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

[chuckjames]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

[Emo EMAW]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other?  That's not how rights work. 

[chuckjames]

For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.

That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible.  Can you help me out?

I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.

[chuckjames]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other?  That's not how rights work.

They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb. 

[DQ12]

For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.

That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible.  Can you help me out?

I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.

Fair enough.  A fine example.

That said, I think we got off the line a tad.  My question is, why is abortion a tragedy?   I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.

You view abortion as a tragedy because...? 

[Emo EMAW]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other?  That's not how rights work.

They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.

Sorry you feel that way. 

Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before?  Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant. 

[michigancat]

Hey Dlew, how would you react if your sister (or someone similar) had an abortion?

[DQ12]

Hey Dlew, how would you react if your sister (or someone similar) had an abortion?

I have no clue.  Probably be pretty shocked.

[chuckjames]

For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.

That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible.  Can you help me out?

I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.

Fair enough.  A fine example.

That said, I think we got off the line a tad.  My question is, why is abortion a tragedy?   I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.

You view abortion as a tragedy because...?

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

[DQ12]

For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.

That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible.  Can you help me out?

I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.

Fair enough.  A fine example.

That said, I think we got off the line a tad.  My question is, why is abortion a tragedy?   I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.

You view abortion as a tragedy because...?

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

You don't think knowingly causing an innocent person to die is morally wrong?  FTR, I definitely fall on the "knowingly causing enough pollution to kill someone is morally wrong" side of the coin.

[michigancat]

A big reason it's a tragedy is because of the incredible mental and emotional hardship on the woman having the abortion. Even if they'd have no way of properly taking care of a baby, ending a pregnancy can't be an easy thing to do because of how the human brain is wired. Often they have to go through it alone, are in desperate situations, etc.

[Trim]

Babies, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

Those parents probably wouldn't choose to have an abortion.

[chuckjames]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other?  That's not how rights work.

They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.

Sorry you feel that way. 

Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before?  Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.

I don't think a lot of abortions are happening 30 seconds before the baby is born. I'm against late term abortions, except in cases of the mother's health, rape or incest). But a fetus being aborted 10 weeks into the pregnancy is not a viable life form yet so therefore does not have protections or rights a person would have.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative.  99% of abortion people would want less abortions.  Making them illegal only puts people at risk.  The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd.  It's about state control of the human body.  If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it.  The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.

Some well thought out arguments here.

Edna probably has the highest stupid/loud quotient in the Pit. Example:

I'd say "crazy" had a lot more to do with that guy shooting up the clinic than some video exposing the horror of what those clinics do. Such exposes should not be silenced simply because of how a crazy person might respond.

The videos fairly and accurately presented what these clinics actually do. The Planned Parenthood execs actually said what they said. They actually made those jokes and glibly discussed their butchery over lunch. They actually went through their "menu" and pricing of various prices (man, if you can get an intact head that's where the big money is!). The vultures actually coo'd "it's another boy!" while sifting through the remains. These things actually happened, and they were caught on tape.

You don't like to admit the evil of this enterprise, so you deflect to other issues - "The activists forged IDs!", "PP wasn't indicted!" So? They're still monsters.

This is a total lie.  The people at PP have never said that, because the stuff that the videos portray has never happened at a PP clinic, see the controversy over the still born fetus being used as a prop by these disgusting video makers to create a controversy. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights.  I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."

But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?

Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other?  That's not how rights work.

They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.

Sorry you feel that way. 

Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before?  Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.

I don't think a lot of abortions are happening 30 seconds before the baby is born. I'm against late term abortions, except in cases of the mother's health, rape or incest). But a fetus being aborted 10 weeks into the pregnancy is not a viable life form yet so therefore does not have protections or rights a person would have.

First, why should rape or incest be an exception for murdering a baby 30 seconds prior to birth?

Second, why does a 10 week old fetus have less right to live than a 30 week fetus? What does viability have to do with human rights?

[star seed 7]

What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)

Lib7, you're in the timeout corner for comparing abortion to knee surgery. Remember? Please don't double down on your stupidity today. Give it 24 hours.

[Asteriskhead]

What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)

Lib7, you're in the timeout corner for comparing abortion to knee surgery. Remember? Please don't double down on your stupidity today. Give it 24 hours.

you don't get to ban people from discussion for making absurd statements.

[chuckjames]

For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.

That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible.  Can you help me out?

I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.

Fair enough.  A fine example.

That said, I think we got off the line a tad.  My question is, why is abortion a tragedy?   I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.

You view abortion as a tragedy because...?

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

You don't think knowingly causing an innocent person to die is morally wrong?  FTR, I definitely fall on the "knowingly causing enough pollution to kill someone is morally wrong" side of the coin.

I mean then give up a lot of modern accessories cars, electricity, too many chemicals too count. And when I say cars I don't just mean C02, but ozone and other pollutants that cause asthma/heart attacks.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.

Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.

[chuckjames]

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.

Every time you get in car you are knowingly shortening the life of another human and probably yourself.

[chuckjames]

I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.

Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.

But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.

Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.

Every time you get in car you are knowingly shortening the life of another human and probably yourself.

Not really. If there were no automobiles, the average human lifespan would be shorter.

[Kat Kid]

Can't you just walk into PP and other clinics and pretty much get free contraceptives?

Defunding planned parenthood is a plank of the Republican Party platform.  Also, there is not nearly enough effort made given the low costs of the intervention, the cost savings and the moral benefits.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk