Abortion Is Against Science And Common Sense, Its Murder

[marke]

Re: Love me, love my dogma

But these are our old pals from their war on Planned Parenthood:

"Background[edit]

"In 2006, James O'Keefe met Lila Rose, founder of an abortion-abortion group on the UCLA campus.[1] They recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics. Rose posed as a pregnant teenager seeking advice (a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male); they made two videos and released them on YouTube.[2]

"David Daleiden met Lila Rose at a Junior State of America meeting, running the Live Action chapter at Claremont McKenna College in 2007, and was the organization’s director of research "during the early stages" of the project to make secret recordings of Planned Parenthood clinics.[3] Daleiden went on to create an organization called "Center for Medical Progress".[4][5]"

(My emphasis - more @ Live Action (organization) - Wikipedia)

& of course, all researchers publish their findings on YouTube. My understanding is that the Nobel Prize Committee is dropping their standard procedure in favor of paying Beavis & Butt-Head to recommend Nobel laureates to the committee.

So how reliable is liveaction.org? Bear in mind that Ms. Lila Rose, mentioned above, was the founder, @ the tender age of 15.

Leftist democrat party defender: "Dann those lying conservatives for tricking and filming Planned Parenthood officers into admitting selling aborted baby body parts.

 

[marke]

Re: Love me, love my dogma

But these are our old pals from their war on Planned Parenthood:

"Background[edit]

"In 2006, James O'Keefe met Lila Rose, founder of an abortion-abortion group on the UCLA campus.[1] They recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics. Rose posed as a pregnant teenager seeking advice (a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male); they made two videos and released them on YouTube.[2]

"David Daleiden met Lila Rose at a Junior State of America meeting, running the Live Action chapter at Claremont McKenna College in 2007, and was the organization’s director of research "during the early stages" of the project to make secret recordings of Planned Parenthood clinics.[3] Daleiden went on to create an organization called "Center for Medical Progress".[4][5]"

(My emphasis - more @ Live Action (organization) - Wikipedia)

& of course, all researchers publish their findings on YouTube. My understanding is that the Nobel Prize Committee is dropping their standard procedure in favor of paying Beavis & Butt-Head to recommend Nobel laureates to the committee.

So how reliable is liveaction.org? Bear in mind that Ms. Lila Rose, mentioned above, was the founder, @ the tender age of 15.

What? Seven out of ten Americans don't give a damn whether God approves of abortion or not?

 

[SapphireSpire]

The right to elective abortion is necessitated by our right to consent.
The way consent works is:
1. It must be given explicitly, not implied or assumed.
2. It only applies to the person you give it to, it cannot be transferred to third parties.
3. It can be withdrawn at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
4. Our right to privacy means women who elect abortion don't need to give anyone an explanation for it.

These are the same rules that we use to define assault and rape. According to these rules, the consent that a woman gives to a man to engage in sex is strictly for him and him alone. Even if she's not using birth control, she is not giving consent to pregnancy, especially since no baby exists at that point. If a pregnancy occurs as a result of having sex, the unborn baby is required to obtain it's own consent. Without that consent, the pregnancy is an assault.

The right to consent necessitates the right to self defense.
We have the right to use however much force is necessary to stop an assault, including lethal force as a last resort. And that means that nobody can have an unconditional right to life.

The right to life.
When a pregnancy is aborted so early that the baby can't survive, there's nothing anyone can do about it. But the purpose of abortion is to end a pregnancy, not to end the baby's life. The law should require abortion practitioners to make every effort to save the babies life and that means banning methods of abortion that involve harming the baby. The closer a baby is to birth, the higher it's chances of survival so, anyone who claims to be pro-life should support and encourage late term abortions, not ban them.

The misguided church-state.
It is ironic that abortion is the one healthcare service that nobody in government wants to support because, as a matter of self defense, it is the only healthcare service that any just government is obligated to provide. All arguments made in support of denying and banning elective abortion are based on ignoring the rights of women to give consent and defend themselves against assault.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

You should not falsely accuse me of lying based upon your ignorance of the facts. Here is more evidence of what is going on:

In vivo, of course, means "in the living." To a medical certainty, a 5-month-old fetus aborted intact by labor induction is alive at the time of delivery. Feticides such as digoxin cannot be used in a harvesting case, and the whole point of the Gerlach protocol is to obtain fresh, live, clean liver cells for transplantation minimizing time without circulation.

Unborn Babies are Being Extracted From Their Mother’s Wombs Alive to Have Their Livers Harvested | LifeNews.com

That source is as false as your personal interpretations of the Bible.

So...do you want to go to Heaven or hell? Better ask for forgiveness for your enormous, emotionally manipulative lie...otherwise, you will never sit at His Hand.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Correct, an "unborn" is a potential child. That is why RvW was a mistake and should be overturned, IMO.

Based on what laws or legal foundation that would enable the violation of women's rights?

Please explain what the courts should legally consider to justify that?

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

No penalty for the woman, she is a "victim" the doctor should pay the price.

??? How is that possible? How is the woman a victim (unless of rape or incest?) Are you claiming women are too stupid to understand the possible results of sex? How is the woman not culpable in a "crime" you would arrest a Dr for? For seeking a Dr out and requesting a medical procedure you view as a crime?

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Okay sure here we go.
Abortion is legal now and has been for a while. Should RvW be overturned abortions will not stop, I believe that most people would agree with that.
The fact that "doctors" are ready, willing and able to perform abortions even if illegal, some may even advertise. The woman could be considered a victim.

again, the assumption women are too stupid or incapable of making their own decisions about their lives.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Okay, you are correct. Legally the woman isn't a victim, but some people would consider her a victim, wouldn't you agree with that?

No. Please explain.

 

[Lursa]

Abortion is against science and its against common sense, its murder plain and simple. We need to ban it altogether, this article hits the nail right on the head.
Penny Nance: World'''s tiniest surviving preemie shows abortion isn’t in line with science or common sense | Fox News

Several posts here, waiting for your return to acknowledge and address them.

I still want to know how abortion is against science.

And now the topic's gone off in the opposite direction...religion. It's his OP, it would be nice if he'd return to redirect things.

 

[Scorps2000]

Re: Darwin & evolution

No. Please explain.

Okay, if abortion was illegal and a "doctor" did an abortion, the woman could be considered the victim not the criminal. The "doctor" should be charged...

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Darwin & evolution

You don't believe an unborn human baby is human?

It is genetically human, but is not a human being.

Unjust killing of humans is normally called murder.

ILLEGAL killing of HUMAN BEINGS is murder.

Dr. Gosnell aborted babies after they were born, which practice was or is supported by the current Virginia governor and the immediate past president of the US. Planned Parenthood does not harvest baby body parts until the baby is first delivered alive.

Please do not lie.

Certainly an unhealthy number of abortions are clearly for frivolous reasons.

Please cite your source.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Okay, if abortion was illegal and a "doctor" did an abortion, the woman could be considered the victim not the criminal. The "doctor" should be charged...

How so? Did the Dr go and kidnap a pregnant woman and perform it against her will? If so, then that's illegal now.:roll:

 

[minnie616]

Re: Darwin & evolution

The unborn victims of violence refer to the non-human state, not living human beings?

Actually...

The unborn have no rights.
States have rights.

States can and do protect non persons.

The UVVA is a Federal law that protects non persons.


State anti-cruelty laws protect pets and animals against cruelty.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Planned Parenthood first delivers the fetus alive and then carves it up when selling off its parts to the highest bidder.

Please do not lie.

 

[Scorps2000]

Re: Darwin & evolution

How so? Did the Dr go and kidnap a pregnant woman and perform it against her will? If so, then that's illegal now.:roll:

I doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical question anyway.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Love me, love my dogma

What? Seven out of ten Americans don't give a damn whether God approves of abortion or not?

My god is pro choice.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

I doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical question anyway.

That's not very honest, you are just backpeddling now.

But nevermind then.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Okay, if abortion was illegal and a "doctor" did an abortion, the woman could be considered the victim not the criminal. The "doctor" should be charged...

If the woman willingly had the abortion both the doctor and the woman are the criminals. The aborted child is the victim.

 

[Scorps2000]

Re: Darwin & evolution

That's not very honest, you are just backpeddling now.

But nevermind then.

I'm out numbered, so I guess I should rethink it...

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

I'm out numbered, so I guess I should rethink it...

I appreciate any time that someone says they will at least re-examine something with an open mind.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

If the woman willingly had the abortion both the doctor and the woman are the criminals. The aborted child is the victim.

Welcome back!

A victimless crime is "an illegal act that typically either directly involves only the perpetrator or occurs between consenting adults; because it is consensual in nature, there is arguably no true victim, i.e. aggrieved party.

Victimless crime - Wikipedia

Three characteristics can be used to identify whether a crime is victimless crime – if the act is excessive, is indicative of a distinct pattern of behavior, and its adverse effects impact only the person who has engaged in it*

Victimless crime - Wikipedia

According to your source, there is no crime and no victim. The unborn is not biologically a child and the unborn are not legally persons.

So you do uncover a good point in that there doesnt seem to be a legal foundation for abortion to be a crime.

To circle back to your OP, where do you now stand on "Abortion being against science"? I still dont quite understand that phrasing...can you please clarify it?

 

[marke]

Re: Darwin & evolution

That source is as false as your personal interpretations of the Bible.

So...do you want to go to Heaven or hell? Better ask for forgiveness for your enormous, emotionally manipulative lie...otherwise, you will never sit at His Hand.

You believe the Gerlach procedure is a myth?

 

[marke]

Re: Darwin & evolution

Actually...

The unborn have no rights.
States have rights.

States can and do protect non persons.

The UVVA is a Federal law that protects non persons.


State anti-cruelty laws protect pets and animals against cruelty.

The wicked have a history of human rights abuses. Wicked barbarians have murdered Jews, cops, blacks, whites, political enemies, and, worse, innocent little babies.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Darwin & evolution

You believe the Gerlach procedure is a myth?

Please be specific in your objection to that protocol.

 

[southwest88]

Re: Love me, love my dogma

Planned Parenthood stopped talking about selling baby parts after they were caught on hidden camera explaining how they do it. Of course they don't want to admit they did it and are unlikely to admit they still do it in secret. They are not stupid. They know most Americans are appalled at the very idea.

Cutting up babies who were born alive is against the law, but it was still being done with government approval before and after the law was passed. In order to obtain good baby parts for research the baby must first be delivered alive before doctors can harvest its parts for research.

SHOCK: Babies were potentially aborted alive to get livers for university research

Very good. If we're to believe your charges, Planned Parenthood is still selling baby parts. So - where are the prosecutions for these violations of Federal law? Where are the prosecutions for murder of a baby born alive? Don't tell me that liveaction.org is holding back on news of such prosecutions - replete with names, dates, places, addresses, who was charged, what they were found guilty of, & how long the guilty were sentenced to - assuming that there are no capital cases among the malefactors.

So where are the verdicts? Wouldn't these verdicts make the day of every anti-abortionist in the US, especially James O'Keefe, Lila Rose, David Daleiden & the so-called "Center for Medical Progress"? All these years have gone by now, & yet there are no guilty verdicts for selling baby parts? Why not?