I truly enjoyed this comment.
Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs
- Thread starter RandyForRubio
- Start date
I truly enjoyed this comment.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
honestly sounds like babe either went through IVF himself or had a close relative who did it, and is now trying to rationalize it with leaky logic.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Dude, all I was saying is that I initially didn't even see the basis for this argument but later learned what it was. If a person has the belief that any fertilized egg is life (which I don't) and that aborting it is immoral, then there is a logical inconsistency in their willingness to fertilize these eggs but not care for them.
For me, I am for sex education, I am for contraception, I am for the morning after pill, and I am okay with early term (first trimester) abortion. In the second trimester the issue gets a lot sketchier for me (this is where I'd say abortion only in the case of rape, health of the mother, etc.), and in the third trimester I consider abortion to be very wrong. I found those videos that started this whole discussion to be utterly repulsive.
too stupid for words????
and yet, you found plenty more to say on the subject.
There are babies to adopt. And in spite of what someone posted earlier about the high cost of adoption, it is FAR LESS than the cost of invitro fertilization procedures. Particularly since those procedures often have to be repeated multiple times before a successful pregnancy is achieved.
And whatever you want to call it, or however you want to rationalize it, it does result (in most cases) in the destruction of living human embryos that either don't get implanted or get removed after implantation.
Give it up babe. You are fully entitled to your viewpoint. It is the correct viewpoint for you. Nobody is going to force you to support an abortion procedure that you oppose.
But please give other viewpoints some dignity as well. As you said, it's nobody's business at that point.
Someone who gets pregnant the traditional way should be given the same courtesy as someone who gets pregnant through laboratory intervention.
And who is talking about new laws here anyhow? Seems to me it's the anti-choice crowd that is barking up that tree.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm gonna have to say Dala is pretty on point here.
So, logically-speaking, since you don't really believe in God
, you're OK deciding this for everyone else in the place of "God"?
Goebbels-level thinking is in the gutter. Arrogant disregard for all humanity, the impudence of taking over another human being and treating it like your own property for whatever curious little purpose or experiment you can conceive. . . nah, that's not me. That is where I think a lot of Marxist-inspired "progressives" are, though. Elite hyper-educated professionals who believe they should have the power to make those decisions for others are in one respect like the Bible-toting scriptorians who want to make decisions for everyone, to the extent that they want to impose their will through government authority/power/legislation/judicial systems/police.
People doing what they can for the purpose of having children is something else.
silly pots calling kettles smudged, I suppose.
In absolute terms, this argument is between people with different meanings and values for everything. You are attacking people who use a medical procedure intended to produce a child and defending people who use a medical procedure to destroy a child. The purpose is the real argument, not the technique, nor the biological facts.
You're on the wrong side of the argument, of course. Judged from the perspective of placing life at the pinnacle of values.
I read into your rhetoric some moralist injunctions about what others should do, how morally-speaking adoption should be government-mandated to the exclusion of IVF. Who the hell are you to make that decision? Of course, you are not really saying that. You are using that argument as a come-back to the rhetorical moralist injunctions of those want to use governmental legal force to protect unborn babies. So you invoke the logic about IVF embryos and equate that with the woman who wants the morning-after pill or an abortion. You will fight to the death for making it out that that woman should have the inviolate sovereignty of her own body. I consider it debatable about just where we should start, as a society, to protect "life". Seems rather pointless to start protecting every embryo because most can not survive to birth anyway. It would be nice if every woman would naturally nourish her unborn child, but unless I can do something to help and the help is wanted, it's pretty much not my proper concern. As a society, I would support care for pregnant women and adoption programs, with my tax dollar. But I would just be sensible and say that is available for those women who choose it.
My big point is the value we humans place, or don't place, on having children. That is where the real problem exists. But that's not the political reality of the issue. The political reality is a class of ideological politics nourished by fascist world planners who want the political power to make all those choices for us, and who want to control all of our decisions from conception to cremation/utilization. I'd be content if I got you to see the wagon you're on.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I believe that the term "Conservative Christians" as I use the term accurately describes a group of individuals that, despite the natural variability within any large group of people, generally possess the following characteristics:
1. Evangelical Protestant
2. White
3. Socially conservative, and thus (again generally) opposed to progressive social reforms related to, for example, civil rights, women's rights and gay rights.
