• 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]

It reminds me far too much of the warped morals and logic that led us to allow for slavery and the dehumanization of Africans. People arbitrarily deemed them "not people" because of "x" characteristics and that allowed for them to be owned, enslaved, and killed. I see people labeling unborn children as "not persons" and thus it's fine for them to be legally killed and that being allowed to do so is a "woman's right."

Hahaha, this is so ridiculously dishonest I'm pretty sure I just threw up a little on my book. Brb, gotta go get a kleenex to clean the bull**** in your post off my monitor.
 
Actually... that's not what is intended by "live on its own". A 10 day old fetus can't breathe on its own, or even be fed through any natural means. It can't articulate through any known gestures discomfort or pain. It can't communicate hunger or any other human need. So why is it a person? Because it has human DNA? So do the millions of poor living children you want to cut welfare programs for. You don't seem all that worried about them.

So it can be aborted ten days or prior?

Where were welfare programs mentioned?
 
Hahaha, this is so ridiculously dishonest I'm pretty sure I just threw up a little on my book.

That's nice :roll:
 
Nicer than a fundamentalist christian pretending to be a human rights defender.

I really don't see how I can't be a fundamentalist Christian while also supporting human rights.
 
I really don't see how I can't be a fundamentalist Christian while also supporting human rights.

No, I said you're a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a human rights defender. :shrug: - Then again, there are no human rights in violation here as a clump of cells does not a human being make.
 
No, I said you're a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a human rights defender. :shrug: - Then again, there are no human rights in violation here as a clump of cells does not a human being make.

Humans have a right to life, a ZEF in every stage is an independent human life. I believe that it's the worst human rights violation of our day to allow for the legal killing of these humans via abortion.

There are absolutely human rights violations that need to be corrected.
 
Then you shouldn't have any problem in pointing out the dishonesty, right?

Sure

Abortion is a medical procedure and is nothing like slavery

That's just one of the dishonest things the abortion banners say in order to portray themselves as morally superior
 
Humans have a right to life, a ZEF in every stage is an independent human life. I believe that it's the worst human rights violation of our day to allow for the legal killing of these humans via abortion.

There are absolutely human rights violations that need to be corrected.

while i agree 100% its human life it certainly isnt independant thats silly

anyway that stuff really doesnt matte much
legal rights do in factuality

and in my opinion so do human rights so lets discuss that.

If you feel abortion is a human rights violation banning abortion would also violate human rights of woman :shrug:

sooooo explain to me your position again?

you want abortion banned accept rape and severe or immediate life risk of the mother, did i get that right?


explain to me how forcing a person to risk their life against their will not a human rights violation?
 
Last edited:
Sure

Abortion is a medical procedure and is nothing like slavery

That's just one of the dishonest things the abortion banners say in order to portray themselves as morally superior


I always laugh when somebody compares abortion to slavery, that type of dishonest rhetoric and hyperbole always gets me.

the best part is, in reality banning abortion is more like slavery than allowing it will ever be
 
3 weeks ago, planned parenthood testified in florida legislature that babies can be aborted AFTER birth

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

"That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said. "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

some of our lovers of humanity have forgotten their souls
 
Are you saying that terrorism is not a criminal act?

I believe most of us know that the Clinton administration said Al Qaeda wasn't a national security issue but a law enforcement issue.

Unfortunately G.W. Bush listened to his predecessor and found out on 9/11/01 Clinton was wrong.

The current administration is all over the ball field when it comes to what is terrorism and what is just a criminal act. The evidence seem to show if Al Qaeda strikes on American soil and kills Americans, Obama refuses to call it terrorism.

Before 9/11 I was taught that terrorism was a military tactic. Before 1961 it was the only tactic the VC used in South Vietnam. Communist revolutionary's usually started out using terrorist tactics and were terrorist in the beginning of their revolutions. Obama's neighbor and friend who launched his political career, Bill Ayers was a terrorist and his weapon of choice was bombs.

What is Terrorism?

>" Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.

That is why preemption is being considered to be so important. In some cases, terrorism has been a means to carry on a conflict without the adversary realizing the nature of the threat, mistaking terrorism for criminal activity. Because of these characteristics, terrorism has become increasingly common among those pursuing extreme goals throughout the world. But despite its popularity, terrorism can be a nebulous concept. Even within the U.S. Government, agencies responsible for different functions in the ongoing fight against terrorism use different definitions.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".

Outside the United States Government, there are greater variations in what features of terrorism are emphasized in definitions. The United Nations produced the following definition of terrorism in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and "violence based communication processes". Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of terrorism from 1974 is "...the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."

Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim. The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose. The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event.

The Black September Organization used the high visibility of the Munich Olympics to publicize its views on the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Similarly, in October 1983, Middle Eastern terrorists bombed the Marine Battalion Landing Team Headquarters at Beirut International Airport. Their immediate victims were the 241 U.S. military personnel who were killed and over 100 others who were wounded. Their true target was the American people and the U.S. Congress. Their one act of violence influenced the United States’ decision to withdraw the Marines from Beirut and was therefore considered a terrorist success.

There are three perspectives of terrorism: the terrorist’s, the victim’s, and the general public’s. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a view terrorists themselves would gladly accept. Terrorists do not see themselves as evil. They believe they are legitimate combatants, fighting for what they believe in, by whatever means possible to attain their goals. A victim of a terrorist act sees the terrorist as a criminal with no regard for human life. The general public’s view though can be the most unstable. The terrorists take great pains to foster a “Robin Hood” image in hope of swaying the general public’s point of view toward their cause. This sympathetic view of terrorism has become an integral part of their psychological warfare and has been countered vigorously by governments, the media and other organizations. "<
Terrorism Research - What is Terrorism?
 
I have to say, I am disgusted by some of the positions in here that have taken the facts of this case, and twisted the argument to the broader one on abortion itself, or that Gosnell did nothing wrong in his practice, arguing that an abortion is not illegal.

A couple of things for clarification, In the United States, abortions under the age of viability are not illegal, I know that.

I also know that if Roe is ever overturned, abortions legal today, will not become a crime in the future, that only if illegal at that time will count.

I know that the facts of this case presented by the prosecution are that the babies were alive outside the womb at the moment that Gosnell killed them.

And that, THAT is an act of murder.

Also that one adult Woman was killed during the course, under his care.

We should be clear to stick to this case, moving the discussion to the broader argument is a diversion of proponents of unlimited abortion on demand, and is dishonest.
 
Humans have a right to life, a ZEF in every stage is an independent human life.

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

Wrong. Murder is the illegal killing of another, although some prefer to lie about that

Abortion is legal.

We have no argument with me there. Abortion is the legal killing of another human being.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood Knew of Gosnell's Abortion Horrors

We have no argument with me there. Abortion is the legal killing of another human being.

Now that you've done a 180, we have no argument :lol:
 
Sure

Abortion is a medical procedure and is nothing like slavery

That's just one of the dishonest things the abortion banners say in order to portray themselves as morally superior

No, it is nothing like slavery except in the sense that slavery was once socially accepted by many, just as killing babies is today.
 
No, it is nothing like slavery except in the sense that slavery was once socially accepted by many, just as killing babies is today.

Not bathing for weeks at a time was once socially accepted by many but I don't see the abortion banners using that as a comparison.

Disingenous arguments are disingenous
 
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:

Then kill it. What a plan!
 
Not bathing for weeks at a time was once socially accepted by many but I don't see the abortion banners using that as a comparison.

Disingenous arguments are disingenous

I can't compare slavery and murdering babies with not bathing.
 
Of course not.

Because you weren't trying to make a point about social acceptability, as you dishonestly implied

Actually the point is well made. Slavery is an excellent example of evil being socially acceptable. Not bathing has never been considered 'evil'.
 
Back
Top Bottom