planned parenthood

#153
#153
We should do away with middle-aged, male religious zealots who somehow think that they should stick their noses in the lives and reproductive decisions of women. The American Taliban. Leave women alone. Stay home and play card games and let women make their own life decisions.

Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the planet---always trotting out their morality when their own lives are a mess. Pastors in Alabama rushing to defend Roy Moore--laughable. Supporting Donald Trump. Trying to force women to have babies they shouldn't have and then whining about crime and federal spending for the disadvantaged. Fighting birth control--what year is this, 1817? I thought it was 2017. Denying science--but also concocting some lame theory to give creationism some fake scientific credibility because evolution has already put the lie to some of their beliefs...and on it goes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#154
#154
armchair said:
We should do away with middle-aged, male religious zealots who somehow think that they should stick their noses in the lives and reproductive decisions of women. The American Taliban. Leave women alone. Stay home and play card games and let women make their own life decisions.

Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the planet---always trotting out their morality when their own lives are a mess. Pastors in Alabama rushing to defend Roy Moore--laughable. Supporting Donald Trump. Trying to force women to have babies they shouldn't have and then whining about crime and federal spending for the disadvantaged. Fighting birth control--what year is this, 1817? I thought it was 2017. Denying science--but also concocting some lame theory to give creationism some fake scientific credibility because evolution has already put the lie to some of their beliefs...and on it goes.
Click to expand...

Abortion isn’t all bad. It keeps worthless people like yourself from being born.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#155
#155
PKT_VOL said:
Which would seemingly mean that you ought to rescue the tube full of zygotes/embryos and let the toddler die.



Zygotes are not controversial with respect to the labels of "life" or "human". They seem to be widely affirmed as both.

The contentious part is whether those zygotes constituent personhood; thus deserving rights.

The disconnect is when those who use conception as the delineation of personhood fail to recognize the personhood of testube zygotes, zygotes that are the product of rape, incest, etc. Many who profess conception as the start of personhood would also choose to save the toddler; especially if that toddler happened to be their own.
Click to expand...

This is the age-old rub: where to draw the line of when personhood begins. Conception seems to be the brightest line because the "right to choose" folks tend to fall back to the position of not being able to survive without a host (zygote/mother). But a child, up to the first decade of their life, can't survive on their own without a parent, so viability on its own isn't a sound test either.

If the argument was only about rape or incest that would be a great place to be because it is exceedingly rare. Those exceptional cases are focused on while the reason 99% of abortions occur (don't want to be pregnant) are conveniently downplayed or outright glossed over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#156
#156
PKT_VOL said:
Which would seemingly mean that you ought to rescue the tube full of zygotes/embryos and let the toddler die.



Zygotes are not controversial with respect to the labels of "life" or "human". They seem to be widely affirmed as both.

The contentious part is whether those zygotes constituent personhood; thus deserving rights.

The disconnect is when those who use conception as the delineation of personhood fail to recognize the personhood of testube zygotes, zygotes that are the product of rape, incest, etc. Many who profess conception as the start of personhood would also choose to save the toddler; especially if that toddler happened to be their own.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone is comfortable making a distinction between humanity and personhood/deserving of rights.

I think most of the pro life crowd would not make a distinction between any of them. I think they would all say the best course of action is for them to all be carried to term. the distinction comes from the other side as a way to justify taking/denying life from a being.

As I said in one of my posts the difference I see it is one of murder vs killing, so still not morally neutral argument. And a choice one hopefully doesn't make so they can continue to be self indulgent at the cost of another.
 
#157
#157
armchair said:
We should do away with middle-aged, male religious zealots who somehow think that they should stick their noses in the lives and reproductive decisions of women. The American Taliban. Leave women alone. Stay home and play card games and let women make their own life decisions.

Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the planet---always trotting out their morality when their own lives are a mess. Pastors in Alabama rushing to defend Roy Moore--laughable. Supporting Donald Trump. Trying to force women to have babies they shouldn't have and then whining about crime and federal spending for the disadvantaged. Fighting birth control--what year is this, 1817? I thought it was 2017. Denying science--but also concocting some lame theory to give creationism some fake scientific credibility because evolution has already put the lie to some of their beliefs...and on it goes.
Click to expand...

pretty sure in 99.99999999999999% of abortion choices there is a man involved in the process. kinda how the whole reproduction thing works.
 
#158
#158
distrovol said:
This is the age-old rub: where to draw the line of when personhood begins. Conception seems to be the brightest line because the "right to choose" folks tend to fall back to the position of not being able to survive without a host (zygote/mother). But a child, up to the first decade of their life, can't survive on their own without a parent, so viability on its own isn't a sound test either.

If the argument was only about rape or incest that would be a great place to be because it is exceedingly rare. Those exceptional cases are focused on while the reason 99% of abortions occur (don't want to be pregnant) are conveniently downplayed or outright glossed over.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of the hypothetical. The concepts of personhood beginning, and I would add, ending, are quite difficult and nuanced.

There are very few people who actually let the toddler die or feel as if the destruction of 1000 zygotes was actually a tragedy many folds greater than the Las Vegas carnage despite their passioned, emotional conception rhetoric. Likewise, there are very few vagina-wearing protesters who would actually abort their child or physically abort a child right before it slides out the birth canal.

Unfortunately, however, these groups tend to the be the loudest and end up mudding the water to any substantive discussion on a difficult, much neglected (in the sense of substance) issue in our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#159
#159
LouderVol said:
I don't see how anyone is comfortable making a distinction between humanity and personhood/deserving of rights.

I think most of the pro life crowd would not make a distinction between any of them. I think they would all say the best course of action is for them to all be carried to term. the distinction comes from the other side as a way to justify taking/denying life from a being.

As I said in one of my posts the difference I see it is one of murder vs killing, so still not morally neutral argument. And a choice one hopefully doesn't make so they can continue to be self indulgent at the cost of another.
Click to expand...

My figernails, hair, blood, and sperm are all human, yet not sufficient for personhood. Likewise, if I was to be brain-dead, my whole body laying in a bed would be insufficient for personhood.

As we progress into the 21st century, personhood is expanding beyond homo sapiens, at least in varying levels. On the lower end, with limited rights, animals; on the higher end, with rights approaching equal to functional humans, AI. In Japan, such is actually quite a concern. Young men over there are more interested in AI wives vs actually human spouses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#160
#160
PKT_VOL said:
My figernails, hair, blood, and sperm are all human, yet not sufficient for personhood. Likewise, if I was to be brain-dead, my whole body laying in a bed would be insufficient for personhood.

As we progress into the 21st century, personhood is expanding beyond homo sapiens, at least in varying levels. On the lower end, with limited rights, animals; on the higher end, with rights approaching equal to functional humans, AI. In Japan, such is actually quite a concern. Young men over there are more interested in AI wives vs actually human spouses.
Click to expand...

your fingernails, hair, blood and to an extent sperm are never going to BE you. they can and do die daily without effecting you as the entity. these zygotes aren't at that level, they are an entity to themself

and most of those rights we give out pretty much all boil down to "Don't be a dick to them and treat them ok" but when it comes to our own young? Screw em? In the UK there is cat serial killer they want to press charges of murder on, people who get abortions for killing off human life?
 
#161
#161
PKT_VOL said:
That's the whole point of the hypothetical. The concepts of personhood beginning, and I would add, ending, are quite difficult and nuanced.

There are very few people who actually let the toddler die or feel as if the destruction of 1000 zygotes was actually a tragedy many folds greater than the Las Vegas carnage despite their passioned, emotional conception rhetoric. Likewise, there are very few vagina-wearing protesters who would actually abort their child or physically abort a child right before it slides out the birth canal.

Unfortunately, however, these groups tend to the be the loudest and end up mudding the water to any substantive discussion on a difficult, much neglected (in the sense of substance) issue in our society.
Click to expand...

For me the issue is about motives. Getting ino the weeds about the instant a clump of cells is "life" obscures the reason the vast majority of abortions occur. Too often it is viewed through an economic lens and not through a personal responsibility lens. Two people made an informed choice to engage in sexual conduct knowing full well what could result.

Unless, of course, it was forced upon the woman via rape or incest, which she did not consent. I liken it to the difference between killing some one via murder or self defence. In both instances a life is taken, but the circumstances and motivations make all the difference in the world. It doesn't mean a person who kills in self defence has no regard for the sanctity of life.
 
#162
#162
distrovol said:
For me the issue is about motives. Getting ino the weeds about the instant a clump of cells is "life" obscures the reason the vast majority of abortions occur. Too often it is viewed through an economic lens and not through a personal responsibility lens. Two people made an informed choice to engage in sexual conduct knowing full well what could result.

Unless, of course, it was forced upon the woman via rape or incest, which she did not consent. I liken it to the difference between killing some one via murder or self defence. In both instances a life is taken, but the circumstances and motivations make all the difference in the world. It doesn't mean a person who kills in self defence has no regard for the sanctity of life.
Click to expand...

The child is still innocent in both cases, so the exception for rape can't apply if you want to play the sanctity of life card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#163
#163
Wafflestomper said:
The child is still innocent in both cases, so the exception for rape can't apply if you want to play the sanctity of life card.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the crux of the issue is whether or not the woman chose or agreed to engage in the activity that led to the pregnancy. Once conception occurs, it is an endless debate as to what constitutes "life". I do not think a woman should be forced to carry a child fathered by a criminal act against her will.

But, again, if that was the only reason abortions occured, that would be success in my book.
 
#164
#164
armchair said:
We should do away with middle-aged, male religious zealots who somehow think that they should stick their noses in the lives and reproductive decisions of women. The American Taliban. Leave women alone. Stay home and play card games and let women make their own life decisions.

Christians are the biggest hypocrites on the planet---always trotting out their morality when their own lives are a mess. Pastors in Alabama rushing to defend Roy Moore--laughable. Supporting Donald Trump. Trying to force women to have babies they shouldn't have and then whining about crime and federal spending for the disadvantaged. Fighting birth control--what year is this, 1817? I thought it was 2017. Denying science--but also concocting some lame theory to give creationism some fake scientific credibility because evolution has already put the lie to some of their beliefs...and on it goes.
Click to expand...

praying for you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#167
#167
1972 Grad said:
Use an assault rifle if you do. It will piss them off more.
Click to expand...

I plan to. A bump stock AR with a beta drum loaded with API. Chainsaw bayonet in case he or she gets sporty.

The kid is inside the room listening to readings from the top 87 most famous lesbian poets. The gender of the room is fluid. They are burning incense that smells like social justice. It’s about to smell like hot iron and burnt powder. Rock and roll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#171
#171
Carl Pickens said:
Here are some interesting numbers for you :

During fiscal year 2012-2013, Planned Parenthood reported receiving $540.6 million in taxpayer funding, or nearly $1.5 million per day.
Planned Parenthood reported $58.2 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.3 billion in net assets.
In 2012, Planned Parenthood performed 327,166 abortions , a 2% drop from 2011. In 2002, Planned Parenthood performed 227,385 abortions, meaning they perform 100,000 more abortions than they did 10 years ago.
Over the past three reported years (2010-2012), Planned Parenthood has performed nearly one million abortions (990,575).
In 2012,abortions made up 93.8% of PlannedParenthoods pregnancy services, while prenatal care and adoption referrals accounted for only 5.6% (19,506) and 0.6% (2,197), respectively. For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 149 abortions.
Click to expand...

What else does Planned Parenthood do as part of its’ charter?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top