• 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

What would you do? I can probably guess so don't bother to respond.

I don't like speaking to people like you who speak so flippantly about something so serious. Ta ta.

What would I do. I'd ask some med school if they wanted the specimens if not I'd find out how the city wants the formaldehyde preservative disposed of. I'm guessing they don't want it killing off the bacteria in their sewage treatment plant. Then I'd find the evangelical church that has been doing the most clucking about the seriousness to hold a service and bury the specimens.

What else is there to do. The man is dead.
 
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.

Thats an entirely different argument. THe Constitution isnt the source of our rights and the rights you listed are derived from the fundamental right to ones own life. Science tells us what is and is not human, not what rights we have as humans.
 
Same as you, at birth.
Explain how passing through the birth canal changes a non human into a human. And please, use any scientific expertise that you have to make your case.

The reason you can’t find any dictionary that includes fetuses in their definition of human is because there aren’t any because fetuses are not humans.
So there is no such thing as a human fetus? Where do you get your 'facts?'
 
At the end of the day, threads like this give everyone the opportunity to play spot the Fundy.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Since you are the only one playing, the game is solitaire. Enjoy.
 
We've been over this. It doesnt matter what you would have wanted or 'who you believed you were'...and I've provided the support of my opinion more than once that you cannot and certainly are not entitled to (nor the govt) to assume the same for others.

My point of view for virtually all posting here is imagining myself on the receiving end of whatever it is:

In order to assess slavery, allow me to be slave and see what it's like, and whether I'd buy into it.

In order to assess Indian Reservations, allow me to live on one for a month and see if I'd move my family there.

In order to assess abortion, let me be aborted, then report back on what I think of it.

The people that wrote the laws for slavery could never have been slaves themselves. The lawmakers who established reservations don't live on them. The people who allow abortion could never be aborted.

How much easier is it to write a law about enslaving people, when one isn't going to be enslaved themselves?

How much easier is it to write a law allowing abortion, when one has no chance of being aborted?





It's a really simple pattern.
 
You’re the one arguing that SCOTUS got it wrong. It’s up to you prove them wrong. And your argument that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say anything about abortion makes it a state’s rights issue is crap. SCOTUS’ duty is to interpret the Constitution, and they said that banning abortions is a violation of the Constitution, so again, deal with it.
You need look no further than the dissenting opinions. There wasn't total agreement even among the Justices. Still to ignore what the majority did say is dishonest.

Roe v. Wade (Decision January 22, 1973) — Subscript Law

The Court ruled that the woman’s liberty right (right to control whether or not she is pregnant) is stronger than the state’s interest in the fetus’ life up until a certain point in the pregnancy. That point is the “point of viability” - when the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb. After the point of viability, the state’s interest in protecting the fetus outweighs the woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. After the point of viability, the Court ruled, a state can prohibit women from getting abortions.
That point of viability has changed since 1973:

Constitution Check: Will changes in fetal medicine diminish abortion rights? - National Constitution Center

But that very rule, and the medical assumptions upon which it was based, has long given opponents of abortion what they regard as a basis for arguing that, sooner or later, medical science would recognize fetal viability at earlier stages in pregnancy, so states could prohibit the procedure earlier and earlier in order to protect potential fetal life.
Please try to be honest about it. Abortion isn't recognized as a right throughout pregnancy. The SC didn't rule as such. And again, not all SC Justices agreed with the opinion of the majority. That does matter when looking at this issue objectively.
 
Making up terms does nothing to support your argument. Neither the medical community or law recognizes your faux term.

I'm not making up a term. A fetus is human and unborn.
 
Ah...the old it's okay because "everyone is doing it" crap. Yes, they are babies. And, just because another civilization or society approves of abortion doesn't make it right. It's really ironic how liberal Democrats want to take away guns to stop killing but are blood thirsty about killing babies. Big tough people...NOT!


Abortions end a pregnancy, while the pregnancy is still gestating. 92 percent of all abortions in the US end during the first trimester, long before a fetus is gestated enough to even become viable. In fact over 60 percent occur by 8 weeks gestation.
Only about 1 percent occur occur past 21 weeks and those are for medical reasons.

15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies ( when the woman is aware she is pregnant ) spontaneously abort/ self abort ( also known in layman’s terms as miscarriages.)

By the way my lean is independent.

There are pro choice people from all political parties.

You seem to confuse pro choice with pro abortion which could not be further from the truth.

Pro choice people want to keep abortions legal within the parameters of Roe so the pregnant woman can follow her conscience, whether she wishes to continue her pregnancy or have an early abortion.

I will not support a law or a country that prevents a pregnant woman from having an early elective abortion.

On the other side of the coin I will not support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion even if the fetus were so malformed that if it survived birth it would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in medical costs.

The pregnant woman should be able to follow her own conscience, her own religious values, her own choice.
 
Because you are a human being. Oh, I forgot. You are a Democrat. That explains everything!

Sorry, I do not endorse anyone molesting children.
 
Explain how passing through the birth canal changes a non human into a human. And please, use any scientific expertise that you have to make your case.
You’re trying to debate legal/medical semantics, which means you’ve already lost the argument. The unborn are not recognized by law or the AMA as humans, period.

So there is no such thing as a human fetus? Where do you get your 'facts?'
Where did I say there’s no such thing as a human fetus?
 
You need look no further than the dissenting opinions. There wasn't total agreement even among the Justices. Still to ignore what the majority did say is dishonest.

Roe v. Wade (Decision January 22, 1973) — Subscript Law


That point of viability has changed since 1973:

Constitution Check: Will changes in fetal medicine diminish abortion rights? - National Constitution Center


Please try to be honest about it. Abortion isn't recognized as a right throughout pregnancy. The SC didn't rule as such. And again, not all SC Justices agreed with the opinion of the majority. That does matter when looking at this issue objectively.
Take your own advice. I made no claim that there was no dissent in Roe v Wade, and I made no claim that a woman can, for convenience sake, abort in late pregnancy.
 
I'm not making up a term. A fetus is human and unborn.
Yeah, you are. A fetus is called a fetus because it is not yet a human. Why is that simple logic so hard to comprehend?
 
Take your own advice. I made no claim that there was no dissent in Roe v Wade, and I made no claim that a woman can, for convenience sake, abort in late pregnancy.
You made the claim that they ruled that the states could not ban abortions. That’s not what they ruled.
 
There’s something sick in America’s abortion industry.

No. There isn't. Silly broad-brush reaction.


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.

Mental disorder\disease.

Same thing that might account for anyone who secretly does horrific things in any other walk of life.

Do you conclude that the emergency response industry has "something sick" going on in it when a random fireman somewhere is discovered to be a serial arsonist?
 
Sicko. He's beyond nuts.

There is no other reasonable explanation as to why a medical professional would remove thousands of fetal remains from his clinic and house them in his own personal residence.
 
You made the claim that they ruled that the states could not ban abortions. That’s not what they ruled.
They can’t. The only way a state can prohibit an abortion is if the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical need to do so. A very, very tiny fraction of all abortions.
 
They can’t. The only way a state can prohibit an abortion is if the fetus has reached viability and there is no medical need to do so. A very, very tiny fraction of all abortions.
You’re agreeing with me then. Good.
 
Because in that time, men saw this as helping those who really had a crisis for them to want an abortion. Not for birth control. The sad part is that 60 million babies were butchered. And, there were 60 million wanting parents that would have adopted them.

Got any proof of that? BTW, 60 million embryos or fetuses is NOT 60 million babies.
 
Show me in the Constitution bill of rights that a woman has the right to choose abortion or what they do to their own bodies? ....

From the following Live Science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.


For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Read more:


From the following Live Science article:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science
 
Last edited:
Since you are the only one playing, the game is solitaire. Enjoy.
Solitaire is a card game, you're triggered.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
This really isn't an actual abortion debate topic. There's plenty of other threads if you want to go down that line. It's a thread discussing a medical professional who actually removed thousands of fetal remains from his clinic and housed them in his own personal residence.

Collecting thousands of remains and then taking them home is not normal or usual behavior from a medical professional.

The person being discussed in the OP is nuts. It's that simple. Creepy as all heck. No ifs, buts or maybes.
 
Only if you think no means yes.
Well, it seems to me (based on what you said) that you agree with me that States can ban abortions. I’m glad we agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom