Isn't it about time to get rid of Planned Parenthood?

[jbball92]

Good question. It comes with an easy answer. The parents didn't CHOOSE to have an abortion, they were violated.

Wearing condoms isn't murder, taking birth control isn't murder, having a natural or planned abortion isn't murder, stabbing a woman in the stomach is attempted murder.



It isn't considered killing when the human identity is removed.

It isn't murder to kill a cow, cow isn't human.

It isn't murder to kill a tree, a tree isn't human.

It isn't murder to kill semen or egg, they aren't human.

It isn't murder to kill semen + egg that are attempting to become human, it isn't human yet.

This is called subjective morality, it's something which our logical evolved brains can ascertain relatively easily without distraction from religion and ill-conceived notions of superiority with regards the ever elusive "objective morality".

We can argue for or against anything, but only when we suspend our personal bias and supernatural laden beliefs, can we then ground our opinions in reality.

spoken like a true liberal

[Irezumi]

I support anything that decreases the surplus population. .. like the previous poster said, less bottom feeders to pay for.

[Sick96stang]

How can you have a moral dilemma with stopping an unwanted birth....

...but it's okay to divorce in the middle of that kid's life and take away the kid's house, friends, half of his family, drop the kid in the middle of a new environment and butt**** your way to a new relationship doomed to fail because you're a piece of ****?

The point is, sometimes it's better to abort someone's life than to ruin it later. It's less cruel.

Ironic this guys title says "humanist" but yet has no problem with killing babies. That's very humanist of you.

Also what you described isn't destroying the child's life. Plenty of kids have had to go through what you described and have turned out just fine. What is destroying a child's life is killing them before they even have a chance.

[NeoSeminole]

I am not the one drawing the lines for abortion, very intelligent scientists are figuring that out.

this is more of an ethical discussion than a scientific one. If we are still figuring out when a fetus becomes a human being, by your own admission, then do you believe the government should be funding abortion (i.e. destroying life) or err on the side of caution (i.e. preserving life) until more knowledge becomes available?

let's use the example of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Imagine country A and country B are enemies but are not actively at war. No one is attacking the other. Country A believes country B has WMDs and intends to use them; however, country A has no definite proof of any of this. Do you think country A is justified in bombing country B which would result in a massive loss of innocent lives? Or do you think country A should wait until more knowledge becomes available?

I agree, and I also extend that to the woman's choice which I consider to be equally as valid and important as medical justification.

I don't have a strong opinion on abortion, I believe women should have the right to choose, but I wouldn't be in an uproar if they didn't either. I guess since I'm not a woman it isn't as important to me? But a lot of women want to be able to have abortions, and I think their voices count.

so you think a woman's choice to abort should overrule a baby's right to live? Even when the woman's "right" to choose is predicated upon the right to live? You can't have rights if you don't exist. And yet, you are in favor of the mother exercising her right to live by choosing to extinguish a life?

Oh, the sad irony

[Trev113]

this is more of an ethical discussion than a scientific one. If we are still figuring out when a fetus becomes a human being, by your own admission, then do you believe the government should be funding abortion (i.e. destroying life) or err on the side of caution (i.e. preserving life) until more knowledge becomes available?

let's use the example of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Imagine country A and country B are enemies but are not actively at war. No one is attacking the other. Country A believes country B has WMDs and intends to use them; however, country A has no definite proof of any of this. Do you think country A is justified in bombing country B which would result in a massive loss of innocent lives? Or do you think country A should wait until more knowledge becomes available?

Planned parenthood cannot legally accept funding from the government for abortions

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

The government is definitely causing controversy, but Obama supports upholding Roe vs Wade

Barack Obama

* At a Democratic Candidates "Compassion Forum" held in April 2008, Barack Obama was asked, "Do you personally believe that life begins at conception, and if not, when does it begin?" Obama replied in part:

This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.[83]

* Four months later in an interview, Obama was asked, "At what point does a baby get human rights?" He responded in part:

I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.[84]

so you think a woman's choice to abort should overrule a baby's right to live? Even when the woman's "right" to choose is predicated upon the right to live? You can't have rights if you don't exist. And yet, you are in favor of the mother exercising her right to live by choosing to extinguish a life?

Oh, the horrible irony

Because I don't believe that it is a human life inside of her yet.

I personally would not be devastated by losing a baby that hasn't been born yet. It's like jerking off and crying about your spilled semen. I just don't shed a tear. However, if a woman is like 9 months pregnant that's different since it's already begun forming a bond with the woman at that point. And also it's very different from the female perspective when carrying that unborn baby is important to her. But it's her choice up until the point that the baby could sustain itself without her.

