Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Inky Noodles]

Well thats a hell of a comfort! The only thing wrong with it is that arms or kidneys don't have DNA different from your own, they don't grow for the express purpose of leaving your body, that don't have eyes, their own heartbeat, or brain waves. Besides have you ever even heard of an abortion procedure described? It made me feel like vomiting the first time I heard it spoken of, if you wish I could send you a telegram with the details, if I post the actual details here in public eyes it might not provoke the best reaction from the people or the moderators seeing as how it aint exactly pg-13 stuff.

It's really no worse than a slaughterhouse for livestock. Slaughterhouses are worse.

True...

[Blakk Metal]

You do realize that this is a organization that is trying to push its control onto other countries, right?

im sorry man but you cant be serrious, a nation of a few thousand trying to gain control over millions of people in other nations? I mean at worst they might lobby against abortion or contraception being funded by the UN or on national levels, or abortion being legalized, or protecting religious rights or lobby against china's human rights record, I would hardly call that a tyrannical and vile theocracy. Its most prominent position worldwide is a freaking observer status at the UN.

Its members follow it, and they exert a far bigger influence on the government mirroring the church's.

I mean sure they have the Pope, yeah ok, but he is hardly a threat to democracy.

The Catholic Church is, will be, and has traditionally been one of the biggest threats to all that is good, politically.

[Dyakovo]

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

Well thats a hell of a comfort! The only thing wrong with it is that arms or kidneys don't have DNA different from your own, they don't grow for the express purpose of leaving your body, that don't have eyes, their own heartbeat, or brain waves. Besides have you ever even heard of an abortion procedure described? It made me feel like vomiting the first time I heard it spoken of, if you wish I could send you a telegram with the details, if I post the actual details here in public eyes it might not provoke the best reaction from the people or the moderators seeing as how it aint exactly pg-13 stuff.

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

That good sir is something I am not willing to debate, though for the sake of curiosity yes I do.

So, really, for you it's all about the rush of having power over somebody else's body...

[Muckistania]

What this has to do with Planned Parenthood, I have no clue.

Laziness. People need to have their parenthood planned for them because they are lazy.

[Silent Majority]

What this has to do with Planned Parenthood, I have no clue.

Laziness. People need to have their parenthood planned for them because they are lazy.

Taking the responsibility to plan when you have children, so you're sure you can support them, does not strike me as lazy.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

The Catholic Church is, will be, and has traditionally been one of the biggest threats to all that is good, politically.

And now young heretic, you will die...

Taking the responsibility to plan when you have children, so you're sure you can support them, does not strike me as lazy.

Well, the OP is under the impression that people are no better than breeding farm animals with no sense of responsability or sanitation...and that contraceptives are un-natural sins.

[Mavorpen]

What this has to do with Planned Parenthood, I have no clue.

Laziness. People need to have their parenthood planned for them because they are lazy.

Right, and going to school is for lazy people who can't learn everything from Google and Wikipedia.

[Blakk Metal]

The Catholic Church is, will be, and has traditionally been one of the biggest threats to all that is good, politically.

And now young heretic, you will die...

WHY DIDN'T YOU DO IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, WITH FLAMEZ AND SHIT!?!

[Sociobiology]

that was (and in some places still is) a popular way to kill infants.

Leave room for a miracle to happen I guess.

It is because the person is not actually killing the child but letting "nature" do it.
the reason western countries name children at birth was a tradition started in part to curtail this (by creating a record of the child), instead it increased the number of "accidental" drownings and smotherings, which did not fall until the invention of abortion and contraception.

[AiliailiA]

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

That good sir is something I am not willing to debate, though for the sake of curiosity yes I do.

Keep talking. I'd like the pro-lifers who are "anti abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality, or threat to the mother's life" to see just who is leading the charge for their life-saving cause.

You oppose contraception.

We'll be coming back to this, believe you me. Contraception is not incidental to the work of Planned Parenthood.

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

I disagree with the idea of planned parenthood. Parenthood is part of life, a significant part. Any person of any worth aught to have some life plan, parenthood should just be a natural extension of that should the person want to become a parent.

For those completely incapable of anticipating the obvious consequences of their actions, who gives a shit about them.

But you can't deliver the "consequence of their action" on the parent, without their child suffering for it.

So you don't give a shit about children either?

[Danbershan]

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

Well thats a hell of a comfort! The only thing wrong with it is that arms or kidneys don't have DNA different from your own, they don't grow for the express purpose of leaving your body, that don't have eyes, their own heartbeat, or brain waves. Besides have you ever even heard of an abortion procedure described? It made me feel like vomiting the first time I heard it spoken of, if you wish I could send you a telegram with the details, if I post the actual details here in public eyes it might not provoke the best reaction from the people or the moderators seeing as how it aint exactly pg-13 stuff.

My point is that if that's OK, I don't see why this shouldn't be. At an early stage, the foetus doesn't have a heartbeat, and even when it does, so what? Doesn't make it human. If you see killing animals as OK, then you should see abortion as OK, because there's no more brain activity in a foetus than in many animals, and can be much less, depending on how developed it is.

Please send me that telegram. I am, however, sure there are multiple methods by which abortion is carried out.

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

That good sir is something I am not willing to debate, though for the sake of curiosity yes I do.

Holy crap.

[Blakk Metal]

Leave room for a miracle to happen I guess.

It is because the person is not actually killing the child but letting "nature" do it.
the reason western countries name children at birth was a tradition started in part to curtail this (by creating a record of the child), instead it increased the number of "accidental" drownings and smotherings, which did not fall until the invention legalization of abortion and contraception.

Corrected.

[Ifreann]

Has no one realized the OP's namesake yet?

No one!?

Yes, we did. Quite a while ago. You keep bringing it up, though.

[Sociobiology]

It is because the person is not actually killing the child but letting "nature" do it.
the reason western countries name children at birth was a tradition started in part to curtail this (by creating a record of the child), instead it increased the number of "accidental" drownings and smotherings, which did not fall until the invention of reliable and safe abortion and contraception.

refixed
but you are right legalizing it let to a further drop.

[Blakk Metal]

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

That good sir is something I am not willing to debate, though for the sake of curiosity yes I do.

Why?

[Ifreann]

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

Well thats a hell of a comfort! The only thing wrong with it is that arms or kidneys don't have DNA different from your own, they don't grow for the express purpose of leaving your body, that don't have eyes, their own heartbeat, or brain waves. Besides have you ever even heard of an abortion procedure described? It made me feel like vomiting the first time I heard it spoken of, if you wish I could send you a telegram with the details, if I post the actual details here in public eyes it might not provoke the best reaction from the people or the moderators seeing as how it aint exactly pg-13 stuff.

I am willing to assert that what was described to you is not, in any way, shape or form, a typical abortion. You were probably told of a highly exceptional case, chosen specifically because it is gruesome to contemplate, and certainly performed because it was medically necessary. You've fallen victim to an appeal to emotion, and a pathetic one at that.

[Parchelon]

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.

Yes but if it is has not choice in the matter of being there then it can hardly be blamed for the situation it puts the mother in. But if it does not have a choice in violating someone else's rights then it is not a crime. A crime requires an act that is illegal and a person who willingly choose to commit the act. Thus if someone's rights were being involuntarily violated it is substantially different from someone choosing to violate someone else's rights. Yes the mothers rights are violated but using that to justify murder of the individual inadvertently perpetrating the offence is not justice. Sure the situation would be resolved, but not fairly.

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

Killing animals is not murder as the word applies to the killing of humans, in a situation like war or self defence killing of human is allowed only by necessity. The killing of an unborn child is rarely absolutely necessary. The an ectopic pregnancy is one situation where it may seem abortion is necessary, though the solution is not the directed and intentional killing of the child but rather surgery to save the mother's life and if possible the unborn child. The surgery entailing the removal of the tube in which the child is growing and (I assume) a potential attempt at saving the unborn child.

[Danbershan]

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.

Yes but if it is has not choice in the matter of being there then it can hardly be blamed for the situation it puts the mother in. But if it does not have a choice in violating someone else's rights then it is not a crime. A crime requires an act that is illegal and a person who willingly choose to commit the act. Thus if someone's rights were being involuntarily violated it is substantially different from someone choosing to violate someone else's rights. Yes the mothers rights are violated but using that to justify murder of the individual inadvertently perpetrating the offence is not justice. Sure the situation would be resolved, but not fairly.

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

Killing animals is not murder as the word applies to the killing of humans, in a situation like war or self defence killing of human is allowed only by necessity. The killing of an unborn child is rarely absolutely necessary. The an ectopic pregnancy is one situation where it may seem abortion is necessary, though the solution is not the directed and intentional killing of the child but rather surgery to save the mother's life and if possible the unborn child. The surgery entailing the removal of the tube in which the child is growing and (I assume) a potential attempt at saving the unborn child.

Still waiting for my telegram.

[AiliailiA]

Yes the mothers rights are violated but using that to justify murder of the individual inadvertently perpetrating the offence is not justice.

So you're not comfortable with "person" any more. Now the fetus is an "individual".

You'll keep searching around for terms to make it seem just like you or I. Anything but use the proper medical term.

[Blakk Metal]

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.

Yes but if it is has not choice in the matter of being there then it can hardly be blamed for the situation it puts the mother in. But if it does not have a choice in violating someone else's rights then it is not a crime. A crime requires an act that is illegal and a person who willingly choose to commit the act. Thus if someone's rights were being involuntarily violated it is substantially different from someone choosing to violate someone else's rights. Yes the mothers rights are violated but using that to justify murder of the individual inadvertently perpetrating the offence is not justice. Sure the situation would be resolved, but not fairly.

Self defense =/= justice

[Parchelon]

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.

Well at the very least you aren't implicating Pope Benedict as being a Nazi, thats something at least.

But promoting the culture of life, a greater respect for the human person, hardly represents the imposition of tyranny. Possibly I will give you the debatable factor of abortion, but even so the Vatican has no temporal authority that I am aware of to force governments to do much of anything. And they don't call people Nazis, sinners in need of love and prayer perhaps, but not Nazis.

[Danbershan]

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.

Well at the very least you aren't implicating Pope Benedict as being a Nazi, thats something at least.

But promoting the culture of life, a greater respect for the human person, hardly represents the imposition of tyranny. Possibly I will give you the debatable factor of abortion, but even so the Vatican has no temporal authority that I am aware of to force governments to do much of anything. And they don't call people Nazis, sinners in need of love and prayer perhaps, but not Nazis.

We have enough to argue about with resorting to this, let's keep it on-topic over here!

[Mavorpen]

Yes but if it is has not choice in the matter of being there then it can hardly be blamed for the situation it puts the mother in.

Yes, it can seeing as the mother doesn't want it, and it causes this.

But if it does not have a choice in violating someone else's rights then it is not a crime.

Yes, it is.

A crime requires an act that is illegal and a person who willingly choose to commit the act.

Look at you, making up shit.

crime Pronunciation: /krʌɪm/
Definition of crime
noun
an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law:
shoplifting was a serious crime
[mass noun] illegal activities:
the victims of crime
an action or activity considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong:
they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity
it’s a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank

It says nothing about the being committing the crime doing it willingly.

Thus if someone's rights were being involuntarily violated it is substantially different from someone choosing to violate someone else's rights. Yes the mothers rights are violated but using that to justify murder of the individual inadvertently perpetrating the offence is not justice. Sure the situation would be resolved, but not fairly.

Yeah, no. A crime is a crime. You admit the mother's rights are being violated, which is a crime. It's justification enough for the killing (not murder, stop making up your own definitions) of the fetus. How isn't it fair? The mother is rightfully put above a clump of cells with the sentience of that of a rat. To put the mother beneath a fetus is not fair.

Killing animals is not murder as the word applies to the killing of humans, in a situation like war or self defence killing of human is allowed only by necessity.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another. A fetus is not a human being. Moreover, you still ignore the core question: why does being human matter? Giving rights to humans and nothing else is hypocritical and has no justification in the first place. Therefore basing your argument around, "a fetus deserves rights, even though more sapient beings such as chimpanzees don't, because it is a human" is faulty.

The killing of an unborn child is rarely absolutely necessary. The an ectopic pregnancy is one situation where it may seem abortion is necessary, though the solution is not the directed and intentional killing of the child but rather surgery to save the mother's life and if possible the unborn child. The surgery entailing the removal of the tube in which the child is growing and (I assume) a potential attempt at saving the unborn child.

How is it rarely absolutely necessary? What you deem necessary is inherently discriminatory.

[Parchelon]

Perhaps, but human none the less.

But not a person.

here we go again...how about this time I let you name other examples where humans have been deprived of the privilege of being called persons?

[Danbershan]

But not a person.

here we go again...how about this time I let you name other examples where humans have been deprived of the privilege of being called persons?

I doubt they'll be relevant, but I for one would like to debunk them anyway.