Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Ethel mermania]

Has anyone mentioned planned parenthood, the supposed topic of this thread in the past 10 pages or so?

[Katganistan]

Abortion honestly creeps me the hell out, I mean, the thought that hundreds if not thousands of fetuses are killed every day, that so many of them weren't a threat to the mothers health but are killed because they are inconvenient, or the product of rape. It kinda makes me cry at night, and keeps me awake, which really sucks, but not as much as all those dead not-yet-babies. So many people lose children through a miscarriage, and then other people go in for a medically induced and controlled miscarriage? It's just-that could have been a person. Maybe not the smartest person, maybe not someone who would change the world, but a person. A living, thinking, breathing person who will never get a chance to live because their mother didn't want them. There are so many ways to lose your kids, abortion is basically killing them before they get to live. It's like pre-murder or something.

Source for hundreds and thousands of fetuses aborted each day at Planned Parenthood?

As for staying up at night crying about other people whom you don't know, you may wish to speak to someone who can help you with your emotions.

[Mavorpen]

Has anyone mentioned planned parenthood, the supposed topic of this thread in the past 10 pages or so?

The thing is, Planned Parenthood itself isn't the topic. The OP gave specific points that splintered off into contested topics.

[Mavorpen]

Source for hundreds and thousands of fetuses aborted each day at Planned Parenthood?

As for staying up at night crying about other people whom you don't know, you may wish to speak to someone who can help you with your emotions.

Not to mention the fact that Planned Parenthood cannot use federal money to fund abortions, I don't see his/her problem with it. It doesn't affect him/her at all.

[Katganistan]

Firstly thanks for the correction.

Is abortion unlawful? No. Should it be is the primary issue.
Is abortion Premeditated? Yes
Is abortion killing of a Human:? Yes, it destroys a unique being of the Homo Sapien Sapien species

So really the only issue about this subject is weather or not the law that permits abortion is unjust. Warfare, self defence are obvious examples of when killing is just, as are state sanctioned executions. In all of these instances the person that it is legal to kill is belligerent or criminal. Someone who is doing something or has done something that warrants their death.

Does the unborn child's presence in the mother's womb without her permission really permit the mother to kill the child that never even chose to be there? I mean in war, or as a criminal it is pretty much assumed that the person is there by choice (Conscription in warfare is an obvious exception, but even so; forcing the soldiers into war is very probably a crime in and of itself. For criminals stealing food is perhaps an exception, but again that is something that hardly warrants death.) whereas the unborn child is created in a situation where it is in a position that infringes on the rights of the mother, it has no choice in the matter, no mens rea (guilty mind).

Now obviously the case of self defence should be taken into account, but even then the person trying to kill you is making that choice and you are really only allowed to kill them if there is no other alternative, sometimes disarming is too difficult. But still the person is committing a criminal act by their own choice, crazy or not.

So is abortion lawful? Yes. should it be? Not in my opinion.

Wait, I thought it was the unlawful killing of a person, not a human

Yup, and a fetus is not a person yet. There is a difference between a human being and human tissue.

[Samuraikoku]

It's just-that could have been a person. Maybe not the smartest person, maybe not someone who would change the world, but a person.

Could have been the second coming of Hitler, too.

[Neutraligon]

Wait, I thought it was the unlawful killing of a person, not a human

Yup, and a fetus is not a person yet. There is a difference between a human being and human tissue.

Ah good, I'm not completely losing my mind. I'm on NSG so I must be partially crazy.

So...is a baby that is still partially in the birth canal a half a person ?

[Parchelon]

Firstly thanks for the correction.

Is abortion unlawful? No. Should it be is the primary issue.
Is abortion Premeditated? Yes
Is abortion killing of a Human:? Yes, it destroys a unique being of the Homo Sapien Sapien species

So really the only issue about this subject is weather or not the law that permits abortion is unjust. Warfare, self defence are obvious examples of when killing is just, as are state sanctioned executions. In all of these instances the person that it is legal to kill is belligerent or criminal. Someone who is doing something or has done something that warrants their death.

Does the unborn child's presence in the mother's womb without her permission really permit the mother to kill the child that never even chose to be there? I mean in war, or as a criminal it is pretty much assumed that the person is there by choice (Conscription in warfare is an obvious exception, but even so; forcing the soldiers into war is very probably a crime in and of itself. For criminals stealing food is perhaps an exception, but again that is something that hardly warrants death.) whereas the unborn child is created in a situation where it is in a position that infringes on the rights of the mother, it has no choice in the matter, no mens rea (guilty mind).

Now obviously the case of self defence should be taken into account, but even then the person trying to kill you is making that choice and you are really only allowed to kill them if there is no other alternative, sometimes disarming is too difficult. But still the person is committing a criminal act by their own choice, crazy or not.

So is abortion lawful? Yes. should it be? Not in my opinion.

Certainly killing can be justified, as I stated in the last post, I was just trying to elaborate on the distinction between killing a person who did not choose to be in a situation (abortion) and someone who did (a soldier of a western nation).

In regards to your comments on abstinence one idea behind the no-premarital sex reasoning is that (obviously) the marriage may never take place. But another is that it represents a sign of the commitment and sacrifice you would be willing to pledge to your spouse, that you will be faithful to your commitment even in the face of the love between you, that you would only ever have sex with your spouse, at least thats how I understand it.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

Certainly killing can be justified, as I stated in the last post, I was just trying to elaborate on the distinction between killing a person who did not choose to be in a situation (abortion) and someone who did (a soldier of a western nation).

Once again, missing the definition of a person. A foetus isn't a person yet.

[Parchelon]

And there you go, with the fallacy of disambiguation.

Being human does not make a fetus a person. You proceed from this point onward to consider the fetus a person and moral agent.

The fetus is incapable of moral action, therefore it is not innocent or guilty any more than a chicken is innocent or guilty.

that it is legal to kill is belligerent or criminal. Someone who is doing something or has done something that warrants their death.

Or a chicken. Or a pig or ox.

Does the unborn child's presence in the mother's womb without her permission really permit the mother to kill the child that never even chose to be there?

And the same error. Begin talking about "unborn children" then make it "kill a child".

I mean in war, or as a criminal it is pretty much assumed that the person is there by choice (Conscription in warfare is an obvious exception, but even so; forcing the soldiers into war is very probably a crime in and of itself. For criminals stealing food is perhaps an exception, but again that is something that hardly warrants death.) whereas the unborn child is created in a situation where it is in a position that infringes on the rights of the mother, it has no choice in the matter, no mens rea (guilty mind).

Now obviously the case of self defence should be taken into account, but even then the person trying to kill you is making that choice and you are really only allowed to kill them if there is no other alternative, sometimes disarming is too difficult. But still the person is committing a criminal act by their own choice, crazy or not.

So is abortion lawful? Yes. should it be? Not in my opinion.

Killing in war is a very awkward example for you. By signing up, a soldier has mens rea? Or at least, is there by choice.

The fetus has no capacity for choice. It's not a moral agent so any comparison with a soldier or a criminal simply makes no sense.

1. Yes but according to the definition of murder provided the personhood of the unborn was not necessary to prove, just their humanity. Establishing that the foetus was incapable of moral action was something I did to show that it could not be guilty of willingly violating its mother's rights, thus making it innocent of any crime in the situation. If it is human and innocent then it is merely an additional unwilling participant in the situation. The point of the exercise then was to show that the killing of the unborn is as unjust if not more so than the forcing of a pregnancy on a woman.

2. Chicken, pigs and oxen are not human.

3. A soldier accepts the fact that by going to war he is going to be killing and it is possible to be killed. I am not sure if I actually applied mens rea to warfare, but I am certain I said that the solders are willing participants in a contest (for lack of a better word) of life and death unlike the foetus in an unwanted pregnancy which can never be guilty of choice in this situation (as you said).

[Parchelon]

The Vatican is a vile theocracy.

Vile?

[Parchelon]

The definition clearly stated that a parasite is from 'another species' not of the same species, that is natural reproduction.

OtFST is a bit off... A foetus isn't a parasite (as you rightly pointed out); it is, however, parasitic in nature.

Perhaps, but human none the less.

[Danbershan]

OtFST is a bit off... A foetus isn't a parasite (as you rightly pointed out); it is, however, parasitic in nature.

Perhaps, but human none the less.

It's only human tissue, there's no real personhood. Its akin to amputation of an arm, or removal of an appendix.

Do you see a woman getting her tubes tied, or a man getting a vasectomy, as wrong?

[Mavorpen]

1. Yes but according to the definition of murder provided the personhood of the unborn was not necessary to prove, just their humanity. Establishing that the foetus was incapable of moral action was something I did to show that it could not be guilty of willingly violating its mother's rights, thus making it innocent of any crime in the situation. If it is human and innocent then it is merely an additional unwilling participant in the situation. The point of the exercise then was to show that the killing of the unborn is as unjust if not more so than the forcing of a pregnancy on a woman.

Why are you bringing up murder again? It's not. It does not matter if the fetus is capable of moral action. It does not matter if it's willingly violating the mother's rights. It is, and it seems to me you're admitting this. It is not innocent if it is by definition doing something that goes against the rights of someone else.

2. Chicken, pigs and oxen are not human.

Very well thought out argument. Now explain why this makes any difference whatsoever.

3. A soldier accepts the fact that by going to war he is going to be killing and it is possible to be killed. I am not sure if I actually applied mens rea to warfare, but I am certain I said that the solders are willing participants in a contest (for lack of a better word) of life and death unlike the foetus in an unwanted pregnancy which can never be guilty of choice in this situation (as you said).

Who cares if it's guilty of choice? It's guilty of committing the crime. Whether the fetus has a choice has nothing to do with this debate at all.

[Blakk Metal]

The Vatican is a vile theocracy.

Vile?

It has, and currently does, many bad things. To start with, it wants to make every other government in the world turn into totalitarian states, and calls everyone who opposes them Nazis.

[Dyakovo]

OtFST is a bit off... A foetus isn't a parasite (as you rightly pointed out); it is, however, parasitic in nature.

Perhaps, but human none the less.

But not a person.

[Parchelon]

Why should pregnant humans have more rights? The unborn child did not force itself on the mother it is not guilty of anything. Certainly there needs to be a balance of rights but murder is not a balance it is a tyranny.

It isn't a matter of pregnancy granting more rights, it is a matter of becoming pregnant not voiding the right to bodily integrity.

How can it not affect me, for nearly nine months that thing that was in my mother with my DNA could have been destroyed and I would not be hear, same goes for anybody else born in a nation that has permitted abortion.

Yes but if the unborn are human, if they are persons worthy of rights than abortion is murder and that is a grave injustice. I compare it with slavery because the same situation developed, if the blacks were humans equal with whites, if they were persons worthy of protection then slavery was a grave injustice. Domestic violence is not a truly similar but still represents the fact that injustices cannot be left alone and must be dealt with.

Certainly slavery does not represent the complexities of the abortion debate but it does have similarities at least in regard to questions of personhood and public debate.

They aren't.

If the unborn are persons then their destruction is perhaps an even greater violation of rights.

Again, they aren't.

They aren't, nobody deserves to be murdered just as nobody deserves to have a pregnancy forced on them, yet the rights must be balanced so a tyranny does not developed as has currently occurred.

Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.

Yes, but reproduction is a part of sex that can hardly easily be dismissed.

Fixed that for ya...

Firstly thanks for the correction.

Is abortion unlawful? No. Should it be is the primary issue.
Is abortion Premeditated? Yes
Is abortion killing of a Human:? Yes, it destroys a unique being of the Homo Sapien Sapien species

Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.

1. Ok I can understand that a woman's rights should not be reduced merely because she is pregnant, yet the other life must be a factor.
2. ...
3. ...
4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.
5. ...
6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

[Neutraligon]

It isn't a matter of pregnancy granting more rights, it is a matter of becoming pregnant not voiding the right to bodily integrity.


They aren't.


Again, they aren't.


Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.



Fixed that for ya...




Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.

1. Ok I can understand that a woman's rights should not be reduced merely because she is pregnant, yet the other life must be a factor.
2. ...
3. ...
4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.
5. ...
6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

4. Based on whose morals?
6. But not a person, not a sentient being, self defense, war.

[Ajzland]

Planned Parenthood would not have any business if they would promote abstinence in till marriage. And I guess all those for abortions are for killing unborn babies.Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being


It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.

[Dyakovo]

It isn't a matter of pregnancy granting more rights, it is a matter of becoming pregnant not voiding the right to bodily integrity.


They aren't.


Again, they aren't.


Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.



Fixed that for ya...




Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.

1. Ok I can understand that a woman's rights should not be reduced merely because she is pregnant, yet the other life must be a factor.
2. ...
3. ...
4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.
5. ...
6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

1: The other life is not a person, the pregnant woman is.
4: Abortion is morally right.
6: Yes, it should be legal, also...
Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
A: It isn't illegal.
B: There is no malice aforethought
C: No person is killed.

[Mavorpen]

4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.

It is morally right.

6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

It shouldn't be illegal, because making it illegal doesn't work.

[Nidaria]

1. Ok I can understand that a woman's rights should not be reduced merely because she is pregnant, yet the other life must be a factor.
2. ...
3. ...
4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.
5. ...
6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

4. Based on whose morals?
6. But not a person, not a sentient being, self defense, war.

4. By defining morality it is necessary to change the topic to that of religion and philosophy. Do you wish to continue?
6. It can be argued that personhood starts at conception. He will become a sentient being within just a few months. It is an alive human being, and thus is eligible for human rights. Sentience is not necessary for human rights.

[Blakk Metal]

It isn't a matter of pregnancy granting more rights, it is a matter of becoming pregnant not voiding the right to bodily integrity.


They aren't.


Again, they aren't.


Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.



Fixed that for ya...




Abortion is not murder, it fails to meet any of the standards necessary to qualify as such.
1: It isn't illegal.
2: There is no malice aforethought
3: No person is killed.

1. Ok I can understand that a woman's rights should not be reduced merely because she is pregnant, yet the other life must be a factor.

1. Okay I can understand that a possessor's rights should not be reduced merely because some orphan wants to live, but the orphan must be a factor.

4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.

No, whether self-defense is okay is the issue.

Planned Parenthood would not have any business if they would promote abstinence in till marriage. And I guess all those for abortions are for killing unborn babies.Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being


It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.

Thank god NSG ignored this piece of shit.

[AiliailiA]

And there you go, with the fallacy of disambiguation.

Being human does not make a fetus a person. You proceed from this point onward to consider the fetus a person and moral agent.

The fetus is incapable of moral action, therefore it is not innocent or guilty any more than a chicken is innocent or guilty.



Or a chicken. Or a pig or ox.



And the same error. Begin talking about "unborn children" then make it "kill a child".



Killing in war is a very awkward example for you. By signing up, a soldier has mens rea? Or at least, is there by choice.

The fetus has no capacity for choice. It's not a moral agent so any comparison with a soldier or a criminal simply makes no sense.

1. Yes but according to the definition of murder provided the personhood of the unborn was not necessary to prove, just their humanity. Establishing that the foetus was incapable of moral action was something I did to show that it could not be guilty of willingly violating its mother's rights, thus making it innocent of any crime in the situation.

No, you're still not getting it. You're using a false dualism: Innocent/guilty. It is not a moral agent. It is not necessary to consider guilt or innocence, any more than the guilt or innocence of a chicken which was killed for your dinner.

If it is human and innocent then it is merely an additional unwilling participant in the situation. The point of the exercise then was to show that the killing of the unborn is as unjust if not more so than the forcing of a pregnancy on a woman.

Moral equivalence between an "unborn" (a term I will accept for the time being, without conceding that an "unborn child" is any more a child than dough is bread) and an actual child. No, worse: you are weighing this "unborn" against a grown woman.

2. Chicken, pigs and oxen are not human.

And that's all that matters? Well I disagree. What I value in living things is what I value in myself: intelligence, memory, role in life (life in the widest sense). Personality. Morality. A girl or woman of childbearing age has those things, chickens and pigs and oxen have some lesser degree of those, but more than any fetus.

3. A soldier accepts the fact that by going to war he is going to be killing and it is possible to be killed. I am not sure if I actually applied mens rea to warfare, but I am certain I said that the solders are willing participants in a contest (for lack of a better word) of life and death unlike the foetus in an unwanted pregnancy which can never be guilty of choice in this situation (as you said).

Nor innocent of it. The soldier who goes to war consents not just to risk death but to kill. If ordered to kill, the soldier must kill and that is all that provides a flimsy justification for his/her choice. Of course the world would be a better place if no-one ever consented to that: there would be no war.

Yes, the fetus is not guilty nor a volunteer. Nor is the fetus innocent. The terms are irrelevant: the fetus is not a moral agent. It does not have morality and cannot be judged in those terms. It cannot be spoken of in those terms.

[Nidaria]

4. In the current law in most nations you would be right, but weather or not abortion is morally right is the issue.

It is morally right.

6. should it be illegal is a separate question from is it legal. There is -regardless of what the law says- a planned killing of a member of the human species.

It shouldn't be illegal, because making it illegal doesn't work.

4. Depends on your definition of "morality." Unless we agree upon that, it is impossible to go further.
6. Yes, it does. A few abortions would still be carried out, but much, much fewer than now. Some people may still steal after theft is outlawed, but that does not mean larceny should not be illegal.