Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

The Children were not still born, Someone took the decision to kill them and another person carried out the act of ending the childs life and cutting it up.

How the "child" died is irrelevant unless it was done for the sole purpose of harvesting organs, and you have shown no evidence that this was the intent behind any of the abortions carried out.

PopePalpatine

robdonn wrote: »

Funny thing, comparing abortion to slavery, considering that denying a woman access to abortion is making her a slave to the state, removing her bodily autonomy and treating her like an incubator.

Hey, that reminds me, I heard of some ancient organisation that did just that.

Delirium

Fox News Tells Carly Fiorina To Her Face: ‘No Actual Footage Exists’ Of Fetus Videos (VIDEO)

Carly Fiorina is sticking to her guns that a horrible video of Planned Parenthood harvesting fetuses exists, even though Fox News tells her straight to her face during her interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday that “there is no actual footage.”


Chris Wallace:

“Do you acknowledge what every fact checker has found…that it was only described on the video…there is no actual footage that you just mentioned?”

Carly Fiorina:

“No, I don’t accept it at all. I’ve seen the footage and I find it amazing that all these supposed fact checkers claim it doesn’t exist. I will continue to dare anyone that wants to defund Planned Parenthood, to watch the videos.”

This is just getting ridiculous.

Carly Fiorina, in an attempt to win over voters in the latest Republican debate, used stage theatre and complete utter hyperbole by claiming there was an “actual video” showing a “fully formed fetus on the table with its heart beating, its legs kicking…while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” She then went on to say that this was a matter that reflected on “the character of this nation.”

The truth is this is no longer about Planned Parenthood’s character - it’s about hers.

Even though Fox News kindly tells her shes a liar, she doesn’t back down. For her to continue to claim a video still exists is absurd. She’s boxing herself into a corner now. If one does, she’s the only one on the planet that has possession of it.

From this point forward, anytime ANY conservative talks about Planned Parenthood and it’s evil operation of harvesting live fetuses on a table, simply refer them to Fox News own reporting on this. Then promptly ask them to call on Carly Fiorina to release the video. Otherwise, they should just shut up.

Video clip of Fox News seqment is on linked webpage.

credoie

Delirium wrote: »

Fox News Tells Carly Fiorina To Her Face: ‘No Actual Footage Exists’ Of Fetus Videos (VIDEO)
[/URL]Video clip of Fox News seqment is on linked webpage.

Did you watch all the videos, start to end?

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

Did you watch all the videos, start to end?

Yes.

Overheal

credoie wrote: »

The Children were not still born, Someone took the decision to kill them and another person carried out the act of ending the childs life and cutting it up.

There is an ocean of difference between ending a childs life and a child dying that could not be saved.

I have no problem with organ donation, as long as nobody decided to kill the person who is donating the organs.

We already have a big problem with illegal organ trafficking organ sale.

credoie wrote: »

They also altered the abortion procedure in order to kill the child in such a way that the organs they wanted could be harvested for sale.

Aside from the whole killing children business (and yes these are real children with arms, legs, hearts, heads... ) they are human beings with Rights.

You're trying to defend multiple goalposts here. We're either having a Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate (what is/isn't a child/fetus/hearts/hands/mother/woman), or, a For-Profit Abortion debate. Nothing happening politically is doing anything to affect the legality of abortions or affect the Roe v Wade decision.

Further, without auditing the reason for all abortions carried out you can't say that all of those abortions were voluntary or alternatively would have resulted in a healthy infant and mother post-partum.

Let us just concede the idea that a clinic may wish to terminate a pregnancy using techniques that achieve the same result while maximizing the amount of tissue useful for research: under current law, this may be illegal it may not be illegal. That's all. I don't think it's inherently wrong to get the most benefit from the abortion if the abortion is already being carried out. Women electing to have abortions may not even elect to donate the tissue, so equating the two is itself not accurate either. Also, there have been no accusations about profits being passed on to the woman seeking abortion; except mentions that allege women may be getting quid pro quo when donating tissue with the procedure then potentially being reimbursed as an expense (no basis for that, just logical extrapolation).

Personally, I would think that if the fetus was already to be destroyed, I would want to see as much usefulness gleaned out of it. In these specific circumstances, that means maximizing intact organ tissue. That's just my opinion irrespective of the current law.

