Planned Parenthood

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.[/quote]

You would have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration, Jefferson intended to include unborn fetuses (or for that matter, women and slaves) into the category of “all men” who were endowed unalienable rights.

As for the Constitution, the only place where personhood is even remotely defined is the fourteenth amendment. Let me know what the third word of that amendment is.

The Supreme Court were unconvinced that abortion was a violation of an unborn fetus’s Constitutional under the fourteenth amendment, but decided that banning it would be a violation of the mother’s rights under the ninth. That position has not changed.

Again, it may in the future. [/quote]

You do not think that Jefferson thought the unjust killing of a slave or woman was murder?[/quote]

Under the laws of Virginia at the time, killing a slave was not considered murder.

Certainly, Jefferson being an enlightened fellow, he probably would have objected to the unjust killing of slaves and women.

Only he probably did not think, as most landed, educated, white European males did not think in the 18th century, that the rights of slaves and women were quite as unalienable as those of landed, educated, white European males.

142

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.[/quote]

You would have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration, Jefferson intended to include unborn fetuses (or for that matter, women and slaves) into the category of “all men” who were endowed unalienable rights.

As for the Constitution, the only place where personhood is even remotely defined is the fourteenth amendment. Let me know what the third word of that amendment is.

The Supreme Court were unconvinced that abortion was a violation of an unborn fetus’s Constitutional under the fourteenth amendment, but decided that banning it would be a violation of the mother’s rights under the ninth. That position has not changed.

Again, it may in the future. [/quote]

You do not think that Jefferson thought the unjust killing of a slave or woman was murder?[/quote]

Under the laws of Virginia at the time, killing a slave was not considered murder.

Certainly, Jefferson being an enlightened fellow, he probably would have objected to the unjust killing of slaves and women.

Only he probably did not think, as most landed, educated, white European males did not think in the 18th century, that the rights of slaves and women were quite as unalienable as those of landed, educated, white European males.[/quote]

I’m certain he considered it immoral and a crime. But you do realize you are now paralleling slavery, women rights, and fetus rights. And that you are arguing that not specific inclusion of innumerated rights for slaves in the constitution doesn’t justify the lack of rights of those people. This is exactly the “they don’t look or think like us” I was talking about.

143

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It is pretty clear that the right to life is enshrined in our foundation, though it is true that the constitution left out explicit instructions on some things considered overly self evident. The DOI which is the founding document for the constitution makes inherent self ownership clear.[/quote]

You would have to do some pretty fast talking to convince me that when he penned the first sentence of the Declaration, Jefferson intended to include unborn fetuses (or for that matter, women and slaves) into the category of “all men” who were endowed unalienable rights.

As for the Constitution, the only place where personhood is even remotely defined is the fourteenth amendment. Let me know what the third word of that amendment is.

The Supreme Court were unconvinced that abortion was a violation of an unborn fetus’s Constitutional under the fourteenth amendment, but decided that banning it would be a violation of the mother’s rights under the ninth. That position has not changed.

Again, it may in the future. [/quote]

You do not think that Jefferson thought the unjust killing of a slave or woman was murder?[/quote]

Under the laws of Virginia at the time, killing a slave was not considered murder.

Certainly, Jefferson being an enlightened fellow, he probably would have objected to the unjust killing of slaves and women.

Only he probably did not think, as most landed, educated, white European males did not think in the 18th century, that the rights of slaves and women were quite as unalienable as those of landed, educated, white European males.[/quote]

I’m certain he considered it immoral and a crime. But you do realize you are now paralleling slavery, women rights, and fetus rights. And that you are arguing that not specific inclusion of innumerated rights for slaves in the constitution doesn’t justify the lack of rights of those people. This is exactly the “they don’t look or think like us” I was talking about.[/quote]

Sure.

And for the record, my argument is not and has never been that fetuses do not deserve human rights.

In fact, I think that they do. I am simply pointing out that they currently don’t under the current interpretation of the Constitution, just as slaves and women did not when the Constitution was written.

Things change, people change, and the legal definition of “person” changes.

I am completely confident that someday, the full unalienable human rights of all persons conceived and/or gestating in the United States will be recognised by the Supreme Court.

By that time, of course, the great apes, dogs, cats and all cetacean mammals will all also be considered “persons”, with full legal rights and congressional representation, and it will be entirely legal to marry any number of them, or one’s android/gynoid sexbots, if one so chooses.

144

I remember, in another thread, brining up collateral damage. Innocent people are knowing killed in war and it is written off as collateral damage. Yet many of you here who are opposed to abortion are OK with the abortion of innocent lives in times of war.

I’m sure you would justify collateral damage by saying that a few innocent died but many will be saved because the bad guys were killed. I don’t see why this same logic cannot be applied to abortion and using these fetuses for medical advancement. Sure many will die but will save many more in the long run.

146

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
I remember, in another thread, brining up collateral damage. Innocent people are knowing killed in war and it is written off as collateral damage. Yet many of you here who are opposed to abortion are OK with the abortion of innocent lives in times of war.

I’m sure you would justify collateral damage by saying that a few innocent died but many will be saved because the bad guys were killed. I don’t see why this same logic cannot be applied to abortion and using these fetuses for medical advancement. Sure many will die but will save many more in the long run.[/quote]

First, scale. We are talking millions of deaths. The research would have to save millions. I seriously doubt that the research will make up for the death rate, much like Nazi scientists in WW2.

The second big difference is collateral is collateral meaning not the purpose. Abortion is the purposeful killing of an innocent human. If for instance the US government purposely targeted Iraqi school children for bombing, I’m sure as many would be against it. However, if they target an ISIS weapons depot that the bad guys built in a school and bomb it in the middle of the night to prevent children from dying, but there happens to be several children in the building unexpectedly, THAT is collateral and morally entirely different.

147

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
I remember, in another thread, brining up collateral damage. Innocent people are knowing killed in war and it is written off as collateral damage. Yet many of you here who are opposed to abortion are OK with the abortion of innocent lives in times of war.
[/quote]
No we’re not. Aside from being a red herring, nobody here is ‘pro-war’ at least I am not. I don’t want any innocent people to die. We don’t ask for war, war comes to us. And we are not okay with innocent people dying. It’s why war sucks, for everybody.

[quote]
I’m sure you would justify collateral damage by saying that a few innocent died but many will be saved because the bad guys were killed. I don’t see why this same logic cannot be applied to abortion and using these fetuses for medical advancement. Sure many will die but will save many more in the long run.[/quote]

The fact that people die in war does not justify the willful killing of a human being.
Is your argument really, ‘innocent people die in wars, so it’s ok to kill 1.2 million human beings a year’?

148

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
I remember, in another thread, brining up collateral damage. Innocent people are knowing killed in war and it is written off as collateral damage. Yet many of you here who are opposed to abortion are OK with the abortion of innocent lives in times of war.

I’m sure you would justify collateral damage by saying that a few innocent died but many will be saved because the bad guys were killed. I don’t see why this same logic cannot be applied to abortion and using these fetuses for medical advancement. Sure many will die but will save many more in the long run.[/quote]

What?

Nobody is for the loss of innocent life. And it doesn’t get more innocent than in the womb.

149

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

it doesn’t get more innocent than in the womb.

[/quote]

Define innocent.

Quick question for those of you who believe in such things:

Would you say that the guilt of Original and Imputed Sins is conferred upon all all mankind at the moment of birth, at the moment of conception, or somewhere along the gestational way?

“All hath sinned” seems to be the other side of the “all men…are endowed with unalienable rights” coin.

150

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Define innocent.

[/quote]

If an unborn child can not be defined as innocent, what can be?

151

[quote]Cortes wrote:
How this is somehow more morally repugnant than the act of killing the little human life itself is what has me confused. [/quote]

I don’t see it as more, I see it as addition to. Like instead of just killing the family, let’s crack off the top of their skulls and eat ice cream out of it.

Maybe the first part you went side ways on your moral compass…maybe someone convinced you that it was a good idea…the second part of the act is that you are just nuts and morally bankrupt.

152

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve barely been able to skim this thread, and can’t bring myself to press play on any of the videos. I can barely even read the headlines.[/quote]

It is tough to watch.

I am an anti-abortion advocate/pro-life advocate and I routinely watched these films (but usually with no audio) because sometimes we play films during our outings. So, I usually watch to find the mildest videos (because even the mildest is pretty shocking) if we are thinking about using a video (I am still hesitant to use videos for everyone, I’ll pull out my tablet if necessary).

I have become pretty desensitized to videos…

…but, these films made me sick to my stomach. Especially the fourth, when the doctor admitted to doing post-birth abortions on “valid fetuses to make them non-valid to be able to harvest and sell the organs” I felt like throwing up.

This is like become desensitized to jackass films on youtube and running into Pain Olympics. It’s like fuck me running.

154

Do people really care about abortion NOW? Do people only care once they are shown over and over what the Truth is? These videos show the truly dark, sinister and evils of abortion. My hope is that finally the behemoth of Pedophile Promoters can finally close.

With the scourge of all abortion ceasing, by doctors and birth control, then we have the possibility of becoming a moral and just society.

155

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Define innocent.

[/quote]

If an unborn child can not be defined as innocent, what can be?

[/quote]

Well, that’s what we need to ascertain.

Hence my question about Original Sin. If you are a Christian, and your particular flavour of Christianity adheres to the doctrine of Original Sin, then you must believe that at some point, the guilt of the original sin in the Garden of Eden is imputed onto every living human being. My question is, does this guilt accrue at birth, or at conception?

If at birth, then yes, an unborn infant is innocent. If at conception, then nope. Guilty as hell.

156

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

This is like become desensitized to jackass films on youtube and running into Pain Olympics. It’s like fuck me running.[/quote]

See, I didn’t react to Pain Olympics like a lot of people who “recommended” that I see it.

I was like, huh, no convulsion reaction, even though this is the most sensitive part of the male anatomy. No blood, even though the genitals are full of blood vessels. Conclusion: it’s a cadaver.

It went from being what my brother and friends had billed as OHMYFUCKINGGODTHEWORSTTHINGYOUWILLEVERSEE!!! to being “meh” in about five seconds.

157

I guess spending lots of time in Southeast Asia has spoiled me. I just don’t get grossed out by the normal stuff anymore, let alone “scarred for life”.

Once you have swallowed a duck fetus whole, sucked the brains out of chicken heads, eaten raw pork, and been up to your armpit in raw Thai hooker shit because you were fishing around for whatever was clogging the big communal toilet (it was a bloody maxi-pad, in case you were wondering), what ordinarily would register an “OMFG” on the grossout-o-meter now registers somewhere between a “huh” and a “meh”.

It’s kind of like eating vindaloo curry and raw ghost peppers. Tabasco sauce just doesn’t seem so spicy anymore afterwards.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:

But what you’ve got to understand is that your inurement to the more gruesome things on his terrestrial orb really don’t change the crux of this discussion.
[/quote]

Nah, probably not.

160

So, Push:

Guilt of Original Sin and Depravity of Humanity:

Inherited at birth, or at conception?