HNGN: Planned Parenthood's Top Doctor Caught On Video Discussing The Sale Of Aborted Fetus Body Parts

[mcsluggo]

No, that's the stuff coming out of their CEO's mouth. Do I believe that the current leaders are actively pursuing a eugenics agenda? No. Their founder did. However, currently, that's the effective result, even if its not the motive.

 

then drop the damned facade that ANYTHING that is happening currently (ie, the source of this thread) makes any difference at all.  Every nuanced argument you have tried to make (which have been few) or will try to make is tossed out the window once you lob the nuke, like you just did.

[Zguy28]

Swinging for the fences. See also: Obama, Muslim, communist.

Nope. don't believe he is either.

[mistertim]

Heck, I'd let them sell marijuana if they dumped abortions. But you see, from their founding they've been in the eugenics business. What better way to cull the herd of undesirables than to pretend they aren't humans.

This is such a terrible argument. I don't get it. You have some very honest and insightful posts, many of which I disagree with but they're still intelligent and respectful, and then you come up with this ****pile of an argument? C'mon, man.

[Zguy28]

Do you have anything to back up that their current policies are effectively eugenic in nature?

 

(Do you understand what eugenics is?)

 

You are coming across as very judgmental and very knowing in this thread.

Peter, i respect you. There is no defense for the evil that is happening. If that makes me judgmental of PP, then so be it.

 

I understand what eugenics is. Are not aborted babies the very definition of "undesirable"? Is not the point of eugenics to achieve desirable offspring? Am I stretching the use of the word? Technically yes, because technically it refers to genetic traits.

This is such a terrible argument. I don't get it. You have some very honest and insightful posts, many of which I disagree with but they're still intelligent and respectful, and then you come up with this ****pile of an argument? C'mon, man.

You are right. That was worded poorly and bombastic. That does not change the fact that they make it their business of removing the undesired from the world and justify it by saying they are not human beings. Is that not true?

[mcsluggo]

Peter, i respect you. There is no defense for the evil that is happening. If that makes me judgmental of PP, then so be it.

 

I understand what eugenics is. Are not aborted babies the very definition of "undesirable"? Is not the point of eugenics to achieve desirable offspring? Am I stretching the use of the word? Technically yes, because technically it refers to genetic traits.

You are right. That was worded poorly and bombastic. That does not change the fact that they make it their business of removing the undesired from the world and justify it by saying they are not human beings. Is that not true?

 

it is not true.  

they provide a health service to women.  and they provide it to the women that request it, often women with limited resources and few alternative choices.  

[TradeTheBeal!]

Nope. don't believe he is either.

Didn't think you did. Just that you were using the same thought process i.e. Reasoned debate vs outrageous claims.

[Zguy28]

it is not true.  

they provide a health service to women.  and they provide it to the women that request it, often women with limited resources and few alternative choices.  

I did not deny they do that also. They receive revenue from performing abortions. Abortion is the disposing of an undesired baby while still in the womb. I'm just speaking on a practical level here.

[twa]

I don't think there's anyone on the planet that doesn't agree that abortion should be rarer.  Available to everyone, used by very few sounds perfect to me.  

 

I think the best way to do that would be to educate people (starting early in school, continuing into adulthood) effectively about ways to prevent pregnancy and giving them the tools to do so.  I think Planned Parenthood does this about as well as any organization out there.  

 

 

It looks from here that PP does a lousy job and compounds it with devaluing life.....I'm certainly open to funding someone else instead

 

I'm all for educating and prevention.....one way is to stress it is recognizing the damn life you are taking and making them aware contraceptives fail mainly because of the users.

 

same reason diseases spread so bad.

 

killing for convenience is in poor taste, as is being lazy

[Predicto]

Heck, I'd let them sell marijuana if they dumped abortions. But you see, from their founding they've been in the eugenics business. What better way to cull the herd of undesirables than to pretend they aren't humans.

 

 

This is utter nonsense, and is beneath you ZGuy.   Margaret Sanger has been dead for half a century.  

 

What's more, her primary issue her entire life was access to contraception and the birth control pill, not abortion.  She was trying to reduce the need for abortions because, as a nurse, she had seen many patients die from botched back-alley abortions.  She was a member of the eugenics movement, but there always was much more to her motivations than eugenics (as an aside, in the 1920s and 30s, there were MANY Americans who supported eugenics).    It is recent revisionism by the anti-abortion community that has obscured her activities and her motivations.  

[twa]

if we used the usual govt test of the results it would be discriminatory and targeting minorities by PP.

 

or do results only matter in other matters?

[TradeTheBeal!]

if we used the usual govt test of the results it would be discriminatory and targeting minorities by PP.

 

or do results only matter in other matters?

I think what matters most is to always insinuate that there is a vast eugenics/racist conspiracy afoot instead of actually acknowledging that PP provides services that American citizens desire, utilize and will vote to preserve.

#freedom

[twa]

I think what matters most is to always insinuate that there is a vast eugenics/racist conspiracy afoot instead of actually acknowledging that PP provides services that American citizens desire, utilize and will vote to preserve.

#freedom

 

while killing people....Murica!!!

[Predicto]

if we used the usual govt test of the results it would be discriminatory and targeting minorities by PP.

 

or do results only matter in other matters?

 

 

If you could prove that Planned Parenthood went out and affirmatively chose the people to provide services to, rather than helping whoever came through their door, you might have a point.   But you can't and you don't.  Any service that is primarily directed at the poor is more likely to serve black people.     

[twa]

just the poor have abortions?

[Predicto]

while killing people....Murica!!!

 

 

You can call a zygote or fetus with no consciousness a "person," while others call it tissue that is a part of the mother.  

 

That is the essence of the disagreement.  

 

You can't just define away the fundamental disagreement and declare victory.   Well, I guess you can, but you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

[TradeTheBeal!]

while killing people....Murica!!!

The truest words you've ever spoken. Killing is a fundamental American value, from its inception right up to today. Tree of liberty, bro.

[visionary]

You can call a zygote or fetus with no consciousness a "person," while others call it tissue that is a part of the mother.  

 

That is the essence of the disagreement.  

Consciousness seems a weird (and not very consistent) way to determine whether a fetus or a person is a person.

How does that work?  

[PeterMP]

Peter, i respect you. There is no defense for the evil that is happening. If that makes me judgmental of PP, then so be it.

 

I understand what eugenics is. Are not aborted babies the very definition of "undesirable"? Is not the point of eugenics to achieve desirable offspring? Am I stretching the use of the word? Technically yes, because technically it refers to genetic traits.

You are right. That was worded poorly and bombastic. That does not change the fact that they make it their business of removing the undesired from the world and justify it by saying they are not human beings. Is that not true?

 

It isn't genetics vs. non-genetics.  It is organized and planned vs. not organized and planned in terms of who is being aborted.

 

In eugenics movement, there is some sort of organizational principle/following for removing certain parts of the population.

 

That doesn't appear to be the case with respect to Planned Parenthood, other than who walks through the door and ask for the service.

 

(On a side note, I generally think there is an over emphasis on the corporeal system in many strains of Christianity, especially with respect to things like the abortion debate.  If abortions were made illegal, would you really change anything with respect to the spiritual well being of any given individual or the world as whole?

 

Are more people going to be saved if Planned Parenthood stops doing abortions?

 

I don't think so.

 

It is an argument that in many aspects has the wrong focus, and I think in many cases/ways is detrimental to individual people's, the general Christian community's and the world's as a whole spiritual well being.

 

It tends to be a nasty, mean, and judgmental conversation full of misrepresentations on both sides.

 

What you get in this debate is things like Christians using misrepresentations, innuendo, and suggestions to try and make Planned Parenthood, its leaders, and employees look bad.

 

Now, none of this means abortion is moral.  But I don't think Roman gladiator games and the like were moral either, and that wasn't a priority in Jesus' ministry (or any number of other Roman laws/practices).)

[Predicto]

Consciousness seems a weird (and not very consistent) way to determine whether a fetus or a person is a person.

How does that work?  

 

I dunno how to define personhood with any clean bright line.  It seems equally weird to think that an 8 celled zygote that may or may not attach to a mother's uterus is a person, but that is what "life begins at conception" people have decided.  

 

That's why it's a difficult question that divides society so fiercely.   That's why people on both sides of this debate have so much trouble respecting (or even understanding) the viewpoint of the other side.       

[twa]

the 14 day rule is pretty well standard and covers most issues except contraception objectors.

 

a individual heart beat certainly should be a person (about 6- 10 weeks)

 

but yet not enough for some?

 

ORGAN SALE, GET EM WHILE THEY ARE HOT 

[endzone_dave]

I dunno how to define personhood with any clean bright line.  It seems equally weird to think that an 8 celled zygote that may or may not attach to a mother's uterus is a person, but that is what "life begins at conception" people have decided.  

 

That's why it's a difficult question that divides society so fiercely.   That's why people on both sides of this debate have so much trouble respecting (or even understanding) the viewpoint of the other side.       

 

But you can't get to the two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, walking, talking version of a human without going through the 8 cell version first. When you destroy the 8 cell version, you destroy the final version too. 

[visionary]

I dunno how to define personhood with any clean bright line.  It seems equally weird to think that an 8 celled zygote that may or may not attach to a mother's uterus is a person, but that is what "life begins at conception" people have decided.  

 

That's why it's a difficult question that divides society so fiercely.   That's why people on both sides of this debate have so much trouble respecting (or even understanding) the viewpoint of the other side.       

Ok, I was just curious.  It's been a while since I discussed abortion and couldn't remember if this was a common standard or not.

[DogofWar1]

This is utter nonsense, and is beneath you ZGuy.   Margaret Sanger has been dead for half a century.  

 

What's more, her primary issue her entire life was access to contraception and the birth control pill, not abortion.  She was trying to reduce the need for abortions because, as a nurse, she had seen many patients die from botched back-alley abortions.  She was a member of the eugenics movement, but there always was much more to her motivations than eugenics (as an aside, in the 1920s and 30s, there were MANY Americans who supported eugenics).    It is recent revisionism by the anti-abortion community that has obscured her activities and her motivations.  

 

By the same logic used to attack PP's founder, the US is a racist nation, because, you know, many of the founding fathers owned slaves.

 

And yeah, the thing about eugenics is that it was widely viewed as a potentially positive thing prior to Hitler's Germany.  People prior to that were trying to apply the basic evolutionary concepts of maximizing fitness of the species to a society that had largely ceased to be survival of the fittest.  It wasn't actively evil, it was just very misguided.  People realized in the wake of Hitler's Germany how misguided and easily abused it was.  Whose values deserved to be implemented? (SMBC illustrates the issue: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3717)

 

That being said, prior to the Nazis, many popular well beloved people were eugenicists.  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/7-beloved-famous-people-who-were-wildly-pro-eugenics

 

So someone born before around the 1920s being a eugenicist is kind of an empty attack.  Ultimately, as you say, PP's founder's goal was to provide better health services at many different times.

[twa]

some of you didn't used to be a person either .....evolve

[Predicto]

 

 

a individual heart beat certainly should be a person (about 6- 10 weeks)

 

 

 

 

Why?

But you can't get to the two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, walking, talking version of a human without going through the 8 cell version first. When you destroy the 8 cell version, you destroy the final version too. 

 

 

And?  In one sense, what you are destroying is the potential for another walking, talking human being.  

 

Of course, when you wear a condom you destroy the potential for a human being too.   In fact, whenever you refrain from having sex for even a day, you destroy the potential of a human being.

 

There is no easy answer on either side of this debate unless you want there to be one, and that requires dismissing the viewpoint of the other side.