Who Needs Planned Parenthood??

[PaintMyHouse]

There is little doubt Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. It was a popular movement a century ago.

And still perfectly valid. Healthy people make healthy babies.

The Eugenics movement believed breeding should be regulated by the government.

That is not "perfectly valid". That is about as far from "perfectly valid" as it gets!

It promoted healthy and responsible breeding. Hardly a radical idea, but it when the government stepped in that was a problem, which is what killed the perfectly valid movement.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you actually SUPPORT poor people having more children than they can afford?

Weird.

No Gilligan, I SUPPORT ALL PEOPLE recognizing the specific and exclusive purpose of sexual intercourse... and where they are capable of reproduction, to abstain from such, unless and until they are intent upon having children.

If they are intent upon abusing themselves, then they should take measures to sterile themselves... in do doing, they will limit the consequences for their unsustainable behavior to the host of venereal diseases that follow such.

None of that is relevant to the right of choice on abortion.

ROFLMNAO!

So, Sexual intercourse is not relevant to conception Gilligan?

LOL!... Well Reader... you see the problem, right? I mean I've told you time and again that "THE PROBLEM" is a function of the sub-human limitations of the Ideological Left and there are few means that better define THAT, than the Left now claiming in their public professions that 'Sexual Intercourse is NOT RELEVANT TO CONCEPTION.'

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She was against abortion.

Why did Martin Luther King say this about her?

"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.

For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command."

Margaret Sanger and the African American Community

nice quote, no where does MLK say that he supported black genocide via abortion.

MLK's high praise for Sanger proves that you and the anti-abortion extremist propaganda machine are liars.

Neither did Sanger.

I have given you her quotes proving otherwise. Here they are again

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words

So you believe that Martin Luther King supported a genocide of black America.

Fuckinay that's the best one yet today.

You are the one making that claim about MLK. I merely showed how you are full of shit as usual.

I quoted him verbatim. The bullshit here is that Sanger was trying to eradicate black America.

did you read her quotes? Its pretty clear why she founded PP. You may not like that truth, but you have to deal with it.

You are the one who is lying, like this, your source.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members"

• Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
• Omits words from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger proposing the "Negro Project", where Sanger wrote: "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
  

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is little doubt Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. It was a popular movement a century ago.

The core support for eugenics came from the anti-immigrant factions.

WASPs.

Hitler was in favor of eugenics. so was margaret sanger. nothing more needs to be said.

Both also liked children and dogs. Guess you have to ban those now eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She was against abortion.

Why did Martin Luther King say this about her?

"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.

For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command."

Margaret Sanger and the African American Community

nice quote, no where does MLK say that he supported black genocide via abortion.

Neither did Sanger.

I have given you her quotes proving otherwise. Here they are again

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words

The very first quote in that link says Sanger called blacks "human weeds".

That's a lie. And you can tell it is a lie by the fact they put those words in total isolation without showing the full context. She makes NO reference to blacks in the statement that comes from.

In short, your source is full of shit.

Prove it. your saying it proves nothing. If the source is lying why hasn't PP sued them for slander?

Sanger opposed the eugenicists, as she states here:

• Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

Margaret Sanger Quotes - Controversial Contraceptives Pioneer

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Sanger quote is fake.

What?

You're saying that the record of Margaret Sanger's own words is not real and that this is because that reality discredits her, you and the litany of idiots who claim to stand against everything she stood for... because you're otherwise standing with her... .

Well that much is true.

Sanger had wide support in black America for her beliefs and her actions.

Yes she did...

 

[NYcarbineer]

nice quote, no where does MLK say that he supported black genocide via abortion.

MLK's high praise for Sanger proves that you and the anti-abortion extremist propaganda machine are liars.

I have given you her quotes proving otherwise. Here they are again

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words

So you believe that Martin Luther King supported a genocide of black America.

Fuckinay that's the best one yet today.

You are the one making that claim about MLK. I merely showed how you are full of shit as usual.

I quoted him verbatim. The bullshit here is that Sanger was trying to eradicate black America.

did you read her quotes? Its pretty clear why she founded PP. You may not like that truth, but you have to deal with it.

You are the one who is lying, like this, your source.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members"

• Misquoted by Diane S. Dew (2001)
• Omits words from a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble Sanger proposing the "Negro Project", where Sanger wrote: "And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Classic RWnuttery. The quote says exactly the opposite of what the RWnuts say it says.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Sanger quote is fake.

What?

You're saying that the record of Margaret Sanger's own words is not real and that this is because that reality discredits her, you and the litany of idiots who claim to stand against everything she stood for... because you're otherwise standing with her... .

Well that much is true.

Sanger had wide support in black America for her beliefs and her actions.

Yes she did...

Sanger wanted women to have control over their own reproduction. We get it. You oppose that.

 

[g5000]

There is little doubt Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. It was a popular movement a century ago.

The core support for eugenics came from the anti-immigrant factions.

WASPs.

Hitler was in favor of eugenics. so was margaret sanger. nothing more needs to be said.

TardLogic™.

I'm sure you were hoping nothing more would be said, but it's a fact Sanger denounced Hitler.

"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible," she wrote in 1933, "and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria."

She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany."

Henry Ford (conservative hero) on the other hand, was a Eugencist and a friend of Hitler.

Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

nice quote, no where does MLK say that he supported black genocide via abortion.

Neither did Sanger.

I have given you her quotes proving otherwise. Here they are again

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words

The very first quote in that link says Sanger called blacks "human weeds".

That's a lie. And you can tell it is a lie by the fact they put those words in total isolation without showing the full context. She makes NO reference to blacks in the statement that comes from.

In short, your source is full of shit.

Prove it. your saying it proves nothing. If the source is lying why hasn't PP sued them for slander?

Sanger opposed the eugenicists, as she states here:

• Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother.

Margaret Sanger Quotes - Controversial Contraceptives Pioneer

We understand the rationalization that Sanger used to justify murdering pre-born children Gilligan. What you are simply incapable of understanding is that for that rationalization to be VALID... the woman's first duty is to CHOOSE WISELY in with whom, when and where she allows a man to insert his reproductive organ into her reproductive organ.

As once she CHOOSES to allow a man to DO SO... she has MADE HER CHOICE. And must from that point forward bear the responsibilities intrinsic to HER CHOICE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes she did...

Sanger wanted women to have control over their own reproduction. We get it. You oppose that.

We understand the rationalization that Sanger used to justify murdering pre-born children Gilligan. What you are simply incapable of understanding is that for that rationalization to be VALID... the woman's first duty is to CHOOSE WISELY in with whom, when and where she allows a man to insert his reproductive organ into her reproductive organ.

As once she CHOOSES to allow a man to DO SO... she has MADE HER CHOICE. And must from that point forward bear the responsibilities intrinsic to HER CHOICE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Eugenics movement believed breeding should be regulated by the government.

As in the government would fund the means to murder the pre-born children of those who the government feels are incapable of sustaining themselves, thus such would largely be accompanied by federal subsidies beyond just paying for the murder of their pre-born children, such would also provide for their food, their housing, their medical care, etc... which is precisely where the Eugenicists are today and the policies that they've established and which are in full force and effect, even as we speak.

Good point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you actually SUPPORT poor people having more children than they can afford?

Weird.

No Gilligan, I SUPPORT ALL PEOPLE recognizing the specific and exclusive purpose of sexual intercourse... and where they are capable of reproduction, to abstain from such, unless and until they are intent upon having children.

If they are intent upon abusing themselves, then they should take measures to sterile themselves... in do doing, they will limit the consequences for their unsustainable behavior to the host of venereal diseases that follow such.

None of that is relevant to the right of choice on abortion.

ROFLMNAO!

So, Sexual intercourse is not relevant to conception, Gilligan?

LOL!... Well Reader... you see the problem, right?

I mean I've told you time and again that "THE PROBLEM" is a function of the sub-human limitations of the Ideological Left and there are few means that better define THAT, than the Left now claiming in their public professions that 'Sexual Intercourse is NOT RELEVANT TO CONCEPTION.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fungible doesn't apply. Look up segregated funds.

PC thinks she's smarter than she is.

Twice I have posted the following in response to your drivel.....

...and all you have done is run off and hidden.

Another chance?

So...you are ignorant of both law and science.

A primer:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



So.....if the unborn human is not a part of the mother's body....
...what right does she have to slay same?


Bet you can't answer....

Then why do you refuse to endorse making abortion the crime of murder and prosecuting women accordingly?

question for you, NY. If a person kills a pregnant woman he/she is charged with two counts or murder. Why is that?

I actually never supported that because it was clear it would be used by wingers who don't understand the word "CHOICE"... it has to do with taking away another person's CHOICE... you can't kill another person and you can't interfere with a woman's exercise of her own will over her own body....

same as you can't take away my property without my PERMISSION

You 'never supported it' because you are an immoral fool who regularly hides behind religion and an occupation you don't understand.

Your real religion is Liberalism.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fungible doesn't apply. Look up segregated funds.

PC thinks she's smarter than she is.

Twice I have posted the following in response to your drivel.....

...and all you have done is run off and hidden.

Another chance?

So...you are ignorant of both law and science.

A primer:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



So.....if the unborn human is not a part of the mother's body....
...what right does she have to slay same?


Bet you can't answer....

Then why do you refuse to endorse making abortion the crime of murder and prosecuting women accordingly?

question for you, NY. If a person kills a pregnant woman he/she is charged with two counts or murder. Why is that?

I actually never supported that because it was clear it would be used by wingers who don't understand the word "CHOICE"... it has to do with taking away another person's CHOICE... you can't kill another person and you can't interfere with a woman's exercise of her own will over her own body....

same as you can't take away my property without my PERMISSION

Suicide is illegal, why not infanticide?

Btw....
The baby isn't part of "your body".

 

[Redfish]

For our friends on the left..

Since you support abortion of demand at any stage of a pregnancy, why limit it to pre-birth? What difference do you see in a partial birth abortion and killing a 1 year old? What exactly is the difference in your mind?

You're lying about me, asshole. As usual.

OK, great. Then tell us what is different between killing a child as it comes out of its mother and killing it when it is 1 year old.

I am waiting for carbon head, jilly, or any of our lib friends to answer the question. partial birth killing vs killing at 1 year--------whats the difference as you libs see it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Twice I have posted the following in response to your drivel.....

...and all you have done is run off and hidden.

Another chance?

So...you are ignorant of both law and science.

A primer:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



So.....if the unborn human is not a part of the mother's body....
...what right does she have to slay same?


Bet you can't answer....

Liberals believe in magic.

A baby is just tissue to be used as they see fit......until the moment the baby leaves the birth canal....then it magically transforms into a living, breathing human-being, ready to be used by the left as fodder in anti-gun legislation.

There is no doubt about it.


They march lock-step with their predecessors:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
Leon Trotsky



Such is the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency.

Since you refuse to treat abortion as murder, you're no different than Trotsky or any other name you drop.

the actual killing is done by the "doctor", not the woman. So if anyone should be charged it should be the doctor.

abortion is legal and constitutionally protected

no one should be "charged".

Twice I have posted the following in response to your drivel.....

...and all you have done is run off and hidden.

Another chance?

So...you are ignorant of both law and science.

A primer:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything(Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?



So.....if the unborn human is not a part of the mother's body....
...what right does she have to slay same?


Bet you can't answer....

Then why do you refuse to endorse making abortion the crime of murder and prosecuting women accordingly?

question for you, NY. If a person kills a pregnant woman he/she is charged with two counts or murder. Why is that?

I actually never supported that because it was clear it would be used by wingers who don't understand the word "CHOICE"... it has to do with taking away another person's CHOICE... you can't kill another person and you can't interfere with a woman's exercise of her own will over her own body....

same as you can't take away my property without my PERMISSION

a baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body, it is a separate and distinct human being that is temporarliy dependent on the mother for nourishment.

but you dodged the question, if a fetus is not a human being why is the murderer of a pregnant woman charged with two counts of murder?

er... no. it's part of the woman's body. that was one of the issues examined by Roe v Wade. admittedly, it wasn't a perfect decision, but it got the job done.

"no. it's part of the woman's body."

No, it isn't.

Let's prove it a fourth time.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The anti-abortion movement is solely based on irrational emotion. There is no rational argument against providing women a safe, legal window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy.

Ridiculous arrogance. It is perfectly rational to want to protect unborn babies.

We protect animals from being mistreated. We protect children from being beaten. Why not offer unborn babies the basic right to life?

There is no right to life, period.

Were you an America, you might think differently...

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

A nice phrase, that they obviously didn't believe, and I am an American, a real one while you aren't even an American in name only.

Yet, I've just shown that the very opposite is the case.

You're as American as Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin...or any other totalitarian assassin.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"no. it's part of the woman's body."
No, it isn't.

Since it dies the same time that she does, that matters very little, if at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The anti-abortion movement is solely based on irrational emotion. There is no rational argument against providing women a safe, legal window of opportunity to terminate a pregnancy.

Ridiculous arrogance. It is perfectly rational to want to protect unborn babies.

We protect animals from being mistreated. We protect children from being beaten. Why not offer unborn babies the basic right to life?

There is no right to life, period.

Were you an America, you might think differently...

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

pssst... those words aren't law.

The Hyde Amendment is.