Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
Anyone who opposes abortion because their religion (most likely Christianity) says that it's murder needs to go back and read the Bible again - it's pretty explicit that the death of an unborn child is not equivalent to murder.
[citation needed]
I know the passage that you're referring to, but the others may not, so cite your shit.
EDIT: Also, some of them know about the passage and have managed to handwave it away as a translation error.
EDIT2: Also, some of the newer translations (I'm guessing the ones done after abortion became an actual thing) have that passage worded in a way that gets around your objection.
-
Abortion is all about escaping personal responsibility.
People make mistakes. Is it not the idealized* purpose of the criminal justice system to reform the convict so they can become a functioning member of society?
Also consider the children who are taught abstinence-only birth control. (I have firsthand evidence that this is a real thing that really happens.) When they give in to temptation, are they to be punished for the errs of their elders – burdened with the care of a child?
-
are they to be punished for the errs of their elders?
Only if their elders decide to abort.
-
Let's be clear here - at least in the US, the mother and father have a legal responsibility to the well-being of their children (as soon as the child is a legal person*) until that responsibility is waived (18 years of age, Safe Surrender) or stripped (Divorce, awards of custody, declared unfit to be a parent).
Given that we have a mild-severity population density problem, would it not be better to abort than to add another ward off the state to the foster system?
-
Given that we have a mild-severity population density problem, would it not be better to abort than to add another ward off the state to the foster system?
Given that we have mild-severity population density and crime problems, would it not be better to execute than to add another ward of the state to the prison system?
-
Source? Without me being able to research the source, I cannot know if the source is complete BS...or even exists.
There was a little link at the end of the quote. Did you try clicking that?
@abarker said:
Citation needed.
https://www.gop.com/And you're back to imitating a monkey. Just throwing shit around.
-
That's an option that some have considered. Some people actually did it. Turns out, it's a bad idea and you lose the war. Don't do it again.
I guess my point is, if a parent is going to abscond on the responsibility of a child, let's do it in the way that costs the least of my tax dollars. I am claiming that that way is abortion.
-
I guess my point is,
I'm bored at work.what if you applied this same line of reasoning to other social problems?If a person is going to abscond on the responsibility of being an adult and feeding themselves, let's do it in a way that costs the least of my tax dollars. And that way is giving them a reasonable amount of time to get back on their feet, and then cutting off all aid and letting them get a job or starve.
Either it's a life, or it's not.
If it's a life, and you're willing to end it because they might end up in poverty, unwanted, or criminal, then logically you should be willing to do the same to lives in other circumstances.
If it's not a life, none of the rest matters.
It's the folks in the middle that confuse the heck out of me- "It's ok to abort because they might be a criminal, but the death penalty for known criminals is inhumane!"
-
People make mistakes. Is it not the idealized* purpose of the criminal justice system to reform the convict so they can become a functioning member of society?
Indeed, that is the ideal. However, the justice system does not allow a criminal to wave away the consequences of his crime because "it was a mistake". Why do we allow people to wave away the consequences of sex so easily?
Also consider the children who are taught abstinence-only birth control. (I have firsthand evidence that this is a real thing that really happens.)
To build on your anecdote, I have firsthand evidence that abstinence works when such lessons are followed. Go figure!
When they give in to temptation, are they to be punished for the errs of their elders – burdened with the care of a child?
Why do you pro-choice people keep ignoring the possibility of something like adoption? This is the third time I've mentioned adoption for such situations. In fact, the second time was in the very post that you just quoted me from:
Yeah, there are lot's of "What if's". But you know what's also an option if you get pregnant and can't take care of the baby? Adoption! You still deal with some of the consequences of your actions (the pregnancy) and then some family that wants a kid gets a kid! And it isn't unknown to arrange an adoption where the birth-mother's expenses are paid for by the adoption agency or the adopting family.
As for "punished for the errs of their elders":
? It's somehow the fault of their parents and teachers that they chose to have sex? You do realize that some teens use birth control and still get pregnant, right? You know one reason why abstinence-only birth control is great? It's the only birth control method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancies and STIs.
-
You know one reason why abstinence-only birth control is great?
OK, now we're in nutcase territory. Welcome to the real world, where teenagers want to and will have sex and where promoting abstinence and instilling fear isn't going to help them make responsible choices. People who think promoting abstinence is sensible sex ed really don't help in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies.
