New Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood

[Sam]

Sorry Sam, but I know language control and how you control the language by controlling the terms you use. Do you have children? If so, were they babies before they were born or were they fetus? Do women have fetus showers or do they have baby showers? When a women talks about movement during pregnancy, does she say the fetus is moving or the baby is moving? The answer should be pretty obvious, the answer is that the term used is 'baby' and the reason that term is used is the connotations attached to the term. It is always interesting how pro abortionist try to use medical terms such as fetus to refer to the born or non medical terms such as clump of cells or parasite to refer to the unborn. Why do they have such a problem with the term 'baby' Sam? It has nothing to do with medical science (even my doctor, used the term baby). Don't believe me? Here is an article by the Mayo Clinic when they talk about the important of prenatal care:

Be sure to mention even sensitive issues, such as domestic abuse, abortion or past drug use. Remember, the information you share will help your health care provider take the best care of you — and your baby.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-li...e/art-20044882

The article continues to use the term 'baby' and not 'fetus' and it is written by medical professionals. Why is the term 'baby' chosen vs 'fetus'. Quite simple, baby has a different connotation attached to it and thus when we are talking about a wanted 'fetus' we use the term 'baby'. I hate to burst your bubble, but using 'baby' is perfectly valid and is used by medical professionals too. The only time I ever hear the term 'fetus' used is to remove the human connotations and try to attach a non human connotation to what abortion truly is or in school to talk about different stages of animal development.

Sorry Sam, but you're wrong and very wrong at that. See, the personhood argument is just a farce to remove the human element from what you are doing. Interesting enough, all genocidal manics love removing humanity from what they are doing. Jews are non persons and you can do with them what you please. See how easy it is to justify mass murder, by calling what you are doing something else? I know you want to control the language, but I will not let you control the language. Trying to use 'person-hood' argument is your way of hiding the reality of what you are doing; ending the life of a human for the awful crime of daring to exist and trying to hide your crime behind words and phrases.

Your method of argumentation continues to be a dazzling kaleidoscope, Crystal. Unfortunately, we've been down this road before and I know a Quixotic task of maintaining narrow focus on the topic when I see it for the sixth time or so. Enjoy your day/week.

[lilpixieofterror]

Papa Zoom,

Abortions at 24 weeks are almost exclusively for health of the mother reasons and comprise a vanishingly small amount of abortions, over 90% of which are first trimester.

I'm not even aware of any pp clinic that would handle a 3rd trimester abortion, most places don't go past middle 2nd trimester, anything after 16-19 weeks (depending upon the clinics) is referred to a hospital

What is the magic that produces person-hood, at a random stage of human development?

[RumTumTugger]

I've never been clear on how we determine objectively when "person-hood" arives.

see my above post Human beings are person by nature Sam and the pro abortionist are using a FALSE DICHOTOMY in order to be able to dehumanize those they wish to kill with impunity.

[Jaecp]

Has Sam given any indication he supports abortion or is he contribution to the thread been focused on helping his Christian brethren improve their rhetoric?

[RumTumTugger]

Probably best not to try and win this one via Dictionary, given the forests of paper that have been spilled trying to define and defend various concepts of personhood.

hand waving the TRUTH away duly noted Sam.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your method of argumentation continues to be a dazzling kaleidoscope, Crystal. Unfortunately, we've been down this road before and I know a Quixotic task of maintaining narrow focus on the topic when I see it for the sixth time or so. Enjoy your day/week.

Translation: "I lost, but I'm too full of pride to admit it! So let me get in one more jibe and declare victory!"

I know you are trying to control the language and get rather upset when people don't let you control it, but I didn't invent the terms. Unless you plan on writing doctors and demanding their correct their articles, this is what you are stuck with. Baby is indeed a proper term to refer to the unborn and pro abortionist don't like it because of the human attachment to the term 'abortion' and thus why they want proper medical terms and the 'person-hood' removed from the unborn. Defending the undefendable and trying to argue that black is actually white. Go ahead please explain what magical process brings person-hood at X stage of human development and why. I'll be waiting for a long time because I doubt you can actually explain it and will just get more condescending and more snooting instead of admitting you're wrong. Don't hold your nose up too high, I'd hate for you to drown in a rain storm.

[lilpixieofterror]

Has Sam given any indication he supports abortion or is he contribution to the thread been focused on helping his Christian brethren improve their rhetoric?

Sam has made his position rather clear, several times. I know you are trying to mindlessly defend your friend, but go ahead... please explain what magical moment brings about 'person-hood' and why. I'll be waiting.

[Sam]

Sam has made his position rather clear, several times. I know you are trying to mindlessly defend your friend, but go ahead... please explain what magical moment brings about 'person-hood' and why. I'll be waiting.

Now I'm interested to hear what my position is from those who acknowledge that I've made it rather clear ...

[RumTumTugger]

Sam has made his position rather clear, several times. I know you are trying to mindlessly defend your friend, but go ahead... please explain what magical moment brings about 'person-hood' and why. I'll be waiting.

I am waiting also. how many times have you asked him?

Notice that Jaecp has not answered this question from you could it be because he knows any answer he give will be an arbitrary one which cannot be defended?

any more then Starlight arbitrary answer has not real defense except. "I have dehumanize the unborn or even a 3 month old baby to make it easier to defend killing the innocent human being. to bad for Starlight we know that he is using a FALSE DICHOTOMY between person-hood and human beings. Human beings are persons by NATURE not because of some arbitrary definition made by Starlight and his ilk to dehumanize waht should nto be dehumanized

[Sea of red]

Sorry Sam, but I know language control and how you control the language by controlling the terms you use. Do you have children? If so, were they babies before they were born or were they fetus? Do women have fetus showers or do they have baby showers? When a women talks about movement during pregnancy, does she say the fetus is moving or the baby is moving? The answer should be pretty obvious, the answer is that the term used is 'baby' and the reason that term is used is the connotations attached to the term. It is always interesting how pro abortionist try to use medical terms such as fetus to refer to the born or non medical terms such as clump of cells or parasite to refer to the unborn. Why do they have such a problem with the term 'baby' Sam? It has nothing to do with medical science (even my doctor, used the term baby). Don't believe me? Here is an article by the Mayo Clinic when they talk about the important of prenatal care:

Be sure to mention even sensitive issues, such as domestic abuse, abortion or past drug use. Remember, the information you share will help your health care provider take the best care of you — and your baby.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-li...e/art-20044882

The article continues to use the term 'baby' and not 'fetus' and it is written by medical professionals. Why is the term 'baby' chosen vs 'fetus'. Quite simple, baby has a different connotation attached to it and thus when we are talking about a wanted 'fetus' we use the term 'baby'. I hate to burst your bubble, but using 'baby' is perfectly valid and is used by medical professionals too. The only time I ever hear the term 'fetus' used is to remove the human connotations and try to attach a non human connotation to what abortion truly is or in school to talk about different stages of animal development. This isn't a classroom and we are not discussing the stages of animal development. Likewise, I do not let pro abortionist control the language. I know you want to control it, but you can't. Now go ahead, please write these good doctors and let them know they are using improper terms. I'd love to hear their response.



Sorry Sam, but you're wrong and very wrong at that. See, the personhood argument is just a farce to remove the human element from what you are doing. Interesting enough, all genocidal manics love removing humanity from what they are doing. Jews are non persons and you can do with them what you please. See how easy it is to justify mass murder, by calling what you are doing something else? I know you want to control the language, but I will not let you control the language. Trying to use 'person-hood' argument is your way of hiding the reality of what you are doing; ending the life of a human for the awful crime of daring to exist and trying to hide your crime behind words and phrases.

It's probably due to the fact that in science we often use common vernacular as a way of conveying certain processes to the public - such as teratogen risks in early pregnancy, where it is more important to illustrate these things as retarding later development.

[Jaecp]

Rtt,

Has someone besides LPOT asked me that?

My interest in this thread is specifically about the PP videos. I have no intention of arguing about abortion in general.

[Papa Zoom]

see my above post Human beings are person by nature Sam and the pro abortionist are using a FALSE DICHOTOMY in order to be able to dehumanize those they wish to kill with impunity.

It seems to me that there is essentially no difference between a person and a developing human being. In the case of a human being, we know that at the moment of conception a new unique human being has been created (or come into existence). As for this fuzzy idea of "personhood," it seems to be a metaphysical construct and is used solely to marginalize a certain population (in this case the unborn but in another case, blacks). One writer said it best: "personhood is a state of being inherent and essential to the human species" As you and others here do, I see no essential difference between a developing human (at any stage) and a person. If you are a member of the human species (a human being) you are a person.

[lilpixieofterror]

I am waiting also. how many times have you asked him?

Notice that Jaecp has not answered this question from you could it be because he knows any answer he give will be an arbitrary one which cannot be defended?

That's because he's too busy whining about how I'm a troll to care about defending his disturbing position. Person-hood arguments are about drawing arbitrary lines in the sand and declaring that anybody on that side of the line isn't a 'person' and you can do with them what you please. This logic is no different than the logic used to justify genocides throughout the ages. They are 'non-persons' and thus you can do with them what you please. Really disturbing, isn't it?

any more then Starlight arbitrary answer has not real defense except. "I have dehumanize the unborn or even a 3 month old baby to make it easier to defend killing the innocent human being. to bad for Starlight we know that he is using a FALSE DICHOTOMY between person-hood and human beings. Human beings are persons by NATURE not because of some arbitrary definition made by Starlight and his ilk to dehumanize waht should nto be dehumanized

I've been working on reading the collected works of GK Chesterton (no easy task, since he wrote over 100 books and over 4,000 essays). One of his I recently read says this on babies:

The two facts which attract almost every normal person to children are, first, that they are very serious, and, secondly, that they are in consequence very happy. They are jolly with the completeness which is possible only in the absence of humour. The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common-sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always primarily to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea.
http://www.online-literature.com/che...-defendant/14/

Now, compare this to our baby killer friends. See the difference?

[lilpixieofterror]

It's probably due to the fact that in science we often use common vernacular as a way of conveying certain processes to the public - such as teratogen risks in early pregnancy, where it is more important to illustrate these things as retarding later development.

And yet, when people talk of abortion, they do not use the term 'baby'. Why?

[lilpixieofterror]

Now I'm interested to hear what my position is from those who acknowledge that I've made it rather clear ...

Have you not tried to argue, several times and places, about the 'person-hood' of the unborn and at what stage of development they are magically granted the title of 'persons'?