Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

I have stated that they are necessary conditions, if they are not met then you definitely do not have a human being. That is a stated position, stated very clearly in fact.

But there it is you see, I can think of many, many things that if not present mean the thing is not a human being. Is that the only way you can propose a definition of who/what should be afforded human right could possibly take form?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you mean a being that we automatically infer all human rights upon?

Unless you think human beings should not automatically be granted human rights... your "all" is probably a get out clause here, yes?

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But there it is you see, I can think of many, many things that if not present mean the thing is not a human being. Is that the only way you can propose a definition of who/what should be afforded human right could possibly take form?

Then perhaps you should tell us some of these many many things. The two I have given seem to me to be about the most fundamental. And back to the thread topic, without a nervous system or brain the entity can certainly be aborted without a qualm.

Two Sheds

obplayer wrote: »

Then perhaps you should tell us some of these many many things. The two I have given seem to me to be about the most fundamental. And back to the thread topic, without a nervous system or brain the entity can certainly be aborted without a qualm.

Is this an episode of Star Trek?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

Then perhaps you should tell us some of these many many things. The two I have given seem to me to be about the most fundamental. And back to the thread topic, without a nervous system or brain the entity can certainly be aborted without a qualm.

Yes, you gave two things you said were required. Then you refused to say whether they were sufficient. Which is pretty much where we are now.
BTW we can all see what the title of the thread is so don't pretend anything I was saying was off topic just because you're not interested in answering a question.

Dan_Solo

Two Sheds wrote: »

Is this an episode of Star Trek?

It's a battle of terminology as much as anything else. I don't think s/he meant to use the word entity really though: "a thing with distinct and independent existence".

Two Sheds

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's a battle of terminology as much as anything else. I don't think s/he meant to use the word entity really though: "a thing with distinct and independent existence".

It would be worth while compiling a list of doublespeak, euphemisms, fantasy and downright lies used by pro-abortion advocates - all indicating a conflicted conscience.

'Entity' crops up very regularly.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

It would be worth while compiling a list of doublespeak, euphemisms, fantasy and downright lies used by pro-abortion advocates - all indicating a conflicted conscience.

'Entity' crops up very regularly.

Are you not an entity?

Brian Shanahan

Two Sheds wrote: »

You don't know squat about biology, as is amply proven by your nonsensical postings on biology. So don't be going around denigrating others who know a hell of a lot more than you do.

Dan_Solo

robdonn wrote: »

Are you not an entity?

What has this question to do with anything that's been said here?

Brian Shanahan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Any chance that anybody demanding "is X equivalent to a school kid" could specify at what stage of developemt they think this happens themselves?

We've done so, Dan. Many times. A fact you would acknowledge if you'd only ever listen to somebody other than yourself.

But, then again, that would mean destroying the little fantasy world you have built for yourself.

Dan_Solo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We've done so, Dan. Many times. A fact you would acknowledge if you'd only ever listen to somebody other than yourself.

But, then again, that would mean destroying the little fantasy world you have built for yourself.

i.e. blah blah blah "it was answered back there sometime" (no, I promise) but I'll waffle on some twaddle for ages instead of actually telling you. Almost as if it was never answered at all and I'm just doing a predictable misdirection. Nobody would ever notice that would they?
Now for another 100 pages of "it was already answered" instead of answering. Seen it a million times before mate, pull the other one.

robdonn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What has this question to do with anything that's been said here?

Two Sheds seems to have an issue with a foetus being called an entity. I'm just pointing out that calling someone or something an entity is a valid description and does not remove or perceive to remove any of that person's or thing's qualities.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

It would be worth while compiling a list of doublespeak, euphemisms, fantasy and downright lies used by pro-abortion advocates - all indicating a conflicted conscience.

OK. Nobody is stopping you. Go for it.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Have you been paying attention?

Part of the controversy over Planned Parenthood is that one of its top doctors has strongly alluded to the procedure being used in order to harvest intact organs.

Look it up.

Lol, that is not how burden of proof works.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

Lol, that is not how burden of proof works.

Required standards of proof may vary. This is the Court of Public Opinion.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Required standards of proof may vary. This is the Court of Public Opinion.

Eh, no it doesn't. Standards of evidence may vary but standards (or burden) of proof is very clear. If you make a positive claim (e.g. vaccines cause autism) the default position for anyone else to take is that it is not true until you provide evidence to show that it is.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, you gave two things you said were required. Then you refused to say whether they were sufficient. Which is pretty much where we are now.
BTW we can all see what the title of the thread is so don't pretend anything I was saying was off topic just because you're not interested in answering a question.

I am willing to debate whether they are sufficient to class a collection of cells, which has been pointed out could describe any of us, as a human being. What I am saying is that without those conditions being met the collection of cells in question is most certainly not a human being. How much clearer can I be?

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Eh, no it doesn't. Standards of evidence may vary but standards (or burden) of proof is very clear. If you make a positive claim (e.g. vaccines cause autism) the default position for anyone else to take is that it is not true until you provide evidence to show that it is.

The Planned Parenthood scandal is being played out in US politics, in the US media, in the US courts and in US society. It's already having an effect on the Presidential race. The battle is being fought by big money and expensive pr companies that will use every dirty trick under the sun.

But you just continue to focus on your search for proof and tell us which version you choose to believe when you find it.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

The Planned Parenthood scandal is being played out in US politics, in the US media, in the US courts and in US society. It's already having an effect on the Presidential race. The battle is being fought by big money and expensive pr companies that will use every dirty trick under the sun.

But you just continue to focus on your search for proof and tell us which version you choose to believe when you find it.

Wow, you have such a disregard for logical reasoning. You do realise that you have just made a mocking comment about wanting to actually have valid evidence for something before believing it?

obplayer

Two Sheds wrote: »

Have you been paying attention?

Part of the controversy over Planned Parenthood is that one of its top doctors has strongly alluded to the procedure being used in order to harvest intact organs.

Look it up.

In any case, when it was legal in the US, it attracted support from the same people who still support abortion.
As the video points out, it's only a matter of location.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,
Christopher Hitchens.

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The Planned Parenthood scandal is being played out in US politics, in the US media, in the US courts and in US society. It's already having an effect on the Presidential race. The battle is being fought by big money and expensive pr companies that will use every dirty trick under the sun.

But you just continue to focus on your search for proof and tell us which version you choose to believe when you find it.

That people are talking about it, doesn't mean its actually a thing. Politicians are kneejerking reactions, when the evidence isn't in. Instead of calling for a government shutdown or defunding planned parenthood, they really ought to just, you know, call for a congressional hearing or a federal investigation - they have an entire federal bureau that does nothing but investigate stuff! In spite of all that, where is the hard evidence it is genuinely happening; where is the smoking gun, and not just the accusations or heavily doctored footage?

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

I am willing to debate whether they are sufficient to class a collection of cells, which has been pointed out could describe any of us, as a human being. What I am saying is that without those conditions being met the collection of cells in question is most certainly not a human being. How much clearer can I be?

You could not possibly be any clearer that you don't/won't attempt to say what constitutes a human being outside of those two criteria. Unless they are your only criteria? But you probably won't answer that either.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You could not possibly be any clearer that you don't/won't attempt to say what constitutes a human being outside of those two criteria. Unless they are your only criteria? But you probably won't answer that either.

I will try one last time. What I am saying is that these two conditions provide an absolute minimum standard for what defines a human being. Anything below that standard is not only not a human being but not in any way a sentient being and can therefore be aborted without qualm. As for whether those two conditions are sufficient, i.e. are there more conditions necessary, I am willing to debate. That is as clear as I can make it, if you don't understand then I am sorry but this particular mini debate within the thread is over.

Overheal

Spike in donations to Planned Parenthood following right-wing attacks

State of Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood of Wrongdoing in Alleged Fetal Tissue Sales

Overheal

Florida called for an investigation into the 16 PP facilities in Florida, which however do not donate tissue in any form.

But Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said there is no reason to investigate the 16 clinics in the state because they do not provide tissue from aborted fetuses for research.

Goodhue called the request for the investigation and Scott's order to inspect the facilities "politically motivated" and part of a campaign to deceive the public to ban abortion.

"It's clear that anti-abortion extremists don't care at all about the impact their actions have on the health and well-being of women, men and young people," Goodhue said in a statement.

The Center for Medical Progress has released several secretly recorded videos that have riled anti-abortion activists.

In one of the videos, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, describes techniques for obtaining fetal body parts for research over lunch to activists posing as potential buyers from a human biologics company.

Planned Parenthood says it abides by a law that allows providers to be reimbursed for the costs of processing tissue donated by women who have had abortions. The payments cited by Planned Parenthood officials in the videos range from $30 to $100 per specimen, and the organization has subsequently confirmed that is the general range, although there is no fixed price list.

Texas has begun investigating and has said officially it is too early to determine if Planned Parenthood has broken any laws in the state.

