Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

[grasping the after wind]

This causes people to be hesitant to say that an unborn child that is completely biologically dependent on it's mother for survival (I'm not talking about how babies need to be fed and such, the mother does not have to do that) has the same rights as a born child.

A child is completely biologically dependent upon others for years after birth. If a mother were to refuse to care for a born child that mother would be charged with child abuse. If that mother arranged for a contract killer to exterminate that biologically dependent child she would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In all other cases where rights conflict , the right to life is considered more important than any other right. We do not allow for legal infanticide simply because the child is not able to care for itself. Though I have heard that argument made before.

Imagine that you woke up to find yourself medically attached to someone else without your consent, and you must remain attached to them for nine months until they can heal, otherwise they will die.

In other situations where a person consents to engage in an activity where there are known consequences the person is considered to have given tacit consent and is held responsible for what flows from those actions. I can't see how we can pretend that a women just wakes up one day to find herself pregnant for some unknown reason. Except for in the case of rape a woman along with her sexual partner, has caused the situation she finds herself in. We even hold the partner responsible for caring for the child without giving that partner any say,. By what principle is the partner held responsible for a woman that just woke up one day to find she has mysteriously become pregnant through no action of her own?

 

[imind]

Look it up.

how about you support your own claims with a citation?

 

[SnowyMacie]

A child is completely biologically dependent upon others for years after birth. If a mother were to refuse to care for a born child that mother would be charged with child abuse. If that mother arranged for a contract killer to exterminate that biologically dependent child she would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In all other cases where rights conflict , the right to life is considered more important than any other right. We do not allow for legal infanticide simply because the child is not able to care for itself. Though I have heard that argument made before.

They are dependent on others to feed them and such yes, but their bodies can function independently of another body. If the mother dies, the father can take care of the baby. If a pregnant woman dies, the child she is carrying is going to die is going to die as well, that's the difference.

In other situations where a person consents to engage in an activity where there are known consequences the person is considered to have given tacit consent and is held responsible for what flows from those actions. I can't see how we can pretend that a women just wakes up one day to find herself pregnant for some unknown reason. Except for in the case of rape a woman along with her sexual partner, has caused the situation she finds herself in. We even hold the partner responsible for caring for the child without giving that partner any say,. By what principle is the partner held responsible for a woman that just woke up one day to find she has mysteriously become pregnant through no action of her own?

There are a surprising number of teenage pregnancies that happen because the people involved legitimately did not know that what they were doing could cause them to become pregnant. Regardless of those cases that are the result of our terrible sex-education, just because a woman consents to having sex does not mean she wants to get pregnant. That's one of the reasons why have birth control because people want to have sex without an unwanted pregnancy, and birth control is not 100% effective, it's close, but it's not there.

 

[Wolfe]

They are dependent on others to feed them and such yes, but their bodies can function independently of another body. If the mother dies, the father can take care of the baby. If a pregnant woman dies, the child she is carrying is going to die is going to die as well, that's the difference.

So that gives you the choice to kill it?
If she dies, that's most likely not of her choice, people die.
But if you choose to kill, that's heinous.

If there is no father?
What about mothers who are homeless, with little babies that depend on them? They're body can function yes, but they depend on that person completely to take care of them.

The murder of a baby for sheer convenience is disgusting, vile, I'd say satanic.

So "the choice" in the matter, is murder. I can choose to murder someone, but I get punished for it.
This is legal murder, nobody seems to bat an eye if a woman has an abortion.

If you're defending "the choice" to murder, I think you're a disgusting human being, and downright horrible Christian.
How could you be a Christian and advocate for that?

 

[SnowyMacie]

So that gives you the choice to kill it?
If she dies, that's most likely not of her choice, people die.
But if you choose to kill, that's heinous.

If there is no father?
What about mothers who are homeless, with little babies that depend on them? They're body can function yes, but they depend on that person completely to take care of them.

The murder of a baby for sheer convenience is disgusting, vile, I'd say satanic.

So "the choice" in the matter, is murder. I can choose to murder someone, but I get punished for it.
This is legal murder, nobody seems to bat an eye if a woman has an abortion.

If you're defending "the choice" to murder, I think you're a disgusting human being, and downright horrible Christian.
How could you be a Christian and advocate for that?

Please go back and read my previous responses in the thread before you straight up insult me and completely take my posts of out of context of what I've said this in this thread...

The nature of viability, independent life, etc. is a complicated issue so by nature any question about it is a complicated issue. The question of "It is like a cancer tumor or a distinct human life?" is not really the right to question to be asking. The right question is "does the unborn child have the same rights as the mother, specifically, does the unborn child's right to life supersede the right of the mother to bodily independence?" A baby has zero chance of surviving until about 20 weeks into pregnancy, and are only given a 50% chance at 23 weeks. This is even with all of our intensive medical care, in fact, we haven't really improved our ability to do so in over a decade even though medical technology is still advancing. This causes people to be hesitant to say that an unborn child that is completely biologically dependent on it's mother for survival (I'm not talking about how babies need to be fed and such, the mother does not have to do that) has the same rights as a born child. Imagine that you woke up to find yourself medically attached to someone else without your consent, and you must remain attached to them for nine months until they can heal, otherwise they will die. Sure, that person has the right to live, but does their right to live supersede your right to bodily independence? We could all probably agree on what the most Christian choice in the matter would be, but that's what pro-choice is: A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival.

Like I said, I'm not comfortable with anywhere I land when I dive into this issue. I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!".

 

[Wolfe]

Please go back and read my previous responses in the thread before you straight up insult me and completely take my posts of out of context of what I've said this in this thread...

Anything past The murder of a baby for sheer convenience is disgusting, vile, I'd say satanic.
isn't really meant for you directly, just anybody that happens to come across it.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices

this is the outworking of sin leading to more sin.

I can't stop sleeping around so I need to be able to sacrifice another human life on the alter of lust.

why should anyone support murder for the sake of convenience...in sexual sin no less?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I saw an ultrasound video one time where as soon as the abotion doctor inserted the killing tool into the fetuses spine, it's mouth opened and it arched it's head back as if it was screaming in agony.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Don't they actually snip the spinal cord? That's sick.

 

[SnowyMacie]

this is the outworking of sin leading to more sin.

I can't stop sleeping around so I need to be able to sacrifice another human life on the alter of lust.

why should anyone support murder for the sake of convenience...in sexual sin no less?

When did I say anything about sexual sin?

Regardless, don't misquote me, the full statement was this "I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!" The reality of the matter, and it's not a reality that I like either, is that women who are left with no other options but to abort their pregnancy, are going to do so, and it's either do it under medical supervision or not. Laws that make these medically supervised and safe abortions more difficult to get to impossible to get, or attempt to guilt or scare women away looks good on paper and makes you feel good inside, but in reality, do nothing not stop abortion. The way to change that reality for the better where neither the mother nor child's life is through better sex education, easier, better, and cheaper access to birth control and other women's healthcare services, and ending the stigma and shame surrounding sex in certain circles.

That brings me to another point I want to bring up because it's been brought up in several posts in this thread, the idea that women get abortions for convenience. That couldn't be further from the truth unless you think that being an eighteen, nineteen year-old with no money, job or prospects, who would get kicked out of their parents house because they got pregnant due to a birth control failure things having a baby is "inconvenient". If you think I'm exaggerating I'm not. According to research, most of the women (60%) who have abortions are young women to teenagers that are near, at, or below the poverty line. When 73% say that "can't afford to have a baby", it's because they literally cannot afford to take care of a child. When 74% say "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" it's because it would literally cause their life to take a completely different turn where they could almost forget about their hopes, dreams, and aspirations. That's one of the reasons I love that school districts are offering child care for their students, and parents of teenagers who make a mistake sacrificing to take help take care of their grandchild so their daughter can finish her education so both of them can have a better life. Abortions, homeless and impoverished young mothers, do not come from a society that embraces premarital sex, they're what happens in a society that still punishes it.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

When did I say anything about sexual sin?

Regardless, don't misquote me, the full statement was this "I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!" The reality of the matter, and it's not a reality that I like either, is that women who are left with no other options but to abort their pregnancy, are going to do so, and it's either do it under medical supervision or not. Laws that make these medically supervised and safe abortions more difficult to get to impossible to get, or attempt to guilt or scare women away looks good on paper and makes you feel good inside, but in reality, do nothing not stop abortion. The way to change that reality for the better where neither the mother nor child's life is through better sex education, easier, better, and cheaper access to birth control and other women's healthcare services, and ending the stigma and shame surrounding sex in certain circles.

That brings me to another point I want to bring up because it's been brought up in several posts in this thread, the idea that women get abortions for convenience. That couldn't be further from the truth unless you think that being an eighteen, nineteen year-old with no money, job or prospects, who would get kicked out of their parents house because they got pregnant due to a birth control failure things having a baby is "inconvenient". If you think I'm exaggerating I'm not. According to research, most of the women (60%) who have abortions are young women to teenagers that are near, at, or below the poverty line. When 73% say that "can't afford to have a baby", it's because they literally cannot afford to take care of a child. When 74% say "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" it's because it would literally cause their life to take a completely different turn where they could almost forget about their hopes, dreams, and aspirations. That's one of the reasons I love that school districts are offering child care for their students, and parents of teenagers who make a mistake sacrificing to take help take care of their grandchild so their daughter can finish her education so both of them can have a better life. Abortions, homeless and impoverished young mothers, do not come from a society that embraces premarital sex, they're what happens in a society that still punishes it.

I repeat, this is sin leading to more sin.

the solution is to stop sleeping around. no one put a gun to these girls heads and told them to lay down with some guy. the sin started there. the fact that they would want to now murder an unborn child for the sake of convenience is just the consequences of that initial sinful act. these little girls made choices. they decided that while they may have been mature enough to lay down with a guy, they somehow weren't ready to deal with the consequences of that action. so now an innocent child has to die in the name of lust and convenience.

why should children die because of societies lack of self control?

 

[SnowyMacie]

I repeat, this is sin leading to more sin.

There are some situations in life where you have to choose between the lesser of two sins. If a runaway train is going to kill two people, but you can throw a switch to where it only kills one, which is the worst option, voluntary inaction that kills two people or action that kills one? That's how I see it, we either risk the life of one or two because as of right now, there is no good, practical solution to save both, which is why I said that

the solution is to stop sleeping around.

That is a moral ideal that is never going to happen. When it comes to political issues, I don't work with moral ideals.

no one put a gun to these girls heads and told them to lay down with some guy. the sin started there. the fact that they would want to now murder an unborn child for the sake of convenience is just the consequences of that initial sinful act. these little girls made choices. they decided that while they may have been mature enough to lay down with a guy, they somehow weren't ready to deal with the consequences of that action. so now an innocent child has to die in the name of lust and convenience.

This mentality is one of the reasons why abortion is still prevalent today. The rates have gone done, partially because people started to realize that young mothers need to be looked upon with sympathy and support and not judgement and shame, and partially because things like healthcare, birth control, etc. have become more affordable and easily accessible. When a young woman becomes a single mother, especially with no education, money, or job, she's sentenced to a life infinitely and incomprehensibly harder than almost anyone else in this country if she not supported by her family. In fact, it's actually easier to make it in this country for an immigrant who doesn't know English. You are not only guaranteeing her to a life of poverty or lower-class status, but a good chance her child as well knowing how difficult it actually is to move up in this country.

why should children die because of societies lack of self control?

I've already answered your question, so answer mine: Why should women be shamed and forced to make desperate decisions that could potentially kill themselves and their children because some people want pregnancy and poverty to be a punishment for sex?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

There are some situations in life where you have to choose between the lesser of two sins. If a runaway train is going to kill two people, but you can throw a switch to where it only kills one, which is the worst option, voluntary inaction that kills two people or action that kills one? That's how I see it, we either risk the life of one or two because as of right now, there is no good, practical solution to save both, which is why I said that

the anology that would actually fit the reality of the situation is the person purposely seeks out runaway trains to throw themselves in front of.

That is a moral ideal that is never going to happen.

especially if we're not going to take measures to encourage it but instead provide safety nets for lasciviousness.

This mentality is one of the reasons why abortion is still prevalent today. The rates have gone done, partially because people started to realize that young mothers need to be looked upon with sympathy and support and not judgement and shame, and partially because things like healthcare, birth control, etc. have become more affordable and easily accessible. When a young woman becomes a single mother, especially with no education, money, or job, she's sentenced to a life infinitely and incomprehensibly harder than almost anyone else in this country if she not supported by her family. In fact, it's actually easier to make it in this country for an immigrant who doesn't know English. You are not only guaranteeing her to a life of poverty or lower-class status, but a good chance her child as well knowing how difficult it actually is to move up in this country.

we'll just conveniently forget the fact that these gals made a choice and not allow them to experience the consequences of those choices.

"who cares if I lay down with as many guys as I want and get knocked up" society will take care of me anyway". no worries."

I've already answered your question, so answer mine: Why should women be shamed and forced to make desperate decisions that could potentially kill themselves and their children because some people want pregnancy and poverty to be a punishment for sex?

you actually have not but i'll answer yours anyway. it's quite simple. with choices comes consequences, especially for bad choices. take away the safety net and these gals will think twice about sleeping around.

do you even see premarital sex as sinful?