Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So it's not murder when the child is in the womb.

It's not murder when the child is out of the womb.

Is it still murder if they can walk and talk?

I'm really confused here. Because under Obamacare, they are still considered "children" under healthcare rules if they are under 26.

So is that the break off point for progressives now?

26?

How are ever going to exercise any half-decent neonatal care to an infant at a planned parenthood clinic? Sounds like if there's any possibility, remote as it may be, that an infant survives a 'botched abortion' (whatever the heck that means), and proper neonatal care isn't immediately available, then the clinic is out of their realm and ought not to be doing that business.

The only real question I see is:

When does a fetus become a 'person'?

There are already laws in place as to what can be done to a fetus, and what can be done to a 'person'.

Originally posted by peck420
The only real question I see is:

When does a fetus become a 'person'?

There are already laws in place as to what can be done to a fetus, and what can be done to a 'person'.

Well, with post-abortion births, they have a heartbeat, they are breathing, but they don't pay taxes, so progressives would probably like to "off" them.

reply to post by seeker1963

Does the word "RESPONSIBLE" mean anything to you?

Yes it does. Is a woman responsible for getting pregnant because she was raped? responsibility you say huh? Come to think of it, there are many people who make irresponsible decisions on a daily basis, such as taking out a loan that they know they will not be able to afford in the future. Those people reap the consequences in the end, we can't stop them all from making irresponsible choices, tis life.

It's too bad you progressives don't apply your same reasoning to the rights of "RESPONSIBLE" gun owners

The OP has nothing to do with gun ownership. I never stated at any point that I opposed responsible gun ownership. More straw man arguments from you I see.

The fact that there are men and women out there so irresponsible that when they WHOOPS we made a mistake that MURDER is reasonable option???

We're not discussing murder here, we're discussion abortions.

If a fertilized egg aborts, are you going to get the CSI in to investigate this as a murder and cordon off the woman's body like it's a crime scene. No, no you're not.

I gotta love how you say it is between the doctor and patient, while in every other aspect of our lives in this country, you DEMAND BIG GOVERNMENT!

...and what are you doing here? You yourself want to grow government bigger, you want to expand their powers significantly, so that they can start monitoring the bodies of individual americans and start dictating to the women of this country what they can and cannot do with their bodies. There's a name in a dictionary you should look up, it's called hypocrisy and hypocrite. Check it out sometime.

I am not totally against abortions, in the cases of rape,

So you call abortions murder, but then you support abortions in the case of rape? So by definition you support the murdering of an innocent "child" that was conceived through rape, right? But you don't support murder? Check out that dictionary definition on hypocrisy and hypocrite sometime.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

So it's not murder when the child is in the womb.

It's not murder when the child is out of the womb.

Not sure about the definition of "child". Is a fertilized egg a "child" Beezer? If that fertilized egg was somehow removed from the womb and left outside to die, this is murder right? No I wouldn't consider this murder Beezer. As for drawing the line of what's murder and what's abortion, legally it's 24 weeks.

I'm really confused here. Because under Obamacare, they are still considered "children" under healthcare rules if they are under 26.

I don't support Obama's healthcare law. I do find it rather amusing that you're reduced to referencing Obama's healthcare law for your argument, a law people like you spend all day trying to delegitimize.

I'm not sure why it angers you so much that women have choices to abort pregnancies. It's evidently not the unborn that angers you (considering that in another breath people like you support cutting off welfare support for single mothers), its the choice that seems to anger you. You seem to have this idea that women *must* accept their destiny as breeding bags, this is what you really think, and it pains you that they now have choices and rights equal to those of men now. I

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes it does. Is a woman responsible for getting pregnant because she was raped? responsibility you say huh? Come to think of it, there are many people who make irresponsible decisions on a daily basis, such as taking out a loan that they know they will not be able to afford in the future. Those people reap the consequences in the end, we can't stop them all from making irresponsible choices, tis life.

Did you even read what I said about Rape??? Guess not! As far as your argument about people making irresponsible decisions...............Do those decisions involve the death of a life?

The OP has nothing to do with gun ownership. I never stated at any point that I opposed responsible gun ownership. More straw man arguments from you I see.

Your right, the OP has nothing to do with gun ownership! But my analogy show how illogical those who fight for gun control over the death of children do not seem to blink an eye over someone having an abortion! Murder is murder!!!

We're not discussing murder here, we're discussion abortions.

If a fertilized egg aborts, are you going to get the CSI in to investigate this as a murder and cordon off the woman's body like it's a crime scene. No, no you're not.

And you have the nerve to bring up the ole "strawman" argument? You made it a point to say I was talking about something that didn't involve the topic of the OP, and yet you bring up this? I hardly think the OP was about an egg!

...and what are you doing here? You yourself want to grow government bigger, you want to expand their powers significantly, so that they can start monitoring the bodies of individual americans and start dictating to the women of this country what they can and cannot do with their bodies. There's a name in a dictionary you should look up, it's called hypocrisy and hypocrite. Check it out sometime.

So are you saying women are dumb and irresponsible??? All I am saying, (and if you read what I said you would already know) I did not put the blame all on the woman, but the man as well. Just so happens in this case that it is the woman who holds the cards on whether or not she has unprotected sex! Big Government, doesn't have a damn thing to do with adults being responsible! As a matter of fact, it seems that Big Government has done more to dumb people down to the status of a farm animal instead of adults!

