Planned Parenthood Breaks the Law

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if you believe that a fetus is not a human being, and therefore believe it should not have human rights, but perhaps rights comparable to animals, or even less, then that justifies the removal of them perfectly. You would not require a person to host a parasite of another species would you?

Even further, some people don't even think whether it is a full human matters. Consider the example that you are tied to another human being and told they will die if you untie them but after 9 months you can separate again, do you think you have the duty to be tied to the other person or do you have the right to untie before these 9 months are up, even if it causes the death of the other person?

Also, surely you mean abortion and not PP. Planned Parenthood offers a lot of health services, many actually preventing abortions from happening. It's not just an abortion provider it does that as well.

Except a fetues is a human being. That is my confusion in this, where exactly did they come upon the idea that a fetus isn't a human being? Test the DNA of an unborn fetus and it will def come out human...

Yes, you have the duty to be tied to the other person since all you're suffering is a long 9-month inconvenience and when the other options is murdering the other person...

I might be wrong but doesn't PP lobby for the expansion of abortion rights?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Except a fetues is a human being. That is my confusion in this, where exactly did they come upon the idea that a fetus isn't a human being? Test the DNA of an unborn fetus and it will def come out human...

Yes, you have the duty to be tied to the other person since all you're suffering is a long 9-month inconvenience and when the other options is murdering the other person...

I might be wrong but doesn't PP lobby for the expansion of abortion rights?

That the fetus is a human being is the judgement you have made, many people do not agree with it. Your test for DNA isn't a very compelling argument, if you test shed skin cells they will come out as human, if you test an appendix it will come out as human, it does not mean they are human beings.

Again, that's where people disagree on. I for example do not think you would be required to do that.

Planned Parenthood is pro-life, that is definitely true. Again though, PP is one of the biggest reasons why there aren't more abortions. Their work does more to prevent abortion than any other organization.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What exactly constitutes a "full human"? Who determines this? Why is this so-called "autonomy" more important than human life?

I view we should treat the line of 'human,' or more specifically a living person, should be the same in most circumstances, and that groups put it in odd places that is not where we draw the line anywhere else, not because of any judgement that that's where it makes the most sense, but because of other preconceived notions.

Is a braindead body on life support a living human/person? I don't think so, and legally they aren't considered such.

Is a body with nothing but a brain stem a person?

Is a severed arm kept alive, a human? Is destroying it murder?

Heck there's the HeLa cancer cells- Human DNA, very much alive, not likely to die anytime soon. I shed no tears if they die, because they aren't people.

Additionally, there is another thing. Is there any other time that someone is required- Required! -to sacrifice their health for another?

Can you be legally required to donate part of your liver? Forced to suffer certain health effects (and possibly fatal short-term health effects, but pregnancy has near-100% health effects with serious recovery) against your will?

"Why is this so-called "autonomy" more important than human life?" is the argument for, 'no, you should not have a choice, if someone needs an organ or blood or what have you that you have, cough it up.'

We never even consider such things anywhere but here. It's a double-standard.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That the fetus is a human being is the judgement you have made, many people do not agree with it. Your test for DNA isn't a very compelling argument, if you test shed skin cells they will come out as human, if you test an appendix it will come out as human, it does not mean they are human beings.

Again, that's where people disagree on. I for example do not think you would be required to do that.

Planned Parenthood is pro-life, that is definitely true. Again though, PP is one of the biggest reasons why there aren't more abortions. Their work does more to prevent abortion than any other organization.

The skin cells would prove that the source material is human wouldn't it? The skin cells themselves don't make a whole human but that's not the primary question, isn't it? The question was, is the source material of the DNA the same species, and it would be a yes.

It would be ok to kill a helpless child who is attached to you so long as it doesn't inconvenience you for 9 months? That..... Is insane...

You didn't answer my question, tho. Do they or do they not lobby for expanded abortion rights?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The skin cells would prove that the source material is human wouldn't it? The skin cells themselves don't make a whole human but that's not the primary question, isn't it? The question was, is the source material of the DNA the same species, and it would be a yes.

It would be ok to kill a helpless child who is attached to you so long as it doesn't inconvenience you for 9 months? That..... Is insane...

You didn't answer my question, tho. Do they or do they not lobby for expanded abortion rights?

That's not what it proves though, it just proves that this is human dna, it does not prove that where you got it from is a human being which should have rights.

How many 9 months periods do you have to sacrifice to that child? What if for all your life they attach new children to you, would that be okay?

They do, and they decrease abortion considerably, defunding them would increase abortions by a lot.

Originally posted by Q99
I view we should treat the line of 'human,' or more specifically a living person, should be the same in most circumstances, and that groups put it in odd places that is not where we draw the line anywhere else, not because of any judgement that that's where it makes the most sense, but because of other preconceived notions.

Is a braindead body on life support a living human/person? I don't think so, and legally they aren't considered such.

Is a body with nothing but a brain stem a person?

Is a severed arm kept alive, a human? Is destroying it murder?

Heck there's the HeLa cancer cells- Human DNA, very much alive, not likely to die anytime soon. I shed no tears if they die, because they aren't people.

Additionally, there is another thing. Is there any other time that someone is required- Required! -to sacrifice their health for another?

Can you be legally required to donate part of your liver? Forced to suffer certain health effects (and possibly fatal short-term health effects, but pregnancy has near-100% health effects with serious recovery) against your will?

"Why is this so-called "autonomy" more important than human life?" is the argument for, 'no, you should not have a choice, if someone needs an organ or blood or what have you that you have, cough it up.'

We never even consider such things anywhere but here. It's a double-standard.

A brain dead person, a cut off limb, cancer cells, etc don't eventually become a fully functioning, feeling, living human being. False comparisons all of them.

When it was your choice to begin with to initiate the start of the life of another person, then yes, you are responsible for it (to a point). You are certainly not given the right to choose whether it should live or die.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A brain dead person, a cut off limb, cancer cells, etc don't eventually become a fully functioning, feeling, living human being. False comparisons all of them.

Because you, for yourself, decided that the potential of it becoming a human being matters a lot to you, others feel it matters less or not at all. I assume you draw the line at sperm, you don't think it should have human rights, even though it has the potential to become a human being. It's a similarly arbitrary line as if you put it at birth or at certain brain functions though.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
When it was your choice to begin with to initiate the start of the life of another person, then yes, you are responsible for it (to a point). You are certainly not given the right to choose whether it should live or die.

You are though, in most western countries.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what it proves though, it just proves that this is human dna, it does not prove that where you got it from is a human being which should have rights.

How many 9 months periods do you have to sacrifice to that child? What if for all your life they attach new children to you, would that be okay?

They do, and they decrease abortion considerably, defunding them would increase abortions by a lot.

That is exactly what it proves. You compared a fetus as akin to a parasite of a different species. DNA testing would prove that statement wrong. They would undoubtablh be the same species. The next question would be, are they "complete" human beings? And my question would be, what defines "complete"? And who determines this?

For as long as it was my choice or it was the end result of my own actions that such children are attached to me, then I would feel responsible for them as they are the direct resukt if my own actions. I am, however, a bit less resistant to abortion if it was due to rape (although I would encourage the woman to go thru the 9 months and give birth then put the child thru adoption no child should die for the sins of his/her parent/s).

They have services that aid in the improvement of family planning but they still lobby for abortion rights that put them, the same way that NRA has programs that teach responsible gun ownership but lobby for deregulation of gun ownership. Looks the same to me?

I did not say that it was the same, I just said that some people view fetuses to have the same rights as parasites of other species.

Fair enough, we obviously have different opinions on that.

Sure, they are ostensibly similar in that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because you, for yourself, decided that the potential of it becoming a human being matters a lot to you, others feel it matters less or not at all. I assume you draw the line at sperm, you don't think it should have human rights, even though it has the potential to become a human being. It's a similarly arbitrary line as if you put it at birth or at certain brain functions though.

You are though, in most western countries.

No, it is because you, for yourself, decided that the life (yes it is alive) of another human being can be seen as simply "potentially a human" instead of an actual human being. As it is growing by itself without the need for further DNA input other than sustenance from its mother. Take the sperm or the egg and keep them within the man/woman for 9 months and do nothing and they will stay a sperm/an egg. You keep a child inside a woman for 9 months and do nothing (other than feed said woman) and you get a child. This is a simple distinction.

Which is the sad state and outright hypocrisy of it all.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, it is because you, for yourself, decided that the life (yes it is alive) of another human being can be seen as simply "potentially a human" instead of an actual human being. As it is growing by itself without the need for further DNA input other than sustenance from its mother. Take the sperm or the egg and keep them within the man/woman for 9 months and do nothing and they will stay a sperm/an egg. You keep a child inside a woman for 9 months and do nothing (other than feed said woman) and you get a child. This is a simple distinction.

Which is the sad state and outright hypocrisy of it all.

Yes, we both decided to view this situation differently. You decide to leave out certain aspects as not relevant and I view others as not relevant, that's why there's a large difference in opinion on the subject.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, we both decided to view this situation differently. You decide to leave out certain aspects as not relevant and I view others as not relevant, that's why there's a large difference in opinion on the subject.

I disagree.

Well, I am willing to listen to your view as long as you plug the logical holes in it (with all due respect). For as long you can state it in a logical sense, I am willing to respectfully listen. I will offer a rebuttal (however) if I disagree with what I'm reading. That's the fun of forum discussions. 🙂

lol, it is, isn't it.

I would argue that they are not logical holes, but different axioms, if we don't agree on these axioms we won't arrive at the same conclusion, even if our process is intrinsically correct.

The axioms we seem to disagree upon is actual human life. The most innocebt human life out there.

One would think that when human life is at stake, one would position one's ideals to err on the side of protecting said life.

Pardon my spelling/grammar. I've had one too many glasses of wine.

Although related, I'd rather this didn't become a straight abortion debate; that is definitely a big enough issue to warrant its own thread.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Although related, I'd rather this didn't become a straight abortion debate; that is definitely a big enough issue to warrant its own thread.

So what the hell are we supposed to talk about now? This thread is about abortion and planned parenthood. What do you mean you rather this didn't become a straight abortion debate? We been talking about lots of things. A whole new thread has to be started because why, this makes zero sense. Why is free conversation not allowed about a synonyms topic which is PP AND Abortion.

There is a gigantic thread about abortion http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t306413.html

I was just warned for bumping old threads, feel free, I doubt you will get a warning for it.

I think it was more about bumping old threads to argue with mods than bumping old threads generally.

On topic, the fifth tape has been released, but it is again heavily doctored, they just don't really show much, and don't prove any wrong doing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/04/politics/planned-parenthood-fifth-video-houston/

And candidates from both sides use it to score points: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/05/jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-spar-over-planned-parenthood/?mod=WSJBlog

The topic of the thread is whether Planned Parenthood is breaking the law or not. The abortion debate is about the immense complexities of whether, and at what point, it should be illegal in the first place, and that is such a large and emotional debate that it would suck the life out of everything else.

If the original argument about PP is done- then that's fine, you know. Threads have a natural end.

I wouldn't hugely mind if the old thread for abortion was used again, but after three years it would be better for a fresh thread. Mind you, it's a controversial enough topic to make me wary of it being discussed at all so it would need a close eye.