You have an odd sense of humor if you think that was a joke. Broken up dead fetal tissue isn't a kid, objectively. A kid must be alive. So calling aborted fetal tissue a child is insane.
Planned Parenthood sold whole, dead babies to StemExpress.
- Thread starter IMCC965
- Start date
OK, I can accept your outlook. And you are right, some are out and out against use of the tissue at all.
Nope, you're not a human being after you're dead. There is just a human body, but that isn't you. This should be self evident to a religious person.
I can understand the belief that a human fetus is a human life. But if we go to the step that those remains should have a burial, we've gone to the step that someone killed a baby. I don't find enough on the subject even in The Bible to satisfy my opinion beyond making it my own. I guarantee I'll never be a part of an abortion.
But I don't have enough confidence in the morality to force it on others.
Well, you're in the minority.
So, better to use the research done by the Nazis on the Jews because throwing that information in the trash would be a waste?
Besides, they are using outdated science in stem cell field. Adult stem cell, placenta/umbilical stem cells are much better. They are more stable and don't have issues with tumors that are are associated with embryonic stem cells.
Fair point, should have said human body. Still, doesn't change the fact it's a child, which is what you were arguing against. Go to a ME and ask them how they would classify you on the autopsy table if I cut you up into a dozen parts.
It's called common decency...that shouldn't have to be forced on anyone...it is a given Dan.
One doesn't have to "have enough confidence in the morality...", what one has to do is ask those claiming a fetus isn't a person, to prove it. The burden of proof is on them. If they can't (and they can't) then we must, as a society, err on the side of caution and protect these lives.
I allowed that it could have been a child before it was killed. But after its dead you can't call it a child. I suspect you even agree with me on this and are just being obstinate out of habit. This point is pretty elemental.
It's also called every law. In every law someone is forcing their morality onto others. I find that argument to be the weakest one used by those who support keeping abortion legal.
As you've already pointed out, I couldn't possibly have any understanding of what makes a kid.
And the meaning of life is above my pay grade. But can we agree that a crushed up body with no active heart or brain function isn't a child any more?
I find the argument that a "fetus" is not a human life to be even weaker...and absolutely maniacal.
I can't do it. I can't force people to live like I think they should whether it seems the right thing to do or not, at least not with the info I've got in front of me on the subject of abortion. Now give me something that God made pretty danged clear and I can accept it. But I've looked and looked and found no answer on this topic.
I can't put myself in the shoes of those people who face that kind of decision. I don't understand. I know what I would and wouldn't do. Again, on this, that's all I've got. And believe me, I'm not happy about that, uneasy.
It was a child. That's the point. These butchers at PP chopped it up, profited from selling it's body parts, and then act like this is no different than selling different items off a restaurant menu.
As you've already pointed out, I couldn't possibly have any understanding of what makes a kid.
So what was the crushed up body with active heart and Brain prior?
I understand that, but that's not what we were arguing. At the point they are selling the item, it's not a child. Do we agree?
My God the thought of this makes me at least understand the motives of Eric Rudolph.
Yes, but then they get cute and admit it's a human life, but not a "person". Of course, ask 100 people what is the definition of a person and you'll get a 100 different answers. Those who are pro-choice have the burden of proof to prove a fetus isn't a person. I've yet to see a convincing argument, let alone proof.
You can call that a child if you like. That point wasn't in contention in this thread. You accused me of joking. Actually I thought I was fairly respectful in not pushing my views on personhood here. But I would assume reasonable people on all sides of this issue could agree that once a thing is dead, it's no longer a person.
Yes, but it still makes it no less evil imo. PP is profiting (from all appearances) from this evil and there's a financial incentive for them to encourage more women to have abortions instead of offering their child up for adoption or keeping the baby.
Maybe so. I entered the thread to find out more on this. How are they profiting? Aren't they selling these items for just the cost to store and package them? How much of a financial incentive do you see here?
I understand the subjectivity of the argument but these dead babies never gave their consent to be harvested. That's my biggest gripe.
Why is the burden of proof on the pro choice side? If any side has the burden of proof, I'd say it's your side since the law is currently on the pro choice side.
I can't believe people still refer to snopes.
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1
Until a thing is fully formed, it can't act as a fully formed thing. A bird can't fly until its wings grow. A child can't give consent until it can comprehend the concept. Thus the idea of fetal consent is an oxymoron. The concepts can't exist together.
Check out your "Accuracy in Politics" site
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/
What are all those right wing things all over the pages!!! Sorry, a hit job on Snopes is just a hit job on Snopes.
You are right about cognitive abilities of those in question but I would argue that just because a bird can't fly doesn't make it a bird. The same is said for a fetus.
So you're saying until a "thing" has the ability to comprehend for itself it has zero value?
Nope, I'm not arguing that at all. And if you were in a better mood I'd insert a joke here. I'm just pointing out that listing fetal consent as an objection is a weak point.
I'm not really interested in going through the litany of abortion arguments. I specifically granted you your childhood status to side step them so that we could rationally discuss the PP issue.
Why is listing fetal consent a "weak point" ? I'd honestly like to know?
Also if you want to argue the merits of the PP videos make a separate thread.
Because it's beyond the ability of a fetus to ever consent to anything. Its beyond the ability of a young child to do this too. Its just the nature of the thing, hence why I called it an oxymoron.
This is a PP thread. If you want to argue the merits of abortion make a separate thread.
A
anon_snp6dc585nnj4
Guest
Who cares what they do after with the fetus. Especially if it happens for the greater good of humanity.
Last edited by a moderator:
False.
If there were 'better sources', no one would pay for the tissue and there would be no market for fetal stem cells.
I wonder if the people outraged by this would be outraged if the remnants of tissue from a recently gassed, electrocuted, or lethally-injected person on death-row were being sold.
Explain the greater good? What specific medical cure miracle has come from harvesting murdered baby parts?Who cares what they do after with the fetus. Especially if it happens for the greater good of humanity.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
