“Look, Planned Parenthood was founded on a eugenicist philosophy,” [Troy] Newman responded, “in other words, ‘exterminate the people that we don’t want to have too many of,’ which is a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sitting Supreme Court justice. That’s what abortion is all about.” He added that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was “embedded with the Nazis,” adding, “That’s not rhetoric, folks, look it up, it’s absolutely true.”
Yes, it is positively, completely, clearly, unquestionably, absolutely true … that Justice Ginsburg has said no such thing, that Margaret Sanger was not a Nazi, and that Planned Parenthood was not built on "extermination" (in fact, it was built originally on birth control, which, if we're going to call that "extermination," let's see some deceptively edited videos about that and be open about it)
Glad we cleared that up.
Activist Behind Planned Parenthood Smear Makes Up Fake Quote To Claim RBG Wants To ‘Exterminate’ People
Troy Newman, one of the anti-choice activists behind a new set of videos smearing Planned Parenthood, claimed in a radio interview yesterday that the women’s health organization was “fou
There was nothing deceptive about crushing the skull of a baby girl so carefully so that her internal organs could be saved. That her inner parts are more valuable than she is the pit of vile dehumanization. Attacking the creators of the video doesn't change the fact that this gross violation of personhood is tolerated and legal and even celebrated by some in our society. When we treat the least of these in this way, we show our true darkness, and it is pitch black.
If someone is making an argument and tries to boost it with lies, it does call the core argument into further question. If the videos (edited or full version) are so damning, why make stuff up for sound bytes around them?
No, abortion isn't pretty. Organ harvesting (from any source) isn't pretty. Surgical procedures, as a rule, aren't pretty.
I disagree that we are talking about a matter of personhood here — the core of your statement — but I doubt that it's a matter that either of us is likely to change their mind on.
Gotta throw the logical fallacy flag on that one, Dave – "Since your point B is wrong, your point A must therefore also be wrong." No, that's not a solid argument. You need to address the main point, rather than simply avoiding it in favor of attacking something easier and playing it like it matters to the main point. I don't know why they went to the whole PP origins thing, but it doesn't really matter.
But let's get to the real gist of the matter of personhood here – because that's infinitely more important and interesting IMO. So tell me, when in your opinion does a human begin? What's the essence of humanity and personhood? I'm sure I'll disagree, but I'm willing to listen, in fact I'm kind of fascinated to hear this. I'm willing to say that I don't know when humanity and personhood begin. I'm completely confident that a "fetus" at the 20 week ultrasound is without a doubt a human baby person. And I think it goes back much further than that, but exactly where I'll agree gets more difficult to determine. At conception, we have a new, unique set of human DNA – that in and of itself is significant. If it is not human, what is it? It certainly has the potential to become a full human being – given the right environment and nutrients, it very likely will. And that's significant, because there's nothing else that can do that. But if you're not going to grant personhood status to it, then when will you? Implantation obviously an important step, as is the development of various organs and tissues. Heartbeat begins at a certain point, brain activity begins, etc. All of which begins extremely early in the process, of course. I think that by the time the baby has the basic body parts, and beating heart, and a waving brain, calling it something other than a person is extremely difficult. But as I said, I'm interested in listening to where and why you draw the line. When does a human being begin?
+Charles Carrigan It's a logical fallacy, yes, in terms of proving or disproving a point. But it also goes to credibility and motivation in videos released, especially in the edits made in the primary videos: to create an emotional repugnance regardless of the facts in the matter.
As to your broader question (and I agree it's a primary one in this debate), when does human life begin: I don't know. I think the question itself is dependent on what "human life" actually means. I can point at a six week fetus and believe that (all other medical conditions being equal) it will develop to be a person, but I can do the same for a zygote. Heck, I can do the same for any individual egg and sperm; if allowed to meet, they could become a person eventually. But I'm unwilling to grant personhood to a gamete, a zygote, or a six week fetus. They could become a human person, but they are not as of yet.
When does that happen? It defies a bright line definition that will apply in every case, though from a legal point we have to impose one. At what point does the basic physiology qualify? At what point does brain wave activity qualify? (And what level of brain wave activity and what does it mean? The embryonic brain isn't a PC that's booting up, off one minute and functioning the next).
The two semester "viability" test from Roe seems a reasonable waypoint, though it can be fuzzy from a chronological and a scientific basis.
To further complicate things, this is all wrapped up (literally) in another life in question, the woman who is pregnant. My level of uncertainty about human "personhood" here is high enough that I'm highly reluctant to override her autonomy over her body and her opinion over what is the right thing to do.
+Charles Carrigan nice to see that you are looking forward to Gilead and when as things/slaves.