Planned Parenthood tweets "Happy Mother's Day!"

Gee, in liberal Utopian societies, who could imagine morality could be so malleable?

 

Pro-aborts have no morals. Half the posters in this thread think it's not a person until the fetus tumbles out.

Because choicers have shrugged off their moral responsibilities and refuse to be bound by any morality they find inconvenient.

 

Well here's to your education:

View attachment 35351 View attachment 35352

But if dehumanizing infants assuages your conscience I doubt correct definitions are not apt to change your mind.

Life begins at conception, this is scientific fact. Unlike global warming, there is no disputing this fact.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

It's comforting to know that liberals hold themselves to the strictest of legal definitions except when it come to life, sex, marriage, privacy, perjury, free speech, freedom of religion, "is", private emails vs government property and corruption while at the same time are not restricted by any stringent moral code of ethics or decency.

I thought you were an educated person? Aren't you smart enough not to be coy with a serious subject? We are not talking about aborting worms and we are not debating when God created single cell life forms. We are talking about human life. Don't derail the subject with that nonsense.

Sex cells are not babies. They are not children, nor fetuses, nor will they ever be except in the case of what happening? If you said conception then give yourself a gold star boys and girls. And yet, here you are still being coy, or presenting a 3rd grade level argument that sex cells are human beings. If that is your argument, then aren't fetuses also human beings? This is not the argument of an educated intelligent person.

Calling me ignorant because you disagree with science is both insulting to me thus name-calling, and the result of your inability to logically frame you position into a coherent statement. To call me ignorant because you disagree with my opinion is dishonest and displays a lack of ability to communicate your own opinion. Please try and keep the debate honest, lest there is no purpose to have any further discourse.

Yes, quite...too many justifications for elective abortions. That is the problem.

Really? Are you so arrogant as to believe that a fetus anywhere between 23 weeks and 40 weeks of development, is not a baby, a child, or a person who is entitled to life? That it has no rights to live under any circumstances ever? And that neither you nor society should have any moral, ethical or legal obligation to protect that life? There is not a single chance that you are wrong?

I think it is clear how you feel about babies in the womb. But I think I already gave you an English lesson above to correct your own vocabulary deficiencies.

When the doctor first lets the mother have a listen to the heartbeat with the stethoscope, does he say, "Listen to the sound of your fetus's heartbeat"? Or does he say, "here is the sound of your baby's heartbeat"?
When the ultrasound technician first gets a good picture for the mother to see, does she say, "See, that is your fetus", or does she say, "Look, that is your baby"?
When a mother goes into early labor, does she say to the doctor, "please...save my fetus" or does she say, "please save my baby"?
When a husband first feels that miracle of a kick from the mother's belly, does he say, "I just felt the fetus kick", or does he say, "I just felt the baby kick"?

If that is what you must say to assuage yourself of guilt then do what you must.

 

Is there a purpose to constructing new variations of strawman arguments that I am not going to participate in?

Eventually we'll have to repeal Roe because the decision is antithetical to our system of enumerated power of the federal government vs states rights.

 

Apparently, the most important thing they do on Mother's Day is advertise their abortion mills.

That is the point of this thread. If they do so many other wonderful things, then advertise that on Mother's Day.

Can't anyone on the left concede that?

 

"I'm grateful for Roe v Wade..." That is what it says. How is that not referring to abortion?

 

The poster you responded to never said it wasn't referring to abortion......why do you read things that aren't there and can't read things that are there...?

 

Like the rest of you they were making excuses for posting an abortion ad on Mother's Day by deflecting about the many other services...

They were advertising mammograms or pap smears.

 

So what? Abortion is part of their services..... a legal medical procedure that affects women, some of whom are mothers....

 

If women want to go around celebrating Mother's day, they need to start paying more heed to their fetus.
Motherhood doesn't just start at birth you know.

 

morals are subjective, they always have been and always will be .. unless of course you are advocating for some form of sharia law enforcing your particular moral ideology onto all.

 

Yet another pile of horse crap from you, you have no idea what morals other people have . .here is an idea why don't you address your own moral position on murdering disabled newborns before climbing on your pedestal, removing the plank from your own eye prior to removing the splinter from others would be a good start.

Absolute horse crap yet again.

 

Try a medical dictionary

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=9072

Oh look the medical dictionary section of the one you provided a picture for - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/baby

Again with this false accusation of dehumanizing. Let me know when you use the correct medical defintion, perhaps you might educate yourself.

You don't even read the things you link to do you, from the site you linked to in the sub title.
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
that is not what you have continually stated, you have stated, wrongly, that life begins at conception, when in reality conception is the starting point of HUMAN life.

Completely irrelevant and off topic, and BTW I hold myself to legal definitions on all of the above.

You are the one who states that life begins at conception, which is factually incorrect, if you cannot be specific in your comments perhaps you should try harder.

No one has said they are, so please refrain from creating strawmen arguments. If you cannot accept that your life begins at conception assertion is factually incorrect then there is little anyone can do for you.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The fact that you consider calling the unborn fetuses dehumanizing them is ample proof that you are ignorant of the English language and science add to this that you insist life begins at conception when the reality is that life began millions of years ago and your ignorance of the facts is 100% confirmed.

My opinion, backed up with facts, is easily understood, the fact that you cannot communicate correctly your opinion speaks volumes about your own inability not mine.

FACT - Calling the unborn fetuses is not dehumanizing them, fetus is the name of the unborn from approx 8 weeks to birth. Prior to 8 weeks it has other names including embryo and zygote.
FACT - life started millions of years ago (or thousands if you are of a religious nature), human life starts at conception.
FACT - Baby is the name given to the entity from birth to one year old and is only an informal name given to the unborn, it is not, nor has it ever been, medical correct to call the unborn 'babies'

That is an opinion and nothing else.

A fetus at any time prior to birth is not a baby, a child or a person .. whether it it is entitled to life is not the issue here, what it is called is. If you wish to discuss whether a fetus is entitled to life then I can point you to the Roe decision which basically follows the progressive rights remit already established in the USA.

Not what I have said.

I have no moral, legal or ethical right to demand another person give up their liberty to allow another to use their body in order to sustain that life.

Of course there is a chance I am wrong .. so far, I have seen nothing that says I am wrong.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

All of the above are informal usage and have no place in a debate based on law and science, by your logic calling my car my baby means it is a live human being. A doctor could call the fetus a "joy bundle" if they wished, it still does not change the fact that its proper name is fetus.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Hey it is your logic not mine.

Nope, not as long as the 14th amendment is in place. The only way that pro-lifers are going to get Roe repealed is by getting an amendment that states that there is a person from conception and as such they are protected by the rights of that personhood status .. however, this then opens the door for other defences of legal elective abortion based on consent and self-defence, for with those protections also come restrictions.

 

Yes it does start at birth, sorry to burst your bubble of inaccuracies.

 

Rush Limbaugh told me that morals are not subject to popular opinion.

 

Why? The two I provided show that it is understood that it is a baby in the womb. Any dictionary that omits that fact is in error.

Well you've said several times it is not a baby, a person, a child or a human being until after it is born.

When i have not stated it directly, and I have on many occasions, it is implied because we are talking about the abortion issue. You must start at conception before you can get to a zygote, then the embryo, then the fetus. This is all basic science. Everyone understands this.

And none of the stringent moral code of ethics or decency.

I am sufficiently specific for the person holding a 6th grade reading level to comprehend.

It's your argument. You are welcome to abandon it or backpedal. When I said life begins at conception, you said what about a sperm. Thus it is not a strawman argument since you are implying that life began before conception.

Same difference. To me, that means you've lost the argument again.

Speaking of strawman I didn't say that. I call the unborn fetuses. I also call them babies, children, persons and human beings. Also, the life began millions of years ago is also a strawman because we are not debating life on Earth, but life in the womb.

It's not that I can't communicate, it is that you don't like what I communicate. Again, I call them fetuses. That is not my argument as I pointed out earlier.

Now you are back to the "started millions of years ago. What does that have to do with abortion?

It is not medically incorrect to call them babies, it's politically incorrect.

It's a good opinion.

Dehumanizing again.

Whether it is entitled to life is the main issue.

Roe v Wade allows the states to decide when a fetus is entitled to a right to life.

Well thank you for finally caving on that issue.

Yes, we do. Roe v Wade established that right.

More dehumanizing.

Again with the insults. Concession acknowledged.

 

Or we could go the judges on the Supreme Court route just as the Roe v Wade did.

 

All that just to point out you are now calling a fetus a fetus......I think you're learning but are embarrassed to admit it

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH !! What ! LOL!

And here I thought "god" was your moral guide !!

Guess he takes second place to a guy of high moral standards, the drug addicted pay-for-sex misogynist woman hating Rushy!!

 

Good for him .. however as far as I am aware Limbaugh is not in control of the morality police, though I understand you probably would like him to be.

 

Now you are on record as saying Oxford and Webster's are "in error." According to you.

"Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg."--Carl Sagan

Is Carl Sagan in error? According to you?

Is this a baby?

 

Right so a medical dictionary that deals with medical definitions is wrong . .talk about being blinded to reality.

Which is 100% correct, why are you afraid of the facts?

Really, please link to anywhere in this thread you have directly stated you are talking about human life.
The only implication you are trying to foist is that a fetus is like a cute cuddly baby and that is an appeal to emotion you are attempting to manipulate peoples emotions into associating this



with this

As morals are subjective why should I, or others, adhere to your particular set?

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Yet another strawman, please do show where I state anything about aborting worms or "when God created single cell life forms. ", it is plain to see that your only avenue is to make things up as you go along.
Life did begin before conception .. Just look up what the definition of life is please, you never know you might actually educate yourself.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

I am ignorant of the facts concerning building a nuclear bomb, that does not make me stupid, it simply means I do not have the relevant information. You have consistently shown you are ignorant of the English language and science despite the relevant information being made available to you.

Rubbish, every time I have stated factually that the unborn are not babies, children, or persons you have responded by claiming I am dehumanizing them, the fact that you consider them to be babies, children, or persons has no relevance to your strawman of claiming I am dehumanizing them.

regardless of your wrongful insistence life did start millions of years ago, human life is what starts at conception.

It certainly is your lack of ability to communicate correctly your opinion, try using some logic in your comments and then perhaps others would not point out your errors.

Yet you have already posted numerous times that calling them fetuses and not babies is dehumanizing them, please make up your mind, saying that the unborn are not babies is factually correct and is in no way dehumanizing them.

nothing, just as your life starts at conception has nothing to do with abortion .. had you said human life starts at conception then we would not be having this discussion.

As already shown it is medically incorrect to call the unborn babies and has little to nothing to do with politics.

Only for you and opinions do not make laws or force others to adhere to them.

There is nothing dehumanizing in stating the facts, you may of course continue to project your appeals to emotion, for the educated they mean nothing.

Great, then lets debate it without the need for appeals to emotion .. I am more than happy to do this one on one with proper guidelines and rules set in place. Perhaps you would like to start that debate here - http://www.politicalforum.com/debates-contests/

I suggest you read the findings, Roe decides on progressive rights for the unborn and does not allow the states to decide when a fetus is entitled to a right to life ie a state cannot decide that a fetus has the right to life at any time during the first trimester, in fact a state could decide that a fetus has no right to life at any time during the pregnancy right up to birth, just because this does not happen does not change the legal reality.

considering the fact that it is something I have never stated there is nothing to cave into.

No it merely allowed the states to enforce a set of rules and even those rules are not universal ie the state cannot use it's right to stop an abortion after viability if it means the life of the female, or for rape or incest or fetal disability incompatible with life. The right of the state to impose restrictions on elective abortion has never been challenged in the courts simply because there is no need as no woman would elect to have an abortion after 23 weeks unless there is a serious problem that could cost her-her life or the fetus is so disabled it is either already dead or will not survive birth.

Canada has no restrictions on abortion what so ever and yet their abortion rate is lower than the USA and their late-term abortion rate is also lower than the US, according to pro-lifers removing late-term abortion restrictions would lead to a massive increase in elective late-term abortions, the evidence shows nothing of a sort. In fact it is the pro-life lead TRAP laws that push abortions into later time-frames, this is nothing but a ploy for them to be able to say that later-term abortions are increasing and so more restrictions are required when it is exactly those restrictions that are causing (to an extent) the problem.

Only for those ignorant of the facts. According to you stating the facts is dehumanizing . .you have some serious logic issues.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Carry on beating that empty drum, it sounds the loudest but has no substance. It is often the refuge of losers to claim victory when they have been thoroughly beaten, just as you have.

 

True, though Justices are not overly keen on over turning existing Constitutional rights.

 

Why would I be embarrassed? I never said a fetus was not a fetus. Unlike the lefties who say a baby is not a baby if it is in the womb.

- - - Updated - - -

You obviously never listen to Rush.