Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Mavorpen]

4. By defining morality it is necessary to change the topic to that of religion and philosophy. Do you wish to continue?

How the topic changes to religion goes beyond me because religion is a sorry excuse for morals.

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.

No, it actually can't. Potential means nothing. He could die naturally or he could become a mass murderer. No, it's not eligible for human rights if it's going against the mothers. Sentience is not necessary? Tell me more about how chimpanzees are not eligible or human rights yet sentience doesn't matter.

[Dyakovo]

Planned Parenthood would not have any business if they would promote abstinence in till marriage.¹ And I guess all those for abortions are for killing unborn babies.²Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being³


It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.⁴

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

[Mavorpen]

4. Depends on your definition of "morality." Unless we agree upon that, it is impossible to go further.

No, it doesn't. Abortion is morally right. Show otherwise.

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.

Really? Because I've posted this at least 10 times, proving that making it illegal does not work. In fact, it makes things worse for mother and the offspring.

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

To enforce the decree, society was strictly controlled. Motherhood was described as "the meaning of women's lives" and praised in sex education courses and women's magazines, and various written materials were distributed detailing information on prenatal and child care, the benefits of children, ways to ensure marital harmony, and the consequences of abortion.[5] Contraceptives disappeared from the shelves and were soon only available to educated urban women with access to the black market, many of them with Hungarian roots. [5] In 1986, any woman working for or attending a state institution was forced to undergo at least annual gynecological exams to ensure a satisfying level of reproductive health as well as detect pregnancy, which were followed until birth.[5] Women with histories of abortion were watched particularly carefully. [5]

Medical practitioners were also expected to follow stringent policies and were held partially responsible for the national birthrate. If they were caught breaking any aspect of the abortion law, they were to be incarcerated, though some prosecutors were paid off in exchange for a lesser sentence.[5] Each administrative region had a Disciplinary Board for Health Personnel, which disciplined all law-breaking health practitioners and on occasion had show trials to make examples of people. Sometimes, however, punishments were lessened for cooperation. [5] Despite the professional risks involved, many doctors helped women determined to have abortions, recognizing that if they did not, she would turn to a more dangerous, life-threatening route. This was done by falsely diagnosing them with an illness that qualified them for an abortion, such as diabetes or hepatitis, or prescribing them drugs that were known to counter-induce pregnancy, such as chemotherapy or antimalarial drugs.[5] When a physician did not want to help or could not be bribed to perform an abortion, however, women went to less experienced abortionists or used old remedies.[5]

From 1979 to 1988, the number of abortions increased, save for a decline in 1984-1985.[5] Despite this, many unwanted children were born, as their parents could scarcely afford to care for the children they already had, and were subsequently abandoned in hospitals or orphanages. Some of these children were purposely given AIDS-infected transfusions in orphanages; others were trafficked internationally through adoption.[5] Those born in this period, especially between 1966 and 1972, are nicknamed the decreţei (singular decreţel), a word with a negative nuance due to the perceived mental and physical damage due to the risky pregnancies and failed illegal abortions.[8]

The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

[Neutraligon]

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.

4. This is an important question when it comes to legislating morality.
6. In the US personhood starts and birth. If it is eligible for human rights than the woman still has the right to remove it as it is acting as a parasite and the woman does not legally have to support it woman's bodies cannot be legally required to act as life support.
After all a fetus is not considered a person in the census.

[Nidaria]

Planned Parenthood would not have any business if they would promote abstinence in till marriage.¹ And I guess all those for abortions are for killing unborn babies.²Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being³


It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.⁴

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

[Blakk Metal]

Planned Parenthood would not have any business if they would promote abstinence in till marriage.¹ And I guess all those for abortions are for killing unborn babies.²Indisputable Medical Evidence - the Unborn baby is a Human Being³


It is illogical to argue that a child is protected from abuse through abortion since abortion is the most horrific form of child abuse.⁴

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

YOU BIT THE BAIT!?!?!?1!?!

[Mavorpen]

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

It's not innocent. Who are these doctors? Give a source. The fetus is not a child. No child is being abused.

[Neutraligon]

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

3. Source
4. Self Defense and war a considered abuse?

[Nidaria]

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.

4. This is an important question when it comes to legislating morality.
6. In the US personhood starts and birth. If it is eligible for human rights than the woman still has the right to remove it as it is acting as a parasite and the woman does not legally have to support it woman's bodies cannot be legally required to act as life support.
After all a fetus is not considered a person in the census.

6. All children could be considered "parasites." When a couple is divorced, one of the parents (usually the father) has to take care of the children. The most basic human right is that an innocent human has the right to life.

[Mavorpen]

6. All children could be considered "parasites." When a couple is divorced, one of the parents (usually the father) has to take care of the children. The most basic human right is that an innocent human has the right to life.

It's. Not. Innocent.

[Dyakovo]

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

2: Which doesn't matter because an embryo/zygote/foetus is not a human being.
3: No, they really wouldn't.
4: Which is immaterial since no person's life is ended in an abortion.

[Nidaria]

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

3. Source
4. Self Defense and war a considered abuse?

3. Feel free to Google it.
4. Abortion is not self-defense, as the child is not directly harming the mother (except in rare cases such as miscarriages). One does not even have to explain that it is not war either.

[Mavorpen]

3. Feel free to Google it.
4. Abortion is not self-defense, as the child is not directly harming the mother (except in rare cases such as miscarriages). One does not even have to explain that it is not war either.

So you don't have a source.
How isn't it in self-defense? It is directly harming the mother by stealing the mother's nutrients as well as forcing the mother to house it. By the way, love how you ignored my post.

[Nidaria]

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.
3. The majority of medical doctors would like to disagree with you.
4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

2: Which doesn't matter because an embryo/zygote/foetus is not a human being.
3: No, they really wouldn't.
4: Which is immaterial since no person's life is ended in an abortion.

2. It has the genetic structure of a human being. Later on it has a human heart, a human brain, and human limbs.
3. How would you know?
4. "Personhood" is rather subjective in such a discussion. The child is still a human being, and ending the life of an innocent human being is always murder.

[Blakk Metal]

1: Obviously you've never been to Planned Parenthood.
2: No, the abortions are for ending unwanted pregnancies. The death of the embryo/zygote/foetus is a side effect of ending the pregnancy.
3: No, the "unborn baby" is not a human being.

4: No child is abused in an abortion.

2. The end does not justify the means. It is never lawful to end the life of an innocent human being.

O rly?

4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

No it doesn't.

[AiliailiA]

4. Ending the life of someone qualifies as abuse.

Only if you mean to twist that "ending of life" to fit the emotive meaning, widely reviled, of "child abuse".

You'd do better to stick to the word "killing". That's quite emotive enough without engaging in two-degrees-of-separation wrangling over terms.

[Dyakovo]

2: Which doesn't matter because an embryo/zygote/foetus is not a human being.
3: No, they really wouldn't.
4: Which is immaterial since no person's life is ended in an abortion.

2. It has the genetic structure of a human being. Later on it has a human heart, a human brain, and human limbs.
3. How would you know?
4. "Personhood" is rather subjective in such a discussion. The child is still a human being, and ending the life of an innocent human being is always murder.

2: And? Being genetically human does not make something a person (which by the way is what a "human being" is.)
3: Research, you should try it.
4: No, the embryo/zygote/foetus is not a human being.

[Nidaria]

3. Feel free to Google it.
4. Abortion is not self-defense, as the child is not directly harming the mother (except in rare cases such as miscarriages). One does not even have to explain that it is not war either.

So you don't have a source.
How isn't it in self-defense? It is directly harming the mother by stealing the mother's nutrients as well as forcing the mother to house it. By the way, love how you ignored my post.

You never really explained your point.
When I have time, I shall look around (successfully) for a half hour. I do not trust Google, as they track the sites one visits.
Nutrients and housing hardly qualifies as "harming." One can consider other children as doing the same, albeit in a more indirect manner.

[AiliailiA]

4. "Personhood" is rather subjective in such a discussion. The child is still a human being, and ending the life of an innocent human being is always murder.

"Murder" is a legal term. You're using it for its emotive impact.

You may fire yourself up that way, but you will never persuade anyone who is wavering on the subject. Why would they want to be all twisted up emotionally about something that may never affect them personally?

[Mavorpen]

You never really explained your point.
When I have time, I shall look around (successfully) for a half hour. I do not trust Google, as they track the sites one visits.
Nutrients and housing hardly qualifies as "harming." One can consider other children as doing the same, albeit in a more indirect manner.

I never explained my point? I'm sorry, that's bullshit. Nutrients don't count as harming? Pregnancy sounds like a disease when you look at what it does to your body.

4. Depends on your definition of "morality." Unless we agree upon that, it is impossible to go further.

No, it doesn't. Abortion is morally right. Show otherwise.

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.

Really? Because I've posted this at least 10 times, proving that making it illegal does not work. In fact, it makes things worse for mother and the offspring.

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

I explained my points fine. You just ignored them.

[Nidaria]

2. It has the genetic structure of a human being. Later on it has a human heart, a human brain, and human limbs.
3. How would you know?
4. "Personhood" is rather subjective in such a discussion. The child is still a human being, and ending the life of an innocent human being is always murder.

2: And? Being genetically human does not make something a person (which by the way is what a "human being" is.)
3: Research, you should try it.
4: No, the embryo/zygote/foetus is not a human being.

2. You are evading my statement. I highly doubt that you could come up with a better definition (other than that only humans have souls, but that is a religious argument and useless in a secular debate).
3. I have.
4. I have provided points as to why unborn children are human beings, but you have not provided any as to why they are not.

[Parchelon]

Yes but sex is inherently a reproductive act and no form of contraception is 100% effective. But regardless of if there is consent it still does not justify killing. Yes it is an inconvenience and an unwanted burden, but a burden that will eventually make choices and experience life in its own way. Depriving the child of life because is depriving someone of the opportunity to make his/her own decisions, not to mention the fact that it is still murder because the child is not guilty of invading the mother, it was simply created there naturally.

