'Planned Parenthood' Advises Pimp of Underage Sex Slaves

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills give abortions to underage kids without parental consent. Do you find this acceptable?

You are the one that wants to play thought games yet you cannot stick to them.[/quote]

I stuck with your thought exercise. If it was a fact game, and it turned out to be, you should have just asked what you just asked instead of saying you find out your daughter had an abortion and you didn’t know about it only to say I can’t stick with it. It’s just who is changing it.

You need to be better at this.

Yes I do find it acceptable that they do not seek to get the parents consent. You see, there are people out there who think women shouldn’t be allowed to choose.

222

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This silliness about “it’s just a clump of cells”, “tadpoles”, and “it could be a goat”, is beyond laughable. Like we’re supposed to believe that human reproduction is some crap shoot or something. Like a woman rolls into the doctors office to have an ultrasound, and the doctor says “you need to know that there’s the possibility that your clump of cells will develop into a goat”. lol

Are we not all just a “clump of cells”, regardless of the life cycle stage we are in? Yes, when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm, it is indeed a clump of cells; a [i]CLUMP OF HUMAN CELLS[/i] that will continue to develop and proceed through it’s life cycle, just like the rest of the cell clumps walking around. [/quote]

Pretty much. We think we’re important, but we’re just giant meat sacks. $7 worth of carbon if want like.

But unless you actually see the inherent worthlessness of each of us, the clump of cells is going to be a nonstarter.[/quote]

Perhaps your sense of self worth is that low. If it is you have my sympathy and recommendation that you seek some form of counseling. [/quote]

And I’d suggest the same for you, for the opposite reason. I’m extremely confident in my knowledge that whatever value I have is meaningless, an abstraction. It’s only when we see the truth that we’re able to engage the world effectively.

To clear it up for you - there are too many humans on the planet for any one of us to have any greater value than anyone else.

In order for something to have value, it needs to be scarce. As far as I can tell, there is no shortage of humans and we can create them endlessly; even with the millions of abortions performed each year, our population is growing.

In fact, each of us has less value with each new person birthed.[/quote]

Sheer nonsense.[/quote]

Opps, just lost some of that respect.

How much actual worth does a person have? How do you arrive at that value?[/quote]

You value human life at $ 7. I offer you $8 to kill yourself. Will you take it?

How about a million?

You set your own value for your life based on this and get back to me.
[/quote]

You think I’m speaking nonsense yet quot my words back to me as your answer.

Answer the question, how do you arrive at a value for human life? If you’re going to say something is sheer nonsense, enlighten me and show me how you arrive at your conclusion. We’re getting pretty close to our little chatted ending because I’m starting to ask you twice why you say what you say.

[/quote]

The same way you arrive at the value of everything else.

Insofar, since value is subjective, you either truly value your life at 7$, than you would off yourself for 8$, or you vale it higher, maybe even significantly higher.

223

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

Do you not understand my question?

If you value your life at $7 would you take a payment to end it?

I am offering above market value to sweeten the deal.

If you want to rethink the $7 value then please make a counter offer with what you think your life is worth.

I have already given you the value I place on my life.
[/quote]

I think I get it. You are, on a public message board, asking someone to kill another human being for $8.

I brushed over this the first time but it’s a pattern with you. You want someone to kill me and you are offering $8 for them to do it.

That’s a crime.

You need help. :slight_smile:

224

[quote]orion wrote:

The same way you arrive at the value of everything else.

Insofar, since value is subjective, you either truly value your life at 7$, than you would off yourself for 8$, or you vale it higher, maybe even significantly higher.

[/quote]

That’s fair. It’s subjective.

When a conversation breaks down into “I’ll give you $8 to kill yourself” the discourse has stopped.

225

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The same way you arrive at the value of everything else.

Insofar, since value is subjective, you either truly value your life at 7$, than you would off yourself for 8$, or you vale it higher, maybe even significantly higher.

[/quote]

That’s fair. It’s subjective.

When a conversation breaks down into “I’ll give you $8 to kill yourself” the discourse has stopped.[/quote]

You asked me to value human life. I used a common exercise to respond. I wasn’t aware that was a breakdown in conversation.

If I would have taken the cheap shot at your mother, that would have been a breakdown in conversation.

So you think the value of human life is higher than $ 7 now?

Do you now understand why I called your original valuation nonsense?

226

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

The same way you arrive at the value of everything else.

Insofar, since value is subjective, you either truly value your life at 7$, than you would off yourself for 8$, or you vale it higher, maybe even significantly higher.

[/quote]

That’s fair. It’s subjective.

When a conversation breaks down into “I’ll give you $8 to kill yourself” the discourse has stopped.[/quote]

You put up a number.

The reason why you shy away from his offer is because you know that it is bullshit.

227

Abortion is much more humane than the way it used to happen.

228

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Abortion is much more humane than the way it used to happen.[/quote]

Maybe, but there was a lot of room to improve from throwing her down the stairs.