-
I also find it fascinating that we're talking about the abortion of "babies" here.
That's not what they're doing. It's a fetus. They're not babies yet. At the time of abortion, their brain is neither developed nor do they have actual brain activity yet. At that point it's a growing lump of matter with the potential of becoming something more.
But if abortion of such a fetus is murder, then frankly, male masturbation would need to carry the death sentence. And a women's period just means that she just involuntarily killed a baby.
And don't tell me that this is different - I'm merely drawing a different line than some of you obviously are.
-
At the end of the day you're still defending organizations that think women should be left to die in the event of a complication.
I'd rather support those guys than the ones who think we need to thin out the undesirables via abortion.
-
I'd mock you for it if you were an American.
I'm an American who happens to agree with you, and I've even read a fair number of SCOTUS decisions, and I didn't know that. I'm not sure that mocking is in order; this may be an instance of "I know X, so most other people probably know it, too."
-
I'm an American who happens to agree with you, and I've even read a fair number of SCOTUS decisions, and I didn't know that. I'm not sure that mocking is in order; this may be an instance of "I know X, so most other people probably know it, too."
Have you really never heard that line about penumbras, etc? I'd forgive not knowing the case or the Justice.
-
OK, now we're in nutcase territory. Welcome to the real world, where teenagers want to and will have sex and where promoting abstinence and instilling fear isn't going to help them make responsible choices. People who think promoting abstinence is sensible sex ed really don't help in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies.
I didn't say that's all that should be taught. I also didn't state my real reasons for believing that abstinence is the best option, but I'm not going to start that particular discussion.
-
Have you really never heard that line about penumbras, etc?
It's possible, perhaps even likely, that I had heard or read that at some time it the past. However, I didn't recognize that as being an allusion to anything, much less what it was an allusion to. Even after having read the passage you quoted, I don't recognize it as something I've read previously.
Edit: Removed unintentional double-negative.
-
That's not what they're doing. It's a fetus. They're not babies yet. At the time of abortion, their brain is neither developed nor do they have actual brain activity yet. At that point it's a growing lump of matter with the potential of becoming something more.
You say that as if everyone agrees on the exact time at which it ceases to be a "Thing" and starts being a person.
Look, almost everyone (Yes, even 98%+ of Catholics) agree that barrier birth control methods are ok. And almost everyone believes that dumping a hours old newborn in the dumpster is bad.
Somewhere in between, it changes. You sound like you're not even sure if it's when the brain is "developed", or perhaps when actual brain activity is detectable. What day does that occur on? Or do we need to do some kind of test, because it happens on a different day for different babies?
Is it so hard to believe that someone else might choose the day the heart beats? Or the day it "looks" like a human? Or even for some people, that they honestly believe life begins at conception?
I'm not saying you have to fully accept their point of view. Just maybe recognize that people can have a different opinion as to when that happens.
Hell, I got involved in this discussion to troll, not to spout semi-reasonable (for me) points of view. How about mandatory abortions for anyone who can't prove they can provide a safe, security, and financially stable environment for their newborn.
-
Oh, I recognize that they have a different view. But this "they murder babies" is disingenuous at best.
-
I don't recognize it as something I've read previously.
You ignorant US American! Go buy a map!
-
But this "they murder babies" is disingenuous at best.
At best?
It's my understanding that laws such as making abortion illegal past 20 weeks are common in Europe. In the US, proposals for similar laws are denounced as misogynist, etc. Basically, because of the robéd genius and his emanating penumbras (and like minded people in black) there is no political compromise to be had, so you have people on one side who won't even say that we shouldn't allow doctors to abort a fetus that is basically ready to be born and others who say that we shouldn't distinguish so-called late term abortion (described above) vs anything that prevents an embryo from developing and being born as a baby.
Personally, I find drawing a bright line troubling, but I'm sure that the longer things go, the worse it is to abort the fetus. I'd prefer to err on the side of life than death in this sort of thing.
-
So you recognize that some people honestly feel that abortion is murdering babies, but you find them saying it out loud is disingenuous? I honestly don't understand your reasoning there. Would you elaborate?
You apparently think the cutoff is either brain development (12-13 weeks) or possibly brain activity (26 weeks). What would you describe an abortion at 27 weeks as? 32 weeks?
