Secularists deny science

You know, women could always just be responsible and not let a man insemanate them. That seems like a choice all women can make. It seems like a better option than, you know, being a lazy, irresponsible murderer.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-facts-planned-parenthood-open-book/99216344/

So I'm sure you read the report referenced in that link.

You haven'y? I'm shocked.

And here I thought you were an informed honest opponent of abortion funding. I guess I was wrong huh?

 

If you want to be honest( and I have my doubts there) you would more accurately be calling them "pro-choice" but then you were really into characterizing and name calling weren't you...

 

You are, and so is your source, conflating the issue. 3% of its service, procedures that take much longer to do than hand out contraceptives or refer people to somewhere else for a monogram. So, they can see 9 patients in the span of an hour for other services, and preform 1 abortion in the same amount of time and call it "3%" all the want. It doesn't account for actual time spent. Not to mention, abortions cost much more than pills or anything else they do there. Plus, they don't count pill form of abortions as abortions, so its a twisting of words I guess.

Also, why when I click on PPH link to their books in your own link do I get an appointment page and not actually their books?

 

Here's the problem with your argument. Where do you draw the line?
Studies show that that chances of miscarriage increase with exercise and physical exertion during pregnancy. So if we go down your road, where childhood begins at the moment of fertilization, then wouldn't any pregnant woman who does ANYTHING that increases the chances of miscarriage open to Manslaughter charges should a miscarriage occur?

And how far would we have to go to protect ALL rights of the unborn? ANY and ALL miscarriages would have to be investigated as a possible homicide, manslaughter, or child neglect. You couldn't just believe a woman cause she said it was unintentional - the event would have to be officially investigated. If a pregnant woman travelled abroad and returned having had a miscarriage, she would have to bring back proof of said miscarriage to ascertain if it was truly a miscarriage.

If you read the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, you will find these concerns were very much on the minds of the justices who filed in favor. It's a possible crime that would place undue burden of proof on the women involved. It would also be near impossible to take to trail - the rich would just once again take "vacations" and only the poor would be caught in back ally operations. Are you really going to put the mother of two in jail because she just couldn't afford a third and her birth control failed?

I won't say I'm "for" abortions - but the arguments criminalizing it are a waste of time and money. Put that same money and effort into supporting children who have actually made it past a cluster of cells.

 

Nah, just like to show how you clamoring for criminals to be able to kill people without risk to your own life is status quo.

 

Says the person who is calling a baby something other than a baby. It is life, from conception. The science is settled, you need to change the wording to feel better about supporting genocide set up by the racist founder of PPH Margret Sanger.

 

Call it whatever you want, but PPH gets more than enough in donations to fund everything under the sun that it claims it does, so stop with this notion that we need to give it government funding.

 

But wait. You claimed to be talking about "funding". You weren't? You've shifted from that argument already?

Did you bother to read the report ( I linked to) that you claimed wasn't available and that you needed so badly?

No?

I'm shocked.

 

Boy your arguments DO seem to shift all over the place and you aren't even phased when that is pointed out....

 

So, pregnancy kills the majority of women? Or even a high percentage of women? Sounds like hyperbole because otherwise, the human race would have died out long ago if most pregnancies resulted in death.

 

Get back to us when you find a consistent honest argument

 

Cause the woman caused the new life to begin. Her actions doesn't give her the right to kill the life inside her for no reason.

Did I have any responsibility in you needing a blood transfusion? Did I stab you? Was any physical altercation where I was the root cause of your trauma? Has this been hashed out in court that its my fault and therefor my responsibility to save your life...well, not save you life, just make up for the minor gash from a paper cut in the grand scheme of things.

 

But without women's sexual liberations, the 2nd wave feminists have no legacy and there for neither does 3rd or 4th wave feminists.

 

Even if you did stab me, the court still cannot force you to give up your blood to me, even if it means I will die.

Bodily sovereignty is an absolute right. We can't even take organs from the dead unless they gave permission while they were alive.

You all want women to have less rights than what we give to corpses.

 

Look at your wording. It says it all.

The woman caused the new life to begin

Immaculate Conception! I think that says what this whole thing is about.

 

Doesn't have to have a considerable risk of killing the woman, although that is a concrete risk that exists. It only needs to cause harm, and it does in 100% of cases. Or do you think self defense is only allowable in cases of 100% certainty of death?

As I said, if you're going to make legal arguments, you really need to put up some real legal facts, because you're getting them wrong an awful lot.

...and more insults. Here's a tip; you're already in the hole, stop digging!

 

Women die from complications of pregnancy. It's a medical fact. Less than 50% of fertilized eggs reach maturity. Also a fact.
So should a woman - a human - be sacrificed for the POSSIBILITY that the egg will reach maturity? Shouldn't that be her choice?

The day all uterus are perfect - the day every fertilized egg implants properly - that will be the day we can talk of the sanctity
of the human egg. Otherwise an abortion is just the body's way of saying, "Hey, normally I would just shed this fertilized egg as unwanted naturally- but things aren't working right, so get someone, or take something, to help this process."

And as I said - every dime wasted on the abortion fight could have been used to buy free condoms and day-after pills.

 

Embryologists do not all have the same perspective on when life begins and embryology is not the subject matter domain in any case.

There are 5 different scientific perspectives on "when human life begins"; Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. Only one puts the beginning at conception (Genetic)

There are some Philosophers who argue in favor of the Genetic perspective and others who do not.

What is clear is that you are quite ignorant of the perspective of science and philosophy.

Your "secularists do not believe science" claim is abject nonsense and fallacy.

You should not be making claims in relation to science on abortion issues when you are so ignorant of the science in relation these issues.

 

Ok, so you genuinely don't understand or want to be naïve to how PPH works huh? Take a general opinion piece and claim it as "facts" huh? Here are actual facts for you.

Most (79%) PPH centers are set up around low income areas with the majority of people are minorities, POC, what ever your term you like to use.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/...ood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics/

PPH maybe a "non-profit", but that doesn't mean they sell or charge at "cost" for their procedures of pills or exams. Those things they are allowed to charge Medicaid for, including abortion pills, are marked up to provide abortions for free or extremely reduced cost. As with everything government funded, there is fraud and people taking advantage of the honey pot. I know its not just PPH either, many people on Medicaid and medicare are charged by private doctors offices for services not rendered. PPH from the beginning has always been about eugenics and abortions. So, are abortions provided by the government funding, YES, they are.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/12/p...ontrol-but-billed-medicaid-35-former-manager/

 

Well, you want to go into semantics, we need your views on all things choice related that the left decides you cant have a choice on. For this thread, pro-abortionist is accurate.

 

So you didn't bother to read the report that you quoted.

Not surprising

Oh and

For example, the judge dismissed her claim that Planned Parenthood fraudulently billed Medicaid for services for which the agency also received private donations, and for medications for which there was no “valid patient-practitioner relationship.”

In fact courts have thrown out virtually all of this lunatics allegations.

This by the way was a woman who worked for PPH for 17 years and was ALWAYS anti-abortion.

She liked the money she was paid though

 

I have never made the argument for charges or government involvement into investigating miscarriages.

Uh, we do it all the time. There needs to be witnesses and motive for any crime to be investigated. When you find a dead body in a home that it doesn't belong to and the owner says they feared for their life, no further investigation is usually required. No evidence, no crime.

Again, I am not saying anything about making abortion illegal, I know people have been too brain washed into thinking the baby in the womb is less than human or that there is some inalienable right for the mother to kill the baby. Its gone on since romans were an empire. Each person has their own choices to make in life, and other than trying to convince people through logic, illegalizing it will only embolden some people to do it out of spite. They will answer to whatever may come their way down the road for their actions, whether it Karma, or some other form of justice you might call it, I believe that is for them to reap what they sew.

Right by your side.

 

The domain science in relation to what organisms are classified as "Homo sapiens" is the sub domain in biology - Human Taxonomy.

In order to be a member of the club "Homo sapiens" an organism must have memberships in all of the other following clubs: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

The zygote only has membership in one and thus is not classified as a "Homo sapiens". There is no such thing as a human who is not a "Homo sapiens".

A single human cell is not a "Homo sapiens" according to the domain science that is responsible for classifying organisms. A single human heart cell is not a heart.

You have not provide anything remotely resembling a valid argument that supports your claim that a human exists at conception.

You engage in disingenuous language and obfuscation. "new life begins at conception". Is the sperm not "new life"? New life of what ? "Human life perhaps ?" - is the sperm not human life ?

Even if your claim was true - just because an human cell is "human life" does not make that cell a human.

Your claims are based on ignorance of science, linguistic obfuscation and fallacy.

 

Your link had nothing to do with funding, just what it did procedure wise. There are different costs to different procedures.