Largest US abortion provider caught on tape selling body parts

Ah the joy of life. No one can ever truly explain it but everyone has an opinion on it and believes that theirs is the "right one" This is the major problem with "life". It comes down to personal preference. Everyone is entitled to what they believe in, you simply cannot say one is wrong or right it simply is.

You cannot define "life" where it starts, when it begins heck even where it ends. It just simply is.

But oh no there HAS to be a right or wrong... That’s right everything has to be BLACK OR WHITE.....

Still this thread makes an entertaining read.
 
Ah the joy of life. No one can ever truly explain it but everyone has an opinion on it and believes that theirs is the "right one" This is the major problem with "life". It comes down to personal preference. Everyone is entitled to what they believe in, you simply cannot say one is wrong or right it simply is.

You cannot define "life" where it starts, when it begins heck even where it ends. It just simply is.

But oh no there HAS to be a right or wrong... That’s right everything has to be BLACK OR WHITE.....

Still this thread makes an entertaining read.

Thanks for writing that, and far more eloquently than I could have put it.

For someone to assume that they have a complete understanding of such an all encompassing topic simply shows their narrow mindedness.
 
I agree that Human life starts at conception. Whichever way you mix it, that is the start of a little human. To extinguish that life because it doesnt fit in with 'your' life is murder!

Its too easy for people these days to extinguish a life because it will hurt 'their' life!
 
I didn't give you an opinion on when "life" begins. I've said very clearly that the biological process of growing a human starts at conception, but I don't consider that that is "life" as we are discussing.

I'm sure I could go to some pro-abortion websites and find a whole bunch of scientists that will disagree with your pro-life websites - instead, how about some Christian sites that acknowledge that it's not that simple? I'm sure you won't click the links, but they do bible stuff and everything ;)

http://www.anglicantheologicalreview.org/static/pdf/articles/disney-poston.pdf

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=1087

You don't consider conception to be the start of life. That is contrary to the medical consensus. Whether you reject the medical consensus is up to you, however it doesn't mean your opinion carries any weight.

As we are not having a religious discussion, I fail to see the value in your links. The only people on this thread who keep on bringing up religion are the atheists, it strikes me as borderline obsessive.

You cannot define "life" where it starts, when it begins heck even where it ends. It just simply is.

Well, yes you can define it. It is a basic biological concept.
 
I agree that Human life starts at conception. Whichever way you mix it, that is the start of a little human. To extinguish that life because it doesnt fit in with 'your' life is murder!

Its too easy for people these days to extinguish a life because it will hurt 'their' life!

At conception it is a potential human. So many conceptions end in miscarriage that if they are all human beings then God is the worlds most prolific abortionist.

When does the soul exist? Is that conception too?
 
At conception it is a potential human. So many conceptions end in miscarriage that if they are all human beings then God is the worlds most prolific abortionist.

When does the soul exist? Is that conception too?

Human life starts at conception. Simple. If that life 'fails' then who's fault is it? Nauture! Fate! etc.

You say it is Gods fault? So you believe in God then?

You believe in a soul do you?
 
You don't consider conception to be the start of life. That is contrary to the medical consensus. Whether you reject the medical consensus is up to you, however it doesn't mean your opinion carries any weight.

As we are not having a religious discussion, I fail to see the value in your links. The only people on this thread who keep on bringing up religion are the atheists, it strikes me as borderline obsessive.

Well, yes you can define it. It is a basic biological concept.

No it’s not a "basic biological concept". It is completely down to your BELIEF. You are using links from medical quotes picked purely to suit your need and promote your view.

Explain to me then what is your view on the end of life ? Is there an afterlife ? or does it simply stop when you stop breathing ? again it’s impossible to "define" death just as much as it is to "define" life. Because quite simply people believe in different things.

You cannot debate a moral and belief based subject on "logic and science". They are two conflicting sides and neither can be proved otherwise.

When you speak about moral and beliefs you need to accept that some peoples sense of morality and beliefs will differ from yours. You do not need to accept other peoples morality and beliefs and they can be VASTLY different from yours. But you cannot simply rant back saying MINE IS RIGHT YOURS IS WRONG. That is narrow mindedness and inconsiderate to others.
 
You don't consider conception to be the start of life. That is contrary to the medical consensus. Whether you reject the medical consensus is up to you, however it doesn't mean your opinion carries any weight.

From the Miriam-Webster medical dictionary:
life
noun \ˈlīf\
plural lives \ˈlīvz\
Medical Definition of LIFE

1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body
b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2
a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : a specific part or aspect of the process of living <sex life> <adult life>

That's the medical consensus you're using. It's the same one that tells you bacteria and viruses are alive, but I bet you wouldn't even hesitate for one second to take antibiotics or vaccines to murder them. You monster.

As a side note, how do you feel about the estimated 30-50% (31% is the most definitive figure I can find, based on measuring hormone levels of women daily) of pregnancies that miscarry? Should we be mourning all this death?

You're acting like defining life is simple - it is, but only if you treat it in the simplest of terms.
 
From the Miriam-Webster medical dictionary:


That's the medical consensus you're using. It's the same one that tells you bacteria and viruses are alive, but I bet you wouldn't even hesitate for one second to take antibiotics or vaccines to murder them. You monster.

As a side note, how do you feel about the estimated 30-50% (31% is the most definitive figure I can find, based on measuring hormone levels of women daily) of pregnancies that miscarry? Should we be mourning all this death?

You're acting like defining life is simple - it is, but only if you treat it in the simplest of terms.

A cow is alive. I have no problem eating a hamburger. That doesn't mean I don't think the cow is alive.

Regarding miscarriages, well I can tell you my wife and I both mourn the babies we lost.

Defining life is simple.
 
Human life starts at conception. Simple. If that life 'fails' then who's fault is it? Nauture! Fate! etc.

You say it is Gods fault? So you believe in God then?

You believe in a soul do you?

Personally no. But you do so I wonder how you answer those problems with each conception being a human being.
 
A cow is alive. I have no problem eating a hamburger. That doesn't mean I don't think the cow is alive.

Regarding miscarriages, well I can tell you my wife and I both mourn the babies we lost.

Defining life is simple.

So only human life is important? But that doesn't go along with the medical consensus.

As for miscarriages, you have my utmost sympathy for your loss - but you are aware that only 15-20% of all miscarriages are even known about by the mother? That's a lot of life lost that's never even acknowledged.
 
Personally no. But you do so I wonder how you answer those problems with each conception being a human being.

But my take on this topic is not of a religious nature. Because i am religious doesnt mean i cannot think out of the box so to speak. That is another topic!
 
So only human life is important? But that doesn't go along with the medical consensus.

As for miscarriages, you have my utmost sympathy for your loss - but you are aware that only 15-20% of all miscarriages are even known about by the mother? That's a lot of life lost that's never even acknowledged.

But, we are not on about those that are unknown here in this thread! I have been through the horribleness of a miscarriage in my life and for me it was intense as that was a little human life that i helped produce. Only those with no feelings would dismiss it as not human and just a blob etc.
 
I am pro-abortion because I make an ethical decision not because I pretend that a living human is not being killed. They are.

I hope that clarifies that for you.

I am against abortion in all but the most desperate life or death cases, that is my subjective personal view.

That said taking an objective view on the subject I understand the need for abortion in a wider context than I find personally acceptable.

Both pro-life and pro-choice camps clutch at straws constantly in their quest to push their own agenda mostly coming from a subjective viewpoint which leads to very bias information being disseminated from either camp.
 
Human life begins at conception. What you are confusing with this is a concept of personhood.

Which is the thing that people agree has moral value. You're equivocating the biological definition of life with the broader concept of 'human life' and 'personhood' in a failed attempt to act like the "medical consensus" you keep going on about has any relevance to your argument.

It doesn't.
 
Which is the thing that people agree has moral value. You're equivocating the biological definition of life with the broader concept of 'human life' and 'personhood' in a failed attempt to act like the "medical consensus" you keep going on about has any relevance to your argument.

It doesn't.

It has every relevance. Abortion advocates try to dehumanise the unborn.

Our life begins at conception. Human life begins at conception. Abortion is about intentionally ending a human life.

These are simple facts. You seem to think you know better.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
 
I am against abortion in all but the most desperate life or death cases, that is my subjective personal view.
On what basis are you opposed?


That said taking an objective view on the subject I understand the need for abortion in a wider context than I find personally acceptable.

In what way does this invalidate your opposition?
 
It has every relevance. Abortion advocates try to dehumanise the unborn.

Our life begins at conception. Human life begins at conception. Abortion is about intentionally ending a human life.

These are simple facts. You seem to think you know better.

You're equivocating again. What you're doing is attempting to elide the difference between the biological notion of a life cycle and the moral and ethical notion of human life and personhood. Finding support that the first of these concepts is widely accepted to begin around conception does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the latter does, yet that this is point that you actually need to prove in order to support your argument.

You accuse us of "dehumanising" yet your argument requires us to accept that a single cell is the moral equivalent of everyone around you with their life, loves, feelings, memories, families, failings and thoughts. That, to me, is far more dehumanising than anything pro-choicers suggest.
 
You're equivocating again. What you're doing is attempting to elide the difference between the biological notion of a life cycle and the moral and ethical notion of human life and personhood. Finding support that the first of these concepts is widely accepted to begin around conception does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the latter does, yet that this is point that you actually need to prove in order to support your argument.

You accuse us of "dehumanising" yet your argument requires us to accept that a single cell is the moral equivalent of everyone around you with their life, loves, feelings, memories, families, failings and thoughts. That, to me, is far more dehumanising than anything pro-choicers suggest.

Sorry but you are writing absolute rubbish. Spudbynight has the right views and i agree with them. You are just one of the 'normal' gang of people who try to make up any excuse to make the killing of a human 'life' justifiable.

What ever you write to justify the murder of the unborn is just your way of drawing a curtain over your eyes to the reality of the actions of abortion!
 
Back
Top Bottom