Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[koshergrl]

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?

They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.

 

[Dragonlady]

They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.

YOU need to be called out and stopped. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion. But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford. That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

 

[koshergrl]

They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.

YOU need to be called out and stopped. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion. But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford. That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Racketeering, murder, assault. That's the abortion industry. And you wallow in it.

 

[sakinago]

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

I have to say nothing but awesome and enjoyable debate from you care4all. Good points.

Now I must say, I have never brought up religion or gods commandments and you seem to think that that is where I'm coming from. So I don't believe that people are not right with god for using birth control, or that that was ever an issue (I guess that use to be a catholic thing). Or that be fruitful and multiply is an ultimate commandment, and the withdrawal method of birth control is wrong (been used for thousands of years). Nor do i think it pertains to this debate. I think you think I'm coming from a more naturalistic philosophy perspective, but I'm not... Id say it's more from a kantian perspective and what's good for the goose, is good for the gaggle in a sense. Life should be protected for everyone, you have a right to it. No one, government or mother should be allowed to take that from you, wether your capable or not of understating the consequences of those choosing for you. Otherwise the only difference between third and second trimester, or a 6th month old is time hallmarks chosen by people very recently... And I guess the ability of the lungs to exchange gases. It is still undeniably human life, and should be protected. The mothers financial and social status should not be taken into consideration when talking about human life.

And I must say I agree that I am against forcing people into medical situations, eg the new California vaccination law, I'm pro vaccine but I'm sorry you can't force people to take it. But im sorry but ultrasound is not invasive at all, unless you want to say X-rays are invasive. And I think abortion is sold as birth control, accidents happen I understand that more than anyone, but that's all abortion really is, birth control after life is formed. Life that has rights

 

[BlueGin]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. And "well of souls"? What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?

It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs

 

[koshergrl]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. And "well of souls"? What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?

It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs

Wth lolol I swear....

 

[BlueGin]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. And "well of souls"? What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?

It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs

Wth lolol I swear....

Highlander... Seven Signs... Jon Stewart.

Libs watch a lot of TV apparently

 

[koshergrl]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. And "well of souls"? What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?

It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs

Wth lolol I swear....

Highlander... Seven Signs... Jon Stewart.

Libs watch a lot of TV apparently

Instead of reading.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Well of Souls is in Jerusalem under the Temple Mount. Some of us do more reading than you can imagine.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh Indiana Jones. Got it.

 

[Faun]

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.

Apparently not. The women having abortions donated the body parts. They made no profit nor did PP. No laws were broken.

 

[HenryBHough]

[
Given your personality, I suspect you know more about hookers than I do.

Point is that we already know what you are and all we're haggling is price.

 

[koshergrl]

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.

Apparently not. The women having abortions donated the body parts. They made no profit nor did PP. No laws were broken.

Not according to the doc. Take it up with her, she's the one who described the crimes, after all.

 

[Care4all]

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?

your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

what's a 'highlander'?

 

[koshergrl]

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?

your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

what's a 'highlander'?

What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.

 

[Care4all]

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?

your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

what's a 'highlander'?

What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.

it has to do with the term ''quickening'' which he claims never existed, or claims there is no such thing, and its meaning

 

[koshergrl]

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die, and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize

See, I agree and disagree with you. And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable.... Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen.... today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching. And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree. Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....

There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?

your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

what's a 'highlander'?

What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.

it has to do with the term ''quickening'' which he claims never existed, or claims there is no such thing, and its meaning

Irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Darkwind]

They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.

YOU need to be called out and stopped. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion. But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford. That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.

Yet you tell men they must pay for children THEY cannot afford...You really need to sit down and work on your cognitive dissidence.

 

[A Perez]

Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get

Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions

An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.

The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.

In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.



While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”

Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.

Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”

The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.

BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite

False title.

 

[skookerasbil]

These planned parenthood people.......Id pay to be there at their deathbeds wehn they are ready to check out!!! What a hoot!!! Just stand their with a big old smile and say, "Its gonna be awesome s0n!!!"