South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana have already begun investigations into their respective locations. Groups in Maine are calling for an investigation even though facilities in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire have outright stated facilities in those states to not supply tissue despite it being legal to do so [in maine] http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/30/maine-planned-parenthood-says-its-clinics-dont-donate-fetal-tissue-from-abortions-for-research/

Oregon and Idaho have discussed inveestigations internally, Washington State is likely to begin an investigation: http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-washington-state-lawmakers-call-for-investigation-into-planned-parenthood/

Congress will investigate whether PP used federal funds inappropriately; remember that most of PPs business has nothing to do with abortions, most of it is womens health, STDs etc.

by the way if some of this feels familiar its because this is not the first time Planned Parenthood has been targeted in politics for defunding and investigations into how it used federal funds: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/planned-parenthood-investigation-government-resources_n_984002.html with that in mind, does anyone *really* think they'd break the laws by selling tissues to make a bit of scratch? You're talking about an organization that is constantly under attack from critics - and infiltrated by actors trying to discredit the org (in 2002, in 2011, and now in 2015). Oh, and the videos in 2011 were willingly doctored to alter context as well. Activists regularly and often 'mystery shop' planned parenthood to see if they are trying to violate state and federal laws, and yet they continue to operate.

Overheal

This article sums up what I've been reading today anyway

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/07/30/planned-parenthood-abortion/30906967/

Brian Shanahan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

i.e. blah blah blah "it was answered back there sometime" (no, I promise) but I'll waffle on some twaddle for ages instead of actually telling you. Almost as if it was never answered at all and I'm just doing a predictable misdirection. Nobody would ever notice that would they?
Now for another 100 pages of "it was already answered" instead of answering. Seen it a million times before mate, pull the other one.

A) You are the one providing the waffling, so it is highly hypocritical of you to be claiming that I am waffling, especially when I post a very short reply to your facetious and answered question.
I have counted at least three independent answers to the exact same question as the one you posted in this thread in the last week, so please stop your bull****ting about us being afraid to answer the question. It is not the pro-choice side which is afraid to answer questions it is the misogynistic anti-abortionists like yourself.
C) The only people spamming the thread are the anti-abortionists, constantly posting lies about what happens with abortions, strawmen representations of their opponents and nonsense about how conception is the biological beginnings of human personhood.

If you're just going to clog the thread with your nonsense, please, for charity's sake go somewhere where it'll be appreciated, and stop posting in an area where cogent arguments and rational discussion are expected.

Dan_Solo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) You are the one providing the waffling, so it is highly hypocritical of you to be claiming that I am waffling, especially when I post a very short reply to your facetious and answered question.
I have counted at least three independent answers to the exact same question as the one you posted in this thread in the last week, so please stop your bull****ting about us being afraid to answer the question. It is not the pro-choice side which is afraid to answer questions it is the misogynistic anti-abortionists like yourself.
C) The only people spamming the thread are the anti-abortionists, constantly posting lies about what happens with abortions, strawmen representations of their opponents and nonsense about how conception is the biological beginnings of human personhood.

If you're just going to clog the thread with your nonsense, please, for charity's sake go somewhere where it'll be appreciated, and stop posting in an area where cogent arguments and rational discussion are expected.

Stay 100% predictable dude.
Of course you didn't state what any of these "answers" are, exactly like I said you would. Hey, they're there somewhere along with the perpetual motion plans and formula for the common cold cure. Yeah, they're there somewhere. You've just got to find them yourself apparently! Funny how there was some moaning here earlier about people making claims ("this question has been answered") but providing not one whiff of evidence ("it's been answered and that's a fact 'cos I said so.")
So, yip, you're doing the waffle thing without actually saying what these definitions are. You know, the ones you managed to count apparently? No chance you could copy and paste those answers? CTRL-C and CTRL-V I believe that is? Too complex.
"C": Tough ****, I'm actually pro-abortion but you just weren't able to understand that the line of questioning I was following didn't necessarily mean I was anti-abortion at all. You will also of course yet again fail utterly to QUOTE (new word here pupils, look it up) where I have done any of the things you are claiming here. Time to wheel out "Because I said so." again, yes?
This is working out extremely badly for you isn't it? Maybe read twice (or once properly) what you're attempting to reply to in future?
One more thing: I think you can guess where you can put your demand that I stop posting here.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think you can guess where you can put your demand that I stop posting here.

That "demand" was actually a request contingent on you insisting on posting nonsense. I suppose based on your response we can look forward to more such nonsense.