Liberalism in Action: Planned Parenthood Sells Dead Baby Body Parts

[Clipper Nation]

The undercover video was filmed in July 2014 by the Center for Medical Progress, an advocacy group that reports on medical ethics. They dispatched two actors posing as representatives of a human biologics company to a business lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services.

The video shows (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU) Nucatola describing in graphic detail how abortionists are able to harvest organs from aborted babies based on the parts that are needed.

“Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs,” she told the undercover buyers. “Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle.”

To which one of the fake buyer’s replied, “Yeah - a dime a dozen.”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola said. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

She went on to describe how they are able to acquire other organs without “crushing” them.

“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.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/14/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts/

[Clipper Nation]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?

Second of all, the fact that our taxpayer money is going to a bunch of people who casually discuss crushing babies' organs like they're making small talk about the weather is disgusting.

[pgardn]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?

.

When you give blood or sell plasma do you grieve?

[Clipper Nation]

When you give blood or sell plasma do you grieve?
No, because in that scenario, I'm choosing to do that. Babies are killed, ripped open with forceps and have their organs sucked out with a vacuum to be put up for sale and obviously don't get a say in the matter. Dogs are euthanized in a more humane manner than these humans.

[Ginobilly]

When you give blood or sell plasma do you grieve?

Comparing donating blood/plasma from an actual consenting adult, to murdering a defenseless human life and then selling off it's organs??? You just won the dumbass award of the year:toast

[boutons_deux]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?

no, it doesn't.

women get abortions because they don't want a baby, not because they are getting paid for baby parts.

[pgardn]

The comparison was made based on a definition of LIVING CELLS by clip, not on consent.
What does viable enough mean...

So I will ask the board again, do you grieve when you give blood or plasma?


This is why I consider some on this board so disingenuous. Clip was basically saying the cells are a living human because they can be harvested and are viable, what did I miss here? I understand the consent thing which has nothing to do with his implied definition.

[Blake]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?

Second of all, the fact that our taxpayer money is going to a bunch of people who casually discuss crushing babies' organs like they're making small talk about the weather is disgusting.

the smaller scale is harvesting and selling sperm while posters talk about rubbing one out like they're talking sports

[ChumpDumper]

lol conservatives duped into a rage again.

[101A]

lol conservatives duped into a rage again.

Has the video been discredited? I haven't watched.

[ChumpDumper]

Has the video been discredited? I haven't watched.No, it's all true. Planned Parenthood clinics make thousands of dollars each selling baby livers on the black market and regularly dive and swim in the profits Scrooge McDuck style.

[Shastafarian]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?If you had read the entire article that you posted from Fox News you would understand these organs are going towards research, not to people in need of organ transplant.


Second of all, the fact that our taxpayer money is going to a bunch of people who casually discuss crushing babies' organs like they're making small talk about the weather is disgusting.
Grow up.

[Darth_Pelican]

lol conservatives duped into a rage again.

That's pretty much politics in general; finding reasons to stand for or against something and letting it be an excuse for anger, outrage, and unhappiness.

[Spurminator]

I should have started a bet on who would post the thread about this.

[Clipper Nation]

If you had read the entire article that you posted from Fox News you would understand these organs are going towards research, not to people in need of organ transplant.
When did I say the organs weren't going towards research? I only pointed out that they were being sold.

[ChumpDumper]

When did I say the organs weren't going towards research? I only pointed out that they were being sold.Except they aren't being sold.

[Clipper Nation]

Except they aren't being sold.
They also posted an advertisement from a major purchaser of aborted fetal tissue that was posted in Planned Parenthood clinics. That advertisement mentions words like “financial profitable,” “financial profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” and “fiscal growth of your own clinic.”

[ChumpDumper]

They also posted an advertisement from a major purchaser of aborted fetal tissue that was posted in Planned Parenthood clinics. That advertisement mentions words like “financial profitable,” “financial profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” and “fiscal growth of your own clinic.”Not being sold. That's illegal.

If you have evidence of fetal tissue being sold for a profit, go ahead and post it.

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.imgur.com/hIBqXSa.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zNUsDdd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bpgWxSa.jpg

[Clipper Nation]

621315089119903745

[ChumpDumper]

They also posted an advertisement from a major purchaser of aborted fetal tissue that was posted in Planned Parenthood clinics. That advertisement mentions words like “financial profitable,” “financial profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” and “fiscal growth of your own clinic.”You haven't seen this advertisement.

You should, then tell everyone what they are offering to buy.

I bet you won't do it.

[boutons_deux]

It's an O'Keefe type sting, totally dishonest, since LYING is all the pro-lifers (pro-fetus, not really pro-life) is all they have

No, Planned Parenthood Isn’t Selling ‘Aborted Baby Parts’

Although Nucatola thought she was speaking to buyers from a biological company, she was actually meeting with actors working for an organization called the Center for Medical Progress — which describes (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/about-us/) itself as a “group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances” and has close ties to an infamous anti-abortion organization that works to discredit Planned Parenthood. Nucatola was unaware that she was being filmed.

The Center for Medical Progress says it has been investigating Planned Parenthood (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/) for nearly three years. David Daleiden (https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/posts/142391164473?comment_id=5486291&offset=0&total_comments=8), the media contact for the new investigative video project, used to work for Live Action News (http://liveactionnews.org/author/david-daleiden/), the anti-choice group founded by Lila Rose (http://jezebel.com/5932715/god-use-me-in-whatever-way-meet-the-24-year-old-whos-willing-to-die-for-the-anti-abortion-movement) that has pioneered sting operations at Planned Parenthood clinics for years. Live Action is notorious for releasing edited videos (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/02/04/why-is-live-action-doctoring-its-planned-parent/175992) to mislead viewers (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/31/cutting-room-floor-live-action-edited-out-adopt/186739) about what Planned Parenthood employees are saying.

One of Live Action’s particular specialties (http://www.slate.com/articles/video/slate_v/2013/05/abortion_clinic_video_exposing_fake_selectively_ed ited_hidden_camera_footage.html) is splicing together footage in a way that highlights abortion’s gory medical details (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/04/1824201/right-wing-fake-planned-parenthood/). Of course, as with any other medical procedure, listening to doctors talk frankly about abortion can be gross. This is exactly what’s going on in the Center for Medical Progress’ new video; writing in Cosmopolitan (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a43326/center-for-medical-progress-planned-parenthood-abortion/), reporter Robin Marty described the video as “upsetting” and “off-putting,” particularly when Nucatola talks about the “menu” of fetal tissue and organs that patients may choose to donate.

Regardless of the potentially upsetting medical language, however, the Center for Medical Progress’ larger “findings” don’t hold up (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/14/attack-on-planned-parenthood-3-deceptive-edits/204419). Though the new investigation claims Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of fetal remains, Nucatola repeatedly emphasizes “tissue donation” and pushes back on the idea that her organization is selling anything.

In the longer version of the raw video footage — which includes more than 150 additional minutes that didn’t make it into the final nine-minute version — there’s one instance when she says quite directly (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/14/attack-on-planned-parenthood-3-deceptive-edits/204419), “Nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here.”

On Tuesday, the Center for Medical Progress also published other documents (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/document-vault/) that purportedly back up its claims, including a Planned Parenthood consent form (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PP-Mar-Monte-tissue-consent.pdf) for tissue donation. That formexplains (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PP-Mar-Monte-tissue-consent.pdf) that “research using the blood from pregnant women and the tissue that has been aborted has been used to treat and find a cure for such diseases as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and AIDS” — and makes it very clear that donation is optional.

Abortion opponents have long been wary (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/08/21/3474291/anti-abortion-ice-bucket/) of medical advances that rely on using material from fertilized eggs and fetuses. That’s what spurs the debate over embryonic stem cell research, which used to be a much bigger culture war issue (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/stem_cells_a_culture_war_gone_quiet/) before the discovery of alternative stem cell options. Nonetheless, no matter how squeamish Americans may feel by the idea of donating aborted fetuses, this type of fetal tissue donation and research is legal (http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/fetaltissue.pdf), and has been for decades.

Eric Ferrero, the vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, has dismissed the new video (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-plannedparenthood-video-idINKCN0PO2PM20150715?feedType=RSS&feedName=health&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FINhealth+%28News+%2 F+IN+%2F+Health%29) as a misleading portrayal of human tissue donation from activists who hope to smear Planned Parenthood’s reputation.

“Patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” Ferrero said in a statement (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/14/the-real-story-behind-that-shady-planned-parenthood-video.html).

“There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.

In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/15/3680714/planned-parenthood-controversy/

[Clipper Nation]

You haven't seen this advertisement.

You should, then tell everyone what they are offering to buy.

I bet you won't do it.
I literally posted it two posts above you.

