Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I am a little bit surprised this does not bother you. [/quote]

It’s an unfortunate consequence of paying more attention to my thinky parts than to my feely parts, I suppose.

As Horace Walpole said, “The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.”

I prefer comedy.[/quote]

I am guessing you don’t mean this is humorous. Normally, I don’t get really bothered by news. I know the world is bad. I just usually want to know what’s wrong specifically. But this one got to me and I don’t really know why. I always knew the reality of abortion. I know exactly what it is and what it does and no amount of double talk and sly talk has done anything to me except strengthen my resolve against it.
What this video showed was the reality of what abortion really is. It does not matter much what side you are on, this is it’s true face. No ‘choice’ or ‘reproductive rights’, or ‘women’s rights’ it a human being. The body of which is being destroyed.

You can use all the thinky parts you want. But at some point, you have to be human as well. This is no comedy. My human parts recoil.
Like I said before. You hide the source and the timing of the quotes, you could have signed Mengele’s name to it, and nobody would have been the wiser.

82

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On the bright side, just as advances in industrial and agricultural machine technology eventually made human slavery obsolete, advances in human induced pluripotent stem cell research could very well make all of this a moot issue.

If scientists can grow a functioning heart from adult stem cells extracted from skin tissue, they should potentially be able to grow any human organ tissue, without having to harvest any fetal organs at all.

Don’t know how far away this technology is, but it looks promising.[/quote]

This has always been the case. Embryonic stem cell research has not yielded as much as stem cell research from other, less ethically questionable sources.

83

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On the bright side, just as advances in industrial and agricultural machine technology eventually made human slavery obsolete, advances in human induced pluripotent stem cell research could very well make all of this a moot issue.

If scientists can grow a functioning heart from adult stem cells extracted from skin tissue, they should potentially be able to grow any human organ tissue, without having to harvest any fetal organs at all.

Don’t know how far away this technology is, but it looks promising.[/quote]

This has always been the case. Embryonic stem cell research has not yielded as much as stem cell research from other, less ethically questionable sources.[/quote]

The last tally I had seen of clinical application of research was something like 100 (adult) to 0 (embryonic).

84

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

If it doesn’t churn your stomach, I can only at best assume you have no children and are ignorant or just completely lack empathy all together.[/quote]

I do have children, I consider myself rather well-informed, and I do not completely lack empathy.

However it does not “churn my stomach”. Sorry.

I have a finite number of fucks to give, as do we all, and I have to be extremely selective in choosing what to give them about. The recycling of preterm baby parts that would otherwise have ended up in a dumpster or an incinerator is perhaps distasteful, and not a subject I would personally chat about with my dinner guests, but it does not keep me up at night seething with rage and disgust.

Children being blown to pieces by aerial bombing, now that’s a different story. [/quote]

Bombs - horrible: forceps - who gives a fuck

Got it.

At least bomb victim body parts aren’t being causally traded.[/quote]

I also hedge my bet on numbers because it does matter. 1.2 million a year > All the casualties from all the wars from Vietnam forward put together.

85

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.

86

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I have to say, this revelation has really made me think long and hard about my stance on abortion. Up until now, my personal stance has been pro life, but my “political” stance has been pro choice. But what these people are doing is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

Something has clicked inside my little brain. I don’t quite know what it is yet - I have to hash it out - but my opinion has definitely changed…[/quote]

Which is why I like you AC, you’re open to change and not afraid to say it and be it. You have demonstrated this before, so I would say it’s a positive thing about your character.

87

[quote]pat wrote:
You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

Only because we have no way of knowing what a society in which there is no infanticide or abortion would look like, because there has never been one in the history of our species.

We can extrapolate, however, and make pretty good predictions as to what the United States would look like today if the population had increased by an additional 1.2 million unwanted, neglected, urban poor people every year since 1973.

89

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.

90

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.

91

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

You are proposing that neglected kids is less ethical than killing them so they aren’t neglected? Without abortion there would over a million fewer human deaths. Your logic just doesn’t add up.

92

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

Would you take it a step further, and issue birth permits to keep whomever society deems unfit from birthing a child?

