Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[Trim]

watched twice

I don't know what that ethical humanist lady's all about but she better recognize.

[Tobias]

i couldn't tell her @ from that list to dig deeper

[Trim]

She had her own related video:

[Trim]

Whoa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement

[Trim]

[Trim]

For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from.  It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

That could've been a lot shorter.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Bill Nye should stick to global warming hysteria - he sounds even dumber when talking about abortion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/25/bill-nye-anti-abortion-laws-are-based-on-ignorance/

"If you’re going to say when an egg is fertilized it therefore has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue?" he says. "Whom are you going to imprison? Every woman who’s had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn’t become a human? Have all these people failed you?"

Yes Bill, there's a raging debate about suing people who's embryos fail to implant/develop.

Side note to the klimate krazies - this guy's on your team.

[star seed 7]

ksuw is just whipping ass

[renocat]

Ksuw is right about bill guy the science nye.   Life begins when sperm and egg combine, and will end at some point.  Prolife advocate life ending naturally,  not at the hands of an abortionis or by choice of fulproof contraception.   I started this thread on the simple premise, is a government de facto controlled abortion service more important than allowing government to function and provide essential government services.  Democrats think the meet carvers at Planned Hamburger are more important.  This is not about ending abortion, but ending this abhorrent practice of harvesting organs from babies killed by sick people who brag about their Frankenstein lustily for money.

[slobber]

I will say that outrage over Big {insert industry here} making tons of money and then bragging about it would have been through the roof. Of course, in that instance, the right would have defended the practice, much like the left has defended this practice.


Gonna win 'em all!

[Trim]

Is there enough money to be made in slang'n organs that I should quit my gE job and open up a head shop so to speak?

[star seed 7]

Slobber, your pit posts are sometimes very similar to yard dog's

[slobber]

I don't really attack others' beliefs in the pit. Maybe that means I should leave this place for the pros?


Gonna win 'em all!

[Spracne]

It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.

Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? (Besides Bill Nye the crazy guy.) What are you suggesting the rationale would be?

As for your other points, I would have no issue with a law charging pregnant smokers or drug abusers with child abuse. Alcohol is trickier, since there is no evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is harmful.

[Spracne]

It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.

Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? What are you suggesting the rationale would be?

If a fetus has the requisite rights to make abortion a crime, then would a fetus not have a cause of action against a mother who intentionally, knowingly, negligently or recklessly engages in behavior that she knows might result in the termination of her pregnancy, and does actually result in a miscarriage? Of course, someone would have to bring the action in the place of the dead fetus. In criminal cases, most states have enacted fetal harm laws that ostensibly are intended to provide stiffer penalties to those that harm pregnant women. A closer look reveals that these laws are typically supported by prolife groups engaging in a proliferation of fetal rights campaign designed to tack on as many legal protections to the unborn as possible. However, a body of new case law has emerged where states have used these laws to attempt to prosecute women for crimes ranging from child abuse to depraved heart murder for drug use during pregnancy where the child was stillborn or died shortly after birth. Ironically, the best way to avoid prosecution is to get an abortion.

[Spracne]

What if I told you that alcohol and nicotine are at least, and probably more so harmful that drugs such as crack cocaine?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.

Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? What are you suggesting the rationale would be?

If a fetus has the requisite rights to make abortion a crime, then would a fetus not have a cause of action against a mother who intentionally, knowingly, negligently or recklessly engages in behavior that she knows might result in the termination of her pregnancy, and does actually result in a miscarriage? Of course, someone would have to bring the action in the place of the dead fetus. In criminal cases, most states have enacted fetal harm laws that ostensibly are intended to provide stiffer penalties to those that harm pregnant women. A closer look reveals that these laws are typically supported by prolife groups engaging in a proliferation of fetal rights campaign designed to tack on as many legal protections to the unborn as possible. However, a body of new case law has emerged where states have used these laws to attempt to prosecute women for crimes ranging from child abuse to depraved heart murder for drug use during pregnancy where the child was stillborn or died shortly after birth. Ironically, the best way to avoid prosecution is to get an abortion.

Oh sorry - I thought you were talking a case to be made (not that you necessarily agree) that any miscarriage was manslaughter. Manslaughter in most states requires recklessness, which is a higher threshold than negligence. And if a pregnant mom lost her baby drag racing, for example, it would be perfectly appropriate to charge her the same as if she was doing it with an infant.

[wetwillie]

When abortion was illegal was the crime commited by the abortion performer and the recepient?

[Spracne]

Miscarriages happen all the time, and there is no such thing as a routine pregnancy.  Every pregnant woman engages in potentially harmful activities, admittedly in broadly varying degrees.  So, prosecutors have broad discretion in enforcing these laws.  Would you be shocked to learn that these laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities who also happen to be poor?  Most of the cases I have read where a woman has been charged and convicted of these types of crimes have been reversed by a higher court.  However, many of these women end up pleading guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a longer prison sentence, probably because they can't afford competent legal representation.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Miscarriages happen all the time, and there is no such thing as a routine pregnancy.  Every pregnant woman engages in potentially harmful activities, admittedly in broadly varying degrees.  So, prosecutors have broad discretion in enforcing these laws.  Would you be shocked to learn that these laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities who also happen to be poor?  Most of the cases I have read where a woman has been charged and convicted of these types of crimes have been reversed by a higher court.  However, many of these women end up pleading guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a longer prison sentence, probably because they can't afford competent legal representation.

I would not be shocked, but that's a criminal justice reform issue - not an abortion issue. And of course the facts won't always be clear, which is why we have a justice system.

[chuckjames]

So basically KSUW you're saying the rights of the fetus override the rights of the Mom for the 9 months of pregnancy and the Mom's only goal during those 9 months should be to keep the baby healthy, even if she doesnt want the baby?

[chuckjames]

Also I watched most of the PP videos, including the one where the lady described the abortion, and playing with the fetus. but is there one that actually shows these actions that i am missing?

[Spracne]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn. 

[Asteriskhead]

Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution.  Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen.  They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.

"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)