Think Lamborghini likes all the free advertising?
if this gets no attention even after an investigation - America's lost.
At least Dr. Frankenstein didn't kill people to harvest their body parts. He just recycled.
Is that why the monster was green?
yes, and
YES!
Here is how I confront a pro choice person.
Ask them if NASA found a single cell living on Mars would that mean there is life on Mars?
Now you have them cornered. Ask them why a single cell on earth is any different than on Mars.
Another way to play head games with a pro choice individual. Ask them if they believe in the Death Penalty. When they say no, ask why they won't kill a person but will kill a single cell that splits into 2 then 4 then 8.
I love when this subject comes up. You can see their heads exploding when confronted with the dichotomy.
When confronted by a "pro choicer" I ask, why do you hate babies?
Their ultimate goal is abortion on demand at any time. One of the cornerstones of the DMC.
There's a scientific counter to absolutely every point they try to make. I've never seen a debate with them end without them repeating the tired "anti-women's rights" tripe and continuing to yell about what makes a "person"
It's a complete change of subject, because they'll find no victory against the actual issue.
The split seems to be along religious lines, though I'm probably a fairly rare non-religious person that opposes abortion. To me it is a moral issue. Morals are subjective. But something that isn't subjective about morals are the consequences of moral choices. I think a world of humans who respect human life as an issue of morality is a better world that regards human life as only valuable when that life is outside the womb. That kind of morality can excuse increasingly destructive behavior.I can see where the PP supporters are coming from here. If I thought abortion was ok (I don't), then why would I have a problem with using the remains for science, recovering my costs or maybe even supplementing my funding. You expect people to be outraged, but if someone thinks killing the baby is ok, you really expect them to get all broken up about the money issue? We're way past that in this world. Some borderline folks may be disgusted by the callousness and graphic nature of the videos however.
The philosophers among the pro-abortion ranks may debate life...as will the pro-abortion people who don't even know the legal basis for their claimed right, but legally, when a new life begins is irrelevant.
There is one point in time when a new, genetically distinct entity comes into being- that is conception. From then on, all changes are simply the natural growth and progression of that genetically distinct entity. Objectively- a new life begins at conception. Every other argued point of development ignores the genetics and is arbitrary.
This new life (which, of course, is a new human life because what else could it be?) is completely dependent upon the mother for 9 months. No two ways about it. However, after birth, that new life is no less dependent, it is just that the more than one person has the ability to fulfill its needs. I fail to find a moral difference between a caretaker killing a dependent human life when there is one caretaker, vs. a caretaker killing it when there could be more than one caretaker.
Legally, abortion was found to be a right based upon the idea that the rights of the mother (a term loosely used in this context) outweigh any right of the new human life, at least until the third trimester- and what could be more arbitrary than that. Personhood, humanity...pfft, irrelevant. Regardless of what this new human life is, for it's first 6 months of life, it can be killed by its caretaker. In some places, the last three months aren't ant safer.
More important than the genetic truth of when a new human life is created, more important than the fact that females are aborted at least as often as males and more often when abortion is used for sex selection (and it is) is the idea that a woman who chose to partake in activities which have a fair to middlin' chance of causing pregnancy should be absolved from the consequences of that choice. This is needed, they say, for equality purposes, because men have no consequences. The child support offices of your local county's legal system may demonstrate otherwise. But, they say, it's not always a choice. Pregnancies can result from rape, incest or some other form of duress. While I wonder why an innocent new human life should pay for the crimes of others, I'll tell you what- how about we outlaw all abortions except those resulting from rape, incest, or physically endangering the life of the mother- I'll sign on to support that bill right now and I'll go to war against the "no exceptions" crowd to make it happen.......from the other side? Crickets.
There is no logical consistency, no morality other than self from the pro-abortion side. "I won't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body." Really? When a woman grabs a knife and goes after her own 6 month old dependent child, what about then? Will you tell her she can't use her body to kill her child? Let's be consistent.
...I think the area is greyer than you present it. I agree that objectively, a new life begins at conception. But the contention over abortion is about when that new life's rights supersede the mother's.
I don't think the answer to that is nearly as objective as you'd like it to be. As I said before, it's largely a matter of belief about the origin of all life. If religion dictates your belief, you might think that conception is the point where natural rights are morally conferred.
I'm not religious, and to me that realm is grey enough that I'm not willing to support outlawing all abortions.
But certainly when a human brain is capable of thought and feeling, that to me is a more objective line to draw.
And certainly I do not support trafficking human parts.
What about consent?
Doesn't a person have a right to say to another person: "I don't want you inside my body anymore"? I believe we do...