[ChumpDumper]

I literally posted it two posts above you.You did not. You posted one paragraph from it.

It is a four page ad.

Keep looking.

[Blake]

Smhlol clipper nation

[ChumpDumper]

Smhlol clipper nationDude is so enraged he can't tell the difference between buying and selling.

[Spurminator]

Libertarianism in Action: Clippers_deux rails against reproductive rights.

[ChumpDumper]

LibertarianismCROFL why do straight up conservative types try to claim they are libertarian in the first place?

Do they think it's edgy?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm surprised conservatives aren't praising this woman for noting a market deficiency and capitalizing on it. "What? They were just going to throw them away anyways!..."

[Wild Cobra]

First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?

Second of all, the fact that our taxpayer money is going to a bunch of people who casually discuss crushing babies' organs like they're making small talk about the weather is disgusting.
It's hard for me to imagine how people can rationalize abortion itself.

[Clipper Nation]

You did not. You posted one paragraph from it.

It is a four page ad.

Keep looking.
It's the exact excerpt from the ad that was quoted in the article.

Keep deflecting.

[Wild Cobra]

no, it doesn't.

women get abortions because they don't want a baby, not because they are getting paid for baby parts.

Irresponsible women should have their tubes tied at the same time.

[Spurminator]

It's hard for me to imagine how people can rationalize abortion itself.

Another Libertarian speaks in favor of big government intervention on a woman's womb.... Y'all getting soft.

[Clipper Nation]

Libertarianism in Action: Clippers_deux rails against reproductive rights.
Libertarianism in Action: CN advocates for the use of the Non-Aggression Principle in dealing with the unborn.

[ChumpDumper]

It's the exact excerpt from the ad that was quoted in the article.

Keep deflecting.You posted one paragraph from the advertisement.

It is a four page advertisement that explicitly states what it is looking for.

Don't you want to actually know what you are trying to argue here?

If not, keep stalling and deflecting and allowing yourself to be used.

[ChumpDumper]

Irresponsible women should have their tubes tied at the same time.Libertarian doctrine.

[Clipper Nation]

You posted one paragraph from the advertisement.

It is a four page advertisement that explicitly states what it is looking for.

Don't you want to actually know what you are trying to argue here?

If not, keep stalling and deflecting and allowing yourself to be used.
It's an advertisement that explicitly promises financial gain to clinics in return for body parts. I provided the relevant passage from it. You're deflecting, Dave.

[Spurminator]

Libertarianism in Action: CN advocates for the use of the Non-Aggression Principle in dealing with the unborn.

Laws forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term fly in the face of the NAP, imho.

[ChumpDumper]

It's an advertisement that explicitly promises financial gain to clinics in return for body parts. I provided the relevant passage from it. You're deflecting, Dave.Which body part is explicitly mentioned?

That is relevant.

Tell everyone here what body part is explicitly mentioned. Prove to everyone you aren't hiding anything.

[Clipper Nation]

Laws forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term fly in the face of the NAP, imho.
Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human is a bigger blow to the NAP.

[pgardn]

It's hard for me to imagine how people can rationalize abortion itself.

I don't know of anyone who likes abortions.

I want you to rationalize the following:

If you really believe human beings are murdered by pregnant women then stand up and do more than you type. I want you to go to that woman (of any race and regardless of her drug background) and offer to raise that child and pay her for going through with something she does not wish to do.

I want YOU to do that right now and quit your blabbing. I don't like abortions. But I am not willing to tell a woman to have that kid AND take that child into my home. If you have carried out the aforementioned then I apologize and totally respect your stance. If not, then shut up until you act personally to solve a murder NOW.

That is all.

[Wild Cobra]

Another Libertarian speaks in favor of big government intervention on a woman's womb.... Y'all getting soft.
The way I see it, the rights of the individual end when they intrude on another persons rights. I see the unborn as innocent life with the right to live, that should not be considered as property to be discarded.

If that's what you see as "big government" then you are sadly mistaken.

[Wild Cobra]

Libertarian doctrine.
No.

I have elaborated on this before. I would have abortion, at least after around 10 weeks to be a criminal act. I see it as senseless murder. I see the exchange of having the tubes tied for enabling the abortion as a method of insuring such crimes to humanity don't occur again by the same individual.

Libertarians do believe in justice you know...

[ChumpDumper]

No.You got that right. lol

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know of anyone who likes abortions.

I want you to rationalize the following:

If you really believe human beings are murdered by pregnant women then stand up and do more than you type. I want you to go to that woman (of any race and regardless of her drug background) and offer to raise that child and pay her for going through with something she does not wish to do.

I want YOU to do that right now and quit your blabbing. I don't like abortions. But I am not willing to tell a woman to have that kid AND take that child into my home. If you have carried out the aforementioned then I apologize and totally respect your stance. If not, then shut up until you act personally to solve a murder NOW.

That is all.
There are plenty of people who are willing to adopt babies. Extremely few people are willing to adopt children who have already been influenced by others. I'm sure there are plenty who would pay for women to carry to term.

I've already raised two children and am close to retirement. I would gladly do as you request if I was younger, and couldn't have a child with my mate.

I take it this strikes close with you. Too fucking bad.

[Blake]

It's an advertisement that explicitly promises financial gain to clinics in return for body parts. I provided the relevant passage from it. You're deflecting, Dave.

Lol it's illegal, dumbass.

[Blake]

No.

I have elaborated on this before. I would have abortion, at least after around 10 weeks to be a criminal act. I see it as senseless murder. I see the exchange of having the tubes tied for enabling the abortion as a method of insuring such crimes to humanity don't occur again by the same individual.

Libertarians do believe in justice you know...

What if the woman's life is in danger at week 11, even if the baby is fine

[ChumpDumper]

It's an advertisement that explicitly promises financial gain to clinics in return for body parts. I provided the relevant passage from it. You're deflecting, Dave.Welp, since Clipper Nation pussed out and ran away, I will do what he is afraid to do.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf

It is explicitly soliciting blood samples from mothers.

Not dead baby parts.

[Wild Cobra]

What if the woman's life is in danger at week 11, even if the baby is fine
This is a reasonable exception to consider.

Most abortions, are birth control.

Irresponsibility that kills innocent life.

[Blizzardwizard]

Anti-abortionists being mad for the sake of being mad. In the land of the free, shouldn't women be able to choose whether to give birth to a child that may have been conceived accidentally or against their will?

[Blake]

This is a reasonable exception to consider.


I'm asking you which life you feel is more important

[Wild Cobra]

I'm asking you which life you feel is more important
In this case, the host's choice.

[Th'Pusher]

Welp, since Clipper Nation pussed out and ran away, I will do what he is afraid to do.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf

It is explicitly soliciting blood samples from mothers.

Not dead baby parts.

Oh fuck. CN shit the thread again.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh fuck. CN shit the thread again.Well, he certainly seems to have made himself scarce here.

Maybe he senses Trump needs his white knight.

[Blake]

In this case, the host's choice.

Kinda like pulling the plug on Terri Schiavo huh

[pgardn]

There are plenty of people who are willing to adopt babies. Extremely few people are willing to adopt children who have already been influenced by others. I'm sure there are plenty who would pay for women to carry to term.

I've already raised two children and am close to retirement. I would gladly do as you request if I was younger, and couldn't have a child with my mate.

I take it this strikes close with you. Too fucking bad.

That is total BS. There are many kids that need adopting.

There are black kids, who were black babies, in foster homes all over this country. A good number of Hispanics as well. The only thing that strikes close to me is your chickenshit stance. You make a big proclamation and do absolutely nothing to back it up. Others will take care of... BS

Oh," I have children of my OWN? "

Then keep your Fckn cheap opinions about the government telling OTHER women they have to do anything. You think you stand on some moral high ground? I just eliminated that thought from consideration. You need not give your opinion anymore. It's worthless.

[Shastafarian]

When did I say the organs weren't going towards research? I only pointed out that they were being sold.


First of all, if dead babies' tissues are apparently viable enough to harvest and sell, then that blows up almost any rationalization for abortion, does it not?
So you don't know how research works. Either way I'm not surprised.

[Wild Cobra]

Then keep your Fckn cheap opinions about the government telling OTHER women they have to do anything. You think you stand on some moral high ground? I just eliminated that thought from consideration. You need not give your opinion anymore. It's worthless.


At the end of the day, your attitude enables losers.

If that's they type of sorry ass you are, then I pity you.

Society should not have to be burdened with other peoples irresponsibility. Society should have a say in such matters that affect us all. We all have differing opinions on what's best.

At least I don't condone the murder of innocent like you do.

Do you have any morals?

