Planned Parenthood ADMITS THAT IT KILLS BABIES

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2022, 01:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The real calamity begins when the incarcerated woman gets pregnant while incarcerated, by a transgender inmate in the women's housing unit.

(06-13-2022, 01:57 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm drawing attention to the fact that not enough is being done to prevent more of them being conceived in prison right now.

Right. That's the real calamity. Something that I am not sure if it has ever even happened. Not the rape of inmates by employees in the prisons that does happen.

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2022, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right. That's the real calamity. Something that I am not sure if it has ever even happened. Not the rape of inmates by employees in the prisons that does happen.

Prison rape is one of our society's favorite jokes, but conception is nothing to joke about...well, not in this case I guess.  Hard to say.

Anyways, why are we locking up babies?  

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-13-2022, 02:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Prison rape is one of our society's favorite jokes, but conception is nothing to joke about...well, not in this case I guess.  Hard to say.

Anyways, why are we locking up babies?  

They are broke deadbeats living off their mom and the system. If they had money they wouldn’t be locked up

[Lucidus]

(06-13-2022, 11:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So if abortion isn't killing babies, then why when a pregnant woman is killed by violence or negligence is the perpetrator charged with two deaths?

If parents decide to have Siamese twins separated, in cases where one twin requires attachment to the other for it's survival, it's not considered murder.

However, if someone were to cause the death of both twins, even though only one could survive independently, they would be charged with both deaths.

[Leon]

(06-16-2022, 08:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If parents decide to have Siamese twins separated, in cases where one twin requires attachment to the other for it's survival, it's not considered murder.

However, if someone were to cause the death of both twins, even though only one could survive independently, they would be charged with both deaths.

that didn't answer his question about if abortion supposedly isn't killing babies. i don't even know what your trying to say here. sorry buddy, what do twins have to do with it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-16-2022, 08:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: If parents decide to have Siamese twins separated, in cases where one twin requires attachment to the other for it's survival, it's not considered murder.

However, if someone were to cause the death of both twins, even though only one could survive independently, they would be charged with both deaths.

Morally speaking, their goal isn’t to kill the other child. Much like jumping on a grenade is not considered suicide.

[Lucidus]

(06-20-2022, 09:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Morally speaking, their goal isn’t to kill the other child. Much like jumping on a grenade is not considered suicide.

Indeed sir. The goal would not be to kill the child -- as in maliciously taking a life -- but rather, to safely end a life by means of a medical procedure performed by qualified personnel, with the informed consent of those making the ultimate decision [parents].

In much the same way, I would argue that ending a pregnancy by means of a medical procedure performed by qualified personnel, with the informed consent of the mother, meets the same moral criteria because the goal isn't to maliciously take a life- but rather, to terminate a pregnancy -- which is a comparable state of physical dependency as offered with the Siamese twins example.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-21-2022, 02:31 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Indeed sir. The goal would not be to kill the child -- as in maliciously taking a life -- but rather, to safely end a life by means of a medical procedure performed by qualified personnel, with the informed consent of those making the ultimate decision [parents].

In much the same way, I would argue that ending a pregnancy by means of a medical procedure performed by qualified personnel, with the informed consent of the mother, meets the same moral criteria because the goal isn't to maliciously take a life- but rather, to terminate a pregnancy -- which is a comparable state of physical dependency as offered with the Siamese twins example.

Ummmm....what?

[Lucidus]

(06-21-2022, 05:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ummmm....what?

Perhaps you could expound on what you didn't understand?

My apologies if I didn't convey my thoughts clearly.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-24-2022, 02:52 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Perhaps you could expound on what you didn't understand?

My apologies if I didn't convey my thoughts clearly.

Taking a life is killing.  The goal is to kill.

[grampahol]

Well, if you think outlawing murder of anyone, including children is a great idea then vote to outlaw the military and police. Last time I checked they're well equipped to perform murders on a grand scale and they're not very sanitary about it. they generally don't even ask permission. The state has often sanctioned murder and age isn't a factor in it. 

[Lucidus]

(06-24-2022, 04:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Taking a life is killing.  The goal is to kill.

Are distinction, nuance and proper categorization things you consider important when assessing a proposition?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-24-2022, 07:07 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Are distinction, nuance and proper categorization things you consider important when assessing a proposition?

Your act is getting old already. We already have a Dill. You are the one who attempted to do that.

With abortion the intent, in fact the goal, is to kill the fetus. There is no other motive.

[Lucidus]

(06-24-2022, 07:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Your act is getting old already. We already have a Dill. You are the one who attempted to do that.

With abortion the intent, in fact the goal, is to kill the fetus. There is no other motive.

You stated in response to my Siamese twin analogy that "their goal isn’t to kill the child" even though the decision was made with the knowledge that the dependent child would die. 

How does that change when it's a fetus who's dependent on a female's body? 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-24-2022, 08:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: You stated in response to my Siamese twin analogy that "their goal isn’t to kill the child" even though the decision was made with the knowledge that the dependent child would die. 

How does that change when it's a fetus who's dependent on a female's body? 

One has the goal of killing. One has death as the most likely outcome. I’m not necessarily ok with the latter but it is different just like my grenade analogy. Death while almost a certainty is not the goal. Death is the inly goal in abortion.

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2022, 09:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: One has the goal of killing. One has death as the most likely outcome. I’m not necessarily ok with the latter but it is different just like my grenade analogy. Death while almost a certainty is not the goal. Death is the inly goal in abortion.

No, it isn't.

First, in order for there to be death one must consider it a life. People have different views on personhood.

Second, when a pregnant individual experiences a miscarriage and things have to be "cleaned out," that is also considered an abortion procedure.

Third, there are abortions, especially those that occur later in the term that are done to preserve the health and possibly life of the pregnant individual. Is that not similar to the conjoined twins analogy?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-24-2022, 09:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, it isn't.

First, in order for there to be death one must consider it a life. People have different views on personhood.

Second, when a pregnant individual experiences a miscarriage and things have to be "cleaned out," that is also considered an abortion procedure.

Third, there are abortions, especially those that occur later in the term that are done to preserve the health and possibly life of the pregnant individual. Is that not similar to the conjoined twins analogy?

1. You can debate personhood or not but it’s a life. A rabbit isn’t a person but it’s a life.

2. OK but you know what I’m talking about when I say abortion. No need to be pedantic.

3. Yes that would be similar.

.

[grampahol]

Coming from a political party that could care less if your newborn gets dragged away and eaten by the family cat under the sofa this is all good and well.. protect life right up till the moment of birth then you're on your own.. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2022, 12:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 1. You can debate personhood or not but it’s a life. A rabbit isn’t a person but it’s a life.

It's a distinction that is very important in these conversations, though.

(06-25-2022, 12:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 2. OK but you know what I’m talking about when I say abortion. No need to be pedantic.

Well, there is a need to be pedantic when you say death is the only goal in abortion.

(06-25-2022, 12:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 3. Yes that would be similar.

Good, I am glad we can agree that death is not the only goal in abortion.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-25-2022, 08:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's a distinction that is very important in these conversations, though.


Well, there is a need to be pedantic when you say death is the only goal in abortion.


Good, I am glad we can agree that death is not the only goal in abortion.

The distinction is important in some conversations, but not in the one we were having. You have to look at his original question. He’s comparing life to life.

It’s being pedantic when you know what we are talking about and you bring up a D and C.

And no rare exceptions don’t put us in agreement.