Planned Parenthood: New Video

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-21-2015, 03:10 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, it has to be alive too. It also has to have it's own set of DNA.

Whether it's own set or just part of someone else, at what point do you consider DNA alive?

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A human blastocyst has its own unique combination of human DNA. It cannot think. It cannot feel. It has no organ systems. It is not aware of self or surroundings. It cannot sense or respond to any stimuli. It cannot survive independently of the mother until it reaches the gestational maturity necessary to have at least a 50/50 chance of survival after birth with the most advanced life support systems available.

Is it human?  Yes.  Is it alive?  Yes. Is it a living, individual human with individual rights which supersede the rights of the mother?  In my opinion, emphasis on opinion, it is not. I concur with the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade opinion.

What will change my opinion?  Evidence my current opinion is wrong.

Certain rights should supersede other rights. Others should not. The right to human life should supersede everything. The right to the mothers life should supersede the right of the unborn child though. If you don't want to take care of the child, or if you cannot take care of the child give it to an adoption agency.

Now the state of adoption agencies is another issue that I have. I think that the government should be putting more tax dollars to help children more than what they're doing now, but that's a whole different topic.

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:16 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Whether it's own set or just part of someone else, at what point do you consider DNA alive?

DNA isn't alive, because it's a chemical compound.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2015, 03:25 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: DNA isn't alive, because it's a chemical compound.

Humans are chemical compounds.

What gives them life? This is what I was driving at early when certain people mocked me for understanding that sperm cells are alive while they failed to understand the important distinction. (Not you by the way.)

[fredtoast]

(08-21-2015, 03:23 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If you don't want to take care of the child, or if you cannot take care of the child give it to an adoption agency.

That still forces a woman to go through a 9 month pregnancy that she may not be able to afford, or will cost her her job, or get her kicked out of her home, or end her education.

The mother has individual rights.  The question is "When does the fetus become an individual due individual rights?"

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-21-2015, 03:23 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Certain rights should supersede other rights. Others should not. The right to human life should supersede everything. The right to the mothers life should supersede the right of the unborn child though. If you don't want to take care of the child, or if you cannot take care of the child give it to an adoption agency.

Now the state of adoption agencies is another issue that I have. I think that the government should be putting more tax dollars to help children more than what they're doing now, but that's a whole different topic.

Yes, I agree certain rights supersede others. But, at which point does an individual human gain rights?

[fredtoast]

(08-21-2015, 03:16 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The law doesn't discredit that the unborn child is alive. It just says the right of the mother trumps the right of the unborn child.

If you do an abortion on something that is alive is that not killing it? It's not a debate if it's alive, because the facts are it is.

But it is not an individual separate from the mothers body.  It is not a baby.  A baby is a different individual separate from the mother.

That is why when people ask a pregnant woman when she is going to "have her baby" she doesn't say "I already have."

[GMDino]

(08-21-2015, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That still forces a woman to go through a 9 month pregnancy that she may not be able to afford, or will cost her her job, or get her kicked out of her home, or end her education.

The mother has individual rights.  The question is "When does the fetus become an individual due individual rights?"

Which begs another question:  What if we gave more maternity time or benefits for having children to working women?  Would that help reduce the stress of a surprise pregnancy?

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But it is not an individual separate from the mothers body.  It is not a baby.  A baby is a different individual separate from the mother.

That is why when people ask a pregnant woman when she is going to "have her baby" she doesn't say "I already have."

How is it not another individual? It has its own separate DNA and even blood.

When people ask a pregnant woman when she is going to have her baby they are talking about when the baby is going to be born.

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yes, I agree certain rights supersede others. But, at which point does an individual human gain rights?

As soon as it's alive. It's an individual because it has its own individual set of DNA that's unique to itself.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-21-2015, 03:23 PM)Brownshoe Wrote:  If you don't want to take care of the child, or if you cannot take care of the child give it to an adoption agency.

Have you ever had to make this decision?

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Humans are chemical compounds.

What gives them life?  This is what I was driving at early when certain people mocked me for understanding that sperm cells are alive while they failed to understand the important distinction. (Not you by the way.)

A lot of different people have different opinions on "what gives them life". What gives them life is irrelevant to the point that they're alive IMO.

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That still forces a woman to go through a 9 month pregnancy that she may not be able to afford, or will cost her her job, or get her kicked out of her home, or end her education.

The mother has individual rights.  The question is "When does the fetus become an individual due individual rights?"

There are a lot of things that force you to leave your job or stop education. You just have to be responsible enough to know not to do those things that will get you kicked out or fired.

If you go into work drunk then you will more than likely get fired. So should getting drunk be illegal?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-21-2015, 02:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And you want to change the law so people will be forced to follow your beliefs.

Yes.  Why is that an issue? 

[fredtoast]

(08-21-2015, 04:08 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: There are a lot of things that force you to leave your job or stop education.

And how many of them does the government force you to do?

Getting pregnant will not cause you to lose your job, but being forced to o through a 9 month pregnancy could.

And we can't just live in a fantasy world where there are never any unwanted pregnancies. We have to deal with reality.

[*bfine32*]

(08-21-2015, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And how many of them does the government force you to do?

Getting pregnant will not cause you to lose your job, but being forced to o through a 9 month pregnancy could.

And we can't just live in a fantasy world where there are never any unwanted pregnancies.  We have to deal with reality.

This would make sense if the Government forced you to get pregnant; outside of that, it really doesn't.

[Brownshoe]

(08-21-2015, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And how many of them does the government force you to do?

Getting pregnant will not cause you to lose your job, but being forced to o through a 9 month pregnancy could.

And we can't just live in a fantasy world where there are never any unwanted pregnancies.  We have to deal with reality.

When did the government force you to get pregnant?

Why is it such a bad thing to think that people have to be responsible for their actions?

FWIW there are things the government has in place to stop jobs from firing you for being pregnant like FMLA.

[CKwi88]

New video.


Same thread.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-21-2015, 02:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: To an extent, I agree it is the same as you suggest.  However, that doesn't excuse the lack of integrity nor does it improve their lack of credibility. Because of those two things their message will never reach people like me because I can't trust them. If their goals is to influence other's opinion on abortion so it agrees with their own, they are going about it the wrong way.

I think that there's an overall lack of integrity in media, and it's not just one "side". 

Both sides of TV, radio, and print tend to pander to the extreme of both sides, because the extremes of both sides are the ones who pay attention on a regular basis.  They watch political shows, listen to talk radio, and buy newspapers or click links online.

It makes sense to do this from a fiscal standpoint, but doesn't change my opinion about their honesty or integrity.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2015, 11:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought you were in law enforcement.

You thought correctly.  I personally don't care what an adult does, the law may differ with my personal opinion.  In those cases the law must supersede my personal beliefs.  I think our drug laws are both stupid and counterproductive, but the decision to implement them is made above my pay grade.  This concept is really not that hard to grasp.