Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Euroslavia]

If you're not here to debate the topic, please leave.

The OP's name sake is based off a character in GTAIV... one who .... well... still don't know how people haven't spotted this.
Richard Bastion Republic... meet Richard Bastion

The post above goes for you too. This isn't the first or second post you've made about the OP's name and its connection. We get it, stick to the topic.

[Natair]

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: I am sick and tired of hearing this from people. Stop trying to tell people what they can and can't do when they both agree.

2: But on the other hand, some people, like me, hate babies and little kids, and as such do not want to have them until they have the patience.

3: Those wait-until-marriage arguments can take a long walk off a short cliff, because I know plenty of people who are happy, have kids, and aren't married. Stop telling others how to live, yet again.

4: Bullshit, over 9 billion people already exist in this world, we don't need any more.

5: I agree here, to an extent. Babies take WAY too much time and energy to allow you to do much else, and kids DO make it a HELL of a lot harder to work.

6: I honestly don't care. I'll admit it there.

[Bottle]

He doesn't understand the difference between saying something is (genetically) human and saying it is a human being.

Perhaps, due to having half a genetic code, each of the sperm cells I expel when ejaculating (through entirely accidental and not at all self-stimulated means) counts as half a person. We'd better put the entire male population in jail.

Also, people with Down Syndrome have more chromosomes than the average person (trisomy 21), so I guess they get more rights than the rest of us.

[Danbershan]

Perhaps, due to having half a genetic code, each of the sperm cells I expel when ejaculating (through entirely accidental and not at all self-stimulated means) counts as half a person. We'd better put the entire male population in jail.

Also, people with Down Syndrome have more chromosomes than the average person (trisomy 21), so I guess they get more rights than the rest of us.

We need to tell the Prime Minister about this immediately.

[Parchelon]

4.Objective morality, or perhaps the natural law. Rather like the killing of an innocent adult human as murder is instinctively know to be wrong.

I don't 'instinctively know' that aborting a foetus is wrong. So there's that one down the drain.

6.I already asked another person to try to find other examples in history of instances where human beings have been deprived of their personhood legally. I could easily list a few, the record is far from clean.

How is this relevant? Just because black people, or lepers, or people with mental disabilities, or whoever else, have been defined as not being people in the past shouldn't mean we have to define semi-formed human foetuses as people...

1. Yes but we all know (i would hope) that murder is wrong, so establishing that abortion is murder would obviously mean that abortion is wrong.
2. Yes but think about it, blacks were not persons because of their skin colour and whites could profit from it, women because they weren't men and that made men feel superior, Jews because people hated them and that made the so called Aryans feel superior to something, now we say that the first 9 months of every humans existence humans can be freely killed on a whim just because the unborn are exactly where they are supposed to be because sex worked the way it was supposed to when people didn't want it to.

I mean by what authority do we suddenly strip certain human beings of personhood (the unborn) and not others (the born)? Its an ambiguous distinction. The unborn should be in the womb, that is where they have to be or they die.

And in the past defining humans as not persons has resulted in massive abuses of human rights. Women beaten, blacks enslaved and treated like dogs, Jews treated like cockroaches and exterminated like sick cattle. Now we have the unborn humans being killed at a rate of more than 40 million a year world-wide. Source ->

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Certainly the courts have claimed the authority to define humans as not human but they have always done a stand up job have they not? Something like 14 million African natives died in the slave trade, no doubt dozens of women from beating, six million Jews in addition to many others like homosexuals and gypsies slaughtered. Should we really trust the courts or governments with the authority to strip humans of personhood by mere dint (or perception) of popular will?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I don't 'instinctively know' that aborting a foetus is wrong. So there's that one down the drain.



How is this relevant? Just because black people, or lepers, or people with mental disabilities, or whoever else, have been defined as not being people in the past shouldn't mean we have to define semi-formed human foetuses as people...

1. Yes but we all know (i would hope) that murder is wrong, so establishing that abortion is murder would obviously mean that abortion is wrong.
2. Yes but think about it, blacks were not persons because of their skin colour and whites could profit from it, women because they weren't men and that made men feel superior, Jews because people hated them and that made the so called Aryans feel superior to something, now we say that the first 9 months of every humans existence humans can be freely killed on a whim just because the unborn are exactly where they are supposed to be because sex worked the way it was supposed to when people didn't want it to.

I mean by what authority do we suddenly strip certain human beings of personhood (the unborn) and not others (the born)? Its an ambiguous distinction. The unborn should be in the womb, that is where they have to be or they die.

And in the past defining humans as not persons has resulted in massive abuses of human rights. Women beaten, blacks enslaved and treated like dogs, Jews treated like cockroaches and exterminated like sick cattle. Now we have the unborn humans being killed at a rate of more than 40 million a year world-wide. Source ->

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Certainly the courts have claimed the authority to define humans as not human but they have always done a stand up job have they not? Something like 14 million African natives died in the slave trade, no doubt dozens of women from beating, six million Jews in addition to many others like homosexuals and gypsies slaughtered. Should we really trust the courts or governments with the authority to strip humans of personhood by mere dint (or perception) of popular will?

Dyakovo and one or two others raised a good point - sperm contains 100% human DNA, so as a sperm is genetically identical to a fully-grown human being, should we ban masturbation as every ejaculation kills 5,000,000 'people'?

[Tekania]

Dyakovo and one or two others raised a good point - sperm contains 100% human DNA, so as a sperm is genetically identical to a fully-grown human being, should we ban masturbation as every ejaculation kills 5,000,000 'people'?

Thousands of holocausts are happening everyday in teenage boys bedrooms. <Cue dramatic music>

[Parchelon]

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?

*shrugs*
You can try equating it to what-ever you like. The simple fact of the matter is that it takes more than being genetically human to be a person.

So let me get this straight, in your opinion:
7 month old unborn child=human gelton
7 month old (from conception) newborn=a person with full protection of the law

There is hardly a lick of difference between either beings brain or any other part of it, it is now awake rather than unconscious and breathing and eating from outside the womb rather than inside it yet somehow the first can be killed legally and with the other it would be a heinous murder fully prosecutable under the law because we seem to think the first is somehow inferior to the second. Last time I checked simply being in a different location didn't somehow qualify someone for execution, especially if that person is in that location by no wish of their own.

[Parchelon]

4: Morality is not objective.
6: A foetus is not, and never has been a person, so your attempts to make it seem like we're taking something away from the foetus are disingenuous at best.

"4: Morality is not objective." is that a statement of morality that applies to everyone in all circumstances?
6.We cant exactly see what makes a person can we? I mean we can see language develop and all that, yet someone forming their first words hardly qualify them for personhood status does it? Yet somehow newborns are superior enough to make them persons and non-born children not?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

4: Morality is not objective.
6: A foetus is not, and never has been a person, so your attempts to make it seem like we're taking something away from the foetus are disingenuous at best.

"4: Morality is not objective." that argument had to come up at some point...ok if I kill a three year old is that wrong?

To me, yes, to you, yes, to some people, no. It's subjective.

6.We cant exactly see what makes a person can we? I mean we can see language develop and all that, yet someone forming their first words hardly qualify them for personhood status does it? Yet somehow newborns are superior enough to make them persons and non-born children not?

What's the difference between a sperm and a foetus, given that they're both genetically speaking human?

Also, nice job moving the goalposts for your definition of what's a child and what isn't, I see what you did there.

[Natair]

I don't 'instinctively know' that aborting a foetus is wrong. So there's that one down the drain.



How is this relevant? Just because black people, or lepers, or people with mental disabilities, or whoever else, have been defined as not being people in the past shouldn't mean we have to define semi-formed human foetuses as people...

1. Yes but we all know (i would hope) that murder is wrong, so establishing that abortion is murder would obviously mean that abortion is wrong.
2. Yes but think about it, blacks were not persons because of their skin colour and whites could profit from it, women because they weren't men and that made men feel superior, Jews because people hated them and that made the so called Aryans feel superior to something, now we say that the first 9 months of every humans existence humans can be freely killed on a whim just because the unborn are exactly where they are supposed to be because sex worked the way it was supposed to when people didn't want it to.

I mean by what authority do we suddenly strip certain human beings of personhood (the unborn) and not others (the born)? Its an ambiguous distinction. The unborn should be in the womb, that is where they have to be or they die.

And in the past defining humans as not persons has resulted in massive abuses of human rights. Women beaten, blacks enslaved and treated like dogs, Jews treated like cockroaches and exterminated like sick cattle. Now we have the unborn humans being killed at a rate of more than 40 million a year world-wide. Source ->

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Certainly the courts have claimed the authority to define humans as not human but they have always done a stand up job have they not? Something like 14 million African natives died in the slave trade, no doubt dozens of women from beating, six million Jews in addition to many others like homosexuals and gypsies slaughtered. Should we really trust the courts or governments with the authority to strip humans of personhood by mere dint (or perception) of popular will?

Here's the difference: the unborn are just that; unborn. Until they come out into the world, they are not truly living human beings, they are just part of the mother.

I am gonna catch hell from saying that...

[Parchelon]

Perhaps, due to having half a genetic code, each of the sperm cells I expel when ejaculating (through entirely accidental and not at all self-stimulated means) counts as half a person. We'd better put the entire male population in jail.

Does that mean that each sperm cell have half the total rights of humans.

No, they are merely parts of a genetic code, yet embryos are living genetic code that grows and becomes us, while a sperm when left alone quickly dies and does not produce anything unless it comes into contact with a human egg and fertilization occurs.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Does that mean that each sperm cell have half the total rights of humans.

No, they are merely parts of a genetic code, yet embryos and sperm are living genetic code that grows and becomes us, while a sperm or a foetus when left alone quickly dies and does not produce anything unless it comes into contact with a human egg and fertilization occurs.

Fixed.

Sperm are living genetic code that becomes us. Foetuses when left alone quickly die and do not produce anything.

[Snake South Amerika]

durr abstinence good contraception ungood durr

[Parchelon]

"4: Morality is not objective." that argument had to come up at some point...ok if I kill a three year old is that wrong?

To me, yes, to you, yes, to some people, no. It's subjective.

6.We cant exactly see what makes a person can we? I mean we can see language develop and all that, yet someone forming their first words hardly qualify them for personhood status does it? Yet somehow newborns are superior enough to make them persons and non-born children not?

What's the difference between a sperm and a foetus, given that they're both genetically speaking human?

Also, nice job moving the goalposts for your definition of what's a child and what isn't, I see what you did there.

"To me, yes, to you, yes, to some people, no. It's subjective." I did edit the past that you quoted to make the question more direct, but to answer your statement the vast majority of people would say that yes killing a 3 year old is wrong, that shooting someone randomly in the street for simply being there should be a crime, that rape is a crime, that thievery is a crime, all of these things are natural to all humans, but are either ignored or suppressed in some.

"What's the difference between a sperm and a foetus, given that they're both genetically speaking human?" A sperm is an agent (for lack of a better word) of reproduction, it is a small organism that by its own genetics will not develop into an adult human being, it needs to first fertilize a human egg , when that happens a new code is formed and a human being begins developing.

[Natair]

Dyakovo and one or two others raised a good point - sperm contains 100% human DNA, so as a sperm is genetically identical to a fully-grown human being, should we ban masturbation as every ejaculation kills 5,000,000 'people'?

Thousands of holocausts are happening everyday in teenage boys bedrooms. <Cue dramatic music>

Oh sh**...

[Ifreann]

Perhaps, due to having half a genetic code, each of the sperm cells I expel when ejaculating (through entirely accidental and not at all self-stimulated means) counts as half a person. We'd better put the entire male population in jail.

Also, people with Down Syndrome have more chromosomes than the average person (trisomy 21), so I guess they get more rights than the rest of us.

And then there's the plants and animals that have far more chromosomes than us. Where we have 46, he said to the professional biologist, gorillas and chimps have 48, as does the cultivated tobacco plant. Dogs have 78. Adder's-tongue fern has 1,262.

[Parchelon]

1. Yes but we all know (i would hope) that murder is wrong, so establishing that abortion is murder would obviously mean that abortion is wrong.
2. Yes but think about it, blacks were not persons because of their skin colour and whites could profit from it, women because they weren't men and that made men feel superior, Jews because people hated them and that made the so called Aryans feel superior to something, now we say that the first 9 months of every humans existence humans can be freely killed on a whim just because the unborn are exactly where they are supposed to be because sex worked the way it was supposed to when people didn't want it to.

I mean by what authority do we suddenly strip certain human beings of personhood (the unborn) and not others (the born)? Its an ambiguous distinction. The unborn should be in the womb, that is where they have to be or they die.

And in the past defining humans as not persons has resulted in massive abuses of human rights. Women beaten, blacks enslaved and treated like dogs, Jews treated like cockroaches and exterminated like sick cattle. Now we have the unborn humans being killed at a rate of more than 40 million a year world-wide. Source ->[spoiler]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

Certainly the courts have claimed the authority to define humans as not human but they have always done a stand up job have they not? Something like 14 million African natives died in the slave trade, no doubt dozens of women from beating, six million Jews in addition to many others like homosexuals and gypsies slaughtered. Should we really trust the courts or governments with the authority to strip humans of personhood by mere dint (or perception) of popular will?

[/spoiler]

Here's the difference: the unborn are just that; unborn. Until they come out into the world, they are not truly living human beings, they are just part of the mother.

I am gonna catch hell from saying that...

[Parchelon]

No, they are merely parts of a genetic code, yet embryos and sperm are living genetic code that grows and becomes us, while a sperm or a foetus when left alone quickly dies and does not produce anything unless it comes into contact with a human egg and fertilization occurs.

Fixed.

Sperm are living genetic code that becomes us. Foetuses when left alone quickly die and do not produce anything.

You leave a sperm inside a uterus and no human egg shows up guess what happens? Nothing the sperm dies. Leave a foetus in the uterus to develop normally and in 9 months (give or take) you will need to name it.

[Divair]

Fixed.

Sperm are living genetic code that becomes us. Foetuses when left alone quickly die and do not produce anything.

You leave a sperm inside a uterus and no human egg shows up guess what happens? Nothing the sperm dies. Leave a foetus in the uterus to develop normally and in 9 months (give or take) you will need to name it.

Nonsense. Just because an effort by the mother is not voluntary doesn't disqualify it from being an effort.

[Parchelon]

You leave a sperm inside a uterus and no human egg shows up guess what happens? Nothing the sperm dies. Leave a foetus in the uterus to develop normally and in 9 months (give or take) you will need to name it.

Nonsense. Just because an effort by the mother is not voluntary doesn't disqualify it from being an effort.

huh?

[Ifreann]

Nonsense. Just because an effort by the mother is not voluntary doesn't disqualify it from being an effort.

huh?

There's a lot more to gestating a human than leaving a foetus in a uterus. A lot more.

[Parchelon]

huh?

There's a lot more to gestating a human than leaving a foetus in a uterus. A lot more.

Yes of course, but I was just pointing out the massive difference between leaving an unused sperm cell in the uterus and having an embryo develop into a foetus.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

There's a lot more to gestating a human than leaving a foetus in a uterus. A lot more.

Yes of course, but I was just pointing out the massive difference between leaving an unused sperm cell in the uterus and having an embryo develop into a foetus.

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

[Upper and Lower Karsteinia]

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.

You're unrealistic.

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.

You're an idiot.

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

You're not solving anything.

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.

You're a horrible person.

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.

Oh, you're a troll, too.