Would it be more ethical to abort children who would be born with defects?

93

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

You are proposing that neglected kids is less ethical than killing them so they aren’t neglected? Without abortion there would over a million fewer human deaths. Your logic just doesn’t add up.
[/quote]

Is a murder in a jail cell more ethical than one outside?

94

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

You are proposing that neglected kids is less ethical than killing them so they aren’t neglected? Without abortion there would over a million fewer human deaths. Your logic just doesn’t add up.
[/quote]

Is a murder in a jail cell more ethical than one outside?[/quote]

we are talking over 1 million vs how many without abortion?

95

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

Did society not function pre Roe v. Wade??

96

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

Did society not function pre Roe v. Wade??
[/quote]

Ethics wise I’m not sure there is a strong argument either way, if a society functions well has nothing to do with that.

97

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

You are proposing that neglected kids is less ethical than killing them so they aren’t neglected? Without abortion there would over a million fewer human deaths. Your logic just doesn’t add up.
[/quote]

Is a murder in a jail cell more ethical than one outside?[/quote]

we are talking over 1 million vs how many without abortion?[/quote]

Without abortion, what makes one of those million parents a better person? They are law abiding either way.

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

Only because we have no way of knowing what a society in which there is no infanticide or abortion would look like, because there has never been one in the history of our species.

We can extrapolate, however, and make pretty good predictions as to what the United States would look like today if the population had increased by an additional 1.2 million unwanted, neglected, urban poor people every year since 1973.[/quote]

Well, what you are proposing is a thought experiment and nothing more. Starting with the obvious you are proposing that killing 1.2 million people a year is better than a potential risk to society their existence would cause?
There is no way of knowing whether the population would actually have increased by 1.2 million per year in those children where allowed to live. Each child born changes the dynamics in a family’s life. So allowing those who were killed to live does not necessarily mean that other children will automatically also be born.
God forbid people acknowledge and actually deal with the consequences of their actions and maybe even change.
Equating abortion with infanticide is spot on, they are the same thing. One could hardly condemn infanticide and be also be ok with abortion. That’s a massive conflict.
The fact that people have always practiced some form of murder of small children hardly makes it right.

Lastly, even pretending your premise is right, are you saying that we are better off as a society, better off as people, better off in general without ‘unwanted, neglected, urban poor people’, why do we not just kill all those in that category?
If ‘unwanted and neglected’ is worse for a person than death, it stands to reason then, that there are lots of people we owe the favor of termination.

Such is always the appalling logic of being an abortion supporter. The many ‘good’ reasons to have an abortion, can be applied to many who have managed to be born. If this reasoning is to stand, then you also must support killing those who meet these same criteria, otherwise you are being inconsistent.
If what you deem as good reasons for abortion, why can we not apply those same reasons to the born and hence justify killing them.
If what you determine that quality of life is more important than the life itself, there is a lot of people who need killin’.

99

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

I kept coming back to the basic statistics principle, correlation does not equal causation. I wonder what other factors are correlated with a drop in the crime rate. [/quote]

They mentioned three other contributing factors in the video: the increase in police officers, the increase in incarcerations, and the reduction in crack cocaine addicts. It does stand to reason, though:

If children are raised in poverty and neglect, they are more likely to become criminals.

An unwanted child is more likely to be neglected, especially if the family is also poor.

Fewer unwanted children equals fewer poor neglected children, ergo fewer criminals. Ergo less crime.

Not very PC, but I cannot really fault the logic.[/quote]

That logic is pretty terrible actually. There is way that you can determine a rise in crime should people decide not to kill their children. I think quite the opposite, the ethics required to preserve life instead of take it should yield less problems not more. You cannot say society is worse off because some people decided not to have an abortion. You would have zero evidence to back that up with.[/quote]

What solution would you propose then? Banning abortion would simply result in more neglected children and the same number of unethical parents, who only kept the children because it was illegal not to. End result seems it would result in a less ethical society assuming the kids take after their parents.[/quote]

Did society not function pre Roe v. Wade??
[/quote]

Ethics wise I’m not sure there is a strong argument either way, if a society functions well has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

Well you just torpedoed your own logic for abortion.