If someone else chooses "When the baby can survive outside the mother" (Current record 21 weeks 6 days, unless it's been beaten), what should they describe one that occurs at 24 weeks as?
What about in the EU, where non-medical abortions are rarely allowed past the first trimester? What should they call a 2nd or 3rd trimester elective abortion?
-
You know one reason why abstinence-only birth control is great? It's the only birth control method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancies and STIs.
You know what is fucking nuts about teaching abstinence only birth control? Very nearly no one will practice it. It would be analogous to condoms filled with hydrochloric acid, no one will use it.
-
Look, almost everyone (Yes, even 98%+ of Catholics) agree that barrier birth control methods are ok.
Citation needed. From my experience, Catholics are at about 40-50%. And, unless something has changed, their religion itself is 100% against any sort of birth control.
-
That's not what they're doing. It's a fetus. They're not babies yet. At the time of abortion, their brain is neither developed nor do they have actual brain activity yet. At that point it's a growing lump of matter with the potential of becoming something more.
Well, now we know we can discount you. The brain begins developing at the 5th week of pregnancy. That's 3 weeks after conception. By week 10 (8 weeks after conception), it is recognizable as a human brain, although still very small. As for your brain activity claim, that can be neither confirmed nor refuted because no studies have been done to see how soon a fetus begins exhibiting brain activity. Probably because such studies would be too dangerous for the fetus and it would be nearly impossible to get a mother's consent.
Now since most states allow abortions up to 20 weeks or later, it looks like you are just full of shit here.
But if abortion of such a fetus is murder, then frankly, male masturbation would need to carry the death sentence. And a women's period just means that she just involuntarily killed a baby.
And don't tell me that this is different - I'm merely drawing a different line than some of you obviously are.
I know that you are trolling here, and you've already proven how uneducated you are on this matter, so I'm not even going to bother trying to address the numerous holes in your different line.
-
I know that you are trolling here, and you've already proven how uneducated you are on this matter, so I'm not even going to bother trying to address the numerous holes in your different line.
The masturbation and periods thing may be trolling. On the other hand, I look forward to the future conservative-run US where every miscarriage involves a criminal murder investigation.
-
On the other hand, I look forward to the future conservative-run US where every miscarriage involves a criminal murder investigation.
I think I just came.
-
In the US, proposals for similar laws are denounced as misogynist, etc.
Probably they are, but not widely. (It's another manifestation of you hearing the ends of the spectrum more than the middle.)A quick search, for instance, turned up this from Gallup:
So according to Gallup, a majority of people support "generally" allowing abortions in the first trimester, but that drops precipitously for the second.
There's also a Slate article that discusses another poll that I didn't look at raw info for, and says the following (I have reworded what was said because I had to read the article's version about 5 times before it got through. Though in my defense, I'm really tired right now.)
It was an up-or-down referendum on banning abortion at 20 weeks. And even the most pro-choice people in the sample agreed with the 20-week ban. In this case, "the most pro-choice people" was a group that endorsed “using tax dollars to pay for a woman's abortion if she cannot afford it” (69 percent), opposed “requiring women who want an abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before the procedure” (only 25 percent supported this), and opposed “changing laws to allow for some restrictions on abortion” (only 37 percent supported this).
I tend to fall in this camp. I haven't looked into the issue enough to have a firm point at exactly when I would have a cutoff, but the way I view the issue is as one of conflicting rights between the mother and fetus, and some time around the end of the first trimester to early second is where I'd say those lines generally cross.
(And for the record, according to the same Slate article, 92% of US abortions are in the first trimester.)
-
Probably they are, but not widely. (It's another manifestation of you hearing the ends of the spectrum more than the middle.)
I agree with you. The part I reported hearing is the Democrat party leadership. But try describing them as "extreme" and you get a lot of eye rolls and references to Faux News.
So according to Gallup, a majority of people support "generally" allowing abortions in the first trimester, but that drops precipitously for the second.
Yep, which underscores the shit-corner that SCOTUS has painted us into.
-
The masturbation and periods thing may be trolling. On the other hand, I look forward to the future conservative-run US where every miscarriage involves a criminal murder investigation.
-
-
adoption
I don't get why you add such positive attributes to this option. It really isn't. Even if you have a proper system taking care of the children through foster care or something similar the child still carries a heavy personal burden that it has to wrap his head around.
