Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
621

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

You will have to excuse me , I did not hear any one say children with special needs didn’t deserve to live .

I will say IMO if a mother knows knows the baby is defective , it is the mothers option to abort . And if you disagree you should have to render care and support
[/quote]

Who decides what is “defective?” If the child is missing some fingers is it defective? If a mother is pregnant with twins but can only afford to care for one, should she be able to kill the other twin? If you want to have a boy, but are pregnant with a girl, is it defective?

I’d like to know where this imaginary “defective” line sits. I wouldn’t want to pressure my wife into birthing a ginger if indeed that is a defective trait. [/quote]

Yes , I do not even think the child zygote has to be defective , if the mother can not afford a new member to the family then it is her prerogative to abort .

Ultimately it is the mothers choice , she has to care for it, pay for it and it takes it’s toll on her body .

I am all for keeping the Government out of regulating vaginas
[/quote]

But at what point does it become murder in your eyes to abort? As long as its in their vagina is the baby fair game for a doctor?
[/quote]

The generally accepted point is when its viable to survive outside the womb. 20-24 weeks is the grey area on this from what I’ve heard but most abortions are before this period so it doesn’t matter too much.
[/quote]

that works for me:)

The funny thing about defunding PPH is they are the largest outlet of Contraception , there is no better way to mitigate abortions other than preventing the pregnancy . This is the part where I see just like Beans says (MY TEAM) mentality , no rational thought process [/quote]

You are aware that you even come close to forming a rational thought regarding why abortions should be legal by their current means since you entered this argument, aren’t you?[/quote]

I am pretty sure an English Teacher would wonder exactly what you are trying to say but I will guess it is an attempt to be wittingly cleaver , I love how this board lacks the ability to intellectually disagree with out getting all but hurt , I guess trading insults is the name of the game

622

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

You will have to excuse me , I did not hear any one say children with special needs didn’t deserve to live .

I will say IMO if a mother knows knows the baby is defective , it is the mothers option to abort . And if you disagree you should have to render care and support
[/quote]

Who decides what is “defective?” If the child is missing some fingers is it defective? If a mother is pregnant with twins but can only afford to care for one, should she be able to kill the other twin? If you want to have a boy, but are pregnant with a girl, is it defective?

I’d like to know where this imaginary “defective” line sits. I wouldn’t want to pressure my wife into birthing a ginger if indeed that is a defective trait. [/quote]

Yes , I do not even think the child zygote has to be defective , if the mother can not afford a new member to the family then it is her prerogative to abort .

Ultimately it is the mothers choice , she has to care for it, pay for it and it takes it’s toll on her body .

I am all for keeping the Government out of regulating vaginas
[/quote]

But at what point does it become murder in your eyes to abort? As long as its in their vagina is the baby fair game for a doctor?
[/quote]

The generally accepted point is when its viable to survive outside the womb. 20-24 weeks is the grey area on this from what I’ve heard but most abortions are before this period so it doesn’t matter too much.
[/quote]

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life. If you feel the need to take measures to ensure that the life ceases then you are obviously recognizing that life does in fact exist.
[/quote]

I said there is a fuzzy line but most abortions are BEFORE that period so checking if its a viable life is unnecessary since we already know the answer.
[/quote]

Be careful , you are not allowed to have an unapproved opinion:)

623

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

you look like an idiot

[/quote]

It’s difficult to avoid looking like one when you are one (Peetbull).
[/quote]

Oh the great and powerful Push it harder has spoken :slight_smile:

624

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then

625

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life. If you feel the need to take measures to ensure that the life ceases then you are obviously recognizing that life does in fact exist.

[/quote]

what a crock of shit, there is absolutely no logic in that statement

626

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life. If you feel the need to take measures to ensure that the life ceases then you are obviously recognizing that life does in fact exist.

[/quote]

what a crock of shit, there is absolutely no logic in that statement
[/quote]

Please tell me where the lack of logic is then? It would come off better than dismissing it because it you cant refute it.

To both you and sufiandy-- If abortion doctors do not truly believe it is a life then why are steps taken to “kill” the fetus before it is extracted? Seems like they would just pull it out if it wasn’t alive. You don’t see doctors killing tumors before they cut them out.

627

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then
[/quote]

Well you can, but it makes you look like an inconsistent ass. Are you in favor of government regulating how private citizens handle reproductive issues or not? Have some consistency in an opinion man.

628

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life. If you feel the need to take measures to ensure that the life ceases then you are obviously recognizing that life does in fact exist.

[/quote]

what a crock of shit, there is absolutely no logic in that statement
[/quote]

Please tell me where the lack of logic is then? It would come off better than dismissing it because it you cant refute it.

To both you and sufiandy-- If abortion doctors do not truly believe it is a life then why are steps taken to “kill” the fetus before it is extracted? Seems like they would just pull it out if it wasn’t alive. You don’t see doctors killing tumors before they cut them out.
[/quote]

I dont think anyone is saying it isnt alive. Sperm is alive. do you cry for them after you jerk off?

629

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life. If you feel the need to take measures to ensure that the life ceases then you are obviously recognizing that life does in fact exist.

[/quote]

what a crock of shit, there is absolutely no logic in that statement
[/quote]

Please tell me where the lack of logic is then? It would come off better than dismissing it because it you cant refute it.

To both you and sufiandy-- If abortion doctors do not truly believe it is a life then why are steps taken to “kill” the fetus before it is extracted? Seems like they would just pull it out if it wasn’t alive. You don’t see doctors killing tumors before they cut them out.
[/quote]

I dont think anyone is saying it isnt alive. Sperm is alive. do you cry for them after you jerk off?[/quote]

I don’t take steps to kill my sperm for fear that it might take a breath. My sperm doesn’t have brain function or a heartbeat. But you know this, and are using an asinine argument that doesn’t even touch on my point and chooses to distort the obviously implied meaning of “alive” to chase rabbits and avoid having a discussion that you cant come out of looking very good.

630

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
If abortion doctors do not truly believe it is a life then why are steps taken to “kill” the fetus before it is extracted?
[/quote]

Do they believe this? I’ve never met or spoken to one before but I doubt they would agree for pittbull to speak on their behalf.

631

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

Its convenient that using that mark creates a fuzzy line. So by that logic, a baby should be forcibly birthed then treated to see if they are a viable life.

[/quote]

I can’t because it lacks logic ,

632

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then
[/quote]

Well you can, but it makes you look like an inconsistent ass. Are you in favor of government regulating how private citizens handle reproductive issues or not? Have some consistency in an opinion man. [/quote]

I think effective is far superior to consistent

633

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then
[/quote]

Well you can, but it makes you look like an inconsistent ass. Are you in favor of government regulating how private citizens handle reproductive issues or not? Have some consistency in an opinion man. [/quote]

I think effective is far superior to consistent
[/quote]

You are aware the health department hands out birth control like candy correct? What effect do you think Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for birth control would really have on the number of pregnancies?? Come on and use your head just a little. I don’t know what world you live in but you cant be more than 25 years old. People with very little real world life experience are the only ones I have ever heard argue with the style you seem to employ.

634

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
If abortion doctors do not truly believe it is a life then why are steps taken to “kill” the fetus before it is extracted?
[/quote]

Do they believe this? I’ve never met or spoken to one before but I doubt they would agree for pittbull to speak on their behalf.[/quote]

I am completely convinced that almost no doctor truly believes abortion is not the ending of a human life (homicide) from a scientific point of view. You may have a few that jump through some philosophical hoops with the personhood idea to put any negative feelings they have about it to the back of their mind. I just don’t see how someone can take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm and then do something that is scientifically (which medicine should be based on science) harmful to a developing human being.

635

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then
[/quote]

Well you can, but it makes you look like an inconsistent ass. Are you in favor of government regulating how private citizens handle reproductive issues or not? Have some consistency in an opinion man. [/quote]

I think effective is far superior to consistent
[/quote]

You are aware the health department hands out birth control like candy correct? What effect do you think Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for birth control would really have on the number of pregnancies?? Come on and use your head just a little. I don’t know what world you live in but you cant be more than 25 years old. People with very little real world life experience are the only ones I have ever heard argue with the style you seem to employ.
[/quote]

Dude is like 50, that’s the sad part.

636

Again pb, where is your source showing that the “glob of goo gradually becomes a person?”

637

Agreement then; “We all develop” throughout life.

Normal human life is a parabola. That is to say, as babies we all begin life under full dependence of our parents. Throughout life we gain more and more independence. Yet we will [u]ALWAYS[/u] need others to live and flourish, the age does NOT matter. After our peak of independence, we start the inevitable decline towards becoming more and more dependant until we leave this world. Some people again become so dependant they depend on others for eveything, exactly like a newborn.

Do you agree also with the above statement?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Development is something we all undergo throughout [i]ALL[/i] of our natural lives.

Where is the magic line that allows for a child to be protected from open slaughter?[/quote]

True we develop until we return to dust and probably beyond. But when that child has the ability to live on it’s own , I know it can’t feed it’s self but a surrogate could , I personally could understand the point if we had no such thing as an orphanage [/quote]

638

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also you cant in one breath talk about Hobby Lobby trying to not be forced in to providing contraception by the government, and in the next mention how you are not for the government regulating reproduction. Well I suppose you can but you look like an idiot for not recognizing the double standard.[/quote]

Yes I can , contraception prevents abortions , we would both be happy then
[/quote]

Well you can, but it makes you look like an inconsistent ass. Are you in favor of government regulating how private citizens handle reproductive issues or not? Have some consistency in an opinion man. [/quote]

I think effective is far superior to consistent
[/quote]

You are aware the health department hands out birth control like candy correct? What effect do you think Hobby Lobby being forced to pay for birth control would really have on the number of pregnancies?? Come on and use your head just a little. I don’t know what world you live in but you cant be more than 25 years old. People with very little real world life experience are the only ones I have ever heard argue with the style you seem to employ.
[/quote]

Dude is like 50, that’s the sad part. [/quote]
bumping 60:)

639
640

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Again pb, where is your source showing that the “glob of goo gradually becomes a person?” [/quote]

there is no proof other than observation , same goes for your theory . What you have is 2 theories and one side wants to impose their opinion on their fellow citizens , A combination of law and science are the law of the day and the zealotry and fanaticism have not won yet and hopefully never