Planned Parenthood: Teach your preschoolers 'their genitals don’t determine their gender'

Repeating a claim 6 times does not make that claim true. Having an opinion and being able to justify that opinion are two different things.

There are 5 main scientific perspectives on when human life begins: Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological. One of these perspectives (Genetic) agrees with you in part (the beginning of human life does not mean a human exists but one could make a coherent argument from this point "if" this were the only perspective.

The fact of the matter is that "experts disagree". Your claim "its a human at conception" defacto - is then false as this claim has not been proven to be true.

 

Lack of rebuttal to what ? You are the one who has not managed to prove that your claim is true - or even given any non fallacious justification for your claim or any reasonable explanation.

If you think the zygote is a human .. you were welcome to your opinion. Having an uninformed opinion and running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial when you come across info that conflicts with that opinion is not proof of claim.

 

Holy moly this claim (having human DNA necessarily makes that entity a human) is nonsense. Nonsense that you have been shown is false numerous times.

Proof: A human heart cell has human DNA. A human heart cell is not a human.

 

I did not create the science on what determines species. All I am doing is telling you what the science states.

Taxonomy (branch of biology that determines what species an organism is) sets out criteria by which something can claim to be "Homo sapiens" based on characteristics. The zygote does not meet that criteria. The Fetus in the later stages comes real close (close enough IMO).

There are other areas of domain expertise that try and determination of what is human. (Philosophy, Bioethics).

The 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" are: Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological. You can read about each of these perspectives here. Rational for why this perspective is held by some is given.

http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

A single human cell comes from a human and so a DNA test will tell you that the cell came from a human. This does not make that single cell "a human". All entities containing DNA comes from humans. The sperm and egg come from humans. Animate does not come from inanimate.

The fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree". This is why I do not go around claiming "Defacto" that they don't... as has been done by some in this thread.

There is no one right answer. There are many interesting argument. The problem with many is that they do not even give arguments. An argument consists of 1) statement of claim and 2) evidence and/or rational that shows that claim is true ( or at least tries)

My rational is as follows:

1) The zygote - single cell at conception - will never be part of the structure of the human that is being created. The zygote contains the blueprint for a human in its DNA (as does the DNA of most other human cells - none of which are classified as "humans") At the zygote stage (and up to the time when the embryoblast starts to form) no cells exist that are part of that human in the blueprint.

It is difficult for me to accept that a human exists when not a single human cell from that human exists.

2) A human is a multicellular organism. A zygote is not.

Moving on

3) When significant brain function ceases in a living human - the support systems are disconnected and that human takes a dirt nap. This is despite the fact that the cells in that human are still alive. The human is clinically dead.

Just as a zygote has no brain (one of the characteristics I consider requisite to humanity) if that brain stops working ... the organism is no longer a living human. This is the neurological perspective in case you were wondering.

Significant brain function is described elsewhere - I can give a few details if you like. In general this happens in the fetus at roughly 22-26 weeks. I would be ok with moving the date back to 20 weeks. As far as I am concerned if a woman has not made the decision to abort prior to 20 weeks - and wants to abort after that - she is too stupid to have the right to make that decision.

Once the lights turn on - when the wiring in the brain gets completed and significant brain function is achieved .. I claim that the entity is a human.

It is difficult for me to accept that something that has no brain (meaning no significant brain function) qualifies as a living human.

 

Planned Parenthood is a major source of birth control medication for women of limited means that could otherwise not access it.

 

How so? Any Dr can prescribe birth control medication

 

Biology didn't.

 

People, especially poor people , tend to get medical help as close to home as possible...they can't always afford to have a car, have cab fair....so PP puts clinics where they are needed...what's wrong with that??

 

I see they didn't teach you what a penis is....you think it's a dick.....

 

Some call that targeted eugenics...

 

Truth. Nor will it. Plastic surgery provides cosmetic change, it just cannot restructure and replace the original plumbing....yet...

 

I've read that is what the founder of PP was all about. Margaret Sanger was a REAL racist who believed in eugenics and selective breeding. Now, I'm sure there will be some liberals who will twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend her ideologies.

 

Abortion is, after all, the number one cause of death for African Americans in this country.

 

Only the ignorant and brainwashed.


Would you prefer the poor EARN their medical care by hiking miles to get to PP?

Did you want to punish the poor by taking away access to health care?

MY, you must really hate the poor if that's the case!


I guess you want clinics put in very wealthy areas ....the wealthy will object, property taxes are higher....but you could delight in poor people suffering even more....

 

Margaret Sanger wanted to target African Americans and the poor with her idea of eugenics through the use of abortion.

An actual letter that she wrote . . .

"It seems to me from my experience … that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members"

 

Yah. Life is full of unpleasant surprises, @ times.

 

Well reading biased websites will give you the wrong information......


First, it's a fact that Sanger was against abortion, I don't defend that ideology.

Sanger wasn't a racist and the issue of eugenics was big at the time. She did discuss it as did many others..

She was not for selective breeding.....


Sanger has been dead for over 50 years and doesn't influence PP any longer except the part about helping poor women have access to birth control...which Repubs hate and others applaud since it's a very good thing.

 

Yes, they didn't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population because that WASN'T what they were trying to accomplish.

Sanger wanted black women to have access to birth control just as white women had....so I can see where you'd object.


YES, she wanted more black doctors....black women had every reason to not trust white doctors... of course they'd be more comfortable with doctors of their own color and you would understand that if you had an inkling of what blacks suffered through in this country( but even if you knew , you'd dismiss it)

Bet you didn't know that back then blacks weren't allowed into "white" hospitals, there were separate exam rooms for blacks, doctors would name babies after body parts thinking it funny because those poor women didn't know what the words meant..etc, etc, etc...

Gee, wonder why black women didn't trust whitey docs...

 

Birth control? I'm not against birth control at all. In fact, I use it. I think the problem is that too many people do NOT use it or do not use it properly, such as skipping it or just forgetting to take it.

What if a white person felt more comfortable with a white doctor? Then you would be shrieking "racist" and "bigot." Lol. But I can totally understand why the women would be more comfortable with a black doctor and even a woman doctor. Having said that, Margaret Sanger was a pretty racist person.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
People, especially poor people , tend to get medical help as close to home as possible...they can't always afford to have a car, have cab fair....so PP puts clinics where they are needed...what's wrong with that??

The neighborhoods where PP was established have changed, in terms of their demographics. They used to be tenements, lots of people of Irish descent, German, Italian, E. European & so on. Later Black, Mexican, Central American, other parts of Latin America, Vietnamese & on & on.

Yah, Sanger appeared on stage with eugenicists - they were all the rage for a time, until the Nazis managed to put a moral & philosophical stench upon the idea. Sanger was always campaigning for PP - raising money for services, for research, for publication. She would go anywhere & talk to anyone. She didn't like sterilization as birth control, she didn't approve of abortion.

As for the Black genocide theory - she & PP were praised for their reproductive services & education among the Black community. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Work_with_the_African-American_community

"Sanger worked with eminent African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[75] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, The Crisis.[76][77][78][79] Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[80] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[81]

"From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[82] Sanger, over the objections of other supervisors, wanted the Negro Project to hire black ministers in leadership roles. To emphasize the benefits of hiring black community leaders to act as spokesmen, she wrote to Gamble, "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project says that though the letter would have been meant to avoid the mistaken notion that the Negro Project was a racist campaign, conspiracy theorists have fraudulently attempted to exploit the quotation "as evidence she led a calculated effort to reduce the black population against their will".[83][84][85]

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So, W. E. B. DuBois, the NAACP, Martin Luther King, Jr. & everybody else through the history of the PP's work in neighborhoods were simply too dull to understand what Sanger was doing? Good luck with that.

 

So do others. In my town there is the County Public Health clinic where they can get birth control. Two other private clinics catering to the poor. All 3 near the Public Housing complexes and the Planned parenthood clinic.

 

I have no idea what you are going on about.

 

Golly, insults and ad hominem in the first sentence. Now that struck a nerve... Since the conversation isn't about "health care" I'd suggest the rest of your comment isn't addressing the issue at hand. And the conclusions you then assert only further dissolve any credibility concerning the conversation.

 

Nah, I don't think anyone was "exploited". I think there were many progressives in the AA community that actually agreed with the idea that producing yet more poor and black diluted the progress and the economic affluence of many within the AA community, and agreed with Sanger about improving the stock so to speak. These aren't mutually exclusive positions. No one has ever said that ms Sanger was intent on exterminating races, only curbing the less successful of them, or subsets of them that caused the greater population to be diluted by them. I would point out that these are not my opinions, they are hers. They are obviously shared by those within the nascent NAACP membership who very early on recognized her labors as effective in helping with their own agendas. This symbiotic relationship exists still today.