User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:03:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus hasn't anyone heard of birth control??? Abortion is a poor method. Uhm ... it's 100% effective. TRG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen If I go to my dentist to have my tooth pulled and he doesn't pull my tooth does that mean I had my tooth pulled? TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:04:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody cares You may not but PP has Corporate sponsors who are ejecting and I can guarantee that PP cares. Also PP's friends in Congress are not happy with these revelations and there are a lot of people who call themselves pro-Choice who are getting nauseous over the revelations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:04:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, welcome back TRG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus hasn't anyone heard of birth control??? Abortion is a poor method. Uhm ... it's 100% effective. TRG Thanks. Good to see you as well. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:05:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IDK, let me take your liver, heart and lungs out and then you tell me if it's a big issue. group of cells.....dumb ass. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OMG VIDEO OF THEM REMOVING GROUPS OF CELLS TO USE FOR RESEARCH. HOLD THE FUCKING PHONES!! 
why is this even an issue? IDK, let me take your liver, heart and lungs out and then you tell me if it's a big issue. group of cells.....dumb ass.
Rumor is the baby parts, which are clearly identifiable as such get show in one of the future videos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:06:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Conservatives eat themselves alive. Trump runs third party. President Hilary. Winning.  There are Democrats who are already backing away from PP and the Corporations who have given them money told PP to remove the donor list from the PP website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:10:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:11:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Edit: I also can't squirt out a child, so really my opinion is null and void. As is every other mans opinion imo. You don't have a vag, shut up and let the women fight it out. we have other "man" shit to worry about. Addressing your statement at face value, saying that you can't discuss it because you don't have a vagina is like saying you shouldn't have an opinion on slavery because you can't own slaves. It's not a situation you'll encounter and you won't have to balance a moral choice against tangible benefits, so how are you at all qualified to have an opinion? Also, we can't recuse ourselves from the discussion based on genital loadout, inasmuch as everyone capable of having the discussion is a direct beneficiary of a mother who chose not to terminate her pregnancy. Arguing that the choice should be left to the mother is a stance taken by one who is secure in the knowledge he has already avoided all negative personal consequences. People would be calling it "unaborted privilege" if the pro-choice and "OMG PRIVILEGE" groups didn't completely overlap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:11:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:13:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry but you are disgusting, I have a ultrasound side view of one my children sucking her thumb in the womb. Another of my girls with what appears to be a smile. Jesus Christ you guys that believe that are twisted. Not quite Mengele, but just as bad. ignore, click That's wonderful. I love babies and children. I'm glad your wife chose to have them, if I were pregnant, I'd have a baby too. I don't want to kill fetuses. I just want the right to control anything inside my body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:15:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:15:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. What are your thoughts on what does determine personhood? Many of the arguments I see used to support Planned Parenthood could also be used to justify the creation of brain dead fetuses that could ultimately be grown into adults specifically for organ harvest. Where do you draw the line? If a person has the resources, should they be allowed to intentionally create and maintain a set or two of backup organs for themselves? Just think how forward thinking that would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:17:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Problem with abortion? I can see that. But once aborted is it better to trash then or use them for science? Those parts will help lead to break through treatments that will probably save your life one day. I don't think the trigger point is that they are utilizing body parts... the trigger points are: 1) That they are preforming abortions on an industrial scale, encouraging women of a lower economic and educational strata to have abortions, and doing so as a means to enrich their coffers. There is a ghoulish nature to it all, and reeks of exploitation and butchery (which it is). 2) The horrific nature of the procedure laid out in all it gore and savagery, modified as needed, only when financially expedient to the organization promoting and preforming the procedures. This again reinforces the industrial nature of their operation. The group putting this all out seems to be well aware of the methods best suited to gain maximum effect. It starts off slow, with the video of the doctor last week, then climbs the chain of command to the director level, gaining attention and momentum as it rises. Eventually arriving at a devastating crescendo depicting the bloody horrors of the procedure once the maximum level of exposure, attention, and most importantly eyes, are on the subject. Their PR team is on their game. Quite frankly I'm glad. Abortion is abhorrent from a practical perspective and is a crime against nature and humanity. The scale and horrors of the Nazis pale in comparison to those visited upon the unborn in this country since the procedure has been legalized and sanctioned by our society. Conventional contraception is widely available and cheep, if not free. To continue to engage in this barbaric practice in not only inhumane, but harkens back to the middle ages. There are simply more efficient, cost effective, humane ways to prevent pregnancies from occurring than to have to resort to outright butchery to end one once it has occurred. Is an affront to our humanity and the modern age to have this level of blood on the hands of this Nation, or any nation for that matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:18:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/ "In some cases, we can get four football fields of skin out of one baby foreskin," And there's a big difference between being against circumcision (which I am) and trying to legally prevent people from circumcising their children (which I am not). Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being against abortion. The only thing wrong is when you try to infringe on people's rights to sovereignty in their own bodies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These people have no problem harvesting organs off dead babies, but flip shits when someone wants to circumcise a newborn. There's not much of a market for used foreskins. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/ "In some cases, we can get four football fields of skin out of one baby foreskin," And there's a big difference between being against circumcision (which I am) and trying to legally prevent people from circumcising their children (which I am not). Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being against abortion. The only thing wrong is when you try to infringe on people's rights to sovereignty in their own bodies. False. Murder is wrong. Second, the baby inside you is not your body. The baby is inside your body, but it's not your body. The value of that human life doesn't depend on your mood and whether you think it has value or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:19:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The two month old is outside my body, so whatever I do to it isn't controlling my own body anymore, is it? I can legally and morally give that baby away, I just can't harm it because it's on it's own outside my body. I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. Furthermore, anything inside my body is my responsibility and mine to do with as I please. You may not like that it's my right, but you have to leave me alone to make the choices here. You have no right to protect the fetus at the expense of my will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You forgot one. My personal favorite, "it's my body". It's not my body? Whose body is it then, yours? If the fetus has brain activity then your body and babies. Is it legal to throw your two month old outside in the back yard because you don't want to use your body to take care of it anymore? I don't see it as any different. The two month old is outside my body, so whatever I do to it isn't controlling my own body anymore, is it? I can legally and morally give that baby away, I just can't harm it because it's on it's own outside my body. I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. Furthermore, anything inside my body is my responsibility and mine to do with as I please. You may not like that it's my right, but you have to leave me alone to make the choices here. You have no right to protect the fetus at the expense of my will. So do you believe you have the right to kill the baby if it's 9 months developed, and you could go into labor any time soon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:19:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are your thoughts on what does determine personhood? Many of the arguments I see used to support Planned Parenthood could also be used to justify the creation of brain dead fetuses that could ultimately be grown into adults specifically for organ harvest. Where do you draw the line? If a person has the resources, should they be allowed to intentionally create and maintain a set or two of backup organs for themselves? Just think how forward thinking that would be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. What are your thoughts on what does determine personhood? Many of the arguments I see used to support Planned Parenthood could also be used to justify the creation of brain dead fetuses that could ultimately be grown into adults specifically for organ harvest. Where do you draw the line? If a person has the resources, should they be allowed to intentionally create and maintain a set or two of backup organs for themselves? Just think how forward thinking that would be. Sorry, but what you just described would be awesome. I would definitely grow backup organs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:20:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:22:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. You're not told how to feed your baby or how much TV to show it, but if you kill it or neglect it you'll go to prison for doing so; so yeah, it's pretty much the same, and yeah, one of the most legitimate roles of government is to protect the rights of its citizens--rights like the right to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:24:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. You're comparing killing the fetus to how you can feed a baby. That's an asinine comparison. Does the government have the right to interfere if you are going to kill your child? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:25:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/22/more-planned-parenthood-videos-coming-in-this-summer-of-our-shame/ Planned Parenthood should brace for a video a week for the next five or six weeks exposing the ongoing trafficking in fetal body parts. ...the worst is yet to comeQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: lol infowars http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/22/more-planned-parenthood-videos-coming-in-this-summer-of-our-shame/ Planned Parenthood should brace for a video a week for the next five or six weeks exposing the ongoing trafficking in fetal body parts. ...the worst is yet to come |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:28:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When the brain is up and running it's more than just your body. I could care less if you want to commit suicide, but taking another persons without just cause is wrong. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:28:18 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I saw a story which said that Speaker Boehner was launching an investigation of this matter. We can all be sure the House of Representatives will get to the bottom of the situation.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:29:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Did you consent to him being teleported into your uterus? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:30:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are your thoughts on what does determine personhood? Many of the arguments I see used to support Planned Parenthood could also be used to justify the creation of brain dead fetuses that could ultimately be grown into adults specifically for organ harvest. Where do you draw the line? If a person has the resources, should they be allowed to intentionally create and maintain a set or two of backup organs for themselves? Just think how forward thinking that would be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. What are your thoughts on what does determine personhood? Many of the arguments I see used to support Planned Parenthood could also be used to justify the creation of brain dead fetuses that could ultimately be grown into adults specifically for organ harvest. Where do you draw the line? If a person has the resources, should they be allowed to intentionally create and maintain a set or two of backup organs for themselves? Just think how forward thinking that would be. I'm comfortable with brain-less tissue/organ banks. Absolutely. Why not? We already grow tissue in labs. We reproduce skin for burn victims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:31:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lolercoaster owns page two  Is that your other account? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:32:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
False. Murder is wrong. Second, the baby inside you is not your body. The baby is inside your body, but it's not your body. The value of that human life doesn't depend on your mood and whether you think it has value or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These people have no problem harvesting organs off dead babies, but flip shits when someone wants to circumcise a newborn. There's not much of a market for used foreskins. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/ "In some cases, we can get four football fields of skin out of one baby foreskin," And there's a big difference between being against circumcision (which I am) and trying to legally prevent people from circumcising their children (which I am not). Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being against abortion. The only thing wrong is when you try to infringe on people's rights to sovereignty in their own bodies. False. Murder is wrong. Second, the baby inside you is not your body. The baby is inside your body, but it's not your body. The value of that human life doesn't depend on your mood and whether you think it has value or not. It's not murder. Anything inside my body is mine. Regardless of it's value, you can't control what goes on in my body. It's my own sovereign country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:33:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Do you also believe that this principle should apply to people on your property or other domain, or is there something special and unique about one's person that places human life below personal discomfiture? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:36:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So do you believe you have the right to kill the baby if it's 9 months developed, and you could go into labor any time soon? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You forgot one. My personal favorite, "it's my body". It's not my body? Whose body is it then, yours? If the fetus has brain activity then your body and babies. Is it legal to throw your two month old outside in the back yard because you don't want to use your body to take care of it anymore? I don't see it as any different. The two month old is outside my body, so whatever I do to it isn't controlling my own body anymore, is it? I can legally and morally give that baby away, I just can't harm it because it's on it's own outside my body. I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. Furthermore, anything inside my body is my responsibility and mine to do with as I please. You may not like that it's my right, but you have to leave me alone to make the choices here. You have no right to protect the fetus at the expense of my will. So do you believe you have the right to kill the baby if it's 9 months developed, and you could go into labor any time soon? Morally, I think it would be really wrong to do it, but I do have the right to do it. More importantly, no one has the right to stop me. Just as if I had a beautiful, well behaved German Shepherd that I wanted to put down. My neighbor says he wants it and I know he'd give it a wonderful home. I put my GSD down anyway just because I can. It's really wrong and I would never do such a thing, but no one has a right to stop me. It's my right to do wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:37:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Problem with abortion? I can see that. But once aborted is it better to trash then or use them for science? Those parts will help lead to break through treatments that will probably save your life one day. Besides the fact that by federal law it's prohibited for taxpayer funded clinics to sell fetal tissue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:37:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Morally, I think it would be really wrong to do it, but I do have the right to do it. More importantly, no one has the right to stop me. Just as if I had a beautiful, well behaved German Shepherd that I wanted to put down. My neighbor says he wants it and I know he'd give it a wonderful home. I put my GSD down anyway just because I can. It's really wrong and I would never do such a thing, but no one has a right to stop me. It's my right to do wrong. So why can't you just kill your 2 month old baby? Why is anyone able to stop you? I mean, it's your kid, it's your right to do wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:40:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. That is the most ridiculous premise for an argument I have ever heard. If's, maybes, and suppositions are the realm of fantasy and fairy tales. This is the real world. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Rights of Man, and the Bill of Rights, you can not for a second support the right to destroy the innocent simply because of an irresponsible decision made by someone else. You can try to justify it any way you want, but the contradiction will exist and there will be no philosophical or moral argument that can circumvent it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:41:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Shorter Bigeasysnow: Baby lives end, where her rights begin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:45:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not told how to feed your baby or how much TV to show it, but if you kill it or neglect it you'll go to prison for doing so; so yeah, it's pretty much the same, and yeah, one of the most legitimate roles of government is to protect the rights of its citizens--rights like the right to live. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. You're not told how to feed your baby or how much TV to show it, but if you kill it or neglect it you'll go to prison for doing so; so yeah, it's pretty much the same, and yeah, one of the most legitimate roles of government is to protect the rights of its citizens--rights like the right to live. It's all neglect, it's just different points on the care/neglect continuum. You accept that the state has a right to tell you how to raise your children. You're comfortable with it because you trust that the state's opinion of right and wrong matches your own sense. What if the state's opinion on discipline left you branded an abuser? You leave a bruise spanking your child and it gets taken away from you to protect it's rights to be free from abuse. The government has to be kept from overstepping its role and becoming an oppressor. Also, a fetus is not a citizen. If a citizen lived in my body, it would be a citizen of the state of Me, before it would be a citizen of the U.S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:46:22 PM EDT
[#33]
In general this is an old fight that has already been lost by conservatives and our new supreme court won't be changing anything in terms of legality. We live in a sick world now.
However all federal funding should cease immediately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:47:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're comparing killing the fetus to how you can feed a baby. That's an asinine comparison. Does the government have the right to interfere if you are going to kill your child? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. the unborn baby has rights whether people want to deal with it or not. we fine people for killing a damn eagle or hawk but nothing for a baby. And it's society's job to stick up for the fetus? You get to decide that the fetus' rights trump mine and you get to enforce them? What's next? Tell me how to feed my baby? Tell me my toddler spends too much time in front of the TV? You don't have any right to control what I do to my body or the creatures in it. You are not my fetus' nanny. The government has no right to interfere. You're comparing killing the fetus to how you can feed a baby. That's an asinine comparison. Does the government have the right to interfere if you are going to kill your child? Is it within the confines of my body or outside? How much control over your body and your children are you willing to let the government have? Can it have one of your kidneys to save another child? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:49:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Problem with abortion? I can see that. But once aborted is it better to trash then or use them for science? Those parts will help lead to break through treatments that will probably save your life one day. Does this mean i can shoot people and claim it is for science. They are gonna die someday anyway right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:50:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you consent to him being teleported into your uterus? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Did you consent to him being teleported into your uterus? I thought the risk was truly minimal. I took every precaution. And our teleporter research was very important. I'm going to decide to expel him naturally and hope he lives. But that isn't the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:51:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Once upon a time we thought owning a human being was immoral - but now it is not only ok to "own" the fetus, but to chop it up and sell the parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:52:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's all neglect, it's just different points on the care/neglect continuum. You accept that the state has a right to tell you how to raise your children. You're comfortable with it because you trust that the state's opinion of right and wrong matches your own sense. What if the state's opinion on discipline left you branded an abuser? You leave a bruise spanking your child and it gets taken away from you to protect it's rights to be free from abuse. The government has to be kept from overstepping its role and becoming an oppressor. Also, a fetus is not a citizen. If a citizen lived in my body, it would be a citizen of the state of Me, before it would be a citizen of the U.S. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SNIP You're not told how to feed your baby or how much TV to show it, but if you kill it or neglect it you'll go to prison for doing so; so yeah, it's pretty much the same, and yeah, one of the most legitimate roles of government is to protect the rights of its citizens--rights like the right to live. It's all neglect, it's just different points on the care/neglect continuum. You accept that the state has a right to tell you how to raise your children. You're comfortable with it because you trust that the state's opinion of right and wrong matches your own sense. What if the state's opinion on discipline left you branded an abuser? You leave a bruise spanking your child and it gets taken away from you to protect it's rights to be free from abuse. The government has to be kept from overstepping its role and becoming an oppressor. Also, a fetus is not a citizen. If a citizen lived in my body, it would be a citizen of the state of Me, before it would be a citizen of the U.S. You do realize you just argued that killing your own children shouldn't be illegal, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:53:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the risk was truly minimal. I took every precaution. And our teleporter research was very important. I'm going to decide to expel him naturally and hope he lives. But that isn't the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Did you consent to him being teleported into your uterus? I thought the risk was truly minimal. I took every precaution. And our teleporter research was very important. I'm going to decide to expel him naturally and hope he lives. But that isn't the issue. If you took every precaution you wouldn't have let the man's penis in your vagina. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:53:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you also believe that this principle should apply to people on your property or other domain, or is there something special and unique about one's person that places human life below personal discomfiture? "Discomfiture" trivializes pregnancy. That being said, yes. There is something special and unique about one's own person that places human life within it below the will of the person. But property rights are really important too. A man's rights on his property and with his family are serious things to trifle with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:58:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why can't you just kill your 2 month old baby? Why is anyone able to stop you? I mean, it's your kid, it's your right to do wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Morally, I think it would be really wrong to do it, but I do have the right to do it. More importantly, no one has the right to stop me. Just as if I had a beautiful, well behaved German Shepherd that I wanted to put down. My neighbor says he wants it and I know he'd give it a wonderful home. I put my GSD down anyway just because I can. It's really wrong and I would never do such a thing, but no one has a right to stop me. It's my right to do wrong. So why can't you just kill your 2 month old baby? Why is anyone able to stop you? I mean, it's your kid, it's your right to do wrong. Because the rights of the person outside my body are catching up to my own rights. In a few years, I'll have no rights over the person I birthed. It's a scale, a continuum. In several more years, the person I birthed may have rights to control my life, under certain circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:59:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The two month old is outside my body, so whatever I do to it isn't controlling my own body anymore, is it? I can legally and morally give that baby away, I just can't harm it because it's on it's own outside my body. I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. Furthermore, anything inside my body is my responsibility and mine to do with as I please. You may not like that it's my right, but you have to leave me alone to make the choices here. You have no right to protect the fetus at the expense of my will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You forgot one. My personal favorite, "it's my body". It's not my body? Whose body is it then, yours? If the fetus has brain activity then your body and babies. Is it legal to throw your two month old outside in the back yard because you don't want to use your body to take care of it anymore? I don't see it as any different. The two month old is outside my body, so whatever I do to it isn't controlling my own body anymore, is it? I can legally and morally give that baby away, I just can't harm it because it's on it's own outside my body. I reject the mere presence of brain activity as the determinant of personhood. Furthermore, anything inside my body is my responsibility and mine to do with as I please. You may not like that it's my right, but you have to leave me alone to make the choices here. You have no right to protect the fetus at the expense of my will. That's fucked up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:01:03 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uhm ... it's 100% effective. TRG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Jesus hasn't anyone heard of birth control??? Abortion is a poor method. Uhm ... it's 100% effective. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:01:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not murder. Anything inside my body is mine. Regardless of it's value, you can't control what goes on in my body. It's my own sovereign country. What a special perspective. So if I come up behind you, grab your hand, and stick one of your fingers in my mouth, I am now free to kill you because "anything inside my body is mine." Such is the worldview of the self-obsessed feminist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:02:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once upon a time we thought owning a human being was immoral - but now it is not only ok to "own" the fetus, but to chop it up and sell the parts. Terminate the fetus, determine the best way to chop it up so that the harvested parts have the most value. Then negotiate a lucrative payout on the "transportation" of the fetus parts. I don't have words for how amoral and evil this is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:02:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does this mean i can shoot people and claim it is for science. They are gonna die someday anyway right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Problem with abortion? I can see that. But once aborted is it better to trash then or use them for science? Those parts will help lead to break through treatments that will probably save your life one day. Does this mean i can shoot people and claim it is for science. They are gonna die someday anyway right? As a mere subject of the state you will never be allowed to make such a determination. Only those appointed to rule us will be empowered to make such determinations, and even they will have to wait until the journey to the Brave New World is complete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:03:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the risk was truly minimal. I took every precaution. And our teleporter research was very important. I'm going to decide to expel him naturally and hope he lives. But that isn't the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. Did you consent to him being teleported into your uterus? I thought the risk was truly minimal. I took every precaution. And our teleporter research was very important. I'm going to decide to expel him naturally and hope he lives. But that isn't the issue. You know there are easier ways to get your uterus filled with seamen. TRG |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:04:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the most ridiculous premise for an argument I have ever heard. If's, maybes, and suppositions are the realm of fantasy and fairy tales. This is the real world. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Rights of Man, and the Bill of Rights, you can not for a second support the right to destroy the innocent simply because of an irresponsible decision made by someone else. You can try to justify it any way you want, but the contradiction will exist and there will be no philosophical or moral argument that can circumvent it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The two month old is controlling your body. You are not legally free to walk away and never see it again without first ensuring care has been handed to another responsible person. I view the babies brain inside your body the same. You are not free to remove it until you can ensure care has been handed to another responsible person. Ideally the baby could be removed from your body at any time and you could walk away, we're not their yet medically though. If you have sex of your own accord you give up some of your rights until the baby can be safely handed to another. The control over my body a 2 month old exercises is nothing compared to pregnancy. Getting rid of the 2 month old is a snap. The fact that all this happens outside the mother's body makes it a very different situation than when the fetus or baby is inside the mother's body. When we require the mother to place the 2 year old in responsible hands before walking away, we're controlling her actions. It's not the same as controlling her body to make her carry a fetus to term. If I have sex of my own accord, I give up no rights. My body is outside of society's and the government's jurisdiction. It's my body and my fetus, not society's or law makers. In your oppinion should abortion be legal to 39 weeks? Say an unfortunate adult scuba diver were hit with a shrink ray and teleported to my uterus in an accident at my lab. And say that upon seeing him on an Xray, I could decide to pull him out, even though it would kill him. It would really suck for the diver, who has the same rights as I do when we stand side by side. But my being the houser of him means my will trumps his rights. Everyone could urge me not to kill that man, but no one would have the right to stop me. That is the most ridiculous premise for an argument I have ever heard. If's, maybes, and suppositions are the realm of fantasy and fairy tales. This is the real world. If you truly believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Rights of Man, and the Bill of Rights, you can not for a second support the right to destroy the innocent simply because of an irresponsible decision made by someone else. You can try to justify it any way you want, but the contradiction will exist and there will be no philosophical or moral argument that can circumvent it. Support the right? Maybe not, but can I interfere? If you had the diver in your stomach and you were about to take him out, would I have any right to stop you? I don't think I do. I don't support your taking him out, I want you to let him come out naturally. But I don't have any right to stay your hand by force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:05:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These people have no problem harvesting organs off dead babies, but flip shits when someone wants to circumcise a newborn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:05:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shorter Bigeasysnow: Baby lives end, where her rights begin. More accurate BigeasySnow: Would love to have a baby, jealously guards her rights. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
