New Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood

[Sam]

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'?

I'm interested to hear my position on abortion related back to me; including my position on fetal personhood would be bonus points, since it's fairly complex, but a general overview would be fine.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm interested to hear my position on abortion related back to me; including my position on fetal personhood would be bonus points, since it's fairly complex, but a general overview would be fine.

So you don't think person-hood is attached to person, based upon a random line drawn into the sand? Likewise, what can we do with these 'fetus' if they are on the 'non person-hood' side of the line?

[Sam]

So you don't think person-hood is attached to person, based upon a random line drawn into the sand? Likewise, what can we do with these 'fetus' if they are on the 'non person-hood' side of the line?

I thought you said I'd made my position on abortion clear numerous times. Based on that, I figured you'd at least be able to tell me what my position on abortion was. Maybe too optimistic ...

[lilpixieofterror]

I thought you said I'd made my position on abortion clear numerous times. Based on that, I figured you'd at least be able to tell me what my position on abortion was. Maybe too optimistic ...

I understand that you don't want to answer the questions, so let me ask them again:

- Have you argued that person-hood is given to somebody at a certain stage of human development? Is this true or false?

- If a 'fetus' is on the side of the 'non person-hood' side of the line, does that make it ok to kill them? Yes or no?

I know you like avoiding answering questions and nailing down things you actually believe (after all, it does make it easier to dodge what you actually met, later on, so you can keep speaking out of both sides of your mouth), but these are some pretty simple questions that shouldn't be hard to answer. Why do you refuse to answer them?

[Cow Poke]

I thought you said I'd made my position on abortion clear numerous times. Based on that, I figured you'd at least be able to tell me what my position on abortion was. Maybe too optimistic ...

I'm curious. And I'd rather hear it from you, than a synopsis by somebody else.

[Sea of red]

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

Because it serves no purpose in educating the public. It's no different than people using common vernacular for other things. I mean, you wouldn't call a seed a flower, or an egg a baby chick.

[Irate Canadian]

Hey Sam, would you want me to post what your position on Abortion is here? I'm pretty sure I still have the PM.

[Sam]

Hey Sam, would you want me to post what your position on Abortion is here? I'm pretty sure I still have the PM.

That's OK; thank you, though. I remember my position well enough ... I was just interested in how well someone could articulate it back to me, both as a gauge of how well I'm doing describing it and how closely people are listening. Crystal, specifically, indicated that I'd made my position very clear but, as she's had trouble holding my arguments in their (I hope) coherent string in the past, my interest was piqued.

[Sam]

I'm curious. And I'd rather hear it from you, than a synopsis by somebody else.

I'm pro-life, though I don't believe that personhood exists prior to differentiated sensation. We value the unborn (< 24 weeks, at minimum) because they are potential persons, not because they are persons. Since that's the case, abortion cannot be made flat-out illegal but we should do what we can in our power to minimize abortions. From a pro-contraception standpoint, that means early education and provision of contraceptives, especially LARCs. It means effective health classes -- no "abstinence only" classes, which are not effective. And it means a focus on ameliorating the consequences of unwanted births, which put children at much higher risk of poverty, abuse, hunger, etc.

In short, pro-life but you can't outlaw abortion so we ought to change our focus on things we can change immediately and effectively.

[lilpixieofterror]

Because it serves no purpose in educating the public. It's no different than people using common vernacular for other things. I mean, you wouldn't call a seed a flower, or an egg a baby chick.

That isn't what it is at all James because baby has specific connotations attached to it while the term 'fetus' doesn't. Technically the stages of human development do not contain the term 'baby' either. The proper terms would be infant-toddler-early childhood to describe the early human development process and the word 'baby' is never used because it is word attached with many means and thus why you wouldn't hear the term 'baby' in a biology or heath course. Besides, I had biology and health class in high school too, so it isn't as though the general public isn't exposed to the proper terms anyway (they were both required graduation requirements, in my school). Why isn't the word 'baby' used for people or groups supporting abortion? Simple, words have meaning attached to them and the term 'baby' has a human attachment to it, thus the term is used when we are talking about a wanted 'fetus' and the medial terms are used when we're talking about an unwanted one. If we can attached cold medical terms to something, we can hide what we are really doing.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm pro-life, though I don't believe that personhood exists prior to differentiated sensation. We value the unborn (< 24 weeks, at minimum) because they are potential persons, not because they are persons. Since that's the case, abortion cannot be made flat-out illegal but we should do what we can in our power to minimize abortions. From a pro-contraception standpoint, that means early education and provision of contraceptives, especially LARCs. It means effective health classes -- no "abstinence only" classes, which are not effective. And it means a focus on ameliorating the consequences of unwanted births, which put children at much higher risk of poverty, abuse, hunger, etc.

In short, pro-life but you can't outlaw abortion so we ought to change our focus on things we can change immediately and effectively.

And yet, you use the arguments and terms of an abortionist. How amusing. Notice the underlined phrase, we can't ban abortions (at least before 24 weeks) because they are not 'persons' but 'potential' persons and there is no problem with killing them, prior to the time that person-hood is given to them. Does this sound just like some pro abortionist? Yeah because it is many of their positions that certain development process attach person-hood to X process an thus if they haven't met that requirement, killing them isn't a big deal. As always, Sam wants to speak out of two sides of his mouth. He wants the 'pro life' label, but doesn't want to take the position that goes with it. It is simply pro abortion, posing as anti abortion, so Sam can have his cake and eat it too. Go ahead, please explain how you can have the 'pro life label' while taking a position that sounds a lot like many pro abortion groups, across the US and the world (many of them do argue for bans on abortion, after a certain stage is met, but before they are ok with it).

[lilpixieofterror]

That's OK; thank you, though. I remember my position well enough ... I was just interested in how well someone could articulate it back to me, both as a gauge of how well I'm doing describing it and how closely people are listening. Crystal, specifically, indicated that I'd made my position very clear but, as she's had trouble holding my arguments in their (I hope) coherent string in the past, my interest was piqued.

In other words, you didn't want to answer the simple questions. Sorry sweety, but declaring something is a 'non person' is supporting abortion and it's arguments while trying to give the appearance you are not. Rather you want to admit it or not. Typical Sam, speaks out of two sides of his mouth.

[Sea of red]

That isn't what it is at all James because baby has specific connotations attached to it while the term 'fetus' doesn't. Technically the stages of human development do not contain the term 'baby' either. The proper terms would be infant-toddler-early childhood to describe the early human development process and the word 'baby' is never used because it is word attached with many means and thus why you wouldn't hear the term 'baby' in a biology or heath course. Besides, I had biology and health class in high school too, so it isn't as though the general public isn't exposed to the proper terms anyway (they were both required graduation requirements, in my school). Why isn't the word 'baby' used for people or groups supporting abortion? Simple, words have meaning attached to them and the term 'baby' has a human attachment to it, thus the term is used when we are talking about a wanted 'fetus' and the medial terms are used when we're talking about an unwanted one. If we can attached cold medical terms to something, we can hide what we are really doing.

I'm not sure where this is going. The word baby is not a scientific word but a common one used in our everyday vocabulary, so why this matters to you is beyond me. When we are having a discussion on something this deep it is important to use proper terminology and not use words as weapons to pull at each others emotions. Calling people 'baby killers' , murderers, and such adds nothing to this discussion - and it's a disgusting charge at that.

Your post to me about animals just goes to show that you yourself ascribe categories of life and what value you put on them. How do you determine that you have a right to kill an animal? Because you are hungry or want animal products?

[Cow Poke]

Your post to me about animals just goes to show that you yourself ascribe categories of life and what value you put on them. How do you determine that you have a right to kill an animal? Because you are hungry or want animal products?

God gave us dominion over animals. He breathed into man the breath of life, so man is a living soul. Animals, not so much.

[Sea of red]

God gave us dominion over animals. He breathed into man the breath of life, so man is a living soul. Animals, not so much.

Wonderful.