Fiorina

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fiorina-gets-heated-over-planned-parenthood/vi-AAghYw8

Ok , if the tapes were edited , what did they say before and after they said , "We sell body parts" and" If we kill them carefully we can get any part intact. "

  They must have cut out something really good.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fiorina does not give a flying fuck about abortion. She was pro-choice when she wanted to be a senator. Now she is a forced birther of the first magnitude. But a president does not have the power to do away with abortions. Only Supreme Court actions can really do that.

Again, the body parts belong to the woman from whom they are aborted. It is better to use them to save lives than to throw them out with the garbage. No one is aborting in order to sell body parts.

People outraged by this should check into what happens to their free donations of blood. That is sold to the highest bidder most of the time.

[Plane]

Again, the body parts belong to the woman from whom they are aborted. It is better to use them to save lives than to throw them out with the garbage. No one is aborting in order to sell body parts.

They do not belong to the person that was killed?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Don't be stupid. This is apparent on at least three counts.

(1) A fetus is NOT A PERSON and cannot own anything.

(2) The fetus we are discussing is deceased, and the dead cannot own anything.

(3) Even if the fetus were a person, it would be an underage person. Babies cannot own anything legally.

The woman should have TOTAL RIGHTS to decide the fate of any part of her body, as all people do.
Fetal pieces belong to the woman from whose body they came, just as extracted teeth or or a removed appendix.

[Plane]

Don't be stupid. This is apparent on at least three counts.

(1) A fetus is NOT A PERSON and cannot own anything.

Why is this a safe assumption?

Is this a matter of size?
I am pretty fat, I am quite possibly twice the human you are, shouldn't I have twice the rights?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not a matter of size, of course.

The difference between man and beast is that (according to man) man has a soul and the beast has none. Of course, this flied=s in the face of the common believe that all dogs (and at least some cats) go to Heaven. So we could say that a baby has a soul and a fetus has none.

This would be because the soul is installed at birth. If man has a soul, then it must be installed at some moment between conception and birth.Since I do not know, science cannot determine this, and God (as usual, mute on the subject) I say just leave this decision, along with the option of abortion, to the woman whose body the fetus inhabits.

Actually one pseudoscientist claimed that the soul weighs  21 grams when it leaves the body at death. But this was in 1907 and most regard it as sloppy science.

http://www.livescience.com/32327-how-much-does-the-soul-weigh.html

If you Google "weight of a soul" you will find more on this.
I checked this out a year of so ago, and there does not seem to be any consistent answer.

If a fetus has no soul, it is no more a moral issue than one that Col. Sanders ignores ten thousand times an hour, as chickens also are soulless, in addition to being delicious.
 
I am in favor of leaving the moral issue up to the woman. When fetuses start to picket for their rights. then we can take their opinion under consideration.

[sirs]

Seriously?  You're going with a non-objective, non-visible, non-measuable "soul" as your criteria of when a fetus transitions to a "person"??  Conveniently "installed" at birth you say?  This is indeed quite revealing in your attempt to use a largely spiritual qualifier (by someone ironically who has no use or belief in religion to begin with) as the go-to determiner for personhood

Truly amazing, ....the knots you can twist, in trying to rationalize the irrational

[Xavier_Onassis]

The difference between humans and animals, they say, is that animals have no souls and humans do.
This is the official doctrine of the Holy Mother Church. Ask any priest.

I dd not make this up, nor do I believe that there is adequate proof to believe it.
So, apparently all dogs not only do not go to Heaven, NO dogs do. Bummer.
Not something to tell people you meet at  the Pet Supermarket, Petsmart or Petco.

Again, if this is true, then the soul must be installed at some point between conception and birth. I dare you to refute this.

All I say is that if you accept tor premise, you must accept the conclusion.

Pending directions from some member of the Holy Trinity, I say just let the woman decide about whether she has an abortion or not.

A see no evidence that any member of the Supreme Court, any church, or even ant teabagger is any more likely to now about the installation of souls than the woman herself. so let her decide.

[sirs]

Sorry, YOU'RE the one who used "soul" in answering the question Plane posed as to when exactly does your fetus become a person.  Even went so far as to lay claim that it happens at birth. So its priceless to see someone, who cares not a wit of anything spiritual, using a spritual reference in explaining when a so-called fetus with no rights, becomes a person with full rights

[Xavier_Onassis]

I used it because that is what everyone says. If the difference between man and animal is a soul, then that is a factor.
I have no idea whether there are souls or when they populate humans.

All I say is, let the woman decide.

Why? Because it is her body.

You do not own it, you should therefore have no say about it.

[sirs]

What "everyone" else??  I'm part of "everyone", and I've never said such a thing       YOU, on the other hand used souls in response to (ir)rationalize when a fetus becomes a person.

And I agree....let the woman decide anything and everything regarding HER body.  When its someone else's body, as in an unborn child, that choice no longer should be hers

[Xavier_Onassis]

There ARE NO UNBORN CHILDREN.  There are only fetuses, easily identified because they are only belly bumps.

Why do you persist in posting this useless crap, sirs? You are not going to convince me, ever. You cannot make anything true by writing it over and over.

[sirs]

There ARE NO UNBORN CHILDREN.

umm...YES, THERE ARE.  Easily identified by Ultrasound & x-rays, and validated by courts across the country, when a 2 counts of murder are applied to someone who kills a pregnant woman.  Why do you persist in posting this useless crap, xo? You are not going to convince me, ever. You cannot make anything true by writing it over and over.     

[Plane]

So we could say that a baby has a soul and a fetus has none.

     Why is this a reasonable assumption?

     Do you really believe it?

     I am trying to imagine how that would work, is there an angel standing by with a soul creating device and waiting until the baby is dried off to use it?

    There is plenty of evidence that babies dream in the womb, listen to their parents voices and even respond positively to music.

   My own children seemed to recognize their mothers voice right away.

    So what happened to having a scientific attitude ?

    How can you refer to Catholic Church dogma as authoritative as to the nature of a human being , but ignore the conclusion of this same authority that souls are present in children earlier than birth?

   To say that it is strictly the mothers business is to abdicate for society and government the responsibility of protecting the rights of citizens , for the sake of other citizens convenience.

    This is worse than a slippery slope , we are already in the ditch and the slippery slope is above us.

     Really, wouldn't it be very helpful to our society to abort a lot us , not just babies, but everyone that is less than useful and productive.

       It would certainly cure the problems of Social Security to limit the lifespans of the retired , and we need only invent a rationalization that assumes that the elderly have worn out their souls.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are being stupid again/

Just let women control their own bodies.