Sex is not a reproductive act. Sex is a way to start the reproductive cycle. Generally the reproductive cycle starts when the egg is fertilized. I don't care if no contraceptive is 100% effective. Teaching abstinence doesn't work no matter how much you want it to.

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.

Yes, it is. It's forcing the mother to house it. We've gone over this.

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.

You are born, therefore it doesn't affect you at all.

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.

It doesn't matter if they are human. Being human doesn't grant you special rights. Abortion is not a murder, it is not an injustice. No, the situations were not the same. Blacks are equal humans with whites. A fetus is nowhere near the mental capacity or independence of a born child nor a fully developed human being. First prove it's an injustice before you make stupid comparisons.

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.

No, it doesn't.

Yes I have heard of it, and totally disagree with it rather like people who hated slavery hated the courts ruling supporting it, or Germans hating that the Reichstag passed anti-Jewish laws. Courts are not infallible.

Just stop. Stop comparing me with a fetus.

Certainly there needs to be a safety net established for the unwanted children, but that should not stop our society from saving them anymore than the necessity to help blacks make a living after the civil war deterred the union government after the war in freeing them.

Should there be penalties and what should they be are questions I cannot truly answer. Certainly prosecuting the practitioner of the abortion, the doctor, is necessary but I simply do not know if prosecuting the formerly pregnant woman would be the just course. But such things are thankfully not up to me but rather people with much better knowledge of the scales of justice and when prosecution should take place.

I'm going to stop right here. I don't want to go through 6 more pages. But this right here is silly. Making abortion illegal does not work, ever.

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.


The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

1. Abstinence is hard yes, but anything good enough is worth waiting for.
2. And here we go again, the foetus is not forcing anything to happen, it hasn't the capacity to make a choice.
3. black slavery didn't affect white people did it? should that have stopped the abolitionists?
4. "It doesn't matter if they are human. Being human doesn't grant you special rights." Yes it does, if I kill my dog that's hardly a legal murder is it? The first requirement for murder is that the thing killed is human, then that the killing be planned and unjust.

"A fetus is nowhere near the mental capacity or independence of a born child nor a fully developed human being." How exactly is a 8 month (measuring from conception) old born child different from a 8 month old unborn child? Were talking about the same freaking being that is legal to kill one day and the killing is called murder if it happens a day latter.

"First prove it's an injustice before you make stupid comparisons." thats what I am trying to do.

5. In regard to the fact that beings that were human were denied personhood and treated as property, its pretty darn similar.
6. Sorry, but I think the comparison of abortion to slavery is necessary. Centuries ago (or sadly enough even today) people found it easy to see dark skin and think that blacks were subordinate to the whims of whites. Now its just as easy and common for people to think of the unborn and see them as something subordinate to the desires of more fully developed humans.
7. And making murder illegal doesn't stop all murders, but if abortion is wrong and we do nothing then we allow the biggest mass murder in human history to go onwards unchecked and unchallenged.

[Mavorpen]

4. I have provided points as to why unborn children are human beings, but you have not provided any as to why they are not.

human being Pronunciation: /hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ/
Definition of human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

man Pronunciation: /man/
Definition of man
noun (plural men /mɛn/)
1an adult human male:

woman Pronunciation: /ˈwʊmən/
Definition of woman
noun (plural women /ˈwɪmɪn/)
an adult human female:
a jury of seven women and five men

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty.

[AiliailiA]

One can consider other children as doing the same, albeit in a more indirect manner.

Born children are different. How? They are different because if their current host refuses to support them, someone else can take over that role.

Even if that someone else is inadequate to the job (eg, a Rumanian orphanage) it is not necessary that the child dies.

Hence the side-discussion about "viable" fetuses. Late in pregnancy (when very few abortions are performed except from need) it may actually be possible for "someone else" to take over the last stages of gestation. It's expensive and imperfect but it is worth consideration because (a) the feuts is closer to being a child, has brain function etc, and (b) it could be done with no more intrusion on the woman's body than a late-term abortion requires.

But pro-lifers will never get that ... never get to save the fetuses which they should care most about ... as long as they are represented by extremists who hold a fertilized egg, or a two-cell or four-cell blastocyst, to be a "person" or "child". Such a belief can only be religious in foundation, because there is no scientific or even common-sense reason to ascribe the qualities we recognize in people, to a cell.

DNA is not a soul. Your God does not live there, and it is simply offensive to put moral or religious claims over such an intimate part of other human beings, when they do not accept that ridiculous religious idea.

[Parchelon]

A lot of people are saying that abortion is wrong because it is murder. Abortion is not murder. A young foetus is not a person, it has no impression of the world. I can't really say much more on that.

Regarding the view that it's murder because its killing a potential person. This argument should be disregarded for lack of integrity if it isn't also applied to masturbation, contraception and women being allowed to have periods, when they could have been pregnant. A sperm/egg cell has the potential of creating a person, but people don't think of it as such becauce neither can think. The same should apply to foetuses.

The leaving of Sperm and eggs to die is not in any sense of the word murder, such things (separated) if left to their own devices would never become a human being, but put them together ether in the uterus of a woman and when conception takes place a new DNA code is created and when left alone to natural growth develops into us. Its an entirely different circumstance.