws that you only agree with. Tell me why I should take you seriously now? Especially since you haven't addressed my post proving making abortion illegal doesn't work, nor the post proving fetuses are not human beings, nor the post proving that killing fetuses is not murder under the law (oh wait, I forgot you cherry pick laws).

[Dyakovo]

Abortion.

ISN'T.

Murder.

Murder is killing people. Foetuses aren't people.

Actually it is more than that... Abortion does not meet any of the criteria to qualify as murder...
1: It isn't illegal.
2: It lacks malice aforethought.
and finally
3: No person is killed.

[Parchelon]

Children are no more a "miracle" or "blessing" than you eating a sandwich and hours later a turd is born from your rectum. It's a biological process, no more a miracle when it happens to humans than when it does to rats -- and the rats usually wind up better behaved.

I'm tired of this "ain't humanity neat" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes. [/Hicks]

Life itself is a very unique and rare thing, it requires just the right circumstances and represents a vast amount of information and complexity from plants to animals and even rational beings like ourselves.

[Zottistan]

I was looking at it from from a moral point of view rather than a legal point of view. In both cases (the metaphor and the abortion) the homeowner/pregnant woman caused the death of a hobo/foetus by denying it safeharbour in his/her house/womb. The point was that, if the man has a right to deny the hobo temporary residence on his property, so does the pregnant woman.

Yes but depraved indifference to human life is something to be considered legally and if not morally. I mean we are talking about the comfort of one human being weighed against the very life of another. Yes both of their rights need to be considered, but the equation above still needs to be remembered.

The depraved indifference has nothing to do with this. Please stop looking at it legally and try to see it from a purely moral point of view. Autonomy outweighs all responsibility. If the man decides to leave the hobo die, morally (note, not "legally"), his decision stands. In the same sense, if a woman aborts a foetus, her decision is morally sound. Legally is another matter, but laws change. It was once illegal for blacks to vote. In parts of the world, it is illegal for women to go out publically without men. Laws are rarely objective, except for the most fundemental.

[Mavorpen]

Children are no more a "miracle" or "blessing" than you eating a sandwich and hours later a turd is born from your rectum. It's a biological process, no more a miracle when it happens to humans than when it does to rats -- and the rats usually wind up better behaved.

I'm tired of this "ain't humanity neat" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes. [/Hicks]

Life itself is a very unique and rare thing, it requires just the right circumstances and represents a vast amount of information and complexity from plants to animals and even rational beings like ourselves.

>Implying that only humans are rational beings.
>Also claims to be rational despite avoiding posts proving him wrong.

Yeah, okay.

[Dyakovo]

Why should they have rights? Is this going to come down to whether they are people again?

Why should they not have rights?¹ We are talking about human beings² at a stage of development every human being goes through in its natural growth to adulthood, to assume they are not persons is in itself a leep.

1: Because they aren't people.
2: No, we're not.


Edit: Fuck, left out a bit there...

[AiliailiA]

NO. This is why I mentioned chickens and pigs and oxen. Maybe I should have dumbed it down even more for you, and talked about trees. Or rocks.

Because something is not capable of being guilty does not mean it is innocent. That is a false dualism. There is a null state as well: not innocent, not guilty: NEITHER, by reason of being incapable of either.



As a tree is a participant in the "situation" of a tree felling. As a rock is a participant in the "situation" of someone sitting on it.

(I use the quote marks not to mock you, but to indicate that I am unsure of the meaning of "situation" and am trying to use it in the sense you seem to be using it. I'm wary of the term, since it's modern usage is mostly to refer to social structures: an immediate social environment involving people.)

1. In the normal run of criminal justice systems courts must rule on weather someone is found guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of a crime in order to be sentenced to jail time or whatever for a crime. Someone is either found guilty and sentenced or is declared innocent.

You shouldn't resort to "in the normal run of criminal justice systems" to make an argument that criminal justice systems overall have it wrong.

Which is apparently your argument.

You mentioned before that your beliefs are based in Catholicism. How do you reconcile "original sin" ... that all humans are guilty ... with innocence in the human who has not yet been born?

I'm not assuming that you accept "original sin" by the way. It seems to me one of the first things to abandon when developing personal beliefs independent of church doctrine. If you have the courage to take that step away, then good.

So: does original sin apply at conception, at birth, some time in between (and if so when), some time after birth ... or do you not believe in original sin at all?