229

Pat, please refrain from arguing a case for less then one percent of the whole. Your argument can only end through self destruction!! I give you ONE opportunity to drop that particular example. Hope you are mature enough to step back, yet I doubt you will.

[quote]PatMac wrote:
Just curious though, what do you think about what Mary Vargas did?

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/02/09-1

Should she have been forced to carry to term? I bring this up because, while she wouldn’t have birthed a goat, going to term wouldn’t not have meant a viable child.[/quote]

230

1024×768 205 KB

Read the above posts. Both sides.

I will admit that sometimes I will throw a low blow, yet I KNOW that an insult on-line can not and never compare to the atrocities of abortion. Imagine being torn apart, limb from limb. And then sucked up to catch any remaining parts. Would you enjoy the event?! I sure as fuck would not wish that upon my worst enemy. Yet that happens everyday in America because the screams are silent!! My God, watch any ultra-sound of an abortion.

In fact, click the below link -

Watch ~4min mark and tell me the child can’t feel a thing, btw that is a stance which ryan holds. I was able to watch the whole series, one time in my life. Watching the whole clip, previous/subsequent videos is something I will never choose to do again. Food tastes like shit the second time!!

Explain why the woman is the only one who has the choice? It has been understood for a long time that with out a man, pregnancy would never happen.

I will ask the same question that I asked ryan and NEVER received and answer for. Should woman and men be held accountable for partaking in adult like behavior? Or should they just have a choice, like vanilla vs chocolate ice cream?

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Is English your fist language? If so, sue your third grade teacher because s/he should NOT have allowed you to pass the class!!

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that all the very empathetic people here emoting over a bunch of tadpoles, and lamenting the fact so many are prematurely killed would probably freak out and stomp on a small fetus if you just tossed one at them.[/quote]
[/quote]

Even for a kneedragger, this was a silly post.

Unless you mean that he’s doing his fighting with his words, at which point, well done with the creative reply but you might want to consider engaging his words and stop with the name calling and tragically weak insults.

So you’re either silly or unwilling to engage someone’s ideas / opinions. And for some reason you feel qualified to tell half the population what they can do with their bodies.[/quote]

231

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that all the very empathetic people here emoting over a bunch of tadpoles, and lamenting the fact so many are prematurely killed would probably freak out and stomp on a small fetus if you just tossed one at them.[/quote]

So, because someone might be squeamish about having a baby thrown at them, that means what about being empathetic?

232

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
“You THINK animals and humans are PRETTY CLOSE to the same” emphasis mine. You think lots of different things ryan, yet how many are correct? Animals and humans share the fact they have biological functions. That is simple fact. Nothing else!! Prove otherwise, I’m tired of repeating the same thing Over and OVER and OVER and OVER again. You seem to lack the ability to comprehend something in print. shakes head[/quote]

But you cannot deny the similarity between two clumps of cells at the very early stage of development. On a molecular level, they are very similar - most animal life starts out being very similar. You are addressing the future when you speak of the life that it will become and Ryan is speaking about the present. You can see his point of view if you want to. You are choosing to see it as you wish.[/quote]

DNA is not the same at the moment of conception.

You’ve been doing the same thing for a while now. Worse, Ryan has engaged your thoughts / opinions and he simply doesn’t agree with them because he’s moved past the women are property point of view that was so popular up until recently. There are countries in the world that still allow women to be regarded as property, but most of them aren’t worth living in once you have observed and experienced the liberty that living in North America has afford you.[/quote]

233

[quote]PatMac wrote:
You don’t know my position on abortion other than I don’t think men should tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.[/quote]

What are you talking about, men and women both tell other men and women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Men cannot rape a woman with his body, a man cannot kill a woman with his body, a man cannot kill himself, a man cannot marry his family, a man cannot molest his children. A woman cannot kill someone, or herself, or kill her new born baby, she cannot neglect her child, all these things she can’t do with her body. How come you’re not defending these things for a woman or a man to do with their body as they please?

234

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This silliness about “it’s just a clump of cells”, “tadpoles”, and “it could be a goat”, is beyond laughable. Like we’re supposed to believe that human reproduction is some crap shoot or something. Like a woman rolls into the doctors office to have an ultrasound, and the doctor says “you need to know that there’s the possibility that your clump of cells will develop into a goat”. lol

Are we not all just a “clump of cells”, regardless of the life cycle stage we are in? Yes, when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm, it is indeed a clump of cells; a [i]CLUMP OF HUMAN CELLS[/i] that will continue to develop and proceed through it’s life cycle, just like the rest of the cell clumps walking around. [/quote]

Pretty much. We think we’re important, but we’re just giant meat sacks. $7 worth of carbon if want like.

But unless you actually see the inherent worthlessness of each of us, the clump of cells is going to be a nonstarter.[/quote]

So humans are inherently worthless?

235

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:
You don’t know my position on abortion other than I don’t think men should tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.[/quote]

What are you talking about, men and women both tell other men and women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Men cannot rape a woman with his body, a man cannot kill a woman with his body, a man cannot kill himself, a man cannot marry his family, a man cannot molest his children. A woman cannot kill someone, or herself, or kill her new born baby, she cannot neglect her child, all these things she can’t do with her body. How come you’re not defending these things for a woman or a man to do with their body as they please?[/quote]

All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.

At the moment you will have to face the fact that abortion is currently legal and regulated by laws. Now it’s perfectly fine to campaign for a change of the laws, but unless you achieve that, a legal abortion is not equivalent to what you use as examples.

And - to repeat myself for a third time in this thread (and fully aware that no one seems to want to pick this one up): to be opposed against killing humans (directly and indirectly) in general would be to question law enforcement, defence, and the socio-economic order.

Having observed discussions about this topic repeatedly, I think it’s a bit selective (I’m not saying you personally do that) to concentrate so strongly on the area of abortion when society gives all sorts of legal (and moral) justifications for killing (innocent) people - especially as all the other scenarios involve fully developed humans.

Addendum: While I’m fully in the pro-choice camp, I agree with you that doing everything should be done to avoid abortions. Partially this is driven by the view that indeed from a certain time in a pregnancy onwards an abortion is most probably a killing - which however is outweighed by the mother’s right of self-determination about her own body - which includes securing her economical and emotional future. Enabling women to avoid having to face this terrible choice though is not achieved by restrictive abortion laws, but by education, information and availability of appropriate contraceptive methods and promoting healthy and risk reducing sexual behaviours - in both men and women.

Makkun

236

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
This silliness about “it’s just a clump of cells”, “tadpoles”, and “it could be a goat”, is beyond laughable. Like we’re supposed to believe that human reproduction is some crap shoot or something. Like a woman rolls into the doctors office to have an ultrasound, and the doctor says “you need to know that there’s the possibility that your clump of cells will develop into a goat”. lol

Are we not all just a “clump of cells”, regardless of the life cycle stage we are in? Yes, when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm, it is indeed a clump of cells; a [i]CLUMP OF HUMAN CELLS[/i] that will continue to develop and proceed through it’s life cycle, just like the rest of the cell clumps walking around. [/quote]

Pretty much. We think we’re important, but we’re just giant meat sacks. $7 worth of carbon if want like.

But unless you actually see the inherent worthlessness of each of us, the clump of cells is going to be a nonstarter.[/quote]

So humans are inherently worthless?[/quote]

That’s pretty much what I got from his post as well. I assumed he was drinking when he wrote that.

237

[quote]makkun wrote:

Addendum: While I’m fully in the pro-choice camp, I agree with you that doing everything should be done to avoid abortions. Partially this is driven by the view that indeed from a certain time in a pregnancy onwards an abortion is most probably a killing - which however is outweighed by the mother’s right of self-determination about her own body - which includes securing her economical and emotional future. Enabling women to avoid having to face this terrible choice though is not achieved by restrictive abortion laws, but by education, information and availability of appropriate contraceptive methods and promoting healthy and risk reducing sexual behaviours - in both men and women.

Makkun[/quote]

If only the pro choice camp agreed with your line of thinking but most pro choice groups seek to expand abortion by getting around the requirements for notification of parents in case of underaged, not providing proper counciling, playing down adoption and on and on.

These abortion mills actually tell people how brave and courageous they are to decide to get an abortion before they discuss other options. It is an absolute mockery of the laws and human decency.

238

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

It is a very poor thought exercise because it is not based in any sort of reality.

My statement of some babies need killing is very accurate. You can change it to some fetus’ or embryos need killing if you prefer. [/quote]

Just curious though, what do you think about what Mary Vargas did?

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/02/09-1

Should she have been forced to carry to term? I bring this up because, while she wouldn’t have birthed a goat, going to term wouldn’t not have meant a viable child.[/quote]

Forced? Oh, you mean forced to not kill a human? Well, then yes I suppose she should be forced to not kill a person. The child didn’t even have a chance to possibly live, it was just killed before it had the chance.

239

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]PatMac wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

It is a very poor thought exercise because it is not based in any sort of reality.

My statement of some babies need killing is very accurate. You can change it to some fetus’ or embryos need killing if you prefer. [/quote]

Just curious though, what do you think about what Mary Vargas did?

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/02/09-1

Should she have been forced to carry to term? I bring this up because, while she wouldn’t have birthed a goat, going to term wouldn’t not have meant a viable child.[/quote]

She believed her baby needed killing because she thought the baby had a fatal disease. She didn’t think it would be a goat.

What do I think of it? I don’t know her situation or the accuracy of the doctors diagnosis.

What do you think of the million women a year that abort healthy babies because it in inconvenient for them?[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

240

[quote]PatMac wrote:
Opps, just lost some of that respect.

How much actual worth does a person have? How do you arrive at that value?[/quote]

Non sequitur, wtf are you talking about?