GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic

antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.
4/12/2011 1:58 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 4/12/2011 1:03:00 PM (view original):
The mother of the child in the scenario above had no choice in the matter...and that's ok with you?  She was raped by her own father, impregnated, and now she is forced to look at the result of that tragedy for the rest of her life? 


I find your stance on killing of innocents to be highly hypocritcal.  You say that innocents should never be harmed on one hand, BUT on the other hand it's ok if it fits into your set of beliefs.  There has been plenty of intent to kill innocent people during the course of war.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples of that.
Addressing the second paragraph above.

I am not saying killing innocent people is okay.  But war is a product of evil.  And when you fight to defend against evil, there are real-world ramifications to it, such as innocent people losing their lives.  Doing nothing to stop the Axis is akin to allowing more innocent people to die.  Defending and winning has costs in lives lost.  Not defending and losing also has costs in lives lost.  At some point, you have to make a choice and confront the reality of evil.  That's the horror of war, which is why it should be avoided if possible. 

 

It's not the same as having the power to prevent the killing babies for the convenience of it when there are other options that don't cost the life of innocent people.

Unfortunately war doesn't give us that option.

4/12/2011 1:58 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 4/12/2011 1:55:00 PM (view original):
I don't know the answers to any of that....that's why I say leave the choice up to the mother.  She, better than you or I, would know the answer. 
She would?  And you would know this how? 

I am not without compassion for the mother.  In the all-to-real scenario you bring up, it's unimaginable to me what too many women have had to go through.  But again, if baby is considered a human being, which I can't see a reasonable position against, the suffering of the mother through hard times does not justify the killing of the child. 
4/12/2011 2:02 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12649 (2)
Hall of Famer
1000 3
Hall of Famer
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/12/2011 1:23:00 PM (view original):
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million lives by preventing the need for an invasion of Japan.

Pure opinion there.  Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, and Leahy disagree with that. 

4/12/2011 2:05 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.
What is it that makes you know the mother is a human being?  And what standard do you apply to her that you cannot apply to the fetus?

I don't define the fetus as a human being.  Science does.  Draw blood or any living tissue from a fetus at any single point in the process and what kind of DNA is it?  Is it living?  Can you differentiate that kind of DNA from the mother's kind of DNA?

4/12/2011 2:05 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12649 (2)
Hall of Famer
1000 3
Hall of Famer
Posted by silentpadna on 4/12/2011 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/12/2011 1:55:00 PM (view original):
I don't know the answers to any of that....that's why I say leave the choice up to the mother.  She, better than you or I, would know the answer. 
She would?  And you would know this how? 

I am not without compassion for the mother.  In the all-to-real scenario you bring up, it's unimaginable to me what too many women have had to go through.  But again, if baby is considered a human being, which I can't see a reasonable position against, the suffering of the mother through hard times does not justify the killing of the child. 
For you to say that you know what is better for any person, than that person themself, pretty much says all there is to say.
4/12/2011 2:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.
Jesus, I'm pro-choice but this is a horrible argument.

The mother has a right to take a life?   Now, of course, "a life" has be to defined but once you've defined it, I don't think the mother has any right at all to determine life/death.
4/12/2011 2:19 PM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
>>"For you to say that you know what is better for any person, than that person themself, pretty much says all there is to say."<<

Not really.  We can say it's okay to prevent a man from killing his 10-year old boy.  If he wants to do that, I can certainly say I know what's better for him than he does.  So can you. 

We do this all the time with legislation for all sorts of different things.  We do it with gun control; we do it with age limitations on alcohol, cigarettes, driving, boating, piloting, number of spouses we can have, voting........
4/12/2011 2:19 PM
tedco
Posts: 861 (0)
Veteran
32
Prospect
I'm amazed that this thread has turned into an abortion debate, as the federal funding of Planned Parenthood has ZERO to do with abortions...

4/12/2011 2:34 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/12/2011 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.
Jesus, I'm pro-choice but this is a horrible argument.

The mother has a right to take a life?   Now, of course, "a life" has be to defined but once you've defined it, I don't think the mother has any right at all to determine life/death.
No, the mother has the right to control her own body.

If you want to put words in people's mouths and play your usual silly forum games, Mike, don't expect any further responses from me.
4/12/2011 2:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Isn't prostitution illegal?   Is that controlling "her own body"?     Sorry, when you inject another life into the equation, a new problem arises.    At what point would you not allow her "control her own body"?   8 months?  During contractions?
4/12/2011 2:53 PM
tedco
Posts: 861 (0)
Veteran
32
Prospect
Again, this is getting way off topic.

The point of the OP is that all this GOP obsessiveness over Planned Parenthood is absurd since zero federal dollars go to the 3% of their operations that have anything to do with abortions.


4/12/2011 2:56 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You seem to misunderstand the allocation of funds.

Government funds PP.
PP funds abortions.

Pretty simple. 
4/12/2011 3:01 PM
tedco
Posts: 861 (0)
Veteran
32
Prospect
You seem to misunderstand federal law.

Federal dollars can not fund abortions.
Federal dollars do not fund abortions.

Pretty simple.

4/12/2011 3:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Seriously?

I'm sure I can't explain this to you but I'll break it down in terms you might understand.   Mommy gives you a dollar for lunch money but not candy.   Daddy gives you a dollar for candy.   You now have two dollars.   Do you put your mommy's dollar in your left pocket so you know it doesn't go towards candy?   Or, if daddy doesn't give you a dollar but you still want candy, do you just not buy candy?

4/12/2011 3:12 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...27 Next ▸
GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.