• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If It's True That Planned Parenthood Is Donating Fetal Tissue…

T

Troodon Roar

New member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
48
Reaction score
11
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

Oh come on! They wouldn't do that. It would put them in jeopardy of losing their subsidies.
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

We do not force a fetus to do anything because it is a thing not a person. You can fry fetal organs up for dinner for all I care
 
vegas giants said:
We do not force a fetus to do anything because it is a thing not a person. You can fry fetal organs up for dinner for all I care
Click to expand...

It would however be nice if it could grow up and be murdered by the corporate state police to maintian america's pro life stance on the world stage.
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a person. Fetal personhood is a pro-life thing.
 
Troodon Roar said:
With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ,
Click to expand...

I've never heard this.

Troodon Roar said:
it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...

It is blatantly delusional to imagine that a fetus can be compelled to do anything, that a fetus can consent to anything. (Parents must consent to donate a minor child's organs, so even a minor child cannot do so)
.
A fetus never has bodily autonomy. It is always dependent until birth.
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

Um, actually, if someone dies without having declared a position on donation, their family is allowed to decide whether or not their tissue will be donated. So...

I mean, if we are going to go along with your fantasy that fetuses are people with wills for the sake of argument, I'd just like to note that legally speaking, dead people don't have rights anyway.
 
Lursa said:
I've never heard this.
Click to expand...

I have, and have used it.

But the concept of forcing someone to live-donate a kidney (akin to forcing women to gestate against their will at the detriment to their health) is completely different from the concept of after-death decisions being made by the family, when the deceased has not expressed any preferences either way (which would be what donating fetal tissue comes down to, if we're pretending embryos are people).

If the dead didn't tell us what to do and isn't suffering regardless of what choice we make... well, some choice has to be made, doesn't it? Dead things can't make them, so someone has to.

The living, however, have a right to reject things that will cause them suffering, and to make choices. Because they can make choices, and they can suffer. Unlike the dead.
 
Fetuses aren't capable of consenting to *anything*. Do you say the same about consent to in-utero fetal surgery, that the fetus hasn't consented to that so therefore it shouldn't be done?
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaand another post of yours completely fails and makes ZERO logical sense and is just full of nonsense and strawmen. lol
 
Troodon Roar said:
Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

I asked this of you elsewhere (and got no response) but I wanted to know why you think this/these distinctions should make any difference in the unborn's legal status?
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE, as explained below.

Troodon Roar said:
With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do,
Click to expand...
HERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PERSONS AND BODIES OF FORMER PERSONS.

Troodon Roar said:
it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted,
Click to expand...
HERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT NEVER QUALIFIES AS A PERSON. That is why your argument is Stupidly False. You are trying to compare apples and oranges, and that never works.
 
Troodon Roar said:
…Then, for the pro-choice side, this represents an instance of hypocrisy of the highest order. With the analogy that forcing someone to remain pregnant is equivalent to forcing someone to donate an organ, which, as is often pointed out, even corpses are not compelled to do, it is blatantly hypocritical to compel a fetus to donate its organs, after it has been aborted, without its consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from a fetus to donate its organs. How can someone defend abortion based on the grounds of bodily autonomy, using forced organ donation as an example of a transgression against said bodily autonomy, while simultaneously forcing a fetus to donate its organs after it has been aborted without its consent? It is the same hypocrisy that I pointed out in my earlier thread which discussed pro-choicers supporting embryonic stem cell research, which forcibly takes stem cells from an embryo and donates them, of course, without that embryo's consent. Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are, then the harvesting and sale of fetal brains and other body parts is practical. I mean, why waste, especially when you can justify this for research purposes?
 
nota bene said:
If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are, then the harvesting and sale of fetal brains and other body parts is practical. I mean, why waste, especially when you can justify this for research purposes?
Click to expand...

Can you legally sell your kidney?
 
year2late said:
Your post made no sense.....
Click to expand...

You don't see sense in what I said about the pragmatism, if you don't regard the fetus as having any inherent value, of harvesting fetal organs and tissue? Give me a break. :roll:
 
nota bene said:
You don't see sense in what I said about the pragmatism, if you don't regard the fetus as having any inherent value, of harvesting fetal organs and tissue? Give me a break. :roll:
Click to expand...

You talked about it being for money. And my statement was that you cannot even sell a kidney for money. Your post made no logical sense,
 
year2late said:
You talked about it being for money. And my statement was that you cannot even sell a kidney for money. Your post made no logical sense,
Click to expand...

I did not mention money. Here is what I said: "If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are, then the harvesting and sale of fetal brains and other body parts is practical. I mean, why waste, especially when you can justify this for research purposes?"
 
nota bene said:
If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are, then the harvesting and sale of fetal brains and other body parts is practical. I mean, why waste, especially when you can justify this for research purposes?
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
I did not mention money. Here is what I said: "If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are, then the harvesting and sale of fetal brains and other body parts is practical. I mean, why waste, especially when you can justify this for research purposes?"
Click to expand...
Sure you did.
 
nota bene said:
If you regard the fetus as less than human or human but not deserving of the same human dignity and respect that born humans are,
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. No "justification" is necessary. Unborn humans are 100% human, but that fact does not matter, any more than it matters that a hydatidiform mole is human, or a cancer is human, or cuticle cells getting killed by the hundred during manicures are human. And all the CLAIMS of abortion opponents, that the human-ness of the unborn matters, is nothing more than worthless blather, so long as they can present zero evidence that it matters in this day-and-age of human overpopulation.
 
nota bene said:
And yet that's what you're doing, and your lame "justification" is human overpopulation. :roll:
Click to expand...
MISINTERPRETATION. The concept of "justification" is about explaining why something is "right" or at least "not wrong". But abortion does not need any justification, simply because neither you nor anyone else can show it to be wrong, Objectively. All you have are worthless/erroneous claims. Lies, in other words. Meanwhile, overpopulation can be a factor to take into account when one considers whether or not to have an abortion. Nothing more than that is necessary, regarding that topic.
 
Troodon Roar said:
Only, in this case, it is a fetus with cells that have already differentiated and formed organs, so it just boggles my mind that pro-choicers do not experience profound cognitive dissonance with respect to these allegations regarding Planned Parenthood's activities, again, if they are, indeed, true.
Click to expand...

I asked this of you elsewhere (and got no response) but I wanted to know why you think this/these distinctions should make any difference in the unborn's legal status?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom