Shocking Video----PP Employees Sorting Baby Body Parts

[TitanTiger 20,482]

If there was no rational distinction to be made, the term "fetus" wouldn't be necessary or even exist.

And the term is late middle English derived directly from Latin.

Yes, and it simply meant "offspring", "hatching of young", "bringing forth." It's only in modern times that people who wished it to be viewed as less than a person so they could dispose of it like removing a wart that "fetus" started to be used to distinguish it from "baby" or "child."

It's a legal fiction invented for the convenience of adults.

[homersapien 11,373]

I can't comprehend because it didn't make any sense. Maybe you or Mims can explain.

My original point was that you feel you have the right to exercise your own freedom of choice while denying the freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.

...who denies the freedom of choice to the child.

Does the unborn have the same rights that we do?

That's what I figured WarTimmys point was, and I was trying to convey that to homer.

If he believes a fetus holds the same rights as he does then he is not being hypocritical in saying he doesn't believe a human life should be murdered because it has became an inconvenience to its carrier.

Correct. (and that's Mr. WarTim to you. :-)

That's not the question that was posed. Keep up.

Again, I was pretty sure the name calling you threw out so quickly "hypocrite" was directed at his stance on abortion, while simultaneously claiming his rights over his own body.

Thus bringing the abortion topic into the discussion of his answer and defense of his answer.

Not quite. I didn't call him a hypocrite, I said his position was hypocritical.

Claiming your right over your body while refusing a woman's right over her's is a hypocritical position.

But considering the number of thoughtless posts made on here, I am hesitate to assume someone is a hypocrite simply for posting something that is hypocritical.

[homersapien 11,373]

If there was no rational distinction to be made, the term "fetus" wouldn't be necessary or even exist.

And the term is late middle English derived directly from Latin.

Yes, and it simply meant "offspring", "hatching of young", "bringing forth." It's only in modern times that people who wished it to be viewed as less than a person so they could dispose of it like removing a wart that "fetus" started to be used to distinguish it from "baby" or "child."

It's a legal fiction invented for the convenience of adults.

Right. :-\

Funny how the Romans had a different term for baby (infantem).

But if you actually believe the various terms for the progressive stages of human development were developed solely for the purpose of obscuring your beliefs regarding abortion, well, that's your problem.

For the purposes of debate, that's called "begging the question".

[Weegle777 78]

As in almost every other abortion discussion, the entire debate hinges on the question of whether an unborn fetus is a human being or not, with the full legal and/or ethical protections of a human being (which is why I generally stay away from such debates). But even among those who supposedly have the most expertise in that question--scientists, medical doctors, theologians, or lawyers--there is no overwhelming consensus one way or another.

For those who see a fetus as a human person with the full legal and moral rights of a human being, I understand your appall. Since I do not consider an unborn fetus a human being, "person", or "baby", and since in these cases the biological material has been voluntarily donated and would be discarded otherwise, I feel no concern or revulsion. However, I also respect that others do not share my beliefs, and do not scoff at their feelings or beliefs.

As it happens, I am a registered organ donor and a regular blood donor. If I were the legal guardian or the post-death decision maker for anyone else, I would donate any of those biological materials that could be used for further good. I also understand that use of those parts necessarily involves some "cutting, sorting, and processing". But I would not feel like I'm "selling body parts" if the recipients of those materials covered my own expenses.

(A slight thought detour: When it comes to the ethics of selling biological parts for money: Should we discontinue the practice by some private labs/commercial enterprises of paying blood donors, sperm donors, etc? Are they no better than "Nazis" for doing so? Or from a legal standpoint, I suppose those donors are being paid for their "time", not their biological materials...)

In any case, until there is general agreement regarding the "person-hood" status of an unborn fetus, it seems to me that all debates over abortion reflect positions of conscience in which there is no middle ground, and are therefore exercises in futility.

Do you consider unborn puppies actual "puppies"?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

[quietfan 233]

As in almost every other abortion discussion, the entire debate hinges on the question of whether an unborn fetus is a human being or not, with the full legal and/or ethical protections of a human being (which is why I generally stay away from such debates). But even among those who supposedly have the most expertise in that question--scientists, medical doctors, theologians, or lawyers--there is no overwhelming consensus one way or another.

For those who see a fetus as a human person with the full legal and moral rights of a human being, I understand your appall. Since I do not consider an unborn fetus a human being, "person", or "baby", and since in these cases the biological material has been voluntarily donated and would be discarded otherwise, I feel no concern or revulsion. However, I also respect that others do not share my beliefs, and do not scoff at their feelings or beliefs.

As it happens, I am a registered organ donor and a regular blood donor. If I were the legal guardian or the post-death decision maker for anyone else, I would donate any of those biological materials that could be used for further good. I also understand that use of those parts necessarily involves some "cutting, sorting, and processing". But I would not feel like I'm "selling body parts" if the recipients of those materials covered my own expenses.

(A slight thought detour: When it comes to the ethics of selling biological parts for money: Should we discontinue the practice by some private labs/commercial enterprises of paying blood donors, sperm donors, etc? Are they no better than "Nazis" for doing so? Or from a legal standpoint, I suppose those donors are being paid for their "time", not their biological materials...)

In any case, until there is general agreement regarding the "person-hood" status of an unborn fetus, it seems to me that all debates over abortion reflect positions of conscience in which there is no middle ground, and are therefore exercises in futility.

Do you consider unborn puppies actual "puppies"?

I'm not exactly sure of the relevance or where you're going with that question, but I don't really consider any developing, in utero organism the same as as a fully developed, post-birth organism.

But I also don't consider the etymology or semantics of word choices and labels of much importance in the debate over abortion rights or ethics. Word meanings change all the time, and whether one uses the term 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', 'puppy', 'baby', or some other term seems to me secondary and incidental to the issue at question. "F****t" (The text editor doesn't seem to want to let me spell it out in full, keeps changing/censoring it) can mean a piece of firewood or a simple cigarette in British slang, but in contemporary American usage as a derogatory term for a male homosexual, it is clearly a hateful ugly term.

But again, that is just my opinion and I'm not trying to sell or convert anyone to my beliefs. I don't disrespect your beliefs on abortion, whatever they may be.

[quietfan 233]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

I wonder how you would account for the powerful and self-interested who find a platform within the church?

Perhaps it is not the trading of babies for Lamborghinis but rather, trading one's soul for a Lamborghini?

[japantiger 4,051]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

[WarTim 3,456]

Abortion is Murder. There. .... Clear now?

[Mims44 1,869]

I can't comprehend because it didn't make any sense. Maybe you or Mims can explain.

My original point was that you feel you have the right to exercise your own freedom of choice while denying the freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.

...who denies the freedom of choice to the child.

Does the unborn have the same rights that we do?

That's what I figured WarTimmys point was, and I was trying to convey that to homer.

If he believes a fetus holds the same rights as he does then he is not being hypocritical in saying he doesn't believe a human life should be murdered because it has became an inconvenience to its carrier.

Correct. (and that's Mr. WarTim to you. :-)

That's not the question that was posed. Keep up.

Again, I was pretty sure the name calling you threw out so quickly "hypocrite" was directed at his stance on abortion, while simultaneously claiming his rights over his own body.

Thus bringing the abortion topic into the discussion of his answer and defense of his answer.

Not quite. I didn't call him a hypocrite, I said his position was hypocritical.

Claiming your right over your body while refusing a woman's right over her's is a hypocritical position.

But considering the number of thoughtless posts made on here, I am hesitate to assume someone is a hypocrite simply for posting something that is hypocritical.

And like I said much much earlier, you are failing to see the argument from his side. With his way of thinking he is not being hypocritical.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

It was a provocative statement. It was meant to be so and that is why I posted it.

But your statement above and what Fr. Barron said are not in contradiction with each other.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

I wonder how you would account for the powerful and self-interested who find a platform within the church?

Perhaps it is not the trading of babies for Lamborghinis but rather, trading one's soul for a Lamborghini?

How I would account for the fact that there's more than one way for people to make themselves powerful and self-interested? Nothing in his statement suggests that there's only one way to such a state of the heart, or that Christians aren't susceptible to it.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

Do you think that people always live in ways that follow the logical ends of their stated beliefs?

[homersapien 11,373]

As in almost every other abortion discussion, the entire debate hinges on the question of whether an unborn fetus is a human being or not, with the full legal and/or ethical protections of a human being (which is why I generally stay away from such debates). But even among those who supposedly have the most expertise in that question--scientists, medical doctors, theologians, or lawyers--there is no overwhelming consensus one way or another.

For those who see a fetus as a human person with the full legal and moral rights of a human being, I understand your appall. Since I do not consider an unborn fetus a human being, "person", or "baby", and since in these cases the biological material has been voluntarily donated and would be discarded otherwise, I feel no concern or revulsion. However, I also respect that others do not share my beliefs, and do not scoff at their feelings or beliefs.

As it happens, I am a registered organ donor and a regular blood donor. If I were the legal guardian or the post-death decision maker for anyone else, I would donate any of those biological materials that could be used for further good. I also understand that use of those parts necessarily involves some "cutting, sorting, and processing". But I would not feel like I'm "selling body parts" if the recipients of those materials covered my own expenses.

(A slight thought detour: When it comes to the ethics of selling biological parts for money: Should we discontinue the practice by some private labs/commercial enterprises of paying blood donors, sperm donors, etc? Are they no better than "Nazis" for doing so? Or from a legal standpoint, I suppose those donors are being paid for their "time", not their biological materials...)

In any case, until there is general agreement regarding the "person-hood" status of an unborn fetus, it seems to me that all debates over abortion reflect positions of conscience in which there is no middle ground, and are therefore exercises in futility.

Do you consider unborn puppies actual "puppies"?

I'm not exactly sure of the relevance or where you're going with that question, but I don't really consider any developing, in utero organism the same as as a fully developed, post-birth organism.

But I also don't consider the etymology or semantics of word choices and labels of much importance in the debate over abortion rights or ethics. Word meanings change all the time, and whether one uses the term 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', 'puppy', 'baby', or some other term seems to me secondary and incidental to the issue at question. "F****t" (The text editor doesn't seem to want to let me spell it out in full, keeps changing/censoring it) can mean a piece of firewood or a simple cigarette in British slang, but in contemporary American usage as a derogatory term for a male homosexual, it is clearly a hateful ugly term.

But again, that is just my opinion and I'm not trying to sell or convert anyone to my beliefs. I don't disrespect your beliefs on abortion, whatever they may be.

Very well stated.

[homersapien 11,373]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

Any respectable anthropologist would reject that notion out of hand.

[homersapien 11,373]

I can't comprehend because it didn't make any sense. Maybe you or Mims can explain.

My original point was that you feel you have the right to exercise your own freedom of choice while denying the freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.

...who denies the freedom of choice to the child.

Does the unborn have the same rights that we do?

That's what I figured WarTimmys point was, and I was trying to convey that to homer.

If he believes a fetus holds the same rights as he does then he is not being hypocritical in saying he doesn't believe a human life should be murdered because it has became an inconvenience to its carrier.

Correct. (and that's Mr. WarTim to you. :-)

That's not the question that was posed. Keep up.

Again, I was pretty sure the name calling you threw out so quickly "hypocrite" was directed at his stance on abortion, while simultaneously claiming his rights over his own body.

Thus bringing the abortion topic into the discussion of his answer and defense of his answer.

Not quite. I didn't call him a hypocrite, I said his position was hypocritical.

Claiming your right over your body while refusing a woman's right over her's is a hypocritical position.

But considering the number of thoughtless posts made on here, I am hesitate to assume someone is a hypocrite simply for posting something that is hypocritical.

And like I said much much earlier, you are failing to see the argument from his side. With his way of thinking he is not being hypocritical.

That's his problem.

But it is what it is. He would deny to women what he claims for himself.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

Do you think that people always live in ways that follow the logical ends of their stated beliefs?

No. Quite often, neither in a manner that reflects their beliefs nor, the expectations or prejudices of others. That is the point.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

Do you think that people always live in ways that follow the logical ends of their stated beliefs?

No. Quite often, neither in a manner that reflects their beliefs nor, the expectations or prejudices of others. That is the point.

Ok, so take that, and go back and reread what I posted. Because right now, you are arguing a completely different issue than Fr. Barron is.

[Mims44 1,869]

I can't comprehend because it didn't make any sense. Maybe you or Mims can explain.

My original point was that you feel you have the right to exercise your own freedom of choice while denying the freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.

...who denies the freedom of choice to the child.

Does the unborn have the same rights that we do?

That's what I figured WarTimmys point was, and I was trying to convey that to homer.

If he believes a fetus holds the same rights as he does then he is not being hypocritical in saying he doesn't believe a human life should be murdered because it has became an inconvenience to its carrier.

Correct. (and that's Mr. WarTim to you. :-)

That's not the question that was posed. Keep up.

Again, I was pretty sure the name calling you threw out so quickly "hypocrite" was directed at his stance on abortion, while simultaneously claiming his rights over his own body.

Thus bringing the abortion topic into the discussion of his answer and defense of his answer.

Not quite. I didn't call him a hypocrite, I said his position was hypocritical.

Claiming your right over your body while refusing a woman's right over her's is a hypocritical position.

But considering the number of thoughtless posts made on here, I am hesitate to assume someone is a hypocrite simply for posting something that is hypocritical.

And like I said much much earlier, you are failing to see the argument from his side. With his way of thinking he is not being hypocritical.

That's his problem.

But it is what it is. He would deny to women what he claims for himself.

That's all I was getting at... was a looong round about way of posting ad hominem But I might as well milk it, right?

I am interested to know Homer:

1: Are you for abortion up till the baby exits the woman and is still alive?

2: Charging women with murder (or various other charges) for self aborting with pills/clothes hanger etc.

3: Women and men aborting their kids who have been born already?

.... I know #3 sounds stupid to a lot of people probably, but I was approached by a woman trying to get signatures to legalize the right to euthanize babies up to 6 months old.

Figured I'd ask, I didn't think anyone believed the 6,000 year theory before I started asking people, so might be the same results here.

[quietfan 233]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity, not the lack of objective morality. You don't have to believe in God to believe in the logic of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." One might even argue that in some ways atheists practice even more "objective" morality, since they are less likely than non-atheists to be subjectively dedicated to the idea that "my particular religion/scripture/sect's morality is the ONLY correct and tolerable morality because I and my Scriptures say so, and therefore all others should/must convert to mine". And I don't believe atheists are necessarily claiming a "higher" moral ground, simply rejecting the suggestion that they are on a lower moral ground because they don't believe in a Deity.

Your characterization of natural selection as simply "survival of one's own sperm vs someone else's" is not entirely off base, but it is also not an entirely complete description of the process of natural selection. Natural selection simply says that those genetic variations and tendencies which provide an advantage in reproduction AND the survival of those reproductions to reproduce themselves will gradually become the dominant and more abundant genetic variations in a population. From that viewpoint Homo Sapiens, like other social species, has prospered because the advantages of group cooperation, social bonding, and collective harmony worked best in assuring the reproduction of our genes through multiple generations.

Some species have found success in simply scattering myriads of eggs and sperm to the tides and letting chance succeed in assuring enough of those eggs and sperm will randomly stumbled into each other and result in mature adults that further reproduce. In some species--salmon for example and some spiders/insects--one or both parents die after a single mating, but the physical resources they have invested that single reproduction gives the next generation an edge on survival. Some species have succeeded for far long than us on asexual reproduction. Social species--like ourselves & other primates, wolves, elephants, etc.--have found success with strategy of "put your egg(s) in one basket, guard that basket well, and recruit the cooperation of others of your kind to assure all our baskets are safe during the maturing of the young".

The human young is one of the more slowly developing of species and we have to work together to guard those nests for many years before our young have reached a state of physical independence and sexual maturity. The "loner", solo, or socially outcast proto-human who had to raise young to maturity on the efforts of just one or two parents over all those years was at a distinct disadvantage in providing that extended nurturing vs. groups working together. Even among social species like wolves (or lions) where only one alpha male dominates fertilization, there are group dynamics, a social hierarchy, and group expectations of proper pack/pride conduct (A primitive "code of morality", if you will.) Young males learn and conform to those social expectations until they leave the pack to seek their own group...and they then expect and enforce similar social behavior when they become alphas males themselves. With humans, perhaps elephants, and maybe a few other more advanced species, we have even learned the benefit of caring for our elderly and crippled because the group memory and wisdom they provide is just as advantageous to our evolutionary success as physical prowess.

But enough with the treatise on natural selection. Let me add that while I am a scientist, I am not an atheist. I am at peace with the personal relationship I share with my Christian God, and with the spiritual status of my soul. I even concede, like most persons, that I think the world would be improved if more people followed my sense of morality. But I feel no duty to demand or force conversion on anyone else, nor do I have the desire or the wisdom to make spiritual decisions for them.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

Do you think that people always live in ways that follow the logical ends of their stated beliefs?

No. Quite often, neither in a manner that reflects their beliefs nor, the expectations or prejudices of others. That is the point.

Ok, so take that, and go back and reread what I posted. Because right now, you are arguing a completely different issue than Fr. Barron is.

I disagree. I believe that you are not being genuine in your "defense" of Barron's statement. His statement does reflect a contrast between those of faith and those without faith. Furthermore, I believe you are misrepresenting the word "God" in his statement as organized religion.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

"For the past two hundred years, atheists have been loudly asserting that the dismissal of God will lead to human liberation. I would strenuously argue precisely the contrary. Once the human being is untethered from God, he becomes, in very short order, an object among objects, and hence susceptible to the grossest manipulation by the powerful and self-interested. In the measure that people still speak of the irreducible dignity of the individual, they are, whether they know it or not, standing upon Biblical foundations. When those foundations are shaken—as they increasingly are today—a culture of death will follow just as surely as night follows day. If there is no God, then human beings are dispensable—so why not trade the organs of infants for a nice Lamborghini?" - Fr. Robert Barron

Robert Barron is of course entitled to think what he wants.

However, although a Christian myself, I completely reject reasoning that argues human beings have dignity, rights, or value only on the condition that there is a God, and in particular, exclusively the Biblical God. Atheists are just as capable of moral or ethical behavior and respect for their fellow humans as non-atheists are. And many of the psychotic monsters of history (including contemporary Islamo-fascist terrorists, the witch hunters of Salem, and the Spanish Inquisitors) claimed religious reasons for their inhumane actions.

Sorry Quite...absent God, there is no objective morality. Atheism is by definition the absence of God and objective morality. In atheism, there is only survival of their sperm vs someone else's...their is only natural selection...so drop the atheist pretense of morality. An atheist claiming the high ground of morality is merely a half-assed atheist.

How do you explain an atheist who exhibits higher moral and ethical standards than someone who claims faith? How do you account for religious wars? Are intolerant, self-righteous religious zealots good neighbors?

Do you think that people always live in ways that follow the logical ends of their stated beliefs?

No. Quite often, neither in a manner that reflects their beliefs nor, the expectations or prejudices of others. That is the point.

Ok, so take that, and go back and reread what I posted. Because right now, you are arguing a completely different issue than Fr. Barron is.

I disagree. I believe that you are not being genuine in your "defense" of Barron's statement. His statement does reflect a contrast between those of faith and those without faith. Furthermore, I believe you are misrepresenting the word "God" in his statement as organized religion.

Yes, I get that your default switch is to read virtually any comment or statement of orthodox faith as politically as possible, with a splash of your anti-organized religion sauce. But that isn't what he's saying. The argument he's making is simply one of following the logical ends of a belief in pure materialism. Neither his statement, nor my defense of it, is speaking of organized religion.

[quietfan 233]

Back to the initial video (And I'll start with the link from everyone's 'favorite' source, Fox News):

http://www.foxnews.c...ercover-videos/

http://rhrealitychec...progress-video/

http://www.factcheck...renthood-video/

http://thinkprogress...od-sting-group/

Bottom Line:

1. No baby parts for sell here, and

2. The group that released the video, The Center for Medical Progress, has a very questionable record for honesty and objectivity and a very clear agenda.