So you call abortions murder, but then you support abortions in the case of rape? So by definition you support the murdering of an innocent "child" that was conceived through rape, right? But you don't support murder? Check out that dictionary definition on hypocrisy and hypocrite sometime.

So are you saying a woman who is raped responsible for it happening to her? See how that works? There is a big difference between a woman who is raped and a woman who willingly spreads her legs!

Thanks for showing me how low you Progressives are willing to stoop!

reply to post by Southern Guardian


So anti-abortionists (anti-murder) are for big government? Puh-leeze!

Government condones this special type of murder. Government allows this special type of death. Government has eased the guilt of millions of women because they said (government said) that this type of killing is okay.

Anti-murder folks would like to get rid of governments interference, would like to get rid of governments permission to kill the unborn, or the born, or partially born.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

No.

You don't get to misinterpret what she said in order to suit your opinion of what occurred.

She stated clearly, that Planned Parenthood supported the decisions made by the Parents and Doctors.

No.

They (all 3 of them) don´t get to decide whether a living being gets killed or not. If it´s alive and breathing then it´s alive and breathing. There is no decision left to be made.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I don't have the enthusiasm to get into an extended discussion on this right now, but you've posted something that comes up a lot:

Yes it does. Is a woman responsible for getting pregnant because she was raped? responsibility you say huh?

The question of pregnancy following one rape of someone aged 12 or older is interesting.

From a victim's information website comes this:

In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.

This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies:

•Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.

•Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy.

•Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection.

•Vicims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons.

www.rainn.org...

So how many rape related pregnancies were there in the 2004-2005 period? Nobody has a precise count, but a reasonable number would be 2,000 or fewer. How many abortions were there? The Gutmacher Institute claims about 1 1/4 million a year, the CDC claims about 850,000 a year. And the main argument is over rape cases?

reply to post by beezzer


Didn't expect this or your subsequent posts from you.
Murderous Progressives... really?

reply to post by beezzer

Government condones this special type of murder.

Government also enforces and protects the rights of American citizens. Either you're going to grant fertilized eggs the full rights of human beings or not. Once you grant those rights, you're going to require additional enforcement to protect those rights. If a woman has a miscarriage, in most cases it's going to require additional government enforcement, money, resources to document, to investigate. In many cases you'll have woman in court being held accountable for those miscarriages because they decided to have the odd "drink" that one night. This is just one small example of the kind of enforcement we're talking. It doesn't matter which way you shape it, what you're proposing is to expand government powers over woman's bodies.

Anti-murder folks would like to get rid of governments interference, would like to get rid of governments permission to kill the unborn, or the born, or partially born.

... so you want to get rid of government "interference" in leaving the choice up to woman to abort, by granting fertilized eggs the same rights and human beings, and enforcing those rights, there for giving government power to interfere with that choice of the women whereas they didn't before?

The topic of this thread is "post-birth abortion". I think thats a very interesting ethical conundrum to discuss.

Lets not devolve this into yet another normal abortion thread.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

Didn't expect this or your subsequent posts from you.
Murderous Progressives... really?

I'm an easy going person, normally.

Except when it comes to the unborn, yet-to-be-born, born children.

In that, I am an unwaivering bastard in insuring life.

I will make no apology for that.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


If you want to deny rights to those who have no voice, then you are free to do so.

Just be honest about your willingness to support the murder of the unborn, or born as this thread illustrates.

reply to post by seeker1963


You'd have to first show me a single case where a EMPLOYEE of planned parenthood made a decision in the place of a mother/father or doctor.

If they've never done that ( which to my knowledge they have not) then what does their opinion of appropriate procedures have to do with anything?

I find it hard to figure out, how their opinion, factors into a piece of legislation that would either prevent, or allow the death of a baby.

The truth is that it doesn't. She answered the question truthfully, because the only thing Planned Parenthood can do is either support the decisions made by doctors and parents, or not.

reply to post by Exitt


That's not what were discussing. The government is making that decision, not Planned Parenthood. It has no ability to govern decisions made by individuals and doctors.

reply to post by Maslo


If you ask me it's important legislation, which I would be in favor of. I don't think you should be able to 'double abort' a baby, I think you should do EVERYTHING in your power to prevent the death of any child.

But this whole demonizing planned parenthood is kind of dumb.

~Tenth

reply to post by beezzer


I understand, however the OP isn't being exactly honest here or at least the source isn't.

reply to post by charles1952


Ah yes, the age old argument of "rape doesn't happen that often so we should just ignore it in the abortion debate". It is truly a cop out argument if there even was one. Even if they are rare, it does not change the fact that they still happen and I'm sorry, you are truly twisted in the head if you think it's justified to force a woman to go through with pregnancy after she had been raped, I'm sorry, no less disgusting then the crime that was committed to her. It's also disgusting that people will think to demonize the women in these situations who end up choosing abortions, calling them irresponsible.

Do you want to force and imprison raped and molested woman, children, for choosing abortion? Instead of hiding behind statistics, why don't you actually state your position on this matter, because it does happen.

reply to post by beezzer

If you want to deny rights to those who have no voice, then you are free to do so.

Do I wanted to deny the same rights as human beings being granted to fertilized eggs? Yes, because it's a stupid idea as they are not human beings. There's the short answer for you.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

 

I understand, however the OP isn't being exactly honest here or at least the source isn't.

I'll repeat the quote

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
-Edmund Burke