What's new
By:

Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Organs

Howard said:
https://www.mediaite.com/online/pla...amera-boasting-about-harvesting-fetal-organs/

Your tax dollars are supporting this. Are you ok with that?
Click to expand...

I absolutely do not support this but if you read the statute, I'm sure the reason Planned Parenthood is getting away with this is because the transactions are not being done with out of state entities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2

That being said, I still support Planned Parenthood and their services. I remember has a young kid going there with my girlfriend to get birth control for her. She didn't have insurance.

I also would never want the rest of the US to end up like Mississippi:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23771/abortion-ministry-of-dr-willie-parker-0914/
 
Is there a rating system for the quality of each organ? If so, can we start building super babies with the higher end spare parts? If so, count me in.
 
fishonjazz said:
Are the organs taken from babies that were already dead anyways? Are the organs going to good use? If so then I say keep up the good work.

(I didn't read the article obviously)
Click to expand...

No not cool. They're not theirs to sell. Donation with parents' consent would be fine, but not this.
 
Planned Parenthood thinks it's wrong (torturous actually) to show the mother an ultrasound before abortion, but they need one during the abortion so they can salvage as many organs as they can without the mother knowing. Seems legit. Morally sound.






This absolutely disgusts me.
 
With all that planned parenthood is involved in and pushes I am not OK with them at all.

Great in theory bad in execution. Many because of the people involved in the program.
 
Siro said:
No not cool. They're not theirs to sell. Donation with parents' consent would be fine, but not this.
Click to expand...
Are there any victims from this?

I mean who is this hurting? The babies were getting aborted/dying anyway right? I get the theory that the parents should know about it and need to give consent but again who is getting hurt here? Who is the victim?
 
I'd rather my tax dollars support children who are outside the womb.

Oh my bad, that's like socialism. Can't have that.
 
Howard said:
Planned Parenthood thinks it's wrong (torturous actually) to show the mother an ultrasound before abortion, but they need one during the abortion so they can salvage as many organs as they can without the mother knowing. Seems legit. Morally sound.






This absolutely disgusts me.
Click to expand...

Seems fine to me. But I am sure your moral values trump mine.
 
TroutBum said:
I love it when Hantler's flexes his Christian might.
Click to expand...

boom.png
 
fishonjazz said:
Are there any victims from this?

I mean who is this hurting? The babies were getting aborted/dying anyway right? I get the theory that the parents should know about it and need to give consent but again who is getting hurt here? Who is the victim?
Click to expand...

It is not so simple. Moral abstracts like the dignity of life and body must extend farther than simple "who's getting hurt" calculation for them to have any coherence. Sex is the easiest example one can come up with. what's wrong with necrophilia? Or having non-penetrative sex with an infant who won't remember? Or drugging someone and having sex with them? But other non-sexual scenarios can be constructed as well. What's the problem of a policeman robbing the corpse of a murder victim? But then if consent is only a requirement if someone is getting harmed, then why not when the someone's harm is less than someone else's gain? By attaching a non-sequitur requirement, such as level of harm, to the axiom of "need for consent", you can erode it until it is utterly meaningless as moral principle.
 
Siro said:
It is not so simple. Moral abstracts like the dignity of life and body must extend farther than simple "who's getting hurt" calculation for them to have any coherence. Sex is the easiest example one can come up with. what's wrong with necrophilia? Or having non-penetrative sex with an infant who won't remember? Or drugging someone and having sex with them? But other non-sexual scenarios can be constructed as well. What's the problem of a policeman robbing the corpse of a murder victim? But then if consent is only a requirement if someone is getting harmed, then why not when the someone's harm is less than someone else's gain? By attaching a non-sequitur requirement, such as level of harm, to the axiom of "need for consent", you can erode it until it is utterly meaningless as moral principle.
Click to expand...
Good post. And good examples too
 
All of those situations you can point to someone getting hurt ^ but I guess its the argument not the examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top