Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
701

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
An Open letter to the CJS, Dear CJS , I and probably the rest of the people that disagree with you , do not like killing unique life forms . We do how ever realize that like Drugs and Guns , if you make them illegal you will not do away with them .

My point with PPH is that through the dissemination of Information and Birth Control Products they reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions

In my and some others those that want to defund PPH are working against what they say they are trying to accomplish , which is to reduce abortions .

I know I am speaking to the mentally challenged So I will keep it brief ,

Thank you for your time and I hope I did not hurt your brains :slight_smile:

Sincerely Pittbulll [/quote]

The issue at hand is government money paying for abortions. They could either spin off the abortion service elsewhere and continue to fund PPH or stop funding PPH and spend the money elsewhere, if people want to donate for that then fine.
[/quote]

Thank you. I think we have a fair amount of disagreement on this (haven’t read the entire thread) but you have at least attempted to discuss things put in front of you in an intelligent manner. If I quoted you in one of my ragey posts earlier, I apologize.
[/quote]

I can understand how some one might think they have a better solution , but let’s hear it.

I am as I am sure many others are not very happy about paying for the systematic murder of Palestinians . But no one on this board gives a fuck about that .

And you have to ask why ??? And no it is not more complicated than that . And yes it is Unlawful killing of fully developed Human Beings , People and little gobs of goo:)
[/quote]

You mean we are paying Hamas to use their own people as human shields so that they can use their dead bodies as propaganda after provoking a conflict?

Also, collateral damage in war, while tragic is not the same thing as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Yes

702

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Jesus Christ dude really?

Yes, abortion is murder. Stop pretending people aren’t people. [/quote]

The Law agrees with me

703

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Jesus Christ dude really?

Yes, abortion is murder. Stop pretending people aren’t people. [/quote]

The Law agrees with me
[/quote]

“The Law” used to agree with your democrats that blacks were property and not people too.

Good job hanging your hat on another pile of bullshit.

Enjoy.

704

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Jesus Christ dude really?

Yes, abortion is murder. Stop pretending people aren’t people. [/quote]

The Law agrees with me
[/quote]

“The Law” used to agree with your democrats that blacks were property and not people too.

Good job hanging your hat on another pile of bullshit.

Enjoy. [/quote]

I guess we shouldn’t raise the federal minimum wage the law says it’s $7.25, I guess we shouldn’t revamp the tax code and so called “loopholes” since it’s the law, etc…

What a terrible argument.

705

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Jesus Christ dude really?

Yes, abortion is murder. Stop pretending people aren’t people. [/quote]

The Law agrees with me
[/quote]

“The Law” used to agree with your democrats that blacks were property and not people too.

Good job hanging your hat on another pile of bullshit.

Enjoy. [/quote]

I’m not a Democrat , I registered to vote in the last Republican Primary in my state . Being a Red State I have the biggest influence in the election by voting in tyhe R Primary

706

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

systematic murder for convenience?[/quote]

Jesus Christ dude really?

Yes, abortion is murder. Stop pretending people aren’t people. [/quote]

The Law agrees with me
[/quote]

“The Law” used to agree with your democrats that blacks were property and not people too.

Good job hanging your hat on another pile of bullshit.

Enjoy. [/quote]

I guess we shouldn’t raise the federal minimum wage the law says it’s $7.25, I guess we shouldn’t revamp the tax code and so called “loopholes” since it’s the law, etc…

What a terrible argument. [/quote]

Why I bring Palestine into it is because it is the same argument you and the rest of the CJS are trying to use " TAX PAYER FUNDED MURDER"

707

If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]

708

A human embryo never, ever changes species. A human embryo is always human. There might be stages, but the embryo is always a unique individual who has never existed before in the past, current or future. If you can prove me wrong then please provide a source with science and I will start arguing for abortions, if the source is backed with logic, science and reason. The case for LIFE stands up to those three criteria by the way.

