• 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!

2246 preserved fetal remains found in abortionist's garage

Fletch said:
Then they are unborn humans
Click to expand...

I havent written otherwise. You do know that 'human' in that sentence is a noun, right?
 
Lursa said:
I havent written otherwise. You do know that 'human' in that sentence is a noun, right?
Click to expand...

It seemed as if you were agreeing with the guy making the claim. If you werent, great.
 
Fletch said:
Nor does it exclude them. Here is your definition
human adjective
hu·​man | \ ˈhyü-mən , ˈyü-\
Definition of human (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans (see HUMAN entry 2)
the human brain
human voices
problems that have occurred throughout human history
2: consisting of humans
everyone held hands and made a human chain
3a: having human form or attributes
the statue is more human than the beings at his feet
— Clifton Fadiman
b: representative of or susceptible to the sympathies and frailties of human nature
human kindness
a human weakness
such an inconsistency is very human
Click to expand...
Didn’t realize I needed to specify the noun definition of human. :roll:
human noun
Definition of human (Entry 2 of 2)
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person : MAN sense 1c —usually plural

Fletch said:
If your argument that what grows in the womans body is not human, what is it? Are you saying its possible for a woman to give birth to something other than a human? So you thinks its possible a monkey could pop out of there?
Click to expand...
By definition (see above or other dictionaries for the noun definition of human), a fetus is not a human.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Why do you think that?


You laugh at logical, fact based terms, but are okay with nonsensical ones. No surprise.
Click to expand...

What is logical and fact-based about the word pre-human? There is no such thing. A fetus is a human in his/her earliest developmental stage. To claim that a human must be out of the womb to suddenly become "a human" is one of the least logical, most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. It's just as ridiculous as if someone claimed that you aren't a human until you can walk on your own or speak in full sentences or have a certain skin color. Gender and DNA is assigned at conception -- at conception is the very beginning of the human's life. There's no "pre-human" or "post-human" or "almost human" or "potential human". All of those are fabricated terms created by people who want to justify the killing of unborn humans.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Didn’t realize I needed to specify the noun definition of human. :roll:
human noun
Definition of human (Entry 2 of 2)
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : a person : MAN sense 1c —usually plural


By definition (see above or other dictionaries for the noun definition of human), a fetus is not a human.
Click to expand...

I posted the wrong definition. But it changes nothing. A human fetus is human. Period. This shouldnt have to be explained to supposed lovers of science :roll: but here we are. But go ahead, tell me what a human fetus is if not human and when it does become human .
 
Fletch said:
I posted the wrong definition. But it changes nothing. A human fetus is human. Period. This shouldnt have to be explained to supposed lovers of science :roll: but here we are. But go ahead, tell me what a human fetus is if not human and when it does become human .
Click to expand...

If you say "human" you're opening yourself up to comparison with a thumb or a liver, both are 'human' because they contain human tissue.

What you mean to say is that at conception, a unique individual is created of the human species. It happens to be in a very early lifecycle stage. It's not "human" - it is "a human".
 
Josie said:
What is logical and fact-based about the word pre-human? There is no such thing. A fetus is a human in his/her earliest developmental stage. To claim that a human must be out of the womb to suddenly become "a human" is one of the least logical, most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. It's just as ridiculous as if someone claimed that you aren't a human until you can walk on your own or speak in full sentences or have a certain skin color. Gender and DNA is assigned at conception -- at conception is the very beginning of the human's life. There's no "pre-human" or "post-human" or "almost human" or "potential human". All of those are fabricated terms created by people who want to justify the killing of unborn humans.
Click to expand...
1. I didn’t say “pre-human”
2. Regardless of your silly yammering, by definition, a fetus is not a human. That you are unhappy about that isn’t my concern. Take your heartburn up with the lexicographers.
 
Fletch said:
I posted the wrong definition. But it changes nothing. A human fetus is human. Period. This shouldnt have to be explained to supposed lovers of science :roll: but here we are. But go ahead, tell me what a human fetus is if not human and when it does become human .
Click to expand...
You just keep running in circles. Face it, you have no cogent argument. What you’re doing is arguing based on your beliefs and feelings, not facts.
 
Fletch said:
I posted the wrong definition. But it changes nothing. A human fetus is human. Period. This shouldnt have to be explained to supposed lovers of science :roll: but here we are. But go ahead, tell me what a human fetus is if not human and when it does become human .
Click to expand...

The pertinent question here, which all the discussion...as I wrote...has diverted the conversation from...is why does it matter if the unborn is human? Who says, what authority says, that it has a right to life? Science doesnt 'say' that. Science is objective and applies no value. No animal has a 'right to life' according to science.

Constitutionally, women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, privacy (reproductive/familial/medical), etc. are all protected. The key here in America is, the Constitution is that authority.
 
Last edited:
Josie said:
Over 2,000 dead human bodies found in a house and it isn't newsworthy? They're just like dead rats to you, aren't they?
Click to expand...

None of what he did was illegal. He did abortions legally. He preserved the fetal tissue legally. He's dead. He has a legal right to do that. What is it that you want the public to do about it. Dig him up and flog him. Have a burial ceremony for the preserved fetuses?. Start a campaign against preserving fetal remains? Take his license away ....... oh wait he's dead. Sue the family for not knowing that he was doing something strange but not illegal? Return the remains to the women?

How much gasping and tongue clucking is enough to soothe the indignation of conservative church attendees?
 
nota bene said:
I've waited several days to see if anybody would begin a thread on this; because no one has, I will. Ulrich "George" Klopfer was Indiana's most "prolific" abortionist, and after his death on September 3rd and while cleaning out the garage, his wife found his "trophies."

Any number of sources--WaPo, the NY Times, pick a source--have reported on the grisly discovery. From USA Today:

There’s something sick in America’s abortion industry. What else would account for a doctor who collected thousands of dead babies in some kind of twisted hobby that he hid from his allegedly unsuspecting wife.

Two thousand two hundred and forty-six fetuses were found “medically preserved” in Ulrich Klopfer’s garage last week after he died on Sept. 3. And now the attorneys general of Illinois and Indiana are investigating how the human remains got from Klopfer’s network of Indiana abortion clinics to his rural Illinois home and what laws might have been violated.

Klopfer isn’t the only abortionist to enjoy keeping trophies of his grisly work close at hand. America’s most infamous baby killer, Kermit Gosnell, also kept fetal body parts in “milk jugs and glass jars” at his clinic in Philadelphia before he was convicted in 2013 on three counts of murder for snipping the spinal cords of babies born alive. Klopfer abortion tale links Gosnell and Buttigieg to fetal remains

Family of abortion doctor doesn’t know why fetal remains were in garage at Will County home, lawyer says - Chicago Tribune

From pro-life writer Alexandra Desanctis:

If his family had uncovered thousands or hundreds or even dozens of body parts from human adults, we’d witness wall-to-wall news coverage of the most notorious serial killer in history — and rightly so. Instead, because they are small and we are not, we will close our eyes. In a few days, most of us will forget. We will tell ourselves that Klopfer was a criminal and the rest are not, that abortion is sterile and sanitary while these were not, that the unborn don’t have bodies if we don’t have to look at them. Indiana Abortion Horror Reminds Us: Fetuses Are Human Beings | National Review
Click to expand...

I read that link to National Review. It's horrible. I get this feel in the pit of my stomach. I've always been against abortion, but I'm also against the government having too much power, like this, and the death penalty, which I'm also against, but this gives me pause. I still don't think that the government belongs in this decision, but I pray for those babies...….I'm so conflicted....almost sick.:(
 
Josie said:
Oh?...



^^ this is science fiction.
Click to expand...
My mistake. In the back and forth, trying to pull you out of your fantasy interpretation of what a human is I forgot part of one post. Hey, I’m only human. Unlike a fetus. ;)
 
Lursa said:
The pertinent question here, which all the discussion...as I wrote...has diverted the conversation from...is why does it matter if the unborn is human? Who says, what authority says, that it has a right to life? Science doesnt 'say' that. Science is objective and applies no value. No animal has a 'right to life' according to science.

Constitutionally, women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, privacy (reproductive/familial/medical), etc. are all protected. The key here in America is, the Constitution is that authority.
Click to expand...
And you get upset when I say a pro-abortionist cannot be a real Christian.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
And you get upset when I say a pro-abortionist cannot be a real Christian.
Click to expand...

Please, use your words...why do you imply I'm not a good Christian? I dont wish any unborn killed...I just support protecting the right of women not to be forced to remain pregnant against their will. That's clearly immoral...I'm sure you, as a Christian, would never approve of that, right?
 
weaver2 said:
None of what he did was illegal. He did abortions legally. He preserved the fetal tissue legally. He's dead. He has a legal right to do that. What is it that you want the public to do about it. Dig him up and flog him. Have a burial ceremony for the preserved fetuses?. Start a campaign against preserving fetal remains? Take his license away ....... oh wait he's dead. Sue the family for not knowing that he was doing something strange but not illegal? Return the remains to the women?

How much gasping and tongue clucking is enough to soothe the indignation of conservative church attendees?
Click to expand...

You have no idea if he did or didn't do anything illegal.
You have no idea if all of the abortions he was part of were legal.
You have no idea if preserved fetal tissue legally or illegally.

That's why there's an ongoing investigation.

Do you think the investigation is silly? Unwarranted? Justified? Why or why not?
 
Lursa said:
The pertinent question here, which all the discussion...as I wrote...has diverted the conversation from...is why does it matter if the unborn is human? Who says, what authority says, that it has a right to life? Science doesnt 'say' that. Science is objective and applies no value. No animal has a 'right to life' according to science.

Constitutionally, women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, privacy (reproductive/familial/medical), etc. are all protected. The key here in America is, the Constitution is that authority.
Click to expand...

You are applying the "because the government says so" line of thinking. Women can't drive in Muslim countries because their government says so, therefore it is right.
 
Josie said:
You have no idea if he did or didn't do anything illegal.
You have no idea if all of the abortions he was part of were legal.
You have no idea if preserved fetal tissue legally or illegally.

That's why there's an ongoing investigation.

Do you think the investigation is silly? Unwarranted? Justified? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I have to agree, investigation is the way to go.

It could be nothing.

It could be citations

It just could be friggen creepy.

My mom grew up in DC area and they made frequent trips to Smithsonian.....I remember her telling me stories of things in jars....something tells me there were some fetus and babies involved. I have no clue of the context of the collections.
 
Rickeroo said:
You are applying the "because the government says so" line of thinking. Women can't drive in Muslim countries because their government says so, therefore it is right.
Click to expand...

So then answer my question...who says? What authority?

To use govt force to make women to remain pregnant against their will...amounts to exactly what they do in Muslim countries.

We do have a Constitution...are you saying it doesnt apply to women? Where else should we decide to ignore the Constitution when creating our laws?

Constitutionally, women's rights to bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, privacy (reproductive/familial/medical), etc. are all protected.
Click to expand...
 
Rickeroo said:
You are applying the "because the government says so" line of thinking. Women can't drive in Muslim countries because their government says so, therefore it is right.
Click to expand...
Not because the government says so. Because the Constitution says so. And we don’t live in a Muslim country, so you’re bringing that up is irrelevant.
 
Lursa said:
So then answer my question...who says? What authority?

To use govt force to make women to remain pregnant against their will...amounts to exactly what they do in Muslim countries.

We do have a Constitution...are you saying it doesnt apply to women?
Click to expand...

In 1845, people had a right to own slaves because the government said so. People had a right to own slaves and the government enforced that right.

In other words, don't use the government in justifying anything. If a woman has the right to abort her body, I have no issues with her aborting her arm, her leg, or her entire self.
 
Rickeroo said:
In 1845, people had a right to own slaves because the government said so. People had a right to own slaves and the government enforced that right.

In other words, don't use the government in justifying anything. If a woman has the right to abort her body, I have no issues with her aborting her arm, her leg, or her entire self.
Click to expand...

You have not yet answered my questions...then I am happy to explain to you why slaves were different.

So then answer my question...who says? What authority?

To use govt force to make women to remain pregnant against their will...amounts to exactly what they do in Muslim countries.

We do have a Constitution...are you saying it doesnt apply to women? Where else should we decide to ignore the Constitution when creating our laws?​

And it's really interesting that you deleted the last question from your post.
 
Last edited:
Hiccup!
 
nota bene said:
I've waited several days to see if anybody would begin a thread on this; because no one has, I will. Ulrich "George" Klopfer was Indiana's most "prolific" abortionist, and after his death on September 3rd and while cleaning out the garage, his wife found his "trophies."

Any number of sources--WaPo, the NY Times, pick a source--have reported on the grisly discovery. From USA Today:

There’s something sick in America’s abortion industry. What else would account for a doctor who collected thousands of dead babies in some kind of twisted hobby that he hid from his allegedly unsuspecting wife.

Two thousand two hundred and forty-six fetuses were found “medically preserved” in Ulrich Klopfer’s garage last week after he died on Sept. 3. And now the attorneys general of Illinois and Indiana are investigating how the human remains got from Klopfer’s network of Indiana abortion clinics to his rural Illinois home and what laws might have been violated.

Klopfer isn’t the only abortionist to enjoy keeping trophies of his grisly work close at hand. America’s most infamous baby killer, Kermit Gosnell, also kept fetal body parts in “milk jugs and glass jars” at his clinic in Philadelphia before he was convicted in 2013 on three counts of murder for snipping the spinal cords of babies born alive. Klopfer abortion tale links Gosnell and Buttigieg to fetal remains

Family of abortion doctor doesn’t know why fetal remains were in garage at Will County home, lawyer says - Chicago Tribune

From pro-life writer Alexandra Desanctis:

If his family had uncovered thousands or hundreds or even dozens of body parts from human adults, we’d witness wall-to-wall news coverage of the most notorious serial killer in history — and rightly so. Instead, because they are small and we are not, we will close our eyes. In a few days, most of us will forget. We will tell ourselves that Klopfer was a criminal and the rest are not, that abortion is sterile and sanitary while these were not, that the unborn don’t have bodies if we don’t have to look at them. Indiana Abortion Horror Reminds Us: Fetuses Are Human Beings | National Review
Click to expand...

I wonder what laws have been broken. And there's a strong possibility that a few people were involved in transporting them so they'll come after them.
 
Lursa said:
You have not yet answered my questions...then I am happy to explain to you why slaves were different.

So then answer my question...who says? What authority?

To use govt force to make women to remain pregnant against their will...amounts to exactly what they do in Muslim countries.

We do have a Constitution...are you saying it doesnt apply to women? Where else should we decide to ignore the Constitution when creating our laws?​

And it's really interesting that you deleted the last question from your post.
Click to expand...

Of course it applies to women and their bodies. Not other's bodies though, so the 1973 decision, much like 1845 slave legality, is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. Constitution aside though, abortion is a humanistic issue that transcends cultures and governments. Remember that poor retard that didn't want her kind to be aborted because of the new German retard test? Imagine the hubris of that retard - putting her desires above that of a Normal woman that doesn't want to be bothered by a retarded child.

I think the attitude towards abortion is reflective of society - life is a burden and doesn't mean much. Even after we abort left and right and have 'tons of free time' with less kids, we put the kids that do make it into day care centers to be raised by third parties as man and wife serve their corporate masters.

I think I'm coming from a different place, which is why I can't be on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom