• 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!

Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors [W:24]

Grant said:
Actually the point is well made. Slavery is an excellent example of evil being socially acceptable. Not bathing has never been considered 'evil'.
Click to expand...

so what current "evil" are you talking about?
are you deeming that abortion is factually evil?
 
Grant said:
Actually the point is well made. Slavery is an excellent example of evil being socially acceptable. Not bathing has never been considered 'evil'.
Click to expand...

And with that post, you made the dishonesty and disingenousness of your argument clear.

The important part of the comparison was not the social acceptability part, as you dishonestly tried to assert. It was the moral judgment part of it.

To which I say, **** those morals and **** the moral fascists who want to use the govt to force people to adhere to their sick sense of morality
 
sangha said:
And with that post, you made the dishonesty and disingenousness of your argument clear.

The important part of the comparison was not the social acceptability part, as you dishonestly tried to assert. It was the moral judgment part of it.

To which I say, **** those morals and **** the moral fascists who want to use the govt to force people to adhere to their sick sense of morality
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that you have little use for morals and that they are all "subjective". Others feel morals are valuable in maintaining a social equilibrium in order that all our lives becomes a little easier, with less fear.There are times I feel your side is winning as you do get a lot of support. Suppressing information is also advantageous to those who chose to live a moral free life.
 
Grant said:
Yes, I understand that you have little use for morals and that they are all "subjective". Others feel morals are valuable in maintaining a social equilibrium in order that all our lives becomes a little easier, with less fear.There are times I feel your side is winning as you do get a lot of support. Suppressing information is also advantageous to those who chose to live a moral free life.
Click to expand...

You understand very little about what I think

The law is not for enforcing morals. It is for protecting rights, and maintaining order.

It is also ironic that the only way you can argue the superior morality of your position is by telling lies.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

You may find this article/web post to be a response to your question. Link:Media Matters Ignores Gosnell Grand Jury to Defend Planned Parenthood.

Also, I feel the argument that a baby's brain needs to be fully developed to be considered life is rather disrespectful to those who children/adults with incomplete or abnormal brain development and are fully alive sotospeak. Further, does anyone remember BEING a newborn? Are newborns not alive? Lastly, has anyone seen a study where they ask pregnant women or those who already had children, if they felt as though they were carrying a life or not. I would be curious to hear the responses. Just some food for thought.

Green Balls said:
Gosnell's practice was not a PP facility, so why are they getting dragged into this mess? People need to stop assuming PP when they hear the word abortion. That's like calling all facial tissues Kleenex. PP doesn't run every abortion clinic in the country, nor are they affiliated with every abortion clinic.

The day I even consider switching to pro-life would be the day someone can remember the time they were in the womb. The reason why no one can remember is because their brain wasn't fully developed. I know that may piss some people off, but think about it.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Then kill it. What a plan!
Click to expand...

Your emotional outburst is understandable but unnecessary. Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
not so rare

This story -- which if nothing else suggests that live births do, in fact, happen during late-term abortions -- upsets a particular narrative about the reality of certain types of abortion, and that reality isn’t something some pro-choice absolutists want to discuss.
Click to expand...

Why Is the Press Ignoring the Kermit Gosnell Story? - Bloomberg

This has disturbing implications for late-term abortions. It suggests that sometimes those fetuses are delivered alive. Worse, it hints at what we might be doing inside the womb to ensure that the other ones aren't.
Click to expand...

Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial--And Why I Should Have - The Daily Beast
 
april 17:

Tracy Weitz, associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, explained: “When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.”

Dr. Weitz added that third-trimester abortions involve “euthanizing” the baby with a chemical injection, and then basically going through labor and delivery.

Here’s the [partial] transcript of Weitz’s response:

I think it’s important to recognize that this particular procedure is nowhere in the medical literature. When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.

Traditionally, when that procedure is done which involves the collapsing of the skull, it’s done at the junction between the later second trimester and the beginning of the third trimester — that’s around 24 weeks. It is not done at this significantly later period.

When inductions for delivery — that is, in the third trimester, when procedures are performed, when abortions are performed, they are usually done as inductions. That is, they look much more like a labor and delivery. And the fetus is traditionally euthanized before that procedure is initiated. Two drugs, either potassium chloride or digoxin, are used to make sure that the fetus is not living before the procedure is initiated.
Click to expand...

The collapsing of the skull is usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
pusillanimous president, pp poison

today: Obama backs out of Planned Parenthood keynote address - Washington Times

oh, he'll still be there

just when no one can see

he can't say jihad, either

that's some pretty big issues he's gotta duck

for the next 3 and a half years...

good luck with all those tax hikes

maybe marco will come thru!

where do you go to get back your self respect?
 
sangha said:
You understand very little about what I think.
Click to expand...

You think that morals are subjective, correct?, and that the law should not concern itself with morals.

What more is there to know?
 
Hatuey said:
Are you pretending to be obtuse, or is this the way you normally are? We're discussing abortion. Not some looney bin psycho scenario that rarely occurs.
Click to expand...

Speaking of 'obtuse', why not check out the name of the thread?

"Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors"
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

sangha said:
Doesn't make either one de facto wrong either

Morals are not "de facto" right or wrong. They are subjective
Click to expand...

No, sorry, some "morals" (or "taboos," as you prefer) aren't "subjective." "Society" generally regards sex with little kids as wrong. If you want to say that "wrong" is "subjective," fine with me. I'm pretty sure if you look hard enough, you can find an example that will be an exception that somehow proves that it's not true that 100% of the time, sex with little kids is "bad." But this will be an extremely atypical example, one that demonstrates how the "exception" does, in fact, "prove the rule."
 
Grant said:
You think that morals are subjective, correct?, and that the law should not concern itself with morals.

What more is there to know?
Click to expand...

Once again, you've done a 180
Your arguments are so inane that even you wont stick by them
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

nota bene said:
No, sorry, some "morals" (or "taboos," as you prefer) aren't "subjective." "Society" generally regards sex with little kids as wrong. If you want to say that "wrong" is "subjective," fine with me. I'm pretty sure if you look hard enough, you can find an example that will be an exception that somehow proves that it's not true that 100% of the time, sex with little kids is "bad." But this will be an extremely atypical example, one that demonstrates how the "exception" does, in fact, "prove the rule."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, you'd be able to provide objective proof. What "society" "generally" "regards" is neither objective nor proof.

The only thing you've shown is that morality is defined by cultural and political processes, which makes them subjective.
 
Hatuey said:
Call me when it can breathe, communicate, process food on its own etc. Oh it can't? Then it's hardly independent. Subjective definitions of human life does not a human being make. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's not the womans body. It's an independent biological entity that is of the human species. It's a human life separate from the life of the mother (or father). It's an individual life.

Just so that we are being factual, the fetus does process food on its own. It's provided with nutrients, even at the level of a zygote the cell performs its own metabolism. I also don't see why breathing air is relevant either. It's in an airless environment while the organs required to breathe air are developing.

By all rational an biological accounts the ZEF is a human life at every stage. That's just fact. Now, if we want to get to subjective definitions of "person-hood" and somehow use that to rationalize why it's acceptable to kill a human life we could go there.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

sangha said:
Sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, you'd be able to provide objective proof. What "society" "generally" "regards" is neither objective nor proof.

The only thing you've shown is that morality is defined by cultural and political processes, which makes them subjective.
Click to expand...

Whatever, dude. If you and I can't agree that most of the freaking planet agrees that sex with little kids are wrong, I have to leave you with your bizarre conceits.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

nota bene said:
Whatever, dude. If you and I can't agree that most of the freaking planet agrees that sex with little kids are wrong, I have to leave you with your bizarre conceits.
Click to expand...

Most of the world agrees that sex with children is wrong. That doesn't make it objectively true, just as believing that the world was flat didn't mean that was objectively true.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

sangha said:
Most of the world agrees that sex with children is wrong. That doesn't make it objectively true, just as believing that the world was flat didn't mean that was objectively true.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, exactly, Sangha. Exactly. Hat doffed. :roll:
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

Sarcogito said:
Apparently PP was under no legal obligation to report it. That said, I DO think medical practitioners should be legally obligated to report this kind of malpractice, and in some cases flat out murder.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a quote to corroborate the OP, but there is something as a moral obligation.
 
digsbe said:
It's not the womans body.
Click to expand...

Women beg to differ.

It's an independent biological entity that is of the human species.
Click to expand...

As it's dependent on another independent being, this is untrue.

It's a human life separate from the life of the mother (or father). It's an individual life.
Click to expand...

Biologically untrue.

Just so that we are being factual, the fetus does process food on its own. It's provided with nutrients, even at the level of a zygote the cell performs its own metabolism. I also don't see why breathing air is relevant either. It's in an airless environment while the organs required to breathe air are developing.
Click to expand...

This goes in contradiction with any claim of it being "independent".

By all rational an biological accounts the ZEF is a human life at every stage. That's just fact. Now, if we want to get to subjective definitions of "person-hood" and somehow use that to rationalize why it's acceptable to kill a human life we could go there.
Click to expand...

Funny you didn't touch communicate. Why?
 
sangha said:
You still haven't answered the question: What were they going to report?
Click to expand...

"that we are reporting numerous complaints of gross misconduct by our patients at another facility"?
 
Hatuey said:
Women beg to differ.
Click to expand...
Oh, they can feel free to differ but they would still be 100% incorrect. Many women would also agree with me and biological facts. The fetus is not the woman's body.
As it's dependent on another independent being, this is untrue.
Click to expand...
It's an individual. It's independent in the fact that it is its own human life and body. It's not the woman's body.
Biologically untrue.
Click to expand...
Please go on ahead and prove to me, using biology, why a ZEF is not an individual human organism and why it isn't is an individual human life.
This goes in contradiction with any claim of it being "independent".
Click to expand...
You were shown to be wrong. Fetal body's and the embryo have their own cell metabolism. They are their own bodies.
Funny you didn't touch communicate. Why?
Click to expand...

I'll break it down. A living sperm contains the haploid genetic material from a father, the living egg the haploid genetic material from the mother. When they fuse, a diploid living embryo is created that has a human genome unique for a new human life. Human sperm + human egg fuse to = human embryo containing a human genome that is unique to that individual human life. It's obviously a living organism, and it belongs to the human species as a human life in the first stages. This is fact. To claim that the ZEF is not a human life is completely dishonest and biologically incorrect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom