Planned Parenthood awarded $2.3 million for secret videos

[PyramidHead]

It's funny how little Lion has to say about my right to a portion of his bloodstream, the air in his lungs, and the better part of his abdominal cavity.

Are you a living human embryo?
Am I your parent?
Did you choose to place yourself in that womb?

These are necessary considerations before I can decide whether or not it would be immoral
to destroy you.

...I sure love being the vulnerable, powerless, defenseless party in this power dynamic that entitles me to Lion's entire immune system and a portion of everything he eats or drinks!

Alive. Human. Powerless. Defenseless. Vulnerable. Not there by choice. <-- Just stop for a second and think about these.

Reliant on a portion of their parent's bloodstream and nutrition because of
...you know...biology/nature.

I am all of those things, but not an embryo. I'm a fully grown person, who did not choose to be hooked up to your blood, food, water, and organs, but I am using them to survive. Am I entitled to them for as long as I need them to live?

 

[Jarhyn]

It's funny how little Lion has to say about my right to a portion of his bloodstream, the air in his lungs, and the better part of his abdominal cavity.

Are you a living human embryo?
Am I your parent?
Did you choose to place yourself in that womb?

These are necessary considerations before I can decide whether or not it would be immoral
to destroy you.

...I sure love being the vulnerable, powerless, defenseless party in this power dynamic that entitles me to Lion's entire immune system and a portion of everything he eats or drinks!

Alive. Human. Powerless. Defenseless. Vulnerable. Not there by choice. <-- Just stop for a second and think about these.

Reliant on a portion of their parent's bloodstream and nutrition because of
...you know...biology/nature.

Alive, (genetic), powerless, defenseless, vulnerable don't mean shit. We keep.pointing this out. Cancer, TUMORS, ticks, they are alive, powerless, defenseless, vulnerable, too. The cancer and other tumors are also human.

Is doesn't derive an ought.

The question is one of ethical investiture.

Let's assume some psychotic asshole has cut out PH's heart, lungs, and liver, and tossed them in a blender, making some disgusting abomination from the two of you ala Human Centipede, but instead of stiching his mouth to your ass, hooked him to a set of hoses to your torso. Assume he is the only person compatible with you, and that's why the psychopath picked you.

 

[Lion IRC]

^^Look^^
We've reached the pinnacle of the abortion on-demand lobby arguments.

Unborn human babies are the moral equivalent of ticks.

Yeah...I've heard them likened to toenail clippings, haemorrhoids and many other types of parasite too.

Wanna hear me paraphrase that filthy and disgusting 'perspective'?

Don't worry jason dancer. I understand the mindset of you people perfectly well.

...and you wonder why pedophiles don't think they are doing anything all that bad.

 

[Jarhyn]

^^Look^^
We've reached the pinnacle of the abortion on-demand lobby arguments.

Unborn human babies are the moral equivalent of ticks.

Yeah...I've heard them likened to toenail clippings, haemorrhoids and many other types of parasite too.

Wanna hear me paraphrase that filthy and disgusting 'perspective'?

Don't worry jason dancer. I understand the mindset of you people perfectly well.

...and you wonder why pedophiles don't think they are doing anything all that bad.

From whence comes filth? From whence comes disgust?

We point out consistently the difference between (genetic) and (proto-person). We point out WHY this is, repeatedly. THIS is what we want you to understand: that we derive a meaningful and functional understanding of ethical investiture without needing to resort to fanciful declarations of a god, and that model quite simply does not value an unwanted fetal parasite, that it pivots fairly exactly on the consent of the host(s) for things to be proto-persons, and on the commitment to social contribution for persons. That it isn't relativism.

See, I happen to think that, if PyramidHead was stitched fo myself by some psychopathic fuck and now was reliant on me for life, I would have to have a long conversation with him, because he is a Person, fully ethically invested through his consent to social values, and we would have to work out an arrangement in out shitty now-life whereby his dependence is either consented to by me or the end of his life and my freedom is consented to by him. It is an interesting edge case. I may in fact feel obligated to donate some fraction of my organs to him, and failing this as an alternative, I suspect he would consent to ending his own life; as a person, committed to the consent, implied and explicit as necessary of his peers, I doubt he would accept this forced subjugation of his own host even at the expense of his own life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

^^Look^^
We've reached the pinnacle of the abortion on-demand lobby arguments.

Unborn human babies are the moral equivalent of ticks.

Meanwhile the woman is nothing but a birthing booth? The short and long term consequences of carrying a child to term and giving birth... are ignored. The carrying of the child, the changes to the physiology and ultimately mental illness (that I think a lot more women suffer from than is appreciated)... all of that matters not. The rights of the fetus supercede any right of the mother, unless said right impacts said fetus.

 

[atrib]

^^Look^^
We've reached the pinnacle of the abortion on-demand lobby arguments.

Unborn human babies are the moral equivalent of ticks.

Yeah...I've heard them likened to toenail clippings, haemorrhoids and many other types of parasite too.

Wanna hear me paraphrase that filthy and disgusting 'perspective'?

Don't worry jason dancer. I understand the mindset of you people perfectly well.

...and you wonder why pedophiles don't think they are doing anything all that bad.

Jarhyn did not claim that human fetuses are the moral equivalent of ticks; that is your extrapolation. He merely provided examples of things that are also alive (responding to statements you had made earlier about the beginning of life and the existence of life), and possess certain attributes in common in human fetuses. You used this caricature to fuel your fake outrage, to characterize other posters' perspectives as filthy and disgusting, and ultimately to equate these perspectives with the rationalizations of pedophiles who commit criminal acts.

What you did not do was attempt to address the argument that was actually being made: does a human being have a right to refuse to help sustain another human being's life by donating the functions of his organs and bodily fluids to said human being. This could have been a nuanced discussion, but you chose to do what you almost always do - attack a caricature of the other poster's position with vitriol, denigrate his ideas by comparing them to criminal behavior, and poison any chance of having a real discussion about the issues. And when people point out the facts about what you do, you pretend to be outraged and state you are going to stop talking to them. And you whine incessantly about it whenever you have an opportunity.

A few weeks ago you had stated that you were going to do a "hard reset" of this sort of behavior, but I don't think it has taken yet. Perhaps you need to try harder.

 

[Jarhyn]

^^Look^^
We've reached the pinnacle of the abortion on-demand lobby arguments.

Unborn human babies are the moral equivalent of ticks.

Yeah...I've heard them likened to toenail clippings, haemorrhoids and many other types of parasite too.

Wanna hear me paraphrase that filthy and disgusting 'perspective'?

Don't worry jason dancer. I understand the mindset of you people perfectly well.

...and you wonder why pedophiles don't think they are doing anything all that bad.

Jarhyn did not claim that human fetuses are the moral equivalent of ticks; that is your extrapolation. He merely provided examples of things that are also alive (responding to statements you had made earlier about the beginning of life and the existence of life), and possess certain attributes in common in human fetuses. You used this caricature to fuel your fake outrage, to characterize other posters' perspectives as filthy and disgusting, and ultimately to equate these perspectives with the rationalizations of pedophiles who commit criminal acts.

What you did not do was attempt to address the argument that was actually being made: does a human being have a right to refuse to help sustain another human being's life by donating the functions of his organs and bodily fluids to said human being. This could have been a nuanced discussion, but you chose to do what you almost always do - attack a caricature of the other poster's position with vitriol, denigrate his ideas by comparing them to criminal behavior, and poison any chance of having a real discussion about the issues. And when people point out the facts about what you do, you pretend to be outraged and state you are going to stop talking to them. And you whine incessantly about it whenever you have an opportunity.

A few weeks ago you had stated that you were going to do a "hard reset" of this sort of behavior, but I don't think it has taken yet. Perhaps you need to try harder.

Let me be clear. They are not the moral equivalent, but they are the ethical equivalent.

The point is that (genetic) is not meaningful to ethical investiture.

Honestly, going back to the PyramidHead adult fetus scenario, if it was Halfie or Lion, I'd cut the hose without a second thought or moment's consideration. They lack the means to be a (person), largely expressed through their inability or outright refusal to think about any of the concepts that would lead to consenting to the obligations which make of someone a person, and my own lack of consent to the investiture of proto-personhood into him would make such a termination, to me, ethically no different from aborting a freshly fertilized embryo or for more succinct example, plucking a tick off my ass with a tick scoop.

I do believe, in the case of a PERSON, there MAY exist an obligation to CONTINUE sustaining another PERSON's existence through donation of bodily function, though.

Please note that this is distinct from the idea that anyone has an obligation to initiate such an relationship as donor, especially as the mere result of seeking a short-lived drug such as an orgasm, which is pure idiocy. To expect an obligation of such support, one must accept an obligation of such support. Fetuses do not accept such obligation and cannot; they lack the fundamental machinery to be informed.

The issue I have comes with the conflation Halfie and Lion amo g others, makes between (genetic), (proto-person), and (person). Once a consensual investiture has been made into a proto-person, there are issues with terminating it. Once an investiture has been made in accepting the obligations of personhood, it's death is to be prevented to the same extent any of us would protect our own lives.

 

[PyramidHead]

Lion IRC: I'm a fully grown person, who did not choose to be hooked up to your blood, food, water, and organs, but I am using them to survive. Am I entitled to them for as long as I need them to live?

 

[Lion IRC]

You've reworded your scenario because you now admit that the embryo IS an involuntary victim of circumstance.

As Lord Justice Ward summarised the case in his opinion for the English Court of Appeal, the unique and crucial feature of this case was that though each infant had [their] own brain, heart and lungs, Mary depended on Jodie's heart and lungs to sustain her life.

https://pmj.bmj.com/content/77/911/593.full

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You've reworded your scenario because you now admit that the embryo IS an involuntary victim of circumstance.

And the mother is what exactly, chopped liver? They too are an involuntary victim of circumstance... (thanks to our intelligently designed bodies, women have no control over ovulation or fertilization) or at least in the sense that they are fully developed and alive human being.

There is all this talk about life... yet you seem to be more interested in providing judgment on the mother, not giving a darn about them, nor compassion.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is all this talk about life yet you seem to be ...[insert any and as much imaginary bogeyman projecting as you want here]

Carry on.
Don't bother using the quote function.
Just take an old sock, sew two buttons on it for eyes and put it on your hand.
With practice you can form the sock into a mouth that opens and closes.
Now try getting it to 'say' whatever you want it to say.
It's fun, isn't it?
Now you're....WINNING

 

[Jarhyn]

There is all this talk about life yet you seem to be ...[insert any and as much imaginary bogeyman projecting as you want here]

Carry on.
Don't bother using the quote function.
Just take an old sock, sew two buttons on it for eyes and put it on your hand.
With practice you can form the sock into a mouth that opens and closes.
Now try getting it to 'say' whatever you want it to say.
It's fun, isn't it?
Now you're....WINNING

Wow, you must have such a shiny mirror.

 

[Lion IRC]

...um Hello.
The quote function? Just show where I was "providing judgment on the mother, not giving a darn about them, nor compassion."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...um Hello.
The quote function? Just show where I was "providing judgment on the mother, not giving a darn about them, nor compassion."

It’s implied by forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy and birth and the subsequent physical, emotional, and psychological consequences.