Kickstarter greeted my inbox this morning declaring something I had never heard of before: they re-chartered from being an Incorporated, for-profit company (which has a legal mandate to maximize shareholder profits), to a Public Benefit Company.

Until recently, the idea of a for-profit company pursuing social good at the expense of shareholder value had no clear protection under U.S. corporate law, and certainly no mandate. Companies that believe there are more important goals than maximizing shareholder value have been at odds with the expectation that for-profit companies must exist ultimately for profit above all.

Benefit Corporations are different. Benefit Corporations are for-profit companies that are obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on society, not only shareholders. Radically, positive impact on society becomes part of a Benefit Corporation’s legally defined goals.

Kickstarter is excited to join a growing list of forward-thinking organizations — like Patagonia and This American Life — that have taken the big step to become a Benefit Corporation. While only about .01% of all American businesses have done this, we believe that can and will change in the coming years. More and more voices are rejecting business as usual, and the pursuit of profit above all.

This is something few businesses do, however all things being equal it would be a lot simpler to just re-charter Planned Parenthood affiliates to re-charter as PBC, and allow them to continue to openly support medical research without this weird legal grey-line between what is reimbursement and what is profit.

Assuming the abortion will be carried out [regardless of how you feel about abortions], would you support advancing medical research with the tissue or not?

credoie

@overheal I am defending human life from conception to natural death.

No. I will never support medical research done on baby parts when the child was deliberately killed..


... Is there one single pro-life mod on boards.ie???

Timberrrrrrrr

credoie wrote: »

@overheal I am defending human life from conception to natural death.

No. I will never support medical research done on baby parts when the child was deliberately killed..


... Is there one single pro-life mod on boards.ie???

So if that research could save 10,000 children a day you would still be against it?

I suppose that's the difference between science and religion.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

@overheal I am defending human life from conception to natural death.

No. I will never support medical research done on baby parts when the child was deliberately killed..


... Is there one single pro-life mod on boards.ie???

Should the morning after pill be banned? Does it kill children?

credoie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if that research could save 10,000 children a day you would still be against it?

I suppose that's the difference between science and religion.

Unless the Person (being dissected ) consents to the research then its not ethical. You can't kill a person to do tests on them.

Lots of people give their bodies to medical science after death, thats fine. These children were killed and cut up. Do you want me to post the photos from the videos?

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Unless the Person (being dissected ) consents to the research then its not ethical. You can't kill a person to do tests on them.

Lots of people give their bodies to medical science after death, thats fine. These children were killed and cut up. Do you want me to post the photos from the videos?

The foetuses/babies being killed aren't being killed so medical research can be carried out. Would you prefer all such medical waste be incinerated and never used to help born children?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

The foetuses/babies being killed aren't being killed so medical research can be carried out. Would you prefer all such medical waste be incinerated and never used to help born children?

These children are NOT Medical waste. They should NOT be killed.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

These children are NOT Medical waste. They should NOT be killed.

But abortions will be carried out regardless of how you feel about it. What should happen to the aborted foetuses? Should miscarried or stillborn children never be used to advance medical research? And what about the morning after pill, does that kill children?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

But abortions will be carried out regardless of how you feel about it. What should happen to the aborted foetuses? Should miscarried or stillborn children never be used to advance medical research? And what about the morning after pill, does that kill children?

miscarried or stillborn children are not Killed by anyone. If the Parents consent then it would be possible.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

miscarried or stillborn children are not Killed by anyone. If the Parents consent then it would be possible.

What's the difference? Why would you treat aborted foetuses differently? If your child needed an organ from an aborted foetus in order to stay alive would you refuse such treatment?

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

What's the difference? Why would you treat aborted foetuses differently? If your child needed an organ from an aborted foetus in order to stay alive would you refuse such treatment?

Did you watch the videos.. Sorry to go back on this, but you seem to be commenting on pro-choice comments of the videos instead of watching them.

How can you ask what is the difference????? Killing a child is very different from the Children dying that was not intentionally killed.

A Stillborn or miscarried child was not killed, nobody put a needle in its neck, nobody put salt solution in the womb, no pill was taken to abort the child.

Nobody intended the child to die.

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

... Is there one single pro-life mod on boards.ie???

The charter (rules) of the Christianity forum

11. Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum.

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Did you watch the videos.. Sorry to go back on this, but you seem to be commenting on pro-choice comments of the videos instead of watching them.

How can you ask what is the difference????? Killing a child is very different from the Children dying that was not intentionally killed.

A Stillborn or miscarried child was not killed, nobody put a needle in its neck, nobody put salt solution in the womb, no pill was taken to abort the child.

Nobody intended the child to die.

Both are dead. Why is it ok to use the parts of one but not the other? Why does the manner of death matter when it comes to using body parts?

credoie

robdonn wrote: »

The charter (rules) of the Christianity forum[/URL]

When I asked if there was a Catholic Moderator they said there was.. Why can't I ask if there is a pro-life moderator.

I am not challenging the moderation process, I am asking IF there is a pro-Life moderator here?

The Randy Riverbeast

Murder victims shouldnt be allowed to donate any of their parts then? It has to be a completely natural death?

lazygal

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Murder victims shouldnt be allowed to donate any of their parts then? It has to be a completely natural death?

What's a 'natural death' anyway? No drugs of any kind, dying spontaneously from a heart attack or something?

robdonn

credoie wrote: »

I am not challenging the moderation process, I am asking IF there is a pro-Life moderator here?

Why does it matter?

credoie

robdonn wrote: »

Why does it matter?

Just out of Curiosity. I see people have asked questions to Moderators on their personal stances on certain topics. So just wondering if there is a Pro-life moderator on Boards.ie

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

What's a 'natural death' anyway? No drugs of any kind, dying spontaneously from a heart attack or something?

Well a Natural death for a baby in the womb would be a miscarriage or being stillborn. If you administer a drug to the mother to kill her child then its not natural. the greeks had it in their oath "I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child."

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

Well a Natural death for a baby in the womb would be a miscarriage or being stillborn. If you administer a drug to the mother to kill her child then its not natural. the greeks had it in their oath "I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child."

What does the cause of death have to do with the subsequent use of body parts for medical reasons? Not all doctors take that Greek oath and what about killing a child to save a woman's life? Is that also always wrong? What about the morning after pill?

The Randy Riverbeast

lazygal wrote: »

What's a 'natural death' anyway? No drugs of any kind, dying spontaneously from a heart attack or something?

The problem appears to be the fact that the child* has been intentionally killed which should mean that donating tissue shouldn't be allowed. So by natural we'll just say its someone who dies from a method such as disease, accident or age.

If a person dies the next of kin can donate organs so the need to consent is out the window. A person who is stabbed or hit by a car could have their organs donated by a parent, wife etc.

Assuming that a fetus is fully equal to any other human, they should be covered by the same laws. So I'm left wondering why a person would want a "child" treated differently to any other child.


*Just using the same language as credoie to make this easier

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

What does the cause of death have to do with the subsequent use of body parts for medical reasons? Not all doctors take that Greek oath and what about killing a child to save a woman's life? Is that also always wrong? What about the morning after pill?

What difference does it make if someone kills your or you die Naturally? Does the Cause of death matter?

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

What difference does it make if someone kills your or you die Naturally? Does the Cause of death matter?

Not if my body parts are being used to help others. My cause of death doesn't matter a damn if I want to donate organs for medical research.

credoie

lazygal wrote: »

Not if my body parts are being used to help others. My cause of death doesn't matter a damn if I want to donate organs for medical research.

You remind me of a women who wanted to preserve the Aztec traditions in Mexico. She even wanted to bring back human sacrifice. (no joke) Some government official said fine, as long as she was the first to be sacrificed.

You can't kill another human being. Saying your cause of death does not matter makes me question why we are even having this conversation and where its going...

lazygal

credoie wrote: »

You remind me of a women who wanted to preserve the Aztec traditions in Mexico. She even wanted to bring back human sacrifice. (no joke) Some government official said fine, as long as she was the first to be sacrificed.

You can't kill another human being. Saying your cause of death does not matter makes me question why we are even having this conversation and where its going...

Why is the cause of death relevant in the use of body parts? Should all human beings who have been killed never be used for medical research?