I understand people will think I'm ****ed up for that, but I'm just being honest.

I also understand that other people are devastated by it. But life is ****ing gruesome, reality is harsh, unborn fetuses spontaneously abort in nature all of the time. It's just reality, and I'm not afraid of it or grossed out by it. It's natural.

[RIKTER]

How can you have a moral dilemma with stopping an unwanted birth....

...but it's okay to divorce in the middle of that kid's life and take away the kid's house, friends, half of his family, drop the kid in the middle of a new environment and butt**** your way to a new relationship doomed to fail because you're a piece of ****?

The point is, sometimes it's better to abort someone's life than to ruin it later. It's less cruel.

WTF?? Is this kid full potato??

"The point is, sometimes it's better to abort someone's life than to ruin it later. It's less cruel"

BRB getting an abortion because in 12 years we might get divorced and have to send little johnny to a different school and he might have to make new friends...so fu(k) it, cut that little bastard out right now!11!

Mind full of fu(k)

[Trev113]

WTF?? Is this kid full potato??

"The point is, sometimes it's better to abort someone's life than to ruin it later. It's less cruel"

BRB getting an abortion because in 12 years we might get divorced and have to send little johnny to a different school and he might have to make new friends...so fu(k) it, cut that little bastard out right now!11!

Mind full of fu(k)

There is a lot of suffering caused by divorce.

Should divorce be illegal?

How do you measure right and wrong? How do you weigh the suffering caused by divorce against the suffering caused by abortion?

What about the suffering caused by cigarettes?

As it stands, abortion is legal, Roe vs Wade, the mother has rights over the unborn fetus until the fetus is able to sustain itself.

The alternative would be to force the unborn fetus to have rights over the mother, and to what extent? As well as implications with regards to whether abortion is permissible under which (if any) circumstances? Who determines which circumstance is more valid than the next?

[ONtop888]

I think about this every time someone brings up that dumbass lion cecil. A guy goes to zimbabwe and kills a lion, and there's all this outrage. But a company talks about how to get the knife into the baby's neck before it starts screaming so they can sell it for parts and no one cares.

B-b-buuut CECIL the lion was murdered!!!!?&$@ #lionlivesmatter #fetalorgansareNOThuman!!!

[ONtop888]

Ironic this guys title says "humanist" but yet has no problem with killing babies. That's very humanist of you.

Also what you described isn't destroying the child's life. Plenty of kids have had to go through what you described and have turned out just fine. What is destroying a child's life is killing them before they even have a chance.

Get with the times brah. If the mother doesn't want the child then it can become a giraffe, you just erase it's identity and will it to be some other than what it is, same thing goes with lions.

[HubertL]

Abortion should be legal, but taxpayer money should not fund half a billion to Planned Parenthood every year, especially forcing ppl who oppose it and in light of recent uncoverings that show they profit from it.

If you don't think they profit from it, urine idiot.

Not only is it a systematic way of killing the blacks, these abortions should already be covered by the economic-crippling idea we call Obamacare.

Also these peasants should just stop phucking all the time, use a damn condom, or phuck a guy with abortion money gddam

[GhenghisPWN]

For the proponents of abortion, if your wife was pregnant and someone stabbed her in the belly, causing death to your unborn child, would you consider that murder? Do you think they should be charged for killing a baby in addition to stabbing your wife or they should only face charges for stabbing since the baby was just a clump of cells to you?

Also, at what point do you consider a fetus a human being? When it has a beating heart? When it has fingers and toes?

No, wouldn't consider it murder.

[Sick96stang]

There is a lot of suffering caused by divorce.

Should divorce be illegal?

How do you measure right and wrong? How do you weigh the suffering caused by divorce against the suffering caused by abortion?

What about the suffering caused by cigarettes?

As it stands, abortion is legal, Roe vs Wade, the mother has rights over the unborn fetus until the fetus is able to sustain itself.

The alternative would be to force the unborn fetus to have rights over the mother, and to what extent? As well as implications with regards to whether abortion is permissible under which (if any) circumstances? Who determines which circumstance is more valid than the next?

Is this guy really trying to compare divorce with killing babies and trying to pass them off like they can be considered the same thing? The suffering from divorce doesn't definitively cause death. The suffering by abortion does. Pretty clear measurable difference between the two in term of suffering. This is like trying to make the argument that jay walking and murder can also be put on the same level because some people might find jay walking to be worse than murder.

[Stizzel]

spoken like a true liberal

Libs gon' lib bro.

[NeoSeminole]

There is a lot of suffering caused by divorce.

Should divorce be illegal?

How do you measure right and wrong? How do you weigh the suffering caused by divorce against the suffering caused by abortion?

