Largest US abortion provider caught on tape selling body parts

I was under the impression the morning after pill is just a form of emergency contraception rather than actually aborting a fetus, if you are already pregnant you're outta luck but it prevents the eggs descending because sperm can live for days inside a lady, which is a delightful thought.
 
ChroniC said:
A lot of people using the word "morally" in this thread but you can scew morals to fit any agenda you want, watch!!

Is it morally wrong to kill, or is it morally wrong to bring a child into this over populated world who would lead a terrible unloved life.

Is it morally wrong to use the fetus for experiments, or is it morally wrong to not use them and in doing slow life saving medical advances that save thousands.

Morals are such a grey area when you want to choose which side your on, I wish life was based on logic. ( I am sadly tainted by a world who puts value on every single life when there are 7 billion others who can't get along and are mostly stuck in the stone age of stupidity)
Click to expand...

I was going to write something in this vein however ChroniC did it much better than I probably could.

The stupidity of this thread astounds me and shock horror, it's the same old nuts who gave me a headache in the gay thread...KoolPC for one! I'm just glad there is an ignore tool that will be getting used from now on.

My opinion is this, PP are a terrible company and personally I believe it should all be above board.

However as someone with close connections to medical research and the centre for life in Newcastle. I feel why waste it, if it is to be destroyed anyway, so long as there is no express/written non-consent. The advancements that have came from stem cell research from the centre for life alone these past few years are mind blowing and will help thousands if not millions of people. But then i'm of the opinion that Organ donation should be an opt-out system anyway so make of that what you will however that's another argument.

Onto the abortion argument since it's cropped it's hydra head once again. I know/know of quite a few people who have been brought up by terrible parents and went on to lead terrible, desperate and completely soul destroying lives only to end up killing themselves later on. I don't think abortions should be used as a form of contraception and given out willy nilly, however If the mother of that child knows she cant give that child a good life (drug abusers/abject poverty etc). I think it's morally wrong not to seek out an abortion, even more so if there are medical reasons backing it such as when pre-natel scans reveal a child to be incompatible with life or the mother is at risk.

These people who are completely against the idea of abortion seem to just live in a little bubble where the worlds hunky dory. They don't seem to have experienced true misery and pain. On the one hand they are blessed but on the other their sheer ignorance to the plight and suffering of other human beings is just dumb founding.
 
AtticusFinch said:
1. Availability of abortion = good
2. Harvesting organs without knowledge of mother from whom products of conception removed and selling them = bad
Click to expand...

That's where it ends. Simple as that.

On a side point, children are hard work and it takes a lot out of you in an already difficult life. I'm not a fan of abortion by principle, but then if the decision is made early enough then I can understand it.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
That's where it ends. Simple as that.

On a side point, children are hard work and it takes a lot out of you in an already difficult life. I'm not a fan of abortion by principle, but then if the decision is made early enough then I can understand it.
Click to expand...

Sure, if a child is going to be too much hard work, best to kill them early.
 
Tosno said:
That's how the elephant man was made! His mother wasn't pregnant with a fully human fetus! Quick Amp, we must publish our scientific discovery!
Click to expand...

What you on about?

A fetus/embreo is a bunch of cells that cannot survive outside of the human body, it's not physically an individual entity. It's why it can be aborted.

(Unless of course your selective quoting is a joke, then I take it back...;))
 
RoyMi6 said:
Woah woah woah woah woah... Gay marriage is legal in the states now?!?
Click to expand...

Yeah, in all States and the bible bashers are having a hissy fit.

Frightful Boar said:
I'm always astonished that people will argue for abortion.

Fair enough to let women kill their unborn children if they want to have a paddy about it being their body etc, but to be pro-abortion?

Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Why is it mind boggling?
 
Amp34 said:
What you on about?

A fetus/embreo is a bunch of cells that cannot survive outside of the human body, it's not physically an individual entity. It's why it can be aborted.

(Unless of course your selective quoting is a joke, then I take it back...;))
Click to expand...

Wrong, a foetus can at a certain stage survive outside the human body. At 21 weeks a foetus can survive outside. Abortion is permitted until term in this country and in the US.

A foetus is still a child, it is just the name for the stage of development. In the same way a baby or a toddler are just terms to refer to different stages in a child's development.

