Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

[jimmy eat jazz]

I don't exactly agree with you. There are several organizations in my area that offer pretty much exactly what PP does, except abortion, and they're sponsored heavily by local churches. Churches full of white, conservative people. I think you're exaggerating just a touch here.

Oh, so you live in an urban, poor, minority enclave?

Who would have guessed it?

 

[fishonjazz]

Or to put it another way, a zygote may be a human life, but is it a living human?

Sperm is alive too.
Lots of them perish in tissue, garbages, socks, toilets, etc

Very tragic

 

[Harambe]

Sperm is alive too.
Lots of them perish in tissue, garbages, socks, toilets, Franklin's mom, etc

Tragic, isn't it?

 

[fishonjazz]

Tragic, isn't it?

Lol

 

[Gameface]

sperm lives matter

 

[moevillini]

Sperm is alive too.
Lots of them perish in tissue, garbages, socks, toilets, etc

Very tragic

But only half tragic since it's only half human.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Oh, so you live in an urban, poor, minority enclave?

Who would have guessed it?

You didn't want to keep it fairly civil? No need to get sassy, sir.

I'm not saying there dont need to be improvements, but I believe that there would be if we changed something, and that we need changes. Sorry for pointing out an actual example that was contradictory to your statement.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You didn't want to keep it fairly civil? No need to get sassy, sir.

I'm not saying there dont need to be improvements, but I believe that there would be if we changed something, and that we need changes. Sorry for pointing out an actual example that was contradictory to your statement.

I apologize if I came off as uncivil. I prefer to remain civil with you.

My point is that the experience you describe is a very limiting one, there's a whole world of alternative experiences out there, and one includes poor people, often minority, and others, who for a variety of reasons, DO NOT enjoy good access to basic female reproductive services. I'm guessing, but fairly certain, that a large share of unwanted pregnancies and abortions performed are found among this group.

Your statement doesn't contradict anything I said or believe. I assume that middle and upper class persons, or those living in middle or upper class environmenments, have rather good access to reproductive services. I aslo assume that there are indeed a number of lower income persons who benefit from the type of services you describe. I have never, ever doubted this, nor said anything to suggest I did. My frame of reference here is entirely the rather substantial number of persons who lack access to such services (often poor and/or minority), or who receive them from PP or like-minded organizations. IF we were to force PP and such like-minded organizations out of business, then large numbers of women would lose access to reproductive services, including importantly family planning, and thus the number of abortions would go up.

Going back to my original point, this to me shows the irrationality of the conservative position. They'd cut off their nose to spite their face. The end goal is to reduce abortions, and PP plays a large role in doing this. But they hate PP so much also, that they'd kill PP, even it if meant (and it likely does) that the result would be more abortions. And honestly, even if they realized this, or cared to think about it, that they'd still kill PP if they could, so irrational is their hatred.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

sperm lives matter

Every sperm is sacred

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

 

[RandyForRubio]

JEJ, I believe that if we eliminated PP we could still have programs that do what they do with the exception of abortion. It's a pretty big business, sonebody would step in. But I do agree that eliminating PP and having nothing to replace them would only add more problems. I just want the abortions to go away, that's all.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

JEJ, I believe that if we eliminated PP we could still have programs that do what they do with the exception of abortion. It's a pretty big business, sonebody would step in. But I do agree that eliminating PP and having nothing to replace them would only add more problems. I just want the abortions to go away, that's all.

i would also like to see abortions go away.

I'm just not comfortable imposing myself and the coercive power of the state in women's reproductive choices and pre-empting their most basic of freedoms to make choices about their own bodies, particularly related to such personal and intimate matters.

 

[RandyForRubio]

i would also like to see abortions go away.

I'm just not comfortable imposing myself and the coercive power of the state in women's reproductive choices and pre-empting their most basic of freedoms to make choices about their own bodies, particularly related to such personal and intimate matters.

I'm not comfortable imposing murder on living humans because of "choice". I thought Ben Carson put it rather well, "The mother is the protector of that baby and we've distorted things to the point where people believe that if the mother can't kill the baby, then anybody who is advocating that is an enemy of women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing?"

 

[RandyForRubio]

i would also like to see abortions go away.

I'm just not comfortable imposing myself and the coercive power of the state in women's reproductive choices and pre-empting their most basic of freedoms to make choices about their own bodies, particularly related to such personal and intimate matters.

I'm not comfortable imposing murder on living humans because of "choice". I thought Ben Carson put it rather well, "The mother is the protector of that baby and we've distorted things to the point where people believe that if the mother can't kill the baby, then anybody who is advocating that is an enemy of women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing?"

 

[RandyForRubio]

Apparently I was so excited I posted twice. The zeal is pouring through my keyboard.

 

[Archie Moses]

But only half tragic since it's only half human.

1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm not comfortable imposing murder on living humans because of "choice". I thought Ben Carson put it rather well, "The mother is the protector of that baby and we've distorted things to the point where people believe that if the mother can't kill the baby, then anybody who is advocating that is an enemy of women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing?"

This is an example of using loaded terms to impose black and white thinking on a complex issue. If we phrase it as 'killing a baby', then of course it is wrong and morally repugnant. But, a blastocye or zygote is not a baby, and it is by nowhere clear, nor is there anything remotely close to a consensus, as to when 'life' starts. IF, we were indeed talking about a 'baby' and the mother was indeed 'killing' it, then you are correct. But neither of the two conditions hold, or at least there is no consensus of when they hold, so the issue is not as black and white as you suppose.

I consider Carson's statement to be an obfuscatory piece of rhetorical hyperbole and not much of a guide to help us think about such a complex and nuanced issue.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

I don't fault people for valuing life and wanting to protect it, nor typically would I mock them for this (unless they were some fanatical nut job), but what I've learned myself from this thread, and observation of this debate, is that pro-life folks tend to have a very, very strong reluctance to acknowledge that the pro-choice side has a principle-based aversion to empowering the state (abbetted and enabled by its conservative Christian allies) to impose its will on the most private, intimate choices that a woman makes about her own body and reproductive choice. It would be useful if we could have some meeting in the middle and go from there, but, alas, this rarely happens with such an emotionally charged issue.

I would add that, once again, social conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Similar to other key issues related to expansion of rights and freedoms which social/religious conservatives have opposed (e.g., civil rights, gay rights, women's rights), they are on the losing side of history and are now relegated to fighting a rear-guard action.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Apparently I was so excited I posted twice. The zeal is pouring through my keyboard.

No problem, this is an issue that promotes zeal from all sides.

 

[moevillini]

1. Sperm is a living organism and unable to reproduce. In other words, it's not a "life."

2. Regardless of what one knows or to science, I'm not sure how mocking others, for what you perceive is a logic fallacy in terms to "human life," helps pro or anti-abortion opinions. I only say that because it's something I've learned myself from this thread.

I think it says a lot about you that you pick my post to be the one you say is mocking when there are several others - both before and after mine - that are similar in tone.

It's OK for the guys to be irreverent but not the girls? Seems like you're applying a double standard,

 

[moevillini]

I don't fault people for valuing life and wanting to protect it, nor typically would I mock them for this (unless they were some fanatical nut job), but what I've learned myself from this thread, and observation of this debate, is that pro-life folks tend to have a very, very strong reluctance to acknowledge that the pro-choice side has a principle-based aversion to empowering the state (abbetted and enabled by its conservative Christian allies) to impose its will on the most private, intimate choices that a woman makes about her own body and reproductive choice. It would be useful if we could have some meeting in the middle and go from there, but, alas, this rarely happens with such an emotionally charged issue.

I would add that, once again, social conservatives are fighting a losing battle. Similar to other key issues related to expansion of rights and freedoms which social/religious conservatives have opposed (e.g., civil rights, gay rights, women's rights), they are on the losing side of history and are now relegated to fighting a rear-guard action.

well put