Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
881

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A sperm is also a beginning stage in human life. Life does not begin at conception as both the sperm and egg are already alive. So when does human life really begin? When does being a person begin?

A hole in the ground is the start of a foundation but it isn’t a house. [/quote]

sigh…

The unique and individual life of another human begins at conception…

jesus h.[/quote]
All life starts somewhere but when does personhood start? Human life does not mean a human being and/or person. [/quote]

Let’s say I buy this line of thought. Does that mean it is okay to discard an entire human life simply because it lacks personhood?

This isn’t like throwing your toe nail clippings away, you are discarding a whole human life.

882

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A sperm is also a beginning stage in human life. Life does not begin at conception as both the sperm and egg are already alive. So when does human life really begin? When does being a person begin?

A hole in the ground is the start of a foundation but it isn’t a house. [/quote]

I beg to differ. A foundation is not a hole in the ground. A foundation is mixing together, aggregate and cement to form concrete. An Egg and Sperm is just half a person. It becomes a person when combined.[/quote]
Note, I wrote the START of a foundation. [/quote]

A hole is not a start of a foundation either. A hole does not start a foundation. A hole is the start of the basement. The foundation is still the combination of Aggregate and Cement to make Concrete. A person is the combination of the egg and sperm.

883

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?
[/quote]

Why read what isn’t there? Did I say it was right? This is what I meant as an attempt at being clever. It’s obvious you wanted me to fall into some “trap” to show that I agree with slavery or something. I simply stated that if you want the law changed then the burden of proof falls upon you whether you are right or wrong.

[/quote]

I wish I was that clever.

This “it is the law you have to prove otherwise” is the equivalent of burying you head in the sand. It’s exactly what many people did during slavery and during the holocaust.

What is your stance than, is abortion right or wrong?

884

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Correction: a fact that am stating to illustrate the futility of arguing back and forth whether or not a zygote is a “person” or a “child” when, in the time it took the Pitt ‘n’ Pat comedy duo to say “is not!” “is too!” “nuh uh!” “your stoopid!” a half dozen times, tens of thousands of real, live, sentient, breathing air babies and children had died painfully of starvation, and yet I don’t see anybody starting up multiple threads decrying the outrage of this. Please, if you would be so kind, remind me of all the threads started by any of the prominent antiabortion advocates on this forum which denounce childhood starvation in Asia and Africa with the same vehemence [/quote]
My position precisely.
[/quote]

lol, yes. Some kids stave to death and it is tragic. So our response should be just to ignore the murder of other kids.

Sense? Nope, none. [/quote]
I have to agree with you that this is a weak argument. An unrelated issue, in fact. What I don’t understand is why there are serious travesties occurring against children who are already out of the womb that people don’t view with nearly the same vehemence. Also, no one addresses consequences of an action like outlawing abortion.

And it’s often the same people who are anti-abortion who argue against providing for the child once born by taking a stance against governmental support programs ( which will require higher taxes) and issues such as a higher minimum wage. It just seems logically inconsistent to me. Who is going to adopt or pay for all of these children, some of whom will be drug addicted and handicapped?

Show me a plan where these children who are “entitled” to be born are also "entitled " to an upbringing that will provide them with the food, clothing, medical care, education, and love that will help them be productive citizens.

885

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.

I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.

[/quote]

If the egg is not fertilized then it is not a Zygote, and the egg will never grow inside of the woman.

886

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
A sperm is also a beginning stage in human life. Life does not begin at conception as both the sperm and egg are already alive. So when does human life really begin? When does being a person begin?

A hole in the ground is the start of a foundation but it isn’t a house. [/quote]

I beg to differ. A foundation is not a hole in the ground. A foundation is mixing together, aggregate and cement to form concrete. An Egg and Sperm is just half a person. It becomes a person when combined.[/quote]
Note, I wrote the START of a foundation. [/quote]

A hole is not a start of a foundation either. A hole does not start a foundation. A hole is the start of the basement. The foundation is still the combination of Aggregate and Cement to make Concrete. A person is the combination of the egg and sperm.
[/quote]

I see a hole in our parking lot. Can’t wait to see how the house turns out.

887

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. Abortion is legal and zygotes are not considered persons so it is up to the anti-abortionists to prove otherwise.
[/quote]

LMAO!

So, get this, if it were still legal, that Zecarlo is totally cool with slavery.

too funning the mental gymnastics in here to rationalize immoral behavior. Humans are funny things. [/quote]
That’s just a lack of intellectualism talking. I’m almost embarrassed by the fact you have to stoop to such silliness.

888

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Correction: a fact that am stating to illustrate the futility of arguing back and forth whether or not a zygote is a “person” or a “child” when, in the time it took the Pitt ‘n’ Pat comedy duo to say “is not!” “is too!” “nuh uh!” “your stoopid!” a half dozen times, tens of thousands of real, live, sentient, breathing air babies and children had died painfully of starvation, and yet I don’t see anybody starting up multiple threads decrying the outrage of this. Please, if you would be so kind, remind me of all the threads started by any of the prominent antiabortion advocates on this forum which denounce childhood starvation in Asia and Africa with the same vehemence [/quote]
My position precisely.
[/quote]

lol, yes. Some kids stave to death and it is tragic. So our response should be just to ignore the murder of other kids.

Sense? Nope, none. [/quote]
I have to agree with you that this is a weak argument. An unrelated issue, in fact. What I don’t understand is why there are serious travesties occurring against children who are already out of the womb that people don’t view with nearly the same vehemence. Also, no one addresses consequences of an action like outlawing abortion.

And it’s often the same people who are anti-abortion who argue against providing for the child once born by taking a stance against governmental support programs ( which will require higher taxes) and issues such as a higher minimum wage. It just seems logically inconsistent to me. Who is going to adopt or pay for all of these children, some of whom will be drug addicted and handicapped?

Show me a plan where these children who are “entitled” to be born are also "entitled " to an upbringing that will provide them with the food, clothing, medical care, education, and love that will help them be productive citizens.[/quote]

So the government is the only entity that can take care of children? You have swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker.

I guess you have not been to church recently. The “Religious Right”, that is so demonized by the “Liberal Left”, gives more money to charities than any other group. This money is given to homeless shelters, food pantries, clothing, and education charities. Yes they are religious in nature, but we believe that we are here to help the Widows and the Orphans.

Just imagine how much more would be given to these charities if the “Religious Right” was not taxed so much. If the Government was so efficient at taking care of children why do these children stay in poverty for generations?

889

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?

[/quote]

The legality of slavery wasn’t really the issue. Slavery was one of those facts of life that had been accepted for millennia before the birth of Christ.

Kind of like poverty and warfare. We accept that these are facts of life: that some people will always have more than other people, and that strong societies will always invade other weaker societies, kill their soldiers and take their stuff.

These things have always been a part of human life. We have recently tried to outlaw some of the more heinous practices of warfare: it is no longer permissible to put civilians to the sword, or to dash the skulls of babies against the walls of the city. You can no longer capture the pubescent virgin girls of a conquered people and keep them for yourself. All these things used to be legal. It was also legal to invade anyone you felt like, as long as you were strong enough to do it. These days we have laws against preemptive, aggressive warfare.

Similarly, we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws that keep one family or one company from accumulating “too much” money or property. And yet, “the poor, you will always have with you.”

Some countries tried to abolish poverty by outlawing private property altogether. Look what happened to them.

Perhaps someday, in the far future, war will be illegal, and will be looked at be the people then as we look at slavery now: with abhorrence an incomprehension that any race of people could have practiced such a thing.

Not anytime soon, though, I don’t think.

Same goes for abortion. Infanticide is even older than war. You have a better chance at eliminating the need for war than you have of eliminating the need for infanticide and abortion. Terrible as it is.

890

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?
[/quote]

Why read what isn’t there? Did I say it was right? This is what I meant as an attempt at being clever. It’s obvious you wanted me to fall into some “trap” to show that I agree with slavery or something. I simply stated that if you want the law changed then the burden of proof falls upon you whether you are right or wrong.

[/quote]

I wish I was that clever.

This “it is the law you have to prove otherwise” is the equivalent of burying you head in the sand. It’s exactly what many people did during slavery and during the holocaust.

What is your stance than, is abortion right or wrong? [/quote]
Anti-abortionists have two choices then: they can try to change the law through civil means or, as was the case with slavery, go to war. If abortion were illegal then it would be up to those who wanted it legal to prove their case. It goes both ways.

I have already stated that I am not in favor of abortion. I am pro-choice because I am not arrogant enough to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed upon others. I know some will call that hypocrisy but as another poster pointed out, there are children being killed all over the world. If life is so precious then why don’t they go save them as well?

891

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
This is an attempt at being clever but the truth is that yes, the abolitionists had to prove that slavery was wrong because slavery was legal. [/quote]

No offense, but it’s down right scary that you believe this and you aren’t the only one either. The law is always right unless proven otherwise? Down right scary.

Totally okay, it was the law, right?

[/quote]

The legality of slavery wasn’t really the issue. Slavery was one of those facts of life that had been accepted for millennia before the birth of Christ.

Kind of like poverty and warfare. We accept that these are facts of life: that some people will always have more than other people, and that strong societies will always invade other weaker societies, kill their soldiers and take their stuff.

These things have always been a part of human life. We have recently tried to outlaw some of the more heinous practices of warfare: it is no longer permissible to put civilians to the sword, or to dash the skulls of babies against the walls of the city. You can no longer capture the pubescent virgin girls of a conquered people and keep them for yourself. All these things used to be legal. It was also legal to invade anyone you felt like, as long as you were strong enough to do it. These days we have laws against preemptive, aggressive warfare.

Similarly, we have anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws that keep one family or one company from accumulating “too much” money or property. And yet, “the poor, you will always have with you.”

Some countries tried to abolish poverty by outlawing private property altogether. Look what happened to them.

Perhaps someday, in the far future, war will be illegal, and will be looked at be the people then as we look at slavery now: with abhorrence an incomprehension that any race of people could have practiced such a thing.

Not anytime soon, though, I don’t think.

Same goes for abortion. Infanticide is even older than war. You have a better chance at eliminating the need for war than you have of eliminating the need for infanticide and abortion. Terrible as it is. [/quote]

Agreed, I’d like to see human kind continue to progress in a lot of these areas. IMO, Roe Vs. Wade is human kind going in reverse.

892

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
but when does personhood start? [/quote]

Well that would be the basis for the entire argument. I happen to believe it starts at conception. Others tend to poo-poo the child until it is born as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite”, “tumor” even.

However, it is a unique and individual life, this we all know. It doesn’t matter what names you label that life in order to rationalize the ending of that life, it is still the life of an individual and unique person.

(The irony of someone who calls an unborn child a parasite or tumor and has the nerve to say that “americans are fucked up people” is astounding.)

I’m not playing semantics. I refuse to entertain this irrelevant rationalization. It is a human in the womb, it is alive, period. It may not be fully developed, but that doesn’t change what it is.

Shit you aren’t fully developed either, you grow, at least mentally, every day.

893

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.

I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.

[/quote]

If the egg is not fertilized then it is not a Zygote, and the egg will never grow inside of the woman.
[/quote]

Yes, I know. Please see bolded line above.

894

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Anti-abortionists have two choices then: they can try to change the law through civil means or, as was the case with slavery, go to war. If abortion were illegal then it would be up to those who wanted it legal to prove their case. It goes both ways.
[/quote]
Which most of us do via our vote.

[quote]
I have already stated that I am not in favor of abortion. I am pro-choice because I am not arrogant enough to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed upon others. I know some will call that hypocrisy but as another poster pointed out, there are children being killed all over the world. If life is so precious then why don’t they go save them as well? [/quote]

This is where I differ. I am also pro-choice in that I believe woman & men should be allowed to choose:

  1. When and with whom to have sex
  2. Whether to use birth control or not

I am pro-life the moment another entity enters the picture. That is it. I don’t want to be in anyone bedroom or limit their actions. I want to protect a defenseless third party that didn’t ask to be made.

895

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
but when does personhood start? [/quote]

Well that would be the basis for the entire argument. I happen to believe it starts at conception. Others tend to poo-poo the child until it is born as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite”, “tumor” even.

However, it is a unique and individual life, this we all know. It doesn’t matter what names you label that life in order to rationalize the ending of that life, it is still the life of an individual and unique person.

(The irony of someone who calls an unborn child a parasite or tumor and has the nerve to say that “americans are fucked up people” is astounding.)

I’m not playing semantics. I refuse to entertain this irrelevant rationalization. It is a human in the womb, it is alive, period. It may not be fully developed, but that doesn’t change what it is.