Also, a "bunch of cells" doesn't have organs to harvest does it?
 
spudbynight said:
Sure, if a child is going to be too much hard work, best to kill them early.
Click to expand...

Well yes actually, looking at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, and avoiding the emotive drivel which you seem to delight in injecting into every post, aborting an unborn child is far more "moral" than giving birth to a child who is going to end up living a life of misery, being neglected and abused by parents who don't want it.
 
spudbynight said:
Wrong, a foetus can at a certain stage survive outside the human body. At 21 weeks a foetus can survive outside. Abortion is permitted until term in this country and in the US.

A foetus is still a child, it is just the name for the stage of development. In the same way a baby or a toddler are just terms to refer to different stages in a child's development.

Also, a "bunch of cells" doesn't have organs to harvest does it?
Click to expand...

You're arguing a strawman

Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).
The Abortion Act 1967 covers England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, and states:

abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:

if it's necessary to save the woman's life

to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

if there is substantial risk that the child would be born with serious physical or mental disabilities

Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, usually before 12 weeks and ideally before 9 weeks where possible.
Click to expand...

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

So while abortions can be done at my time, they can only be done in extreme circumstances after the point that a fetus could survive outside the body.
 
Frightful Boar said:
I'm always astonished that people will argue for abortion.

Fair enough to let women kill their unborn children if they want to have a paddy about it being their body etc, but to be pro-abortion?

Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

care to answer the questions you've quoted that I posed to the other poster?
 
spudbynight said:
Wrong, a foetus can at a certain stage survive outside the human body. At 21 weeks a foetus can survive outside.
Click to expand...

No, it can't.

There is the absolute tiniest of chances that with a huge amount of medical intervention a foetus aged 21 weeks can survive - statistically, that chance is so close to zero that it is meaningless to say it "can" happen.

James Elgin Gill, Amilia Taylor and Frieda Mangold may have hit the papers for defying those ridiculous odds, but they are absolutely the exception - they were also all at least 21 weeks +5 days (it makes a big difference). It's also worth noting that Frieda's twin, Kilian died after 6 weeks from heart and intestinal complications.

Medical abnormalities should not guide policy.
 
cheesyboy said:
Thread derailed :rolleyes:

Regardless of thoughts on abortion, it's not acceptable for a medical provider to sell, or otherwise harvest, body parts without permission of the subject or subject's family. If the allegations are true, it's a massive breach of trust and ethics.

It's not an argument against abortion (selling body parts is not an essential or unavoidable element of abortion), but it is a call for greater regulation to disposal of foetuses.
Click to expand...
Exactly,

Attempting to squeeze in an anti-abortion argument when it's actually nothing to do with the issue at hand is simply highlighting peoples bias.

It's like saying that when we see a video of a police officers beating a handcuffed civilian it's an argument against have a police force or laws - in reality it's an argument in favour of better training, regulation & ensuring people who break the code are suitably dealt with.

The thing I find most hilarious about the anti-abortion types is that they are usually right-wing.

They are more than happy for children to die of preventable disease, illness & other problems directly caused by the socio-political philosophy they support - but vehemently opposite the death of a foetus.

I assume they are in a favour of free high quality healthcare programs to all young mothers, expecting mothers & young children yes?, generous welfare & socialised programs to ensure infant mortality rates are the lowest in the world?.

The real reason they are against it is control over the body of women, this is a faux ethical stance which doesn't impress me one bit.
 
Last edited:
elmarko said:
Exactly,

Attempting to squeeze in an anti-abortion argument when it's actually nothing to do with the issue at hand is simply highlighting peoples bias.

It's like saying that when we see a video of a police officers beating a handcuffed civilian it's an argument against have a police force or laws - in reality it's an argument in favour of better training, regulation & ensuring people who break the code are suitably dealt with.

The thing I find most hilarious about the anti-abortion types is that they are usually right-wing.

They are more than happy for children to die of preventable disease, illness & other problems directly caused by the socio-political philosophy they support - but vehemently opposite the death of a foetus.

I assume they are in a favour of free high quality healthcare programs to all young mothers, expecting mothers & young children yes?, generous welfare & socialised programs to ensure infant mortality rates are the lowest in the world?.

The real reason they are against it is control over the body of women, this is a faux ethical stance which doesn't impress me one bit.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom