Crush Planned Parenthood (COMMENTARY)

Print More
Kirsten Powers portrait by Len Spoden Photography, courtesy of Kristen Powers.

Kirsten Powers portrait by Len Spoden Photography, courtesy of Kristen Powers.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

A Planned Parenthood executive was caught on video talking about crushing fetus organs. Yet abortion-rights activists want us to believe the harvesting of fetus parts has no more moral value than a fingernail.

  • Glenda

    Kirsten’s case failed when she used the hackneyed term “unborn fetuses”. The anti-abortion crowd has lost. It’s that simple. Move on already.

    Hey, Kirsten, a bit less of the face scrubbing and rouge for your next bio pic, OK? You look like you are made of plastic. K Thanx.

  • Glyndon Morris

    Sadly, “the anti-abortion crowd” has NOT lost. Though they have not overturned Roe v. Wade, they have made it nearly impossible in most states for women to gain access to abortion providers. In doing so, they have also made it very difficult for women AND men to access reproductive health services and scientifically-based information on sexuality and human reproduction.

    The saddest part, of course, is that while working so hard to deny women the chance to actually use their hard-won right to choose how their body will be (ab)used, these same forces have refused to work with groups like Planned Parenthood to educate young people on scientifically proven ways to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence is not an effective method of birth control, as has been proven time and again.

    I’ll leave it to others to critique the propriety of the comment regarding Ms. Powers’ photo.

  • Pingback: Crush Planned Parenthood (COMMENTARY) - mosaicversemosaicverse()

  • Justin

    The fact that you could only attack her outward appearance demonstrates the shallow nature of anyone that could support killing human beings for convenience. Hundreds of people just like you are captured on Nazi films sunning in the countryside while their leaders they supported murdered millions of their fellow human beings.

  • Larry

    We can also attack her clear dismissal of known facts of the situation. The allegations of parts selling was demonstratively false in the unedited version. The attack on tissue donation is Luddite panicking over medical speech/syntax.

    The blanket assumption of PP as an abortion mill is pure uninformed propaganda.

    And her picture looks like a mannequin. (The only part of my post you will notice. 😉 )

    We can also attack the clear and obvious biased language in the commentary.

    More importantly is the hysteric nature of the article.

  • Larry

    Fetus, at you trying to tell me something?

    I can’t hear you, you have all this womb in the way and your mother is hitting me with an umbrella as my ear is against her belly.

    There are a bunch of people who want to represent you, but you can’t come out to sign the retainer.

    I guess they will either have to wait until you come out or talk to your mother. They don’t seem interested in either. Oh well.

  • Ted

    When the anti-abortionists begins spending as much money, time, and effort on foster care services, as they do opposing women’s right to control what happens inside their bodies up to the time of fetal viability, then the mainstream public will begin to take them seriously.

    Unfortunately, most anti-abortionists stop caring about other humans at birth. Our foster care system is a shambling beast, and I’m certain most anti-abortionists fully support warfare, death penalties, and cutting food aid to the poor to help the rich keep their taxes low.

  • Jon

    It’s bad enough that the anti-choice people who made the video are so willing to lie in efforts to restrict women’s health choices – yes, “creative” video editing is lying. It’s even worse that people like Kirsten Powers would stoop to lying along with them, this time about the established facts of the situation.

    If someone’s argument is based on lies, it doesn’t speak well for their point nor for their morals.

  • alison

    Ted, pro-life people I know spend a CONSIDERABLE amount of money, time and effort on foster care services – probably more than any other group. I don’t know where you get your information, but it is incorrect. In my very small church there are numerous foster parents. Others bring together hundreds of school supplies so children without resources will be able to go to school with new backpacks full of supplies. We provide tutoring and after school care. When organizations ask for clothing, clothing is provided. Many participate in providing free medical care to children without funds. We provide meals to the hungry. We collect and deliver Christmas presents. We also provide meals and supplies to pregnant women. Wherever there is a need, we rise to the occasion. What have you done lately?

  • alison

    What part exactly is not true? The part about the lamborghini? The part about crushing? What part is not true?

  • Larry

    Yet they invariably vote for politicians who work to make life miserable for the poor/working class, oppose sane sex education, easy access to contraception, affordable healthcare and strong public education. People whose care for life ends at birth.

  • Jon

    If you are familiar with quote-mining, and the similar used of editing videos to make them say (especially suggest), you know what I’m talking about. This is the same method used dishonestly in the “Expelled” movie and other similar deceptions. In this case, it is structured to suggest that the fetal tissue is being sold, when, watching the whole video, it is clear that, as they state, “they aren’t in this for the money”. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/21/planned-parenthood-official-jokes-about-buying-lamborghini-with-fetus-tissue-profits.html

  • Jack

    Larry, it’s an op-ed, not a news story. That means she’s giving her opinion.

    And when it comes to “biased language,” you are the uncontested king on these message boards. You couldn’t frame an argument with objective language if your life depended upon it. Propagandistic spin comes naturally to you.

    There’s nothing in the op-ed that is factually incorrect. You just don’t like the fact that your Planned Parenthood friends are sounding positively creepy, but they’re doing it to themselves by their own macabre words and attitudes. These are human beings that have transformed themselves into unfeeling automatons. It looks bad to anyone with a heart and a brain and there’s not a darned thing you can do about it.

  • Jack

    Larry, who makes “life miserable for the poor/working class?” It’s the left — which has spent $20 trillion paying people not to work, not to save, not to have property, not to get married, and be perpetually pregnant, dooming generations of poor people to lives of dependency and despair.

    Public education? Washington, DC public schools spend nearly $10,000 per student and have nothing to show for it.

    And yet, far richer districts spend a lot less per student and have far better results. Why? Because poor families have zero alternatives to the local public school, meaning there is no incentive for the local public school in any poor area to improve itself.

    The idea that the way to improve something is always to pour more money into it is a brain-dead idea that refutes itself. If the system itself is dysfunctional, then all you’re doing is subsidizing failure.

  • Jack

    Abortion destroys forever the nonsensical notion that leftists are the compassionate conscience of society — it reveals that far left ideology is closer to being a form of mental and emotional illness known as psychopathy than a serious political perspective.

    The people in the videos — there are now more than one which have been released — are moral dwarves who have lost touch with their own humanity as well as those they are aborting. And their own words highlight that it is arms and legs and livers and heads they are dealing in, not formless blobs as their past propaganda would have us believe.

  • Jack

    Name one lie that Kristen told in her op-ed.

  • Jack

    So Ted thinks it’s wrong to execute convicted murderers but right to kill innocent unborn babies.

    Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

  • Jack

    And here I thought lefties are supposed to be for defending the weak and the helpless, not butchering them.

    So much for liberal “compassion.”

  • Jack

    Jon, don’t be ridiculous. A video that talks breezily about crushing unborn babies’ bodies, and goes on to mention salvaged organs by name, speaks for itself. There is no missing context that can explain it away, unless you’re a tin-foil-hatted conspiracy kook who thinks the words were dubbed in and that the Planned Parenthood director was bought off when she issued an apology for the grisly words spoken in between mouthfuls of food by her chief abortionist.

  • Jack

    Glenda, you’ve said nothing.

    Maybe it’s because you have nothing to say.

  • Jack

    Larry is reliving the moment when his longsuffering wife exclaimed, “the baby’s kicking,” and he replied, “that’s just pro-life propaganda.”

    At that point, his poor wife threw her hands up and yelled to no one in particular, “Why, oh why, did I marry a political fanatic? I can’t even share my thoughts about my baby, because the lout doesn’t even believe it’s a baby!”

  • Jordan

    One core disagreement seems to be at what point one of “them” is a human being. I don’t think you using hackneyed terms like “leftie” helps resolve that, and I say that as a conservative. Try on some sensitivity, heya!

  • Jordan

    The video that poor Jack needs to watch over and over and over again until he gets it is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk !

  • Ted

    Jordan that video is a classic but this one definitely fits Jack better:

    https://vimeo.com/103879777

  • Ted

    Well she did sort of make a statement to start the discussion off.

    Hey, that rouge doesn’t look good on you Jack.

  • Ted

    Wrongo, Jack. The no-financial-gain part is valid to claim as omitted context.

  • Ted

    Here’s one of several ” It’s the lie that these are not human beings worthy of protection.”

    A fetus is not a human being.

  • Larry

    But its hardly an informed opinion. It drips with ignorance of the situation and facts Your assertion of being factually correct is outright fiction. She based her opinion on the initial hysteria and her own lack of knowledge of what was going on.

    The enemies of Planned Parenthood hardly concern themselves with facts and prefer screeds instead. The anti-abortion crowd depends on largely hysterical emotional appeals. How many hoax “gotcha” videos have we had from that crowd in the last number of years? Enough that we do not have to take such things at face value. Enough that one can easily discount the initial hysterical responses which they garner.

    Having a brain has nothing to do with defunding the largest provider of womens’ healthcare to the poor and working class in the nation. Saving babies has nothing to do with getting in the way of vital research using tissue which was legally and ethically provided. Ignorance of medicine drives much of the outrage.

  • Jennifer

    Using a worn-out and already discredited red herring. Who do you think provides the bulk of foster care services in this country? It’s religious organizations. The same ones protesting abortions. Stop listening to your liberal pundits and face reality.

  • Ignorance trolling Jack? Really?

    Who are the people who want to give the working and middle classes higher tax burdens than billionaires?

    Attacking public education does not envince much concern for those who primarily rely on it, the middle and working classes.

    I explained to you how the school spending thing works. Rich communities have a higher per capita tax base than urban areas and don’t factor in special ed & special needs programs which inflate spending stats per student in cities. High spending + high property taxes = good school districts.

  • I can’t can’t help it if your entire position is based on ignoring basic biological facts.

    A fetus is not the same as a born person. If it can’t live outside the mother, it has no interests outside the mother.

    The idea that you can make decisions for women about what goes on in their own bodies is narcissistic at best.

  • So the mother does not exist to you Jack? She is just an incubator who must abide by your opinion?

    The pro-choice crowd is showing more compassion, conscience and understanding of people, those who are born and carry out an autonomous existence than you are.. You don’t even acknowledge the existence of the pregnant woman. When they are noted, its followed by nonsense s1utshaming.

  • Greg1

    Time to de-fund Planned Parenthood. But they need not be out of business for too long. Just change the focus to animals, switch the shingle out front to local Butcher Shop, sell beef, pork, and chicken by the pound, and be back up and running within a week. No fuss, no muss, just a redirection of focus.

  • Jack

    Larry, you’ve refuted nothing and you’ve explained nothing. You’re simply repeating the myth that more spending means better outcomes. You keep missing the fact that if you’re spending on a poorly conceived system or policy that is predictably failing, you are subsidizing that failure, ensuring more failure.

    Monopolies of any kind are bad for society and people, and that includes local monopolies in education. When poor kids are trapped in a bad local school, that school is essentially a monopoly with no incentive to improve. It is only when poor kids are given the same alternatives that rich kids have — a chance to go to a better school — that the local school will improve, because it has to or it dies.

    Choice and competition — exactly the opposite of monopoly conditions — are what produce excellence. We have always known this regarding the business world…..it’s time to apply it to other areas as well.

    Parental choice = good school districts

  • Jack

    Whatever you say, Ted.

    Now let’s revisit your upside-down moral reasoning — that it’s wrong to execute convicted murderers but right to kill unborn children.

    If that’s not calling good evil and evil good, nothing is.

  • Jack

    Larry, if we’re talking about the latter stages of a pregnancy, it’s a baby in every sense of the word. It has arms, legs, eyes, a head, a brain, a face, eyes, lungs, a heart, a nervous system….

    We both know that. Everyone knows that. That’s why the vast majority of Americans — pro-choice people as well as pro-lifers — remain deeply opposed to late-term abortions on demand.

    It is your burden to show why, if it’s not okay to kill a newborn, it magically becomes okay to kill that same baby seconds or days before birth.

    Your argument focuses on some form of the dependency argument, which is ignoble on its face, since civilized societies demand that the strong not exploit the weak, but protect them whenever possible.

    But it is also illogical: Newborns are dependent, too, as are children for many years after birth. And your attempt to hide behind the viability argument is desperate. It’s still a dependency argument…..which collapses morally and…

  • Jack

    Jordan, the context is abortions that are past the first trimester, at a point where the Planned Parenthood doctor is discussing actual heads, limbs, and livers to salvage. It’s long past being a mere fertilized egg, so we’re far past the philosophical question of when life begins.

    Given that this is largely a battle between the left and the rest of the population, it is certainly appropriate to note that the same people who preach compassion and standing up for the weak and the helpless are heartlessly discussing crushing the life out of an actual baby while like-minded people on the sidelines defend what is happening.

  • Jack

    Ted, even if there were zero financial gain, the whole thing remains self-evidently hideous, from the thing itself to the dehumanized doctor who is jovially telling us in between mouthfuls of food, how she crushes babies in such a way that she can extract valued body parts.

    The fact that you think the whole thing is just fine so long as no financial gain is to be had is pretty sick.

  • Kirsten

    Greg1: What an awful thing to say. See Larry’s comment about compassion above yours. You need to learn about that, and learn more about women especially.

  • Jack

    At the stage we’re discussing, it is a baby with organs that are being extracted. That’s what the whole discussion on the video was about.

    It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at birth. That is magical, medieval nonsense, about as unscientific as believing in werewolves or leprecauns.

    You really need to grow up.

  • Ted

    Thanks for agreeing with me. Except that we disagree on what an “unborn child” is. Give that a thunk already.

  • Jack

    How does crushing the life out of a fully formed baby constitute compassion?

  • Ted

    False, Jack. Nowhere did I say it was “just fine” or anything close.

    Please retract. Thanks.

  • Ted

    Given the lie you just posted, you are the one who needs to grow up.

  • Ted

    No one said it does, Jack. You are quite the sneak!

  • Greg1

    Kirsten: Planned Parenthood is one of the most vile places on the planet. Larry can justify snuffing out the lives of millions of children, but to do so requires eclipse of the conscience. To date, the number of babies that have been “legally” terminated is almost 57 million. Wow, such compassion. A world that destroys its children is a world without love. No, PP is a butcher shop.

  • Larry

    How is there an open marketplace when you are deliberately sabotaging choices available?

    Education is not a product, it is a service that government owes a duty to provide. If you want alternatives to public options pony up your own money.

    You are ignoring my point about spending to push patently false assertions.

    Tax income per capita, not spending per student drives education in this country. People are willing to move to towns with high property taxes to utilize good public schools. This is why wealthy towns where the majority are in public schools have far better education stats than poorer areas with “choices”.

  • Larry

    But we aren’t. You are.

    It is a way to divert the discussion from ree relevant facts. If it’s in a womb and incapable of independent autonomous existence outside of the womb, its the woman’s will keeping it alive and her choice what to do with it. Late term means can live outside the womb. It doesn’t meet the definitions just stated.

    Everything else is just your declaration that women have no business making personal decisions about what goes on inside them.

  • Larry

    Still not seeing the pregnant woman being considered there. Do you care to follow up with some more denial or some s1utshaming?

  • Larry

    You don’t give a damn about the woman who is pregnant or people after they are born. So your alleged compassion is just fetus worship and an attempt to control women. So take your concern about the unborn and shove it. You are a hypocrite, narcissist and control freak.

  • Jack

    Ted, if your thinking is upside down, and I’m turning it right side up, then obviously we disagree completely — unless one of us changes our minds in the process.

    If you now agree with me that executing the innocent and sparing the guilty is literally backward thinking, congratulations….and welcome to moral sanity.

  • Jack

    Ted, you’re defending the indefensible.

    Don’t.

  • Jack

    Ted, calling a blindingly obvious truth a lie shifts the spotlight to yourself. You don’t win debates by denying that a head is a head, eyes are eyes, limbs are limbs, and a baby is a baby. You only succeed in making people wonder why you can’t deal with objective reality.

  • Jack

    Sure you do, Ted. That’s where you are. You’re reduced to defending the indefensible.

  • Jack

    Just to interject here, Larry, you’re assuming that caring for one person requires killing another person. That’s how barbarians think. Civilized people realize that life is not some zero-sum game, but that there are humane solutions to problems that don’t require the violence of human sacrifice.

  • Jack

    “Kirsten” needs to realize that self-referencing is self-serving.

    Right, “Kirsten?”

  • Larry

    Coming from the person who complained the poor “are constantly pregnant”? It tough to take your concerns here seriously. Hardly the kind of rhetoric one expect from compassionate and civilized people.

    Rather than moan over the procedure and engage in petty s1utshaming of women who have it, how about working to reduce the conditions which make such things a desirable option. Show some concern for born humans for once.

    You want to reduce abortions, keep them safe and legal, support easy access to contraception, support actual sex education, and stop trying to scr3w over the poor and working classes.

    “Conservative” measures to address the issue are an utter joke. Trying to ban abortion and confound access to contraception never worked before. Still won’t. All it does is make the procedure dangerous for the poor and expensive for the rich. The only thing abortion bans have produced is a market for abortion tourism and unsafe hacks.

  • Ted

    Again Jack, nowhere did I say it was “just fine” or anything close.

    Please retract that statement. Thanks.

  • Ted

    You are obviously the one who cannot deal with objective reality. An unborn entity has not been born. Move along, already.

  • Ted

    Again, Jack, no where did I say that. Please retract your latest lie.

  • Ted

    Jack, please stop trying to claim that I said something that I clearly did not. You’ve done that repeatedly.

  • Jack

    Wrong as usual, Larry. You’re worse than a broken clock.

    You still haven’t pointed out what’s factually incorrect about the op-ed.

  • Jack

    Wrong, Ted. You made yourself clear. Obviously you can’t live with the implications.

  • Jack

    Larry, the viability argument is pathetic and worthless. It does not follow that if one being sustains another’s life, it has the automatic right to take that other life away. That’s an empty assertion that rests on nothing. Further, again, given the issue is dependency, the viability argument provides no defense against an argument for infanticide, even though it pretends to do so.

  • Jack

    Ted, there’s nothing to “retract,” unless you’re now agreeing that the procedure described was barbaric and wrong, and the way it was described was heartless and hideous.

    If you condemn it, top to bottom, I will retract; if you don’t, there’s nothing to retract. You think it’s fine.

  • Jack

    A baby is a baby, Ted, no matter where it is.

    Everyone knows what it is — and what it looks like.

    That’s the lesson of the video.

    Too bad you find that so traumatic.

  • Jack

    Ted, you said what you said — and you meant what you said.

    You’re welcome to change your opinion, but that’s up to you.

  • Jack

    The “pregnant woman” is not being crushed to death, Larry, nor is she in imminent danger of same.

  • Jack

    You’re wrong as usual, Larry. You dodged the obvious question of why we have to slaughter one person in order to help another person, when we can certainly help them both without committing violence to either of them.

    Perhaps you belong to a superstitious pagan cult that believes such senseless violence has some cosmic significance, but if so, that’s your problem, Larry.

    Violence is the tool of the ignorant. I prefer to solve problems in ways that help both people.

    And one way is to find intelligent, proven ways of helping the poorest among us — not by laundering trillions of taxpayer dollars through Washington, where it goes to salaries, but putting it back into the hands of real poverty fighters in neighborhoods across this nation.

    Do that and we can help both mothers and babies….and we can offer a full menu of options, from adoption to raising, child care to job training…..

  • Jack

    And actually, I never “complained that the poor are constantly pregnant.” Not even close. Remember, I’m not pushing population control; you are. I believe population growth is both a good thing and is self-regulating. Recall our discussion on that subject.

    What I do complain about is the kinds of policies you support — ones that lock poor people into cycles of poverty and pathology that last for generations. That is not compassionate — it is unspeakably cruel.

    And that is not the fault of poor people — it’s the fault of the people and the policies that create such horrors in neighborhoods across the country — the kinds of people who care more about feeling good than actually doing good for their fellow human beings.

    And when people dare to challenge them and propose better policies that empower the poor, they dig in your heels and defend the indefensible.

    As with abortion, so with fighting poverty — your policies destroy people.

  • Ted

    No, Jack. I quoted what you said about me, so stop lying. Gotcha.

    Nowhere did I say it was “just fine” or anything close, prior to your claim that I did.

    Please retract that statement. Thanks.

  • Ted

    No, Jack. You are obviously the one who cannot deal with objective reality. An unborn entity has not been born. Move along now.

  • Ted

    Again, Jack, no where did I say what you claim I did. Please retract your latest lie.

  • Ted

    Jack, please stop trying to claim that I said something that I clearly did not. You’ve done that repeatedly, and you are wrong every time.

  • Ted

    Jack, after all your lies here, you are simply in no position to call another’s case “pathetic and worthless”. You have zero credibility.

  • Ted

    Jack, again, please stop trying to claim that I said something that I clearly did not. You’ve done that repeatedly. You are a liar.

  • Larry

    I have addressed this numerous times. Out of the two involved, only one of them is a person in any real sense. It is born one. The one whose existence you constantly deny or minimize.

    A fetus is human, has its own semi-separate organs, but it has no autonomous existence outside of the mother. I do not have to equate it with a born being. Fact free conflation is a hazard for anti-abortion sermonizing.

    As long as it lives within the mother’s womb, there are no acts concerning it which can be done without the mother’s choice. This means for all the yattering about what you think she has a right to do, it pales compared to the fact that it is in her body and requires her will to survive.

    The fact that you have to pretend the mother does not factor into the discussion speaks badly of your argument.

    Most of your posts was just insult flinging anyway. Not worth responding to.

  • Larry

    So you are squeamish about medical procedures. I see you would rather make hysterical emotional appeals than engage in rational discussion. If you find it so squicky, don’t have an abortion.

    Still want to deny the woman’s existence in the whole equation here.

  • Larry

    A baby is born. A fetus is not. Pretending the distinction between birth and gestation is immaterial is just being dishonest here.

    It becomes a person at birth. A being capable of autonomous life outside of its mother. Something which can have its own rights asserted for without attacking the autonomy of its mother.

    Besides abortion bans have never, ever, ever worked. All it does is make the procedure dangerous for the poor and expensive for others. Encouraging abortion tourism and dangerous back alley hacks. Then again dead poor women and laws flaunted by those with means are not much of a concern for anti-choice advocates.

    Abortion rates decline where:
    -Contraception and sane sex education are readily available
    -Where there is an abundance of services for the education and employment of lower/working class women (including paid family leave)
    -Where family healthcare is easily obtained

    All things conservatives love to oppose in favor of useless nonsense bans.

  • Jack

    Ted, words have meaning and implication and until you clarify what you meant to say, your denials are meaningless.

  • Larry

    “Larry, the viability argument is pathetic and worthless.”

    Your opinion is not shared by anyone describing abortion rights under our laws. You just want to handwave a fairly straight forward bright line argument in favor of hysterics and emotional appeal.

    “It does not follow that if one being sustains another’s life, it has the automatic right to take that other life away. ”

    Why not?

    Its the mother’s will which is keeping it alive. Therefore the mother’s will can cease doing so as well. A fetus exists only at the sufferance of its mother. That is just basic mammalian biology.

    Your inability to acknowledge the existence of the mother and her role in a pregnancy renders your points lacking in material factual support.

  • Jack

    Ted, anyone can say anything about anybody, as you have demonstrated by your words.

    The key is to back it up with reality, which you have yet to do.

    Your views on abortion and fetal development are based on magical, wishful thinking rather than obvious facts that can be readily seen on any ultrasound video or experienced by any pregnant mother who feels her baby kicking.

    If you’re going to advocate the right to commit violence against the vulnerable and the helpless, you can’t expect people to applaud you for it, any more than you can expect them to applaud someone for supporting the mugging a 90-year-old, stealing from a blind person, or human trafficking.

  • Jack

    Larry writes:

    “Its the mother’s will which is keeping it alive. Therefore the mother’s will can cease doing so as well. A fetus exists only at the sufferance of its mother. That is just basic mammalian biology.

    “Your inability to acknowledge the existence of the mother and her role in a pregnancy renders your points lacking in material factual support.”

    Larry, we’ve been through this a thousand times. You’re advocating a “dependence” argument — and once you do that, you can’t draw an artificial line at birth because its logic won’t let you.

    And the viability argument is completely worthless as a bar against applying it to all stages of life, from preborn life to the lives of teenagers or the dependent elderly, because it is itself the same argument.

    No dependent is safe from the implications of your barbaric view — and no weasel words can cover up what is plainly evident to any honest, thinking person.

  • Jack

    Ted, what are you talking about? You’re defending it to the hilt. You don’t defend what you don’t believe in, unless you enjoy wasting other people’s time and yours as well.

  • Jack

    A baby is defined by its own objective, scientifically observable characteristics, not by where it is situated.

    Define it any other way and you’ve replaced science with cultish fantasy or utter delusion.

  • Jack

    Larry, again, you’re putting forth the dependency argument….. you’re saying that personhood depends on not being dependent on someone else. That’s your principle — your stated reason — for supporting late-term abortions.

    But there is nothing in that principle that can be limited to abortion. That’s point. It fits for anyone who is dependent on anyone else. And based on this principle, an elderly person ceases being a person when he or she loses their “autonomy” and becomes dependent on a caregiver.

    You need to get it through your head that people have dignity and worth and personhood whether independent or dependent, autonomous or not autonomous. That is the bedrock principle of human rights and civilization.

  • Jack

    No, Larry, I’m against killing a fully formed baby no matter where it is situated.

  • Jack

    Larry, you’re merely repeating the magical mantra that a baby suddenly becomes a baby at birth, but not a second or moment before that.

    But if a thing is nonsense on its face, repeating it ad infinitum will not make it any less nonsensical.

    What defines a baby is not its “autonomy,” since babies are hardly autonomous. Abandon a baby and see how long it will live — and how long it will be before they put you in the slammer.

    What defines a baby is not its relationship to anyone or anything.

    What defines a baby is not where it is situated.

    What defines a baby are its own physical and scientific characteristics.