Ashe Schow writes:

An Armstrong State University sexual misconduct policy seems to indicate that students with physical or mental impairments cannot consent to sexual activity.

What a bunch of abelists!

Bad news, cities. Those self-driving cars will likely end your revenue stream from fines and infractions.

I'm sure you'll do the responsible thing and cut your budgets. Or raises taxes and fees.

from a WSJ article today:

"Dr. Nucatola is Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Dr. Nucutola described in detail that abortion procedures are tailored in order to preserve the organs of unborn children ..."

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

I know/knew there was no treating the aborted fetus in a respectful manner but doing the abortion in a particular way so you can harvest body parts?

Damn that's cold.

Regarding Bob in Texas' comment:

http://www.atmjournal.org/article/view/1187/1556

It is not the same as organ donation - it seems like it might be, but it is not. However - it does find some small good in the overwhelming awfulness of an abortion. Is that a bad thing? Or, is it more moral to find nothing good in abortion?

I struggle to find the most moral path in my own life. I am just not suited to try to find the best moral path in others'.

The witch trials in Wisconsin come to an end.

Fines and fees have always been a form of taxation -- a cowardly way of funding services, often on the backs of the poor and middle class so that politicians could appear to support low taxes. Politicians will have a few options for funding budgets:

1) Legitimately raise taxes to what they need to be to fund civilization. Nut up and admit this stuff is expensive.
2) Cut essential and non-essential services. Say goodbye to police services, fire services, road maintenance, park maintenance, libraries and museums.
3) Slap fines and fees on wholly different things.

I know/knew there was no treating the aborted fetus in a respectful manner but doing the abortion in a particular way so you can harvest body parts?

Damn that's cold.

It is cold. So I suppose you'll now be refusing all drugs and medical treatments derived from experiments on human tissues?

"Legitimately raise taxes to what they need to be to fund civilization."

Leaves me dumbfounded. Just how much is needed to fund civilization? I cannot even grasp the concept of funding civilization. What does that mean MonicaP?

"It is cold. So I suppose you'll now be refusing all drugs and medical treatments derived from experiments on human tissues?" lujlp

Nope. Just confirms that it is murder in my mind 'cause it's not an artichoke heart that's being harvested. Choice pure and simple.

RE: "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact"

Yes, I agree. It is cold, chillingly so.

While I don't have a medical background, nor do I pretend to have one; I find it hard to believe that there isn't a straight forward way of doing an abortion.

It strikes me as wrong to perform the procedure in such as way as to harvest organs/body parts. No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion (it is murder or it is a woman's right) shouldn't the mother's well being take priority above all else?

If we allow such harvesting (it is illegal now as I understand it) it might lead to jeopardizing the mother's well being.

Hey, I know we could ask Dr. Kermit Gosnell how we can avoid such a situation.

Nope. Just confirms that it is murder in my mind 'cause it's not an artichoke heart that's being harvested. Choice pure and simple.

So you'll call it murder and claim to be against it, but still partake in the benefits when it suits you?

At least your honest about your hypocrisy and fake "moral" misgivings

"So you'll call it murder and claim to be against it, but still partake in the benefits when it suits you?"

Nope. I did not know/ask for those benefits and they can be taken away if that would stop abortion but we both know that is not going to happen 'cause it's a choice thing.

"I did not know/ask for those benefits and they can be taken away if that would stop abortion but we both know that is not going to happen 'cause it's a choice thing."

You don't have to prematurely end your pregnancy if you don't want to, Bob.

Nope. I did not know/ask for those benefits

I see, so by actively ignoring what you choose to you can convince yourself that the life saving medicine you will one day require doesn't violate your moral stance, even though it does.

NOW HERE THIS.

ALL
MEDICINE
IS
TESTED
ON
HUMAN
TISSUE
BEFORE
TESTING
ON
LIVE
HUMANS
BEFORE
OFFERED
TO
THE
PUBLIC

there is no way around this fact, what are you going to do now?

Are you going to refuse to participate in the advances society made on what you consider murder, are you going to hold true to your principles?

Or are you going to find some way to justify ignoring what you already know so you dont have to admit you benefit from what you find morally repugnant?

lujlp and Gog,

To me the hypocrisy is in stating that the issue is anything other "than take a life or be controlled".

I don't trust any government or other organization to make that personal choice either way for anyone.

I do believe the emphasis should be on the "life".

ASFA the medical advances argument to me that's weak and I do not believe there are no other testing options ("I see dead people everywhere."), but admit I would not know either way.