Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts

http://pregnancymomandbaby.com/tag/w...e-at-12-weeks/

Looks like a human baby to me...

It is not possible to measure pain directly in the fetus. Studies of stress responses can be used to give an index of the degree of trauma induced by different interventions, and also the response to analgesia or anaesthesia, but they do not indicate what the fetus actually experiences. The assessment of whether or when the fetus is likely to feel pain has to be based on an evaluation of the available anatomical and physiological evidence. The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage. The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain. Thalamic fibres first penetrate the subplate zone at about 17 weeks of gestation, and the cortex at 20 weeks. These anatomical and physiological considerations are important, not only because of immediate suffering, but also because of possible long term adverse effects of this early experience. Research in these areas is urgently required.

Patcholi: -> Neither is painful to the fetus.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...tb08424.x/full

Your research please?

__________________
If it's not a "Baby" then you're not pregnant.

Arguing about when and which babies exactly do it don't feel pain or experience stress, fear, etc is annoying to me when people say conclusively it doesn't happen or is so unlikely or minimal its essentially irrekevent.

We don't know for certain. So, I personally am more comfortable with the idea we should act with prudence and assume there is pain, etc rather than there isn't.

It reminds me of wh n I've watched care givers of patuents who act like a person must not need anything or be in pain because they didn't speak up for themselves.

That happens and it's so sad to see because people who are not in a position to advocate for thenselv s really are at the mercy of others to assist and protect them.

Lame arguments just take away your credibility, and yours isn't even original

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I haven't put anyone on ignore.
Some things just don't merit a response

You're confusing your personal "beliefs" with "fact".
Your beliefs are no more "truth" than anyone else's, and they apply only to you.

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I think this does, as it's entirely relevant to the discussion, and I'd really like to hear your position on it.

Your point was that "abortion" is acceptable, because society has deemed it acceptable (ie. legal). That's not a strawman, it's precisely the point you posited. It's in the record of this thread.

My counter-point, distilled down to its basic argument, was that what Dr. Mengele did was "acceptable", as deemed legal by society in his place and time.

So, the implied question is, does that make his actions "acceptable"?
I'm not saying that you think so, this is not a strawman, but, if you don't think Dr. Mengele's actions were "acceptable", how and where do you make the distinction between the two? If Megele's society's acceptance of his actions do not, somehow, make his actions acceptable, then is your point about the acceptability of "abortion" moot?

A fair question, I think, without any leading to an answer. I'd just like to know how you reconcile it.

What he did was never "deemed legal"

He committed war crimes

Your entire premise is flawed, and WWII history has no bearing on here and now

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded?

I've asked other "Ok with abortion on my terms" posters but they have failed to reply.

Can you tell us based on your years of hospital experience what will happen?

__________________
People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time.

Yes, it is. Godwin's law at it's finest. When all else fails compare whatever to the Nazis.

So lame it has become a cliche.

__________________
People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time.

You're being obtuse again.

What he did was classed as war crimes after the fact. When he was in the process of his 'experiments', he obviously had the blessings of Hitler and the Nazi party. Remember, the Nazis were all about race superiority. He received a grant and built a laboratory next to the crematorium. What the heck, they were going to be exterminated anyway.

Bearfootfarm, history always has bearing on the here and now. I even believe there is even a famous quote on this subject. Something about doom and repetition...

So, let's grant you all of the figures you cited, for the sake of argument. What point does that really leave remaining?
(all emphasis below is mine, not the OP's, and no text was removed).

Ok, so, most. What about the other 11%? Is that the acceptable threshold for "breaking some eggs"? Is it OK to murder children, in a way that they have awareness of their suffering, as long as at least 88% of the murders are committed in a painless way?

Let's say an adult suffered from blindness, congenital analgesia, and had a bout of amnesia. Would it then be acceptable to kill that person? They can't see, they can't feel, and they don't know who they are. They have the organs of a human being, all the pieces and parts, but they couldn't be aware of what you were doing to them. Does their lack of awareness relegate them enough into "sub-human" status that their murder could be called "abortion", instead, and be legal under the law?

See, the thing here is, I would NOT be "hard-pressed" to tell the baby was human. I've seen ultrasounds at 12 weeks and earlier, and it is readily apparent to anyone not trying to hide their eyes in order to forgive themselves of some horror allowed.

Look at it. Force yourself to look at it, with open eyes. It's not a tumor, it's not a liver, it's not a piglet, and it's not a preying mantis- this much is obvious at 12 weeks and even earlier.

So standing up against a heinous injustice that happens, according to your construct, only 1.5% of the time is a "fuss" based on a "falsehood". You admit that it happens, but it is somehow still "false". How do you figure that? I'd like to see your math.

As long as no more than 1.6% of the murdered children are aware enough to try to resist their executioner, then it is acceptable? Who drew that line? Is there a chart?

There is an acceptable level, according to His truth. I'll give you a hint: it's <0.0000000%.

You're damned right.
Again, no pun intended. (well....)

And once we get post-20 week murders banned, we're having a party. We're gathering up all our printed materials, we're scratching out every "20", and writing in "19". You're invited to come help.

And, now, here we are back to Mengele.
Your platitudes about his particular level of heinousness aside, his place in this conversation is the parallel between what he did, and what the children murderers of today do: namely the murder of defenseless innocents under the guise of state-sanction, and the advancement of society.

I've previously stated my belief that the relativity of suffering is irrelevant when considered in the scope of infinite creation, love, and judgment. The net-result by which both these parties will-be/will-have-been judged by is the net-result of their actions; the corpses of those they murdered, who committed no trespass, and could not defend themselves.

If you really want to remove Mengele from this debate, I can abide that. If he doesn't belong in this discussion, it is because his atrocities don't even approach the level of those being committed today.

It's believed that Mengele, himself, killed approximately 2,800 children. God rest their souls.

We do that, just in the US, every day.

In a single, average, year, we murder >1.2m children through the state-sanctioned procedure of "abortion". Compare that to the 1.1m suspected as the sum-total of the killings at Auschwitz throughout its years of operation.

Perhaps its time that we stop looking back to the Nazis in derision, considering them as the benchmark of monstrosity, and start looking inward at the real monsters that we are.

Okay folks. Would you be happy if not one bit of aborted tissue was used for research? Is that what you are complaining about?

Or is it the abortions themselves and you are using tissue donation as way to get to where you want. No abortion.

__________________

^^^^^This.

Thank you.

That is all.

Then argue that and stop using tissue donation as a strawman.

__________________

Too bad it's legal and has been for over 40 years. Why don't you hire a lawyer and make yet another run at Roe v. Wade that will do nothing except make money for the all the lawyers involved?

Anything other than attempting to change the law is just whining on the internet, right?

__________________
People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time.

Post of the decade.

__________________
People say I can't multi-task. Well, I can tick you off and amuse myself at the same time.

So, here is where we are, Bearfoot, distilled for clarity:

Quoting Txsteader because his response was better than anything I could have written, particularly his choice of the word "obtuse".
Mengele's plans, actions, and reported results went all the way to the desk of his president-equivalent. His government thought his work so valuable that they committed his people's treasure to its advancement (ie. tax dollars).

In his time and place, under the protective umbrella of the world's noted super-power of the time, Mengele's work was not only acceptable, but seen as necessary for the well-being of the state. It was not until after his society lost a high-stakes war that his actions were seen as anything other than legal, acceptable, and worthy of praise.

His work was legal, and, by the implicit point you made earlier, legality is the benchmark of acceptability.

For the sake of this debate, please corroborate or correct your earlier point.

This is not a trap. I'd genuinely like to know how you reconcile this.

You keep doing that to me, Mrs. Painter.
I never once said that the issue was the tissue donation. My argument has been, all along, that abortion is murder. I could care less what you do with the flesh that is left behind in the wake of the murder. It's just flesh at that point. Arguing against me using a point I never made is the definition of "strawman argument", yet you use that very strawman to accuse me of building them.

But, since you don't seem to get the definition of what the thing is, I'll help.
Take a moment to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Then take a moment to review my posts in this thread (you can do that easily by clicking on the blue letters up and to the left of this post that say "GunMonkeyINTL".

Then re-read your post that I quoted in this post.

I'll wait.