[True to PP founder Margaret Sanger’s original eugenics dream]This nonsense has been disproved over and over and over. But like anything
conservatives do, they just continue to repeat the same old nonsense that they
heard once from some disreputable source.Try actually educating
yourself, it really isn't all that painful.
Odds are it's probably around half and half like it's always been.
I've even been calling myself pro-life more often lately because I support
birth control, comprehensive sex education, protecting the lives of mothers by
giving them safe places for legal abortions, and my support for universal
healthcare, plus I'm personally pro-life in that I'd rather people not
get them though I'm not a woman so I'd never be making a choice for
myself, I just wouldn't ban people from getting them. I think there are a
lot of women that are personally pro-life (would never get one themselves) but
are pro-choice in support in that they woudn't stop others from getting
[Planned Parenthood still proportionally aborts more minority children than
white children]And minorities are still more likely to be in prison
or on public assistance too. That's because minorities tend to have less
access to economic/educational opportunities in this country. This leads to a
higher rate of abortions, crime, and public assistance.Could you
imagine if these minority women didn't have access to Planned Parenthood?
They would have even greater burdens.
The Nazis considered Jews “burdens” as well! Abortion is only
another extermination procedure for the “unwanted”.
@Counter Intelligence:[eugenics became very unfashionable in the
mid-29th century]After the Eugenics Wars, led by Khal Noonian Singh,
The proponents of personhood amendments are timid pikers who lack the courage
and moral conviction to follow through on the full impact of their beliefs.
Life does not begin at conception, life begins at gametogenesis. Every gamete
emerging from meiosis is alive and human, yet they are wasted by the billions
every day in a silent genocide that elicits nary a peep of concern. Where are
the constitutional amendments proposing personhood for the lowliest humans among
us, our haploid brethren? That these poor preborn, preconceived children are
completely overlooked when it comes to personhood evidences a callous and
selective disregard for potential human life. Could there be prejudice against
those lacking the full genetic complement? Who among us will speak for these
voiceless souls and fight to secure their inalienable civil rights?If legislators can propose the forced physical intrusion of women through wand
ultrasound (VA) and specify the dimensions of medical facilities (KS) all in the
name protecting preborn children, surely someone can step forward in the service
of defenseless gameto-Americans whose innocent lives are equally in peril.
These people are the seeds to our future, the keys to human survival. Power to
It’s not always an All-or-Nothing question.It’s possible
to be Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice.I’m Pro-Life, in that a fetus
has the right to the best chance at Life that Society has to offer –
regardless of income.I also show integrity in my Pro-Life stance because
I’m Anti-War and Anti-Death Penalty.I’m also Pro-Choice
– and support 100% the LDS Church’s official Statement that in some
rare cases, that abortion may be considered an valid option in the case of rape,
incest, Health of the Woman or Viability of the fetus --- but the ultimate
CHOICE is to remain with the Woman. Along with the help of her Doctor, Family,
Clergy and prayer….not the Government, and certainly not a Political
@ Lagomorph. You might need to take a biology course. Most of us learned in the
4th grade that meiosis produces sperm cells or eggs that are not viable until
they meet and combine their DNA and produce a new living organism with a full
complement of chromosomes. Otherwise, 100% of gametes do not survive but once
they combine, cell growth and mitosis flourishes.
@MountanmanHayden, ID•2:00 p.m. June 6, 2012============= Mountanman – I know were where you are trying
to take this and I wish to point out you are wrong.You might want to
read an updated 4th grade biology book.Ultra-conservative notions of
the moment of conception or “a single cell is a Human being”
argument cannot possibly hold true.Consider the cases of identical
twins or clones.Human life may begin, but it most certainly cannot
possibly be strictly defined, by sighting DNA and a single cell.FYI
- We are dead long before that last human cell containing all that DNA dies for
that matter as well.
@ LDS liberal. I fear you missed my point! Unless a cell has a full complement
of chromosomes,( half from an egg and half from sperm), it neither divides,
grows nor survives! Cloned cells have a full complement of chromosomes as well.
Biological fact! This destroys the argument from the previous commenter that
sperm and eggs of humans are complete humans. I re-read my biology textbook and
it confirms this information.
There is no question that Planned Parenthood has done Margeret Sangers dirty
work. What I refuse to believe is that abortion is not having a negative effect
on the overall health of the American woman. I believe,(and this is only my
opinion) that in the coming years we will look back and see that we not only
decimated a generation of minorities, but we also allowed horrible unitended
consequences fall upon the very segment of society that we said we were trying
to protect. All in the name of choice and convenience..
@MountanmanHayden, IDI fear you missed my point!If
you keep defining a single cell containing all DNA as the premise for defining
Human-Life, -- then just as La Lagomorph implies – it is YOU who are
killing millions and billions of “humans” on a daily basis due to
the normal shedding of cells in the normal life process because a normal Human
BEING contains over 50 Trillion cells!Besides - If you want to
get “Biblical”, life begins with the breath of life.And
if you want to get LDS Temple on me - the LDS church does not allow Temple work
for miscarriages, still births, or the like.Life begins in a gray
area, Life ends in a gray area.Everything is not just Black
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.
Somehow "pro-choice" excludes the choice to get pregnant.Mountanman,Amen!LDS Liberal,If you want
religion on this issue I'd suggest reading "Weightier Matters",
it's a brilliant talk from Dallin H Oaks. And as far as your Temple
argument goes, there are people alive today who cannot be baptized because of
certain doctrinal principles. You nor I can qualify such doctrine without truly
being authorized to qualify it. While it is true that temple work isn't
done for miscarriages, the LDS Church also condemns abortion. Yes, certain
circumstances are different- but the point is still valid.Everything
IS black and white to God. We may not like absolutes in our debate, but the laws
of God are absolute and justice cannot be robbed.Other than gay
marriage and abortion, how many other things do you disagree with the church on?
I mean no offense to you, I just don't understand how someone can believe
in prophets, but so frequently reject what they say. I'd compare it to
Revelation 3:15-16. We either believe in what the priesthood leaders of the
church are teaching us, or we don't. There is no grey.
[Everything IS black and white to God. We may not like absolutes in our debate,
but the laws of God are absolute and justice cannot be robbed.]This
coming from a guy that calls himself "A voice of Reason". Sort of like
when concentration camps are called "reeducation camps".The
same reason you would never trust anything said by a guy who calls himself
Mukkake,Insulting others doesn't actually offer an argument,
nor does it qualify the integrity of my own argument.First, Webster
defines "reason" as "a statement offered in explanation or
justification". While time and time again, people poke at my screen name as
if being 'reasonable' requires that somehow I have to agree with them,
that is not the case. I simply intend to explain my opinions and beliefs for the
benefit of objectivity or effectively communicating. This is about as rational
as it gets.The 'black and white' point and the 'we
may not like absolutes, but God's laws are absolute and must be
upheld' point are both not new to the philosophical world and for that
reason, my referencing them was not irrational.Again, the idea that
God is a perfectly moral being with moral absolution is not new. If you think
I'm unreasonable for that, take the most basic of all philosophy classes
and learn a thing or two before you start to criticize others, especially with
inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust. Such a comment is hardly believable.
All I need to say is "Immanuel Kant" and your claim against me is
A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UTEverything IS black and
white to God. We may not like absolutes in our debate, but the laws of God are
absolute and justice cannot be robbed.============ Not
true!Even the "Brethren" can not come to a 100% consense on
matters.In such cases, mum's the word until they do.Evolution is one "Grey" area where there is no Black & White
Absolute.Abortion is another [hence, the Rape, Incest, Health of Mother
and/or Fetus]Grey areas, NOT clear cut Black & White.I know that shatters your little "Pleastville" view of the world, but
it's true.BTW - White is an interesting Truth.It
isn't really a color now is it....But it comprosises ALL colors, --
if you want to get metaphorical --- ALL Truth.Anything less or left
out isn't White anymore.But that does't make sense in your
universe of absolutes.
LDS Liberal,Is it right to kill someone? Yes or no? There is no grey
area between the yes or no... you have two options only. That's all
I'm talking about. The right answer may depend on the circumstances, but
there is in fact ONE answer that is right and ONE that is wrong.And
your evolution point is not analogous to an argument about morality. Even if we
were talking about knowledge, God in fact DOES know everything about evolution.
So it's still a nonsensical point.In every moral question, God
does have the ultimate truth and correct moral answer. If He didn't He
would cease to be God as justice cannot be robbed. Even God is bound be eternal
laws. This is clearly defined in the Book of Mormon.Saying there is
a definite right or wrong choice isn't the same as saying that everyone
should choose one course of action or another. Killing isn't always wrong.
But with every moral question, God does in fact have an absolute right answer to
give that cannot be refuted.God's morality is absolute and God
is an unchanging God. Fact.
A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UTLDS Liberal,Is it
right to kill someone? Yes or no? There is no grey area between the yes or no...
you have two options only. That's all I'm talking about. ============== No.Which is so funny, because in this
case, why I'm the one who is more black and white because I'm against
war and the Death Penalty.Yet - YOU would be the one living in that
GRAY area this time.Saying killing is wrong, but flip-flopping to the dark
side by saying it's suddenly OK for State sponsored killing in the name of
War and Punishment.God is absolute. He is perfect.We are
not, so the Atonement accounts for the gray areas -- otherwise, we are all
doomed to an everlasting hell, absolutely.
I'm not arguing for Kantian absolutism. No one here seems to get that, but
then again no one here seems have read weightier matters per my previous
suggestion either.1) There is a right answer to EVERY question.2) That answer can vary per person.3) BUT these don't contradict.
The answer can still serve an absolute higher principle.God might
give two people different answers, but only to satisfy a higher law. God's
laws are indeed absolute, but the only way of seeing that is looking at the
whole picture.Say that I design a system to get two people through a
complex maze to a goal. I tell one person to go "route A" and another
person "route B", that doesn't mean I've contradicted myself
or that I don't have an absolute goal to satisfy. My actions serve one
absolute higher law- to get them to the goal. Kant argued that we should all go
the same exact route. This is distinguishable from arguing that there is moral
absolution as I have.God's laws ARE in fact absolute, with no
grey area. Our moral 'black/white' is obeying or disobeying.
@VORIf your God rules with absolutes than abortion for ANY reason is
morally wrong and there are no exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve
mother's life. If rape and incest can be accepted as a good enough reason
for abortion...than any reason at all can be accepted....unless of course there
are NO absolutes. Either All abortions are UNacceptable or all abortions are
acceptable. Pregnancy due to rape or incest is never the fault of the child or
the mother; the guilty party, not the innocent party, should be punished if
there are absolutes and abortion should not occur. That brings me to abortion to
preserve the life of the mother. Obviously, preserving the life of the mother is
determined to be more important than the life of the potential child thus
justifying "choice". Society needs to stop being two-faced over this
issue. There are many things that are seen as immoral by some people, which
must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. The fetus has no absolute right to the
woman's body and therefore the woman has a right to choose abortion for
herself without interference from well-meaning though misguided pro-lifers.
If you don't like abortion, don't get one.If you can get
pregnant than you are entitled to an opinion. Otherwise it's not your
The LDS position on abortion is far from "black and white." Although
disapproving so-called "elective" abortions, the Church has never
officially called for a ban. The medical condition of mother and fetus, the
psychological dynamics of forced pregnancy or incest--all these things must be
taken into consideration, according to the prophets. Ultimately, it's a
matter of individual conscience and medical judgment. There are no absolutes
@LDS Liberal"Grey areas, NOT clear cut Black &
White."For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree
of allowanceD&C 1:31It seems there is only black and white
and no grayMaybe we should stop and re-think this shades of gray concept.