bbauska wrote:Which one on the video is actually in a position to offer or accept services?

Is it the videographer? No, it is the PP representative. Perhaps some blame should be there.

True, the videomakers were pretending to be in medical research, and so not "actually" able to offer or accept anything - apart from dishonesty. And the thing that have gotten anti-abortion campaigners so outraged are thing that PP could not and in the end did not "actually" accept.

As for Abstinance v Contraception, as long as you accept the risks of sexual activity (i.e. pregnancy), I am fine with what you or anyone does. If/when the conception occurs, there should be another set of rules which protect the fetus. What I suggested was:

No abortion after 22 weeks, based upon RickyP's first recommendation.
Abortion would be allowed with a physical endangerment of the mother's life exemption.
Abortion would be allowed in the case of rape/incest. Charges would have to be filed prior to abortion.

This is what I would call a compromise. It does not give all that I would want. There are some who want the government to pay for this abortion. In example 2 or 3, I would even approve that.

My question is would you, Danivon, compromise? I know it is a woman's right currently. Certainly you have an opinion, though.

My opinion on what the law and provision should be is not really relevant to whether or not PP are acting legally or morally.

For what it's worth, I would say abortions should be available up to about 22-24 weeks for most reasons, and after that only in extremis. I don't believe it should be dependent on charges having had to be filed (can that happen if a rapist is unknown?). As for who pays, I think it generally comes down to ability to pay and the reasons. For medical abortions, or the result of rape/incest/abuse I would say the state could pick up the tab.

There are reasons for which we should not allow abortion. Gender or race of the baby, for example.

Perhaps you are for full, unfettered abortion paid by the government in all cases? My position is not to take the right away, just make the person pay for it if they choose to get that service.

I have answere above, and that is not my position.

As for Freeman, he can explain why he thinks animals should have rights to come to full term, but not a fetus.

And indeed he has. I understand it, and why he is saying they are not comparable in the way you are presenting.

fate

Thank you for that. Of course, it has nothing to do with choosing to kill a baby, but thanks anyway

You said that science supports the notion that life begins at conception.

fate

This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being

If so, than when zygotes "die" naturally then these are babies dieing.
Do you really believe that these are genuinely "people"? That nature creates so many lives only to almost immediately snuff them out?
If you do, then to limit the harvest every woman not actively planning on becoming pregnant should be on birth control pills to limit the "deaths."
And in order to achieve this for all women shouldn't birth control pills be freely available? (This is a choice.)

I think Ricky pretty much took care of the Catholic Church's position against birth control and the opposition to morning after pills...

God (after another zygote rejection)..."there goes Frank"...

With Birth Control:
Sample size: 100 fertile women
0.15 dead zygotes per month
2 dead zygotes by the end of the year

Without Birth Control:
Sample size: 100 fertile women
Each month 16% become pregnant and 16% have dead zygotes
85 dead zygotes by the end of the year
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... 6AcTR.dpuf

I actually used a low estimate.... Here's a discussion which shows how much larger the "death rate" is without birth control versus with...
The notion that a zygote is a "baby" is ridiculous when one considers the actual role zygotes play in reproduction.

My position is not the Catholic Churches. My position is that we should not, as human beings, be directly causing the death of a conceived fetus. There are exemptions, for the purpose of compromise. Percentages of zygote death does not address the issue.

bbauska

Percentages of zygote death does not address the issue.

It wasn't intended to..
What it was intended to do was refute Faes claim that life begins at conception.
(The creation of a zygote)

bbauska

My position is that we should not, as human beings, be directly causing the death of a conceived fetus

Fate wants to claim that zygotes are alive.They occur at conception. They are "conceived".

You want to claim what? Zygotes have been conceived but they aren't alive? At what point is a fetus "alive"?

The notion that a fetus is alive, is at the heart of the matter isn't it?

So many fetus fail to progress (20%) past the 20th week that its hard to conceive that nature is creating life only to snuff it out in the womb with such frequency.

If a fetus isn't viable outside the womb, how is it life?
It can be potential life. But then every zygote is potential life. Ad we see how nature treats that potential. Every fetus is potential. But 1/5th are expelled by the body. Again, nature treating "life" as less than precious.
Perhaps because it isn't yet "life"?

