New Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood

[Cow Poke]

Wonderful.

Thanks.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

What else do you call somebody that wishes to end the lives of others, due to them wanting to kill people based upon their stage in the human development cycle? Besides, that is precisely what pro abortionist do all the time. They use the term 'pro choice' for the purpose that if we change it from killing a human to a 'choice' you can change up the argument to something new. We're not talking about killing another, we're talking about a choice and what right do you have to tell somebody they can't choose something? See, you remove the 'killing of a human' label and change it up to something new. Second, it matters to me a good deal because I know words matter and the words you use to refer to others is important. Do you know what all genocides tend to have in common? The labels of humanity are stripped from the group(s) chosen for extermination and thus killing them off isn't murder at all, you're just getting rid of some trash clogging up the human gene pool. Sounds disturbing to you? I think it is and why I fight so hard against terminology and how people refer to others. When you remove the labels of 'person' for a group the attachments of their right to life slowly go with it and the justifications for their exploitation and eventual murder begins. Why do labels matter James? That is why, they are important for helping us remember that we are not dealing with just a random assortment of cells, but we're dealing with a living and breathing human and exploitation of them or murdering them, is wrong. Rather this excuse is due to their race or due to their age.

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?

I've already given you an answer here and I choose a scientific bases, for my claim. If you haven't noticed yet, there is a food chain and animals towards the top, tend to eat those lower down on the chain. In is the nature of things besides, how far do you really want to take this? Why do you want to kill and eat plants? Don't the lives of plants matter too? See how far we can go with this logic of yours? Besides, animal products are in a whole lot more things than you think they are in. Good luck cutting them all out because they are in a lot more stuff than you think they are in.

[Sea of red]

What else do you call somebody that wishes to end the lives of others, due to them wanting to kill people based upon their stage in the human development cycle? Besides, that is precisely what pro abortionist do all the time. They use the term 'pro choice' for the purpose that if we change it from killing a human to a 'choice' you can change up the argument to something new. We're not talking about killing another, we're talking about a choice and what right do you have to tell somebody they can't choose something? See, you remove the 'killing of a human' label and change it up to something new. Second, it matters to me a good deal because I know words matter and the words you use to refer to others is important. Do you know what all genocides tend to have in common? The labels of humanity are stripped from the group(s) chosen for extermination and thus killing them off isn't murder at all, you're just getting rid of some trash clogging up the human gene pool. Sounds disturbing to you? I think it is and why I fight so hard against terminology and how people refer to others. When you remove the labels of 'person' for a group the attachments of their right to life slowly go with it and the justifications for their exploitation and eventual murder begins. Why do labels matter James? That is why, they are important for helping us remember that we are not dealing with just a random assortment of cells, but we're dealing with a living and breathing human and exploitation of them or murdering them, is wrong. Rather this excuse is due to their race or due to their age.

Infant= synonymous with baby. When you use it for other purposes it's only to advance your own beliefs. You're not using the proper terminology and it's muddying the discussion to a point that it's difficult for me to know where you're going with this. Most genocide in human history is due to authoritarians scapegoating minority groups in order to advance an agenda. Being from the wrong country, having the wrong religion, or being a traitor to some sort of ideology or government is what gets you killed, far more than some idea of the value of human life. You can call an embryo or a fetus a baby all day long but it doesn't make it so. We all know what a baby is, we all know when the neurology and CNS begins, and when it has developed enough to a point that it would meet the criteria of a human.

I've already given you an answer here and I choose a scientific bases, for my claim. If you haven't noticed yet, there is a food chain and animals towards the top, tend to eat those lower down on the chain. In is the nature of things besides, how far do you really want to take this? Why do you want to kill and eat plants? Don't the lives of plants matter too? See how far we can go with this logic of yours? Besides, animal products are in a whole lot more things than you think they are in. Good luck cutting them all out because they are in a lot more stuff than you think they are in.

Animals reproduce mostly by rape, so should we rape? Animals do not share food but with themselves and their young, should we? This is a bad argument I'm afraid.

[lilpixieofterror]

Infant= synonymous with baby. When you use it for other purposes it's only to advance your own beliefs.

Really? So explain this to me:

Why do pregnant women say their baby is kicking and not their fetus?
Why do we throw baby showers and not 'fetus' showers?
Why do mothers and fathers refer to their unborn child as a baby and not a fetus?

The answer is pretty obvious, in these cases, they are 'wanted' and thus humanity is attached to them from the get go. While on the other hand, the unwanted ones are called anything, but a baby because the mom doesn't want that humanity attachment there. If you remove the humanity out of the 'fetus', you can remove the humanity and thus the justification of the killing begins in the mind.

You're not using the proper terminology and it's muddying the discussion to a point that it's difficult for me to know which you're going with this.

Than I suggest you write the writers of the dictionary or the doctors that write articles and let them know this. I'd like to hear their responses to your corrections.

Most genocide in human history is due to authoritarians scapegoating minority groups in order to advance an agenda. Being from the wrong country, having the wrong religion, or being a traitor to some sort of ideology or government is what gets you killed, for more than some idea of the value of human life. You can call an embryo or a fetus a baby all day long but it doesn't make it so. We all know what a baby is, we all know when the neurology and CNS begins, and when it has developed enough to a point that it would meet the criteria of a human.

That's part of it and there is far more to it, than merely that James and historians will tell you that it is way more complex than merely that. How do you get your population to play along? How do you get around the human tendency not to want to kill another human? See the issues here yet? You need justifications to kill them or the exploitation of them for your own purposes. Don't take my word for it though, read about how this was done in the great genocides of the past. The Ottoman Empire didn't just get together and decided to kill the Armenian's one day. There was a build up to it and the same can be said for the Holocaust too. Genocides don't start at the snap of a finger, there's a build up to it that often can take years before the actual act is carried out. Usually, this involves a slow stripping of the rights of these people, then gather them up, and finally the death camps come about. Sound similar?

Animals reproduce mostly by rape, so should we rape? Animals do not share food but with themselves and their young, should we? This is a bad argument I'm afraid.

It's not a bad argument at all. Humans have been eating animals for a very long time (scientist estimate that our ancient ancestors started eating meat over 2 million years ago). It isn't as though it is anything new or something that started a few years ago. We've been doing it since before we became humans.

[Cale]

This is the Device Planned Parenthood is Using to Get Body Parts From Aborted Babies to Sell



The article linked above provides additional insight into the process used to abort children in such a way as to preserve body parts intact so that they can be sold -- the so called "less crunchy" method.

[Sea of red]

It's not a bad argument at all. Humans have been eating animals for a very long time (scientist estimate that our ancient ancestors started eating meat over 2 million years ago). It isn't as though it is anything new or something that started a few years ago. We've been doing it since before we became humans.

You didn't actually answer the question. I asked why you have the right to kill animals for your own gain or hunger and you've only replied that since we've always done it that makes it acceptable. The food chain is not exactly a good place to find morality, and with you being a Christian, I'm shocked you used the example.

[Jaecp]

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.

Wait, I thought they were supposed to tell you what you believed because you'd already made it perfectly clear in ways no one was able to articulate...

[Cow Poke]

Wait, I thought they were supposed to tell you what you believed because you'd already made it perfectly clear in ways no one was able to articulate...

I asked politely, and Sam was kind enough to respond.

[Jaecp]

I asked politely, and Sam was kind enough to respond.

You aren't whom I was referring to

[Tassman]

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.

Yes exactly. This is the traditional Jewish position whereby the fetus has the status of "potential human life". And while "potential human life" is valuable and may not be terminated casually, it does not have as much value as a life in existence, namely the mother.

[Darth Executor]

I'm pro-life... abortion cannot be made flat-out illegal

You are not pro-life and should stop using a political label that is explicitly made to describe people who are not like you. The pro-choice label fits your position like a glove since the terms deal with the legality of abortion. IOW, you think women should have the legal right to CHOOSE whether to keep the baby or not, hence pro-CHOICE.

[kiwimac]

You are not pro-life and should stop using a political label that is explicitly made to describe people who are not like you. The pro-choice label fits your position like a glove since the terms deal with the legality of abortion. IOW, you think women should have the legal right to CHOOSE whether to keep the baby or not, hence pro-CHOICE.

Who died and made you the authority?

[JonathanL]

Who died and made you the authority?

The dictionary?

[Roy]

I know you guys don't like it, but I'm not going to let you try to control the language. They are human babies, in the cycle of human development, and you have no right to end their life for people's selfish convenience. Unless of course, you can demonstrate that abortion doesn't kill humans.

Do you always assume everyone who criticises you is an abortionist?

Roy

[Roy]

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.

No. I think the reason they don't use the term 'baby' is because it covers both pre- and post-birth, and can thus give a misleading impression. Zygote/embryo/foetus/infant do not.

It's more akin to a vegetarian activist stating that animals are cooked alive.

Roy