Shit you aren’t fully developed either, you grow, at least mentally, every day. [/quote]
That’s the problem with anti-abortionists; they bring up science and facts but science and facts do not, probably cannot, tell us when something is a person. The better argument would be to avoid whether or not a zygote is a human being (a person) and simply state why a zygote should be treated as a person. In other words, instead of trying to prove that a zygote is a human being by some scientific standard, just argue why it’s a human being from a conceptual standpoint.

896

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.

I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t a zygote technically be a hatched egg? Or by hatched are we talking birth?[/quote]

I know this biology stuff is tough. Bear with me here.

A zygote is a single cell. One. Uno.

A fertilized chicken egg is also a single cell. Almost immediately, though, it begins dividing and redividing, so that we call it an embryo. By the time an egg is laid (LAID, not HATCHED!!), it is a chicken embryo. No longer an “egg”, and no longer a zygote.

When the “egg” hatches, it is a fully formed baby chick. Yes, “hatching” is the equivalent of birth in the mammalian world.

897

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
What I don’t understand is why there are serious travesties occurring against children who are already out of the womb that people don’t view with nearly the same vehemence. [/quote]

I would say you are wrong about that.

I’ve said time and time again, we don’t need to change the laws. We need an overhaul of our culture.

Just like we look back on the Democrats pre-LBJ and think “what atrocious people, how could that do that to an entire group of people and be okay with how Blacks were treated in America of all places.”

We need that type of epiphany when it comes to vacuuming out babies.

Well, I would make the argument that taxes could actually go down and still be able to provide to the truly needy. Higher min wage doesn’t help poor people, this has been shown over and over and over again.

[quote] It just seems logically inconsistent to me. Who is going to adopt or pay for all of these children, some of whom will be drug addicted and handicapped?

Show me a plan where these children who are “entitled” to be born are also "entitled " to an upbringing that will provide them with the food, clothing, medical care, education, and love that will help them be productive citizens.[/quote]

No, you aren’t “entitled” to shit other than the chance at life. Life is hard, no one ever said it was going to be easy.

People need to take a step back here and realize that life isn’t fair, it isn’t easy and you have to work at it to get anywhere. There will be losers along with the winners. Killing people before they even have the chance to win doesn’t eliminate the losers.

How about the people that were responsible enough to have sex be responsible for their kids?

898

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
but when does personhood start? [/quote]

Well that would be the basis for the entire argument. I happen to believe it starts at conception. Others tend to poo-poo the child until it is born as a “clump of cells” or a “parasite”, “tumor” even.

However, it is a unique and individual life, this we all know. It doesn’t matter what names you label that life in order to rationalize the ending of that life, it is still the life of an individual and unique person.

(The irony of someone who calls an unborn child a parasite or tumor and has the nerve to say that “americans are fucked up people” is astounding.)

I’m not playing semantics. I refuse to entertain this irrelevant rationalization. It is a human in the womb, it is alive, period. It may not be fully developed, but that doesn’t change what it is.

Shit you aren’t fully developed either, you grow, at least mentally, every day. [/quote]
That’s the problem with anti-abortionists; they bring up science and facts but science and facts do not, probably cannot, tell us when something is a person. The better argument would be to avoid whether or not a zygote is a human being (a person) and simply state why a zygote should be treated as a person. In other words, instead of trying to prove that a zygote is a human being by some scientific standard, just argue why it’s a human being from a conceptual standpoint. [/quote]

Well, up humans don’t come from storks and zygotes don’t continue to develop into infants, teens, adults and elderly by way of magic fairy dust.

Therefore they are people, and alive.

899

Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that?

900

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.

I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.

[/quote]

Wouldn’t a zygote technically be a hatched egg? Or by hatched are we talking birth?[/quote]

I know this biology stuff is tough. Bear with me here.

A zygote is a single cell. One. Uno.

A fertilized chicken egg is also a single cell. Almost immediately, though, it begins dividing and redividing, so that we call it an embryo. By the time an egg is laid (LAID, not HATCHED!!), it is a chicken embryo. No longer an “egg”, and no longer a zygote.

When the “egg” hatches, it is a fully formed baby chick. Yes, “hatching” is the equivalent of birth in the mammalian world. [/quote]

Seems like a whole lot of fancy words for what developments into a…Chicken.