As Danivon so often reminds me, that is not the topic.

We are talking about Planned Parenthood and the negotiation of body parts. Do you support Planned Parenthood doing that?

Do you support people willfully destroying, as you said, "Potential life"? Even after 22 weeks?

We are talking about Planned Parenthood and the negotiation of body parts. Do you support Planned Parenthood doing that?

I don't think that this is an accurate representation of what PP was doing. .Nor do I think that the meeting was fairly represented in the edited video nor is the subsequent representation of the meeting in the media fair.

bbauska

Do you support people willfully destroying, as you said, "Potential life"? Even after 22 weeks?

I think that women need to be able to make decisions about continuing or ending pregnancies, up to 22 to 24 weeks, privately.

rickyp wrote:

We are talking about Planned Parenthood and the negotiation of body parts. Do you support Planned Parenthood doing that?

I don't think that this is an accurate representation of what PP was doing. .Nor do I think that the meeting was fairly represented in the edited video nor is the subsequent representation of the meeting in the media fair.

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

After 22 weeks what happens then?

[sidebar]
Do you think PP would have discussed organ harvesting tactics and procedures with a person who was going to broadcast the results of the video interviews were known? That is just plain silly. I can see it now...

[Interviewer] Pardon me, Planned Parenthood representative. I would like to discuss how you take aborted fetuses and take the organs out for money. Do you have a few minutes for me and our camera team?

[PP Vice President] Of course sir, we are always proud of the services we provide, and look to benefit women in every way possible. We have nothing to hide.

Really? Puh-leeze.

rickyp wrote:fate

Thank you for that. Of course, it has nothing to do with choosing to kill a baby, but thanks anyway

You said that science supports the notion that life begins at conception.

fate

This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being

If so, than when zygotes "die" naturally then these are babies dieing. (sic)

Well, if nothing happens to these zygotes . . . what do they become?

Do you really believe that these are genuinely "people"? That nature creates so many lives only to almost immediately snuff them out?

Nature creates nothing. Nature exists. It is not a force or a consciousness.

If you do, then to limit the harvest every woman not actively planning on becoming pregnant should be on birth control pills to limit the "deaths."
And in order to achieve this for all women shouldn't birth control pills be freely available? (This is a choice.)

This is just dopey. It only makes sense if one equates a miscarriage with an abortion, which I don't.

I have a friend who is quite liberal. In fact, he and his wife have both been staffers for liberal members of Congress. They are both pro-abortion. However, when they went through many, many miscarriages, they never said, "Oh, we no longer have a zygote" or "Our fetus is gone." They wept over losing a baby. He told me it has impacted them both deeply.

Yes, that is anecdotal. However, I don't care who it is, we all understand that our wives/girlfriends are carrying babies. The only time that changes is when the child is unwanted. Then it becomes a "fetus," a "cluster of cells" or a "parasite." That shift in terminology doesn't affect the truth of biology.

fate

It only makes sense if one equates a miscarriage with an abortion, which I don't.

Maybe you don't. But

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion.

U.S> National Library of Medicine

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 001488.htm

rickyp wrote:fate

It only makes sense if one equates a miscarriage with an abortion, which I don't.

Maybe you don't. But

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion.

U.S> National Library of Medicine

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 001488.htm

Wow, that is something so dumb . . . thank you.

Is there a difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an abortion of choice?

I mean, really, can you be any less meaningful?

fate

Is there a difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an abortion of choice

Is there a difference in the end result?

And since we know that many more spontaneous abortions will occur when a woman is not on birth control pills versus when she is not on birth control...
Is the woman not on birth control making a decision to abort?

rickyp wrote:fate

Is there a difference between a "spontaneous abortion" and an abortion of choice

Is there a difference in the end result?

And since we know that many more spontaneous abortions will occur when a woman is not on birth control pills versus when she is not on birth control...
Is the woman not on birth control making a decision to abort?

Answer other people's questions. You went on to Dr. Fate's post and skipped. What; was it too hard?

Pray tell, what was PP representing what they do by negotiating the price and tactics to harvest fetal organs?

After 22 weeks what happens then?