-
we need to thin out the undesirables via abortion
I thought that was what the death penalty was for?
I see your
and raise it a 
-
-
Why do you pro-choice people keep ignoring the possibility of something like adoption?
What about high-school kids getting disowned by their parents due to pregnancy?
What about women losing their jobs because they can't afford nine months off?
What about those women that get killed by their lovers because of the pregnancy?
What about a million ways in which a pregnancy can be a health risk factor?
What about fetuses which have no chance to live after birth, or those for which life is going to be a living hell until they inevitably die at a young age?But yeah. Just wave your fucking adoption wand and all will be good in the world.
-
@boomzilla said:
we need to thin out the undesirables via abortion
I thought that was what the death penalty was for?
I see your
and raise it a Just a different screening mechanism. If we executed as many as we abort...
-
But yeah. Just wave your fucking adoption wand and all will be good in the world.
OR: Kill people! It's more convenient that way.
Individual conscience is an interesting thing. There are many people who go apeshit about, say, dog fights, but think abortion is a great thing. Seems totally backwards to me.
-
Citation needed. From my experience, Catholics are at about 40-50%. And, unless something has changed, their religion itself is 100% against any sort of birth control.
Good call- I misremembered the study, it's actually 98% of female Catholics in the United States, not of ALL Catholics. Another source- a Gallup poll- puts the number at 82 to 85%. And yes, the official position of the Church is against it. A more accurate statement on my part would be "Even a overwhelming majority of Catholics, particularly ones that don't wear funny hats to work"
Americans, Including Catholics, Say Birth Control Is Morally OK
Eighty-two percent of U.S. Catholics -- and 89% of all Americans -- say birth control is morally acceptable, making it the most acceptable of 18 behaviors Gallup asked about in its May Values and Beliefs survey.
-
-
-
If we executed as many as we abort...
Then there would be no waiting list for donor organs anymore!
-
rooster! Damn French Cock ...
-
Free market solution. Allow companies to pay whatever they feel fetal tissue is worth, and allow people looking to adopt to pay whatever they think a child is worth. The perspective mother can choose who to sell to!
-
Then there are people who put a lump of cells higher than a living, breathing animal.
Not that there's a point in this discussion since obviously none of us is going to convince the other one, but hey, you try to point me out as a hypocrite...
-
Then there are people who put a lump of cells higher than a living, breathing animal.
So you're of the opinion that it's not alive until it takes its first breath, then?
-
Then there are people who put a lump of cells higher than a living, breathing animal.
Lump of human cells.
Not that there's a point in this discussion since obviously none of us is going to convince the other one, but hey, you try to point me out as a hypocrite...
I wasn't calling you out as a hypocrite. Just lazy and immoral.
-
Right. And since you're resorting to ad-hominems, maybe I'll just point out that your opinions are worthless to me in turn.
Have fun with your circlewanking.
-
That's not what he said and you know it.
-
brb getting more
-
That's not what he said and you know it.
That's actually a direct quote of what he said, with my only addition being the bolded portion. It's followed by me asking if what he said was what he meant. I bolded the word that I did to help point out which part of his statement, specifically, I was questioning. Or did I forget to view raw or whatever stupid trick of the week people use to hide things instead of stating them plainly?
Why did he say breathing if he didn't think it was relevant?
-
I don't get why you add such positive attributes to this option. It really isn't. Even if you have a proper system taking care of the children through foster care or something similar the child still carries a heavy personal burden that it has to wrap his head around.
I have a BIL who was adopted. He deals with it pretty well. I had a couple friends in high school who were adopted (and they were aware of it), and they coped with it pretty well. And then I knew one person who was adopted that didn't cope well when they found out. You know the difference between the people who coped well and the person who didn't? Those who handled it well never had it hidden from them. They knew pretty much from the time that they could understand what adoption was. And it didn't matter because they knew their adoptive parents loved them as if they had been related by birth. The one who had trouble found out on his own. His adoptive parents hid the truth from him, so from that point forward there was always that bit of mistrust there.
So why do I view adoption as a positive option? Because it's sure as hell a lot better than killing a fetus before it has a chance at life. And because a loving family can go a long way in helping to lighten that "heavy personal burden".