709

Again you miss the posts where I have responding to you. Please give me slightly the same respect I have shown for you.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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][/quote]

710

I repoded previously, yet you never actually answered my request. I will bold, and italicized the part you conveniently ignored.

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

711

Notice the name of the synthetic hormones, “birth control,” not “conception control.” Birth control stops a fertilized embryo from attaching in the uterine wall, NOT from conception taking place.

Your answer to solving a problem simply side steps the original problem, never addressing the issue.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A little story where a little well spent money reduced unwanted births and abortions by a whopping 40% . What do you think will happen when you do away with PPH , you will get a shit load of Democratic voters in 18 years:)[/quote]

712

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not debating that the fetus is alive or that it is human or that it is genetically complete and unique , I am debating like the egg and the cake I made you , because of development it is incomplete , not done , undeveloped

713

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/us-usa-fiscal-idUSKCN0RO20O20150924

714

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Notice the name of the synthetic hormones, “birth control,” not “conception control.” Birth control stops a fertilized embryo from attaching in the uterine wall, NOT from conception taking place.

Your answer to solving a problem simply side steps the original problem, never addressing the issue.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

A little story where a little well spent money reduced unwanted births and abortions by a whopping 40% . What do you think will happen when you do away with PPH , you will get a shit load of Democratic voters in 18 years:)[/quote]
[/quote]

I am assuming you see the problem as people having sex with out wanting offspring ?

715

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
An Open letter to the CJS, Dear CJS , I and probably the rest of the people that disagree with you , do not like killing unique life forms . We do how ever realize that like Drugs and Guns , if you make them illegal you will not do away with them .

My point with PPH is that through the dissemination of Information and Birth Control Products they reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions

In my and some others those that want to defund PPH are working against what they say they are trying to accomplish , which is to reduce abortions .

I know I am speaking to the mentally challenged So I will keep it brief ,

Thank you for your time and I hope I did not hurt your brains :slight_smile:

Sincerely Pittbulll [/quote]

The issue at hand is government money paying for abortions. They could either spin off the abortion service elsewhere and continue to fund PPH or stop funding PPH and spend the money elsewhere, if people want to donate for that then fine.
[/quote]

Thank you. I think we have a fair amount of disagreement on this (haven’t read the entire thread) but you have at least attempted to discuss things put in front of you in an intelligent manner. If I quoted you in one of my ragey posts earlier, I apologize.
[/quote]

I can understand how some one might think they have a better solution , but let’s hear it.

I am as I am sure many others are not very happy about paying for the systematic murder of Palestinians . But no one on this board gives a fuck about that .

And you have to ask why ??? And no it is not more complicated than that . And yes it is Unlawful killing of fully developed Human Beings , People and little gobs of goo:)
[/quote]

You mean we are paying Hamas to use their own people as human shields so that they can use their dead bodies as propaganda after provoking a conflict?

Also, collateral damage in war, while tragic is not the same thing as systematic murder for convenience in a 1st world country.
[/quote]

Hamas has no people , Hamas attacks Israel , Israel attacks Palestine
[/quote]

You mean the Palestinian people, who when given the choice, elected Hamas to represent them. Hamas is basically a political party to them. The Palestinian people you talk about are highly sympathetic to Hamas’s primary cause. To rid the world of Israel. So when that is your declared mission, and a majority of Palestinians have shown they agreed with you through the democratic process, then excuse me if I am hesitant to condemn Israel for defending herself.

You really don’t actually read anything do you. You search for tidbits that verify the narrative in your own mind.

716

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not debating that the fetus is alive or that it is human or that it is genetically complete and unique , I am debating like the egg and the cake I made you , because of development it is incomplete , not done , undeveloped
[/quote]

So is a 2 year old. You do realize that by your logic, a parent can basically kill their child up to about 21 years old correct?

So you are saying if a mother decides she doesn’t want her two year old and puts a bullet in its head, that’s not murder. The child wasn’t complete as it was still developing. I am not asking if that’s what you are saying. I am telling you that’s what you are saying and any refutation of that is just you trying to redefine an absurd point that you clearly didn’t think through.

717

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not debating that the fetus is alive or that it is human or that it is genetically complete and unique , I am debating like the egg and the cake I made you , because of development it is incomplete , not done , undeveloped
[/quote]

So is a 2 year old. You do realize that by your logic, a parent can basically kill their child up to about 21 years old correct?

So you are saying if a mother decides she doesn’t want her two year old and puts a bullet in its head, that’s not murder. The child wasn’t complete as it was still developing. I am not asking if that’s what you are saying. I am telling you that’s what you are saying and any refutation of that is just you trying to redefine an absurd point that you clearly didn’t think through.[/quote]

You are a fucking moron , a troll , not even clever , no you got it all wrong

718

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not debating that the fetus is alive or that it is human or that it is genetically complete and unique , I am debating like the egg and the cake I made you , because of development it is incomplete , not done , undeveloped
[/quote]

So is a 2 year old. You do realize that by your logic, a parent can basically kill their child up to about 21 years old correct?

So you are saying if a mother decides she doesn’t want her two year old and puts a bullet in its head, that’s not murder. The child wasn’t complete as it was still developing. I am not asking if that’s what you are saying. I am telling you that’s what you are saying and any refutation of that is just you trying to redefine an absurd point that you clearly didn’t think through.[/quote]

You are a fucking moron , a troll , not even clever , no you got it all wrong
[/quote]

You didn’t actually say anything just then. Where exactly is the line drawn, what is developed enough? Brain, heartbeat, first breath? What is developed enough for YOU to say it is a life worth not killing?

719

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If observation is NOT used, what does science use to prove something??

I presume Princeton is GOOD enough for you.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

The following is one of my personal favorites; “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, [whole, complete,] genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}] I added the two adjectives bolded and in brackets.

Also, please do NOT think you know why I act a certain way and defend a given topic.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[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
[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not debating that the fetus is alive or that it is human or that it is genetically complete and unique , I am debating like the egg and the cake I made you , because of development it is incomplete , not done , undeveloped
[/quote]

So is a 2 year old. You do realize that by your logic, a parent can basically kill their child up to about 21 years old correct?

So you are saying if a mother decides she doesn’t want her two year old and puts a bullet in its head, that’s not murder. The child wasn’t complete as it was still developing. I am not asking if that’s what you are saying. I am telling you that’s what you are saying and any refutation of that is just you trying to redefine an absurd point that you clearly didn’t think through.[/quote]

You are a fucking moron , a troll , not even clever , no you got it all wrong
[/quote]

You didn’t actually say anything just then. Where exactly is the line drawn, what is developed enough? Brain, heartbeat, first breath? What is developed enough for YOU to say it is a life worth not killing?[/quote]

In my opinion until that child can live outside it’s mother’s womb , it’s life is at the discretion of the mother . As nature intended it to be

720

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How is this appreciably different from pediatric organ donation using children who have managed to escape the birth canal?
[/quote]

And if the babies/fetuses are going to be aborted anyway…
This is considerably different from a moral hazard situation in which, say, women are being paid to grow fetuses that are then harvested.

What do you guys think they do with the remains after an abortion otherwise? Give them a funeral?[/quote]

Precisely.

If it’s a choice between an aborted fetus getting dumped into a hazardous waste bag and tossed into an incinerator, or being recycled to maybe save another life, I don’t see it as being a very tough decision to make. Especially if there is money involved.[/quote]

It’d be interesting to hear you discuss this with your employer. ;-)[/quote]

I’m fairly confident that if one of his children needed an urgent liver transplant, and the only available liver came from an aborted fetus, that he would not turn it down on account of his religious beliefs. Cannot say for certain. Perhaps I’ll ask him.[/quote]

What this guy said. The easily outraged are always “hell no”; until they need it - then it becomes “oh wait, just this one time”.

Using fetus’s for medical research / saving lives is a good thing. Burning them and not doing it is stupid.