What about the suffering caused by cigarettes?

As it stands, abortion is legal, Roe vs Wade, the mother has rights over the unborn fetus until the fetus is able to sustain itself.

The alternative would be to force the unborn fetus to have rights over the mother, and to what extent? As well as implications with regards to whether abortion is permissible under which (if any) circumstances? Who determines which circumstance is more valid than the next?

lol, are you serious? Are you really trying to argue that suffering or cruelty brought on by divorce is equal to the suffering a baby endures from abortion? I tell you what, let's use the same methods they use for abortion on you and see how you like it

[Trev113]

Is this guy really trying to compare divorce with killing babies and trying to pass them off like they can be considered the same thing? The suffering from divorce doesn't definitively cause death. The suffering by abortion does. Pretty clear measurable difference between the two in term of suffering. This is like trying to make the argument that jay walking and murder can also be put on the same level because some people might find jay walking to be worse than murder.

lol, are you serious? Are you really trying to argue that suffering or cruelty brought on by divorce is equal to the suffering a baby endures from abortion? I tell you what, let's use the same methods they use for abortion on you and see how you like it

If I were a fetus, and you did, I wouldn't know.

[HubertL]

Conservatives hate welfare state, not poor people. Many of us were once poor idiot

[NeoSeminole]

if that is suppose to represent Conservative logic, than the opposite must represent Liberal logic, right?

Liberals: Brb, it's better to kill innocent unborn babies than let them live if the parents are poor

If I were a fetus, and you did, I wouldn't know.

then why is anesthesia for the fetus used in fetal surgery?

[HubertL]

if that is suppose to represent Conservative logic, than the opposite must represent Liberal logic, right?

Liberals: Brb, it's better to kill innocent unborn babies than let them live if the parents are poor

Thats not how analysis works, esp if you misrepresent a statement in the first place. Morally, killing babies are wrong.

Conservatives differ from Liberals in that we don't want to be paying half a billion dollars to a corrupt institution that should be under Obamacare with other federal hospitals providing it.

No need to post meme replys when you're stumped darling

[Stizzel]

Conservatives hate welfare state, not poor people. Many of us were once poor idiot

Grew up poor crew checking in.

[Iceman1800]

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing...hoax_revealed/
Never let the truth get in the way of hoaxes.....

[JackTriD]

the government should absolutely stop funding PP. They never should have in the first place. The right to live is the most fundamental right we have. It should outweigh the "right" for a mother to kill her baby. If you want to argue in favor of abortion, then fund it yourself instead of taking $500 million of tax payers money to fund killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives

No federal money is used to pay for abortions. Federal grants are used for STD screening/treatment and cancer screening/prevention.

[jbball92]

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing...hoax_revealed/
Never let the truth get in the way of hoaxes.....

salon...

[Sick96stang]

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/wing...hoax_revealed/
Never let the truth get in the way of hoaxes.....

The bias in this article is laughable.

[Iceman1800]

The bias in this article is laughable.

As is the bias in the fake videos of alleged fetus part selling.

[Sick96stang]

As is the bias in the fake videos of alleged fetus part selling.

I haven't even watched the videos but if you're gonna post an article you should at least try and find one that isn't oozing democratic bias.

[Trev113]

I haven't even watched the videos but if you're gonna post an article you should at least try and find one that isn't oozing democratic bias.

Do you consider the benefits of research into debilitating diseases that comes from PP?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why...the-defensive/

[Sick96stang]

Do you consider the benefits of research into debilitating diseases that comes from PP?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why...the-defensive/

Sure I understand certain benefits can come from it but to me this is the same thing as saying hey why don't we kill people and use them for research regardless of age.

[HubertL]

As is the bias in the fake videos of alleged fetus part selling.

in what way are they fake, if may i ask? of course its biased, its an undercover operation..

[Trev113]

Sure I understand certain benefits can come from it but to me this is the same thing as saying hey why don't we kill people and use them for research regardless of age.

Well scientifically the two comparisons are different.

In one situation, you have a human whose body is changing biologically and she wants (for whatever reason) to make it stop.

In the other situation, you have a human whose body is presumably being afflicted with injury against his/her will.

Even if one were to argue that the fetus has rights and therefore it is the same because you're murdering a fetus vs murdering a grown human for instance, one would have to not ignore the fact that there is a woman involved in the case of abortion who has a body, and rights, and an opinion equally as valid as anyone else, if not more so.

[moksha16]

I haven't even watched the videos but if you're gonna post an article you should at least try and find one that isn't oozing democratic bias.

How would you know if its bias if you haven't even watched the videos its commenting on? psychic?