Philosoraptor

2eo1ys.gif (click to show) A big up vote for lives

"Discussing family planning" whateva makes you happy. You

The check is in the mail. I won't cum in your mouth. And I care for a clump of cells but indulging my emo butt hurt bullshit, then trying to force my personal failure to emo bullshit on others. Awww so sweet you care so deeply for the kidddies? How many have you adopted? Do you support welfare? No, no, no yet a new generation of dipshits fool themselves again. Stop picking your nose and find a grown up who can explain to you how emotion clouds our judgment. lol

EXACTLY!
The problem is that people are saying Planned Parenthood is some sort of health clinic, but it's not. It's a big, power-hungry corporation that kills babies.

You must be a republican for saying that?

Someone doesn't have to follow any specific political party in order to recognize the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Yes they do, since life begins at birth, or what the dictionary calls "the beginning of life."

Actually, they don't. I know many libertarians who recognize the characteristics of biological life (consumption, growth, etc.) which are present at conception.

You can argue with the dictionary all you want. Take it up with Webster, not with me. Talk about the characteristics of life all you want. Actual life begins at Birth. That's how Webster defines it. That's how Merriman defines it. That's how the Supreme Court defines it.

Look, colon cancer shows the characteristics of life. Growth, consumption, yada yada yada. Colon cancer is not life.

Colon cancer lacks its own unique genetic code, and is instead a part of a person. You can kill the cancer while maintaining the holistic integrity of the person. Meanwhile, a zygote is its own human being, with a unique genetic code and all the qualities of biological life.

Incorrect sir. Colon cancer has its own unique genetic code, a mutation of the host's code.

You make a good point. Of course, one could argue that a mutation of the host's genetic code still belongs to the host as a derivative of the host's code (whereas a fertilized zygote has additional information from the other parent. However, such a line of thinking reeks of copyright ideas, and could theoretically justify the killing of even grown children under mutual consent of both parents).

Another key distinction to make between cancer and the unborn is that cancer is usually life-threatening, and can be killed as an act of defense

Providing counseling to help a pregnant woman come to terms with the decision to abort isn't what people think of when they think of "discussing family planning". And they may provide birth control, but each branch also has a monthly quota of abortions they have to meet, because all those stem cells they harvest are sweet, sweet money in the bank.

Also, something they /don't/ provide, that PP supporters constantly claim they do, is mammograms.

Yeah, but mostly murdering innocent children that never had a chance at life.

So because there's a stage of human life that looks like another "specie's" early statges of life, that means something significant? I would agree that an embryo is not a "baby" only in the same sense that a toddler is not an adult. That doesn't mean that an embryo is not human. Does that make sense to you?

Your made up qualification of "personhood" is a red herring. I probably shouldn't have even responded to your attempt to change the debate to be about "personhood."

Now back on topic, that "blob of cells" is still a human life even if you don't recognize it.

Awesome, good conversation!

Also, I upvoted your comment but it's still showing as zero. When I try to do it again, it actually showed -1ups... No bueno

When a sperm fertilizes an egg. At that point, it's no longer two separate gametes.

False choice and strawman in same response. My argument wasn't that it "has human DNA." My argument is that it IS a human. That's a big difference. For example, sperm have human DNA, they are not human.

Also, death penalty topic is another red herring.

False equivalency. Undeniably guilty, cold blooded murderers have given up their right to live through their actions. Aborted babies aren't even allowed the chance, let alone the right. What criminal actions do fetuses commit?

Rights at that stage of life is a separate discussion that I don't have definitive thoughts on yet. Regardless, it's a human life.

I wouldn't bother with these people, they get their "science" from the Bible.

You provide articles written by people who profit from abortion. Yeh, no lies or bias there.

Still pulling the same tricks, pathetic. You're brain dead, weak minded, and unable to break away from the brainwashing your overlords feed you.

Rofl the article had to define pain! Same bs definition you find in all pro abortion crap.

It even admits its hard to determine if the baby feels pain. I guess having the baby lurch away over and over from the tools that end up killing it don't qualify as evidence.

No, pain does not require intelligence to feel. If I sit on a tack I don't go "hmm.. something has penetrated my skin. This makes me unhappy. Ouch!" I just go "ouch!". Zero thought process required.

An idiot knows pain is pain. It's the "intellectuals" that reclassify and redefine pain that have made pain suddenly a difficult topic.

Believe what you want, but quit spreading your bs around. You're wrong

You're so stupid. JAMA doesn't write articles. Doctors do and send them in. If you see an article about the wonderful effects of some drug, guess who was paying the doctor to study its effects.

It's a common tactic of liars to manipulate definitions and meanings so that they fit their agenda. Kind of like you saying "cartoons" when I clearly stated "cartoons for little girls".

You keep spitting propaganda as research and science. You're a fool. Weak in mind, weak in body, weak in spirit.

You're a sick pervert and a lesser man. Quit responding to me in this thread already, cigarette.

There's no argument to be won. You deny reality, probably because you're used to living in a pony fantasy. You're Pro-unborn child killing, and you watch and identify with cartoons for little girls. You're a sick man.

I wouldn't let anyone like you near my children if I had any. You're nasty. You're mentally ill.

Don't speak to me about integrity. You don't know what it is, cigarette.

Wait until they find out 100s of millions of sperm with human DNA is wasted in their bedrooms, every time they visit pornhub.... in your bedroom, no one can hear your sperm scream...

Octavia does have a mental disorder. He's a grown ass man that watches and identifies with a cartoon that's designed for little girls. Probably a closet pedophile. Liberal poster boy.

People classify babies before their first birthday as, "blobs", why don't we just kill one of those.

It is a human fetus yawning in the womb. Very much human, and very much a little person.

Of course not. As you mentioned earlier, it is impossible to tell a human zygote from that of a goat. So somewhere between the zygote and this picture this became a little person and inherited rights. Question is where.

Thank you.

And how many women know that they are pregnant, much less get an abortion, when their baby is at this stage of development?

So, if a human fetus is recognizable as a human, would you grant human rights?
Since abortions typically don’t occur until the fetus looks human, it should be classified as such. It’s another reason why PP resists requiring the mother to view an ultrasound before making the decision. They want the mother to think she is only getting rid of a glob of cells, not a human baby in development.

What's your point? A baby is not a teenager but that doesn't mean it's not a human life.

It's not a baby, it's a preborn human who never had a chance at life.

So in your opinion, at what point is it considered a baby that can be "murdered"? Because according to the law, a woman can kill her child up to the age of 12 months old, blame her hormones (PPD), and only be charged with "infanticide", which is a less serious charge than murder, legally speaking.

And that's not the only time women can use their hormones as a defense in court. Must be nice. Men are expected to remain in control of their hormones at all times.

Does something being legal mean it is morally ok to do? While you didn't make that claim directly, I think your implied message was clear. If that wasn't your point of that statement what was your point?

Yet if a pregnant woman who wants to keep her baby goes to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care, they most likely won’t be able to provide it.
http://liveaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PP-centers-investigated-for-prenatal-care-1.pdf

It shows that PP isn’t really providing counseling to help pregnant women do anything other than abort their pregnancy. So the only discussion they have is about how to not start or add to a family. Hardly counts as “family planning”. It’s more like “family prevention”.