4. Votes republican, and indeed forms a core of the Republican voting base
Where am I wrong, and how is this characterization prejudiced?
I generally don't consider Mormons when I refer to conservative Christians. Although Mormons do share many beliefs on social/economic issues with conservative Christians, outside of Utah and perhaps Idaho, Mormons are not a powerful voting bloc and thus their potential for mischief and putting up roadblocks to bringing socially and economically marginalized groups in the the mainstream of US society, and denying civil rights and liberties to marginalized groups, is much, much more limited.
Having spent much time among both Evangelicals and Mormons, I'd choose the company of Mormons in a nano second. While they have similarly whacky beliefs, Mormons tend to compartmentalize much better and also tend to respect boundaries much better.
As for Mormon opposition to slavery, it does not appear quite as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Take the following quote by Brigham Young found here: https://mit.irr.org/brigham-young-we-must-believe-in-slavery-23-january-1852. I admit, however, to not being particularly well-informed on this particular topic.
"I have this section in my hand, headed “An Act in Relation to African Slavery.” I have read it over and made a few alterations. I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery."
If I have mischaracterized your position on anything, please forgive me. In my defense, your posts tend to be long and rambling, so it can be hard at times to pinpoint what you believe.
Finally, progressives behind the times on social issues relative to Conservative Christians? That, my friend, is laughably wrong.
dude.
I worked in labs like this, and I have normal human empathy and normal human willingness to try to help others.
I would have to say, for whatever "religious" values I have, or for whatever the Bible says, it is absolutely consistent with nourishing life to the extent of our capacity. beyond that, I sleep the sleep of the Just.
I should rep this response. Absolutely. Not because I agree with it exactly, but because it is the sort of thing that can move us all along to a better understanding of things.
Boston Marathon, dude. That's all you have to say.
Agreed with the bolder part.
JeJ #1: I identify somewhat more with these folks in some ways than I do with "Mormon". Mostly pretty decent people, good neighbors. Amazingly, a lot of black folk come in here, too.
JeJ #2: please don't make this a race issue. Although I get it that a lot of folks use this identifier as a sort of convenient rule of judging others. I'm white. Some family members are not.
JeJ #3 I'm socially conservative in some ways. I bet the word I use doesn't even mean what you think it means. It doesn't have anything to do with politics, has more to do with personal values. conserve values that work good for society. Honesty, chastity, helping neighbors in need, working hard, getting educated or skilled, going camping. . . . stuff like that. What do you think it means? Don't give me that crap where some change-agent crusaders for a new world order try to take control of the rhetoric and give everything some skewed meaning and lace it with prejudice and hate.
JeJ: #4 Sometimes good democrats should vote republican if they come up with a candidate with some notion of actually being accountable to the people, instead of taking payola from the corporates, and the democrat candidate is like the Bushes and the Clintons "in the bag" for the corporates.
I know about Brigham Young. He's the guy who let Elijah Abel and his family hold the Priesthood, anyway. He's the guy who had about 20 freed blacks along on the very first wagon train into Salt Lake Valley. Those blacks were freed by their Mormon "owners" as a pre-condition of baptism into the LDS Church.
Colton will probably come in here and do some kind of official defense of Mormonism per the current LDS guidelines for discussion on the subject. All I can say to that is that the Mormons have been whipped every way from Sunday on every damn stupid thing any Mormon ever said, until the LDS Church hired some Madison Avenue advertising/public relations firm to do some serious work on the problem.
Joseph Smith ordained a black man an Elder, and he sheltered blacks in his home on their way to Canada, and on no account ever treated a black man or woman unkindly. In his Presidential run, he took the position that the Federal govt. should buy the slaves and give them their freedom and the same rights as other people, and give them some land, a State, they could call their own. Some other views maybe not so politically correct, like living separate and no interracial marriage with blacks, though "Lamanites" were OK to marry, and such. We never know how much of what someone says is just to go along with the current fashion of thought. People usually have one point they want to emphasize along the lines of changing things, and they usually place it in an unchanged context of stuff that's generally the current fashion for the time and place.
So back to my theory about how we humans are fundamentally limited, and nowhere near able to get everything right. Not right now, not all at once. And certainly not by putting every decision in the hands of some expert on the subject or in the hands of a government, where one stupid person will make us all stupid in the exactly the same way. . . .
JeJ #2: please don't make this a race issue. Although I get it that a lot of folks use this identifier as a sort of convenient rule of judging others. I'm white. Some family members are not.
JeJ #3 I'm socially conservative in some ways. I bet the word I use doesn't even mean what you think it means. It doesn't have anything to do with politics, has more to do with personal values. conserve values that work good for society. Honesty, chastity, helping neighbors in need, working hard, getting educated or skilled, going camping. . . . stuff like that. What do you think it means? Don't give me that crap where some change-agent crusaders for a new world order try to take control of the rhetoric and give everything some skewed meaning and lace it with prejudice and hate.
JeJ: #4 Sometimes good democrats should vote republican if they come up with a candidate with some notion of actually being accountable to the people, instead of taking payola from the corporates, and the democrat candidate is like the Bushes and the Clintons "in the bag" for the corporates.
I know about Brigham Young. He's the guy who let Elijah Abel and his family hold the Priesthood, anyway. He's the guy who had about 20 freed blacks along on the very first wagon train into Salt Lake Valley. Those blacks were freed by their Mormon "owners" as a pre-condition of baptism into the LDS Church.
Colton will probably come in here and do some kind of official defense of Mormonism per the current LDS guidelines for discussion on the subject. All I can say to that is that the Mormons have been whipped every way from Sunday on every damn stupid thing any Mormon ever said, until the LDS Church hired some Madison Avenue advertising/public relations firm to do some serious work on the problem.
Joseph Smith ordained a black man an Elder, and he sheltered blacks in his home on their way to Canada, and on no account ever treated a black man or woman unkindly. In his Presidential run, he took the position that the Federal govt. should buy the slaves and give them their freedom and the same rights as other people, and give them some land, a State, they could call their own. Some other views maybe not so politically correct, like living separate and no interracial marriage with blacks, though "Lamanites" were OK to marry, and such. We never know how much of what someone says is just to go along with the current fashion of thought. People usually have one point they want to emphasize along the lines of changing things, and they usually place it in an unchanged context of stuff that's generally the current fashion for the time and place.
So back to my theory about how we humans are fundamentally limited, and nowhere near able to get everything right. Not right now, not all at once. And certainly not by putting every decision in the hands of some expert on the subject or in the hands of a government, where one stupid person will make us all stupid in the exactly the same way. . . .
I don't care how looney John B. Wells is, or how rolled up in himself. Those Aussies had collected real mainstream news footage and looked at it really close. Not everything they said proved credible, though. I spent some time going to the sources to see if they tinkered with any of their footage, and they didn't.
But about 80% of the things they pointed out looked factual to me. So don't go look at it if you don't want some serious cognitive dissonance, bro.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Can I be the kettle instead of the silly pot?
I place life at the very pinnacle of my values. We just disagree as to what constitutes life and when it begins.
I'm on record, I believe, stating my moral objection to abortion. I particularly abhor late-term abortions, past the point where fetuses can be viable if delivered.
I just also happen to believe that the state should not have the power, generally speaking, to intrude on a woman's most private, person, intimate decisions about their reproduction and their right to control of their own body. I put this are a very high place in my hierarchy of values as well. It's competing moral imperatives (which often occur in a non black and white world), and I'm trying to strike a balance.
I do support reasonable restrictions on abortions. For example, I oppose laws what allow minors to get abortions without informing parents, as I believe parents have the right to know about (if not approve) major medical procedures done on their children. I would also consider seriously restrictions on later term or partial birth abortions. My position is much more nuanced than you present it to be.
You have me confused with someone else. Nowhere have I commented on IVF. And you say I don't read your posts???
Ok, I can respect this position. As I've made it clear here, I don't criticize someone for valuing life. It's a noble position to take.
Ok, and now you're just going off the deep end into tin foil hat territory.
I hope the above helps you understand better what wagon I'm on.
@PlannedParenthood:
It really wasn't news to me that an abortion clinic packages up stuff to send to labs for a price. The prices are moderate, compared to the market for human parts worldwide, and PlannedParenthood is a small player compared to the Chinese suppliers. . . . .
When I worked in research labs and tissue-typing labs that processed transplant materials, I heard about the people dying while waiting for something, and felt sorry for them, too.
I think it would be a better world if more people chose to have their babies, but we would need to dump the UN governance crowd of fascists with their limited vision of the human destiny, and really get serious about technology and conservation. Maybe if we were willing to recycle our consumer goods and design living space differently. . . close to jobs, jobs in homes, gardens or solar panels on roofs and such. . . . we wouldn't be feeling the economic pinch quite so much and it would look OK to have some kids and some more people on planet Earth.
It really wasn't news to me that an abortion clinic packages up stuff to send to labs for a price. The prices are moderate, compared to the market for human parts worldwide, and PlannedParenthood is a small player compared to the Chinese suppliers. . . . .
When I worked in research labs and tissue-typing labs that processed transplant materials, I heard about the people dying while waiting for something, and felt sorry for them, too.
I think it would be a better world if more people chose to have their babies, but we would need to dump the UN governance crowd of fascists with their limited vision of the human destiny, and really get serious about technology and conservation. Maybe if we were willing to recycle our consumer goods and design living space differently. . . close to jobs, jobs in homes, gardens or solar panels on roofs and such. . . . we wouldn't be feeling the economic pinch quite so much and it would look OK to have some kids and some more people on planet Earth.
OK Jimmy, did I quote Moe at the start of what you're responding to, or not? The rant was for her, not you.
thanks, though, for the clarifications of your own ideas. No harm, no foul.
For what it's worth, I got my gig as a husband from a gal who rejected out of hand hundreds of guys who would have used birth control or who had their snip snip on those "conservative" values you target. Has some "other" racial ancestry some ways back like a lot of people do, native American and such. She is one who was politically active and influential in Utah, a Republican party devotee and party official here. I won the "race" with her because I said I would never do anything to limit the number of kids in our family. We will probably be doing some foster care or adoption as I see it becoming possible. I am a Lyndon LaRouche sort of Democrat, not that I don't have issues with a little band of ideological techno-socialists. The congressional black caucus mostly is in some way linked to the LaRouche vision. Rosa Parks was an enthusiastic supporter. My wife just gags when I talk about LaRouche, lol. I think the DNC has been hijacked by the corporates and the progressives. Interestingly, Russia's Putin keys off on some of LaRouche's points about the Brit/City of London political sphere, and I suspect LaRouche gets financial support from people like Putin and some Chinese politicians. The BRICS new economic coalition. . . . Brazil, Russia, India, China, Spain?. . . .is setting up to develop an alternative to the Anglo-American dominance.
If you talk to enough different people, pretty soon the stereotypes just start disintegrating. . . .
so, since you seem like someone who might find this interesting. . . .
https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
https://larouchepac.com/
Last edited:
Sorry, babe, you read wrong. And I'd like to know exactly how I've ATTACKED anything.
I've merely pointed out what seems to be an inconsistency. The fact that you can't see it does not mean I'm attacking anyone or any idea.
I place a great deal of value on children - - and I also value a woman's judgement to determine her capability of caring for those she gives birth to. I think what bothers me the most about your stance is that it seems to completely demonize a woman who finds herself in a pregnancy that she is unprepared for. You're showing a lack of respect for her ability to make the right decision for her (and possibly the children she's already given birth to). And in that regard you're not much different from another poster who just recently served a ban for words he wrote to that effect.
Personally, I'm all for choice - the choice of a woman to terminate a pregnancy and the choice of a woman and her partner to use in vitro fertilization as a means to initiate a pregnancy.
But I'll look for that wagon and hop on if you keep up with the mumbo jumbo - it might be a fun hayride!!!
https://www.horrorsociety.com/2007/10/10/i-believe-in-mary-worth/
but then again, it might be like standing in the bathroom at night with the lights out, looking into the mirror and chanting repeatedly "I believe in Mary Worth" while waiting for Mary's bloody hand to reach out and draw me in
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Excuse me? You're accusing me of not believing in God? You clearly don't know what you're talking about-- and more importantly, you're 100% incorrect.
D'aww. Keep spinning girlfriend. As has been mentioned, if you want to have children then adopting children is both cheaper and less murderous than IVF. But yehs ur rite I am a marksist so I am rong.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I vote pro-choice as well. However, you are completely correct: this 'distinction' between IVF and abortion is inconsistent from any unbiased perspective. It's seriously amusing seeing the arguments people make to reconcile the two, in order to be able to conceive their own biologically related child.