[monster]

(07-28-2015 08:14 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:21 AM)monster Wrote:  

You obviously have an answer in mind, so you tell me.

Yeah I'm just trying to corner you into accepting and stating the obvious: the DNA of the tissue is unique, it is not the DNA of the mother, so the tissue belongs to a new person. You can use all the distancing language in the world, but you are still advocating killing, chopping up and selling, another human being.

That doesn't make sense. Just because it has unique DNA doesn't mean it's a person. By that logic any tissue of your own person is "you" because it has your DNA - your fingernail clipping is "you" because it has your DNA - but your fingernail is not a person that needs to be saved, it's tissue. And to take it a step further now that we can print DNA, if you print your own DNA and then destroy it, by your logic you would be considered a murderer.

[kaotic]

I murder myself all over my main lady every time I see her.

[Troll King]

(07-29-2015 02:39 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 06:50 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I agree with monster. I don't understand the outrage. At least the dead fetus is going towards something other than the trash can.

I'm all about hating on trashy feminist programs, but give outrage where it is due. They shouldn't sell the tissues.

Make no mistake about it, i'm pro-life after having gone through such an experience with a past ex. Note to everyone here, if a woman gets pregnant while taking a pill it's because she wanted it to happen. No woman forgets to take birth control.

I second this. It goes on to show that RVF is not immune to moral panic, regardless of how alpha and/or red pill we claim to be. "Planned Parenthood sells body parts of dead babies for profit" is an emotionally-loaded title that somehow implies that they are killing an already-born baby solely for the purpose of chopping it up and selling its parts, when in actuality they are taking the tissues from an aborted fetus that wasn't ever going to be born anyway.

I do find the debate about what constitues a new life (does it begin in the womb? after the baby's comes out the mother's vag?) interesting, though, so that may explain the emotion-based arguments some forum members are making in this thread.

If you look at it from a biomedical ethics perspective, I studied a lot of and majored in Philosophy in college, then it isn't so much about life but instead about when we as a society determine it to be a morally valuable life.

Feminists and Pro-Choicers can call it a tumor or clump of cells or we can debate whether or not life begins at conception or when it has the capability to be independent or whatever.

But really it is about when we, as a society/state or even a couple, determine that it is a living human that is morally valuable.

Which, no matter where you come down on the issue - I have always been pro-choice but have changed my mind on a lot of things as I have gotten older and really dug into the issues and currently don't know where I stand on this particular issue - is kind of disturbing. Especially how the debate is often framed. I have to admit that I am really bothered by the idea of a court or legal system or state or hell, even an ethics board determining what is and isn't morally valuable as a human life.

When you look at some of the harder medical ethics questions, like the cases where people are basically vegetables and one family member wants to pull the plug and the other wants the hope that one day a cure will come to help the patient, simply having a precedent for determining what life is and isn't morally valuable is a bit of a distressing thought. At least to my mind.

Now, to this thread in general. If the tissue is going to be there anyways and it either goes into the dumpster in a medical waste bag or is used for research. Then I am going to go with research every time. Even though Abortion bugs me in certain ways, and the video was a bit hard to watch due to the non-chalant attitude of the lady, I do support using it in medical research.

Now, the question becomes is she selling it? If she is that is illegal, but honestly I am not sure it should be.

The greater problem for me, isn't that she is selling it or that it is being used in research, but is in the ethics of them changing the procedure to better acquire the parts they want to harvest.

As far as medical ethics goes, this is not only a violation but a pretty big and damning one. A doctor or care provider is obligated to put the patients life and interests first in all circumstances. Changing the abortion procedure to get more tissue is changing the procedure in a way that doesn't put the patients interests first.

In fact, that is incredibly damning as far as evidence goes because that is the reason selling body parts is illegal to begin with. It creates a financial incentive for doctors to not put their patients interests first.

If it is illegal to sell body parts and tissue, and you need to have part of a kidney or organ removed, let's say 10% of it removed, then there is no perverse incentive for a doctor to remove more than 10%.

However, if there is a profit to be made by selling the "medical waste" due to it being legal to sell, or potentially in this case donate the fetal tissue, then you have a perverse incentive to remove more than 10% of the organ, or again in the OP case to alter the medical procedure in a way against the patients best interest.

Which is really fucked up.

[Samseau]

(07-29-2015 04:52 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Actually there's nothing emotional about this, currently if a man murders a pregnant woman the man is charged with double murder. But if a woman murders her own fetus, it's an abortion.

It's a person when the woman needs it to be and it's a clump of cells when suckers need to be fooled.

(07-29-2015 03:42 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

If she wants it, it's a human being. If she doesn't, it's a parasitic clump of cells.

That is crazy female "logic" that's been codified into law.

It's murder if it's a person, yes. But if it hasn't been born, it still is a fetus and not yet a baby. So it's technically not murder.

Yes, it's a moral grey area and up for debate, I'll recognize that.

From a player's perspective, abortion gives you the opportunity to avoid paying a fortune in child support payments and prevent baby mama drama going forward. Sure, you should have worn a condom or at least pulled out, but you still have a chance to undo your mistake.

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

[TigerMandingo]

(07-29-2015 07:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

You've gotta be kidding with some of this stuff, Sam. Come on.

Ain't nuthin' wrong with abortion.

[Kingsley Davis]

[Phoenix]

(07-29-2015 05:00 PM)monster Wrote:  

That doesn't make sense. Just because it has unique DNA doesn't mean it's a person. By that logic any tissue of your own person is "you" because it has your DNA - your fingernail clipping is "you" because it has your DNA - but your fingernail is not a person that needs to be saved, it's tissue. And to take it a step further now that we can print DNA, if you print your own DNA and then destroy it, by your logic you would be considered a murderer.

Yes it does make sense. And if you clip my fingernail, it doesn't affect the length of my life. If I'm 4 weeks old and you clip my head, that affects it quite a bit.
1. Physically distinct body
2. All of which has the same DNA
3. The DNA is unique
4. The cells of the distinct body are engaged in cellular respiration.
Equals living person.
The size and location of a person doesn't affect its rights.

(07-29-2015 08:08 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

You've gotta be kidding with some of this stuff, Sam. Come on.

Ain't nuthin' wrong with abortion.

Only by dismissive declaration, not by moral objectivity.
And such a condescending, non-response is highly arrogant to Sam. So Sam is wrong, without substantive reasons, just because you say "you've got to be kidding, come one" to his beliefs?


It's OK for people to say "I'm killing someone to make my life easier", because that's at least honest and admits guilt. In fact killing babies after they were born was also common, back in the day, when women couldn't support them etc. It's another thing to use distancing language to pretend to oneself that you're not doing anything wrong.

[Hotwheels]

(07-28-2015 05:09 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

They just released another video today.

Good tactics on the part of the group that recorded them. Doling them out over a period of time so they stay in the news. If they just released one this would already be out of the news cycle.

The best thing is they are letting the videos destroy the PP broads response from the other day.

Much better to let their own words kill them versus sitting there and debating them, The most recent vid cannot be argued.

[lido]

There is no female of any species, no alive being, no animal,

no living creature in the nature, in the known Universe (on this Earth)

that is capable of killing ("aborting") their babies.

Only human females are capable of these murders,
at a rate of thousands per day

[joseywales]

Fourth video is out:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/30/8-sh...ood-video/

She says "It's a baby!" and later "Another boy"

http://twitchy.com/2015/07/30/its-anothe...rse-video/

[kaotic]

(07-30-2015 07:15 AM)lido Wrote:  

There is no female of any species, no alive being, no animal,

no living creature in the nature, in the known Universe (on this Earth)

that is capable of killing ("aborting") their babies.

Only human females are capable of these murders,
at a rate of thousands per day

This may be true, but it doesn't prevent these babies being killed by their mothers post birth, by the father, or by males of another tribe.

[Killer Joe]

(07-29-2015 07:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

Here we go with the emotional arguments again - it's not murder, and it's not a child. It's a child after it's born - before that it's still a fetus, so it doesn't legally count as a person. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought, and as far as the law dictates abortion is legal. Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

The insane child support system will most probably not be fixed in the near future, and and abortion won't be banned either, so in the short run, if you're faced with an unwanted pregnancy, it's best to think pragmatically and take the abortion route. Again, it's better to think ahead and use birth control measures, but if it comes to this, you still have that option.

Anyway, it's better for the fetus to be aborted rather than to be born to someone that will not care for it, or that it ends up in an orphanage subject to neglect and abuse, ending up messed up for life. If you care so much - take in this into account.

If in the future you actually want to raise a child - and the responsibilites that come with it - you can just make another one.

[Dr. Howard]

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 07:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

Here we go with the emotional arguments again - it's not murder, and it's not a child. It's a child after it's born - before that it's still a fetus, so it doesn't legally count as a person. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought, and as far as the law dictates abortion is legal. Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

The insane child support system will most probably not be fixed in the near future, and and abortion won't be banned either, so in the short run, if you're faced with an unwanted pregnancy, it's best to think pragmatically and take the abortion route. Again, it's better to think ahead and use birth control measures, but if it comes to this, you still have that option.

Anyway, it's better for the fetus to be aborted rather than to be born to someone that will not care for it, or that it ends up in an orphanage subject to neglect and abuse, ending up messed up for life. If you care so much - take in this into account.

If in the future you actually want to raise a child - and the responsibilites that come with it - you can just make another one.

Let me share with you how I went form "abortion is fine" to "abortion is killing a baby"

My daughter was born early, I mean really early, like she crossed the "2nd trimester" line by a week and a half when she still could have been legally aborted and when she popped out. When that kid came out, she was a legitimate all body parts, hair an eyes crying human being. I thought about how it would have been legal to kill her just a few days earlier.

I think thats why states that make the prospective mother see the ultrasound before abortion get so much heat. When it has a discernible body it becomes more clearly human.

I don't think abortion should be illegal yet, as I don't know if there is a clear line when a bunch of cells becomes a human, but I do certainly think its morally wrong and should be treated as a somber occasion, like deciding to turn off life support on a family member (also not illegal but kind of like aborting grandma) vs. the casual way its talked about nowadays...

[joseywales]

(07-30-2015 01:14 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

I don't think abortion should be illegal yet, as I don't know if there is a clear line when a bunch of cells becomes a human...

A baby's heart starts beating 18 days from conception. That "clump of cells" after conception is working very quickly to form into a human being.

[Phoenix]

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

I don't think most people on this forum have much deference to the law. Statutes are not natural law, they are the will of the state, and the state is increasingly malicious. It has been a long time since we could equate 'lawful' to 'right'. If you think abortion is right, perhaps you should provide less trivial justification than 'the state I live under says so'.

[Dr. Howard]

(07-30-2015 02:04 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

I don't think most people on this forum have much deference to the law. Statutes are not natural law, they are the will of the state, and the state is increasingly malicious. It has been a long time since we could equate 'lawful' to 'right'. If you think abortion is right, perhaps you should provide less trivial justification than 'the state I live under says so'.

Thats a good way to articulate it. There are many things that I have an opinion on, which the law is on the opposite side of.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

Oh please.

If we are strictly speaking in legal terms, sending drones to act as fake cellphone towers is not a violation of privacy, launching missiles into other countries is not war, alimony/child support with imputed income and no upper limits is not slavery, and giving free housing and jobs to ISIS fighters is not treason.

And keep in mind that I'm just citing events from the last year or two off the top of my head here, not actually detailing the list of egregious offenses all committed in the name of the law all around the world in all of history.

"Law" by itself is a meaningless concept without inherent justification or power. Laws are tools made to serve people, not for people to serve them.

[Captainstabbin]

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 07:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

Here we go with the emotional arguments again - it's not murder, and it's not a child. It's a child after it's born - before that it's still a fetus, so it doesn't legally count as a person.

So, in your mind, we're one court ruling away from it being murder? That means the court is the sole arbiter of morality.

[Wadsworth]

I once supported early and mid-term abortion. Now I'm starting to wonder.

[DannyAlberta]

More calls today for the Justice Department to investigate PP over this.

Call me a cynic, but given that the Justice Department falls heavily under the rubric of the Barry Obama administration, and also given that Planned Parenthood seems to be a patron saint of the US leftist-statists, I heavily suspect the only people who are about to find themselves under investigation are the people at the Center For Medical Progress. They will probably be quietly audited by the IRS while they are at it as well.

[Killer Joe]

(07-30-2015 03:31 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

It's not killing anyone - if we are strictly speaking in legal terms.

Oh please.

If we are strictly speaking in legal terms, sending drones to act as fake cellphone towers is not a violation of privacy, launching missiles into other countries is not war, alimony/child support with imputed income and no upper limits is not slavery, and giving free housing and jobs to ISIS fighters is not treason.

And keep in mind that I'm just citing events from the last year or two off the top of my head here, not actually detailing the list of egregious offenses all committed in the name of the law all around the world in all of history.

"Law" by itself is a meaningless concept without inherent justification or power. Laws are tools made to serve people, not for people to serve them.

The difference here is that the examples you cited are offenses perpetrated by living persons to other living persons - not to a potential person that for all intents and purposes has not been born yet, and therefore its life has not yet started.

(07-30-2015 04:41 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:35 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 07:21 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Right, murdering your own child will "undo" a mistake. The problem isn't the child - the problem is the insane child support system. That needs to be fixed, and abortion needs to be banned (save severe circumstances).

Here we go with the emotional arguments again - it's not murder, and it's not a child. It's a child after it's born - before that it's still a fetus, so it doesn't legally count as a person.

So, in your mind, we're one court ruling away from it being murder? That means the court is the sole arbiter of morality.

Murder is a legal term, so yes, it would be up to the courts to decide. It's being misused in this context as a loaded term against abortion. Medically speaking, abortion is the removing of the fetus or embryo in order to end a pregnancy. Whether abortion counts as killing is a different matter. Whether it's right or wrong depends on your own moral criteria.

[TigerMandingo]

Life begins when you're born. That's why we have birth certificates and not conception certificates.

Not born, not human.

[joseywales]

(07-30-2015 06:12 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Life begins when you're born. That's why we have birth certificates and not conception certificates.

Not born, not human.

So if you run over a pregnant woman in your car and kill her and her 40 week old baby, you'll only be charged with one count of homicide?

From Webster:

Quote:

life
līf/
noun
noun: life; noun: one's life; plural noun: one's lifes

1.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
"the origins of life"
synonyms:existence, being, living, animation; More
sentience, creation, viability
"the joy of giving life to a child"
dedicate oneself, devote oneself, give oneself, surrender oneself
"he gave his life to the company"
antonyms:death, nonexistence

The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. A single-celled human organism has 1. organic matter, 2. the capacity for growth, 3. reproduction, 4. functional activity, and 5. continual change preceeding death.

We don't have birth certificates, btw. My daughter, now 11 weeks old, was issued a Certificate of Live Birth i.e. she was alive at the time of birth and not stillborn.

[TigerMandingo]

(07-30-2015 06:48 PM)joseywales Wrote:  

The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. A single-celled human organism has 1. organic matter, 2. the capacity for growth, 3. reproduction, 4. functional activity, and 5. continual change preceeding death.

We don't have birth certificates, btw. My daughter, now 11 weeks old, was issued a Certificate of Live Birth i.e. she was alive at the time of birth and not stillborn.

I don't care about the science, man. Sorry. That fetus could be reading Dostoyevsky and I still wouldn't call it human. I am, however, extremely thankful that we live in an age where an unwanted pregnancy can be easily averted.

Congratulations on the baby, though! I mean it

[Dr. Howard]

(07-30-2015 06:58 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 06:48 PM)joseywales Wrote:  

The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. A single-celled human organism has 1. organic matter, 2. the capacity for growth, 3. reproduction, 4. functional activity, and 5. continual change preceeding death.

We don't have birth certificates, btw. My daughter, now 11 weeks old, was issued a Certificate of Live Birth i.e. she was alive at the time of birth and not stillborn.

I don't care about the science, man. Sorry. That fetus could be reading Dostoyevsky and I still wouldn't call it human. I am, however, extremely thankful that we live in an age where an unwanted pregnancy can be easily averted.

Congratulations on the baby, though! I mean it

That is an excellent distinction to make. If we used distinct classifications and a fetus is not a human by definition then the question posed becomes:

- What is the moral treatment of a fetus? (akin to, pets that when treated immorally is called 'animal cruelty)

and

- If there are a set of moral treatments for a fetus, should there be any laws to punish the contravention of those morals. For example, here in TN a woman that abuses drugs while pregnant can be charged with child abuse once the child is born. Also if a fetus isn't a human, should there be a fetal bill of rights?

Again, I think that's a great question. If a fetus isn't a human, then what is it?