Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[sakinago]

So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.

You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.

Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This thread has been proven by forensic scientists to be a lie.

Like you would recognize forensic science if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.

Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

 

[sakinago]

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

China does this all the time...

 

[Vigilante]

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot! Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)

Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!

 

[MaryL]

Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get

Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions

An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.

The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.

In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.



While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”

Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.

Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”

The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.

BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite

I have know innocent people that died under atrocious conditions. It's god's will. Those people donated organs that helped the rest of us. Maybe abortion is just another part of God's plan. To help others. Because the horrible death of any innocent is preordained by god, so that they may help those that survive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?

 

[sakinago]

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?

Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood." Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).

So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot! Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)

Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!

Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for your credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't. You don 't strike me as being that bright or tightly wrapped.

 

[Vigilante]

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot! Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)

Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!

Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for you credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't

When address a piece of pond scum on these forums, I post in SUBVERSIVE, a language which ALL of you dirt bags understand! Trying to talk rationally to you fuckers goes nowhere... That is also why I use PICTURES, as you 2 digit IQ'd knuckledraggers tend to understand them better than words!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?

Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood." Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).

So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?

Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.

 

[sakinago]

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot! Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)

Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!

Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for you credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't

I'm calm and rational, your the one using words like horsesh*t. I've been presenting without deflecting. You have been deflecting by turning the issue into comparing a slave and a fetus.
And even though you skirt the issue, you still admit that a fetus does not have protection unless it's wanted, just by using more words. I'm just trying to clarify your position.

 

[sealybobo]

I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs

You should be denied the cures these little bastards provided us. Nothing that was found threw stem cell

 

[Vigilante]

I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs

You should be denied the cures these little bastards provided us. Nothing that was found threw stem cell

Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.

150 human-animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years -- Sott.net

 

[sakinago]

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?

Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood." Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).

So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?

Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.

You can't admit to your own views. Or define terms in your own views. What constitutes personhood? And do you not believe that a fetus only has protection if it is wanted?

It's ok to terminate a case like schiavo, but not ok if the doctor gives her a really good prognosis.
Am I correct in this?

The only choice you recognize is the choice to terminate, not the choice to participate in reproduction in the first place.

 

[sealybobo]

The life gro

Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without conflict of my other values?

So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?

Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?

I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.

It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort. However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.

So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.

You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.

Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to a person.

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

The life growing inside a woman has no rights. If a woman catches it in the first month or two she can terminate the pregnancy for any reason she wants. If it's retarded she can put it out of its and her misery should she choose even deep into the pregnancy.

Every abortion is the right decision. If she went through with it it was the right decision for her at the time.

 

[sealybobo]

How many horrible people have kids? And they raise horrible people. If you have a gm Chrysler Ford strong middle class where people can afford kids they have them. When you have Walmart America now being the largest American employer, you get more abortions.

And if you want less abortions make free iud's part of the aca.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?

You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?

It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

"I don't know shit about science, but I announce my ignorance as fact! End of story!"

Oh, would that it really WAS the end of your story. I haven't much patience with slapstick comedy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking. A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story

The sun revolves around the earth end of story!

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story. Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?

Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood." Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).

So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?

Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.

"Horseshit. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with me insisting that you accept our made-up 'feelz' as the debate parameters."

If you can find a medical textbook ANYWHERE that supports your "potential to become a human being", "personhood" schtick, perhaps we'll consider it relevant. Until then, I suspect we all have too many brain cells to conduct the debate on the level you want it on.

It never ceases to amaze me that leftists can prattle on about their worship of science while simultaneously knowing nothing about it, and holding opinions directly opposed to it.