[spurraider21]

What if the woman's life is in danger at week 11, even if the baby is fine
if he's describing a typical abortion as senseless murder, it could be argued that this scenario would be self defense

[spurraider21]

Society should not have to be burdened with other peoples irresponsibility.
and yet you want society to take care of unwanted babies

[spurraider21]

Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human is a bigger blow to the NAP.
do you feel there should be exceptions in cases like incest/rape/combination of the two

[Wild Cobra]

and yet you want society to take care of unwanted babies

Once the incident occurs, there is a problem needing to be addressed, preferably without killing innocent life. Requiring the woman to have her tubes tied prevents such a problem in the future, by the same individual.

[spurraider21]

Once the incident occurs, there is a problem needing to be addressed, preferably without killing innocent life. Requiring the woman to have her tubes tied prevents such a problem in the future, by the same individual.
at what point does that become a requirement for a woman?

[ElNono]

I'm surprised conservatives aren't praising this woman for noting a market deficiency and capitalizing on it. "What? They were just going to throw them away anyways!..."

Yeah, I don't quite get what the fuzz is about. I mean, is the problem that the mother didn't consent to sharing the fetal tissue?

[Wild Cobra]

at what point does that become a requirement for a woman?

You mean having her tubes tied?

If she aborts the child. Why should another innocent life be put at risk?

[spurraider21]

You mean having her tubes tied?

If she aborts the child. Why should another innocent life be put at risk?
so ur ok with 1 abortion per woman first?

so if a 15 year old with no means gets preggo and needs an abortion, you then have her tubes tied?? then 12 years later shes grown up, matured, and wants a kid. now what

[Wild Cobra]

so ur ok with 1 abortion per woman first?

so every girl that hits puberty should have her tubes tied? i dont think teens want to become mothers

Wow...

Are you always jumping to such idiotic conclusions?

[ElNono]

Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human is a bigger blow to the NAP.

We do that all the time though, including adults.

[Wild Cobra]

so if a 15 year old with no means gets preggo and needs an abortion, you then have her tubes tied?? then 12 years later shes grown up, matured, and wants a kid. now what
She can pay to have her tubes reattached.

To even accept a 15 yr old getting pregnant as OK is a serious problem in society.

Make her live with her mistake, or tie her tubes so it doesn't happen again.

Life sticks at times. We need to live with the hand we are dealt. If such things became mandatory, don't you think it would mitigate many future problems?

[spurraider21]

Wow...

Are you always jumping to such idiotic conclusions?
im not jumping to conclusions.. i'm reading your responses

You mean having her tubes tied?

If she aborts the child. Why should another innocent life be put at risk?
you say if somebody aborts a child, they should then have their tubes tied. so somebody can abort 1 child before having their tubes tied, in your system

[spurraider21]

She can pay to have her tubes reattached.
so who pays for the procedure to have her tubes tied? can the government actually mandate this? seems off

To even accept a 15 yr old getting pregnant as OK is a serious problem in society.
but that's neither here nor there. and i never said its OK. it happens though

Make her live with her mistake, or tie her tubes so it doesn't happen again.

Life sticks at times. We need to live with the hand we are dealt. If such things became mandatory, don't you think it would mitigate many future problems?
i dont think people operate under the thought process of "its ok, if i get pregnant, i'll just abort. ez pz"

[Clipper Nation]

We do that all the time though, including adults.
The death penalty and unconstitutional wars need to end, too.

[spurraider21]

do you feel there should be exceptions in cases like incest/rape/combination of the two Clipper Nation

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.imgur.com/hIBqXSa.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/bpgWxSa.jpg


621315089119903745
Are any of the resident libtards going to address any of ^ this ^ or just keep deflecting? Livers, spleens, spines, brains, eyes, ears, skin, all for sale. :cry But, but, the ad said it was only blood! :cry

[ElNono]

Commie Cobra always delivers, tbh... Free Market believer wants tariffs at the border, champion of Freedom wants to institute tied tubes. Don't even think about vasectomy, it's really the whore women that have this "problem".

[Clipper Nation]

Why is it that the left just loves to preach all about the evils of capitalism (see: Sanders, Bernie) until dead baby parts are for sale? Then they're suddenly free-market capitalists who are all about economic and personal liberty.

[spurraider21]

do you feel there should be exceptions in cases like incest/rape/combination of the two


Clipper Nation (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=28500) Clipper Nation

[ElNono]

The death penalty and unconstitutional wars need to end, too.

It's not even that. When a cop shots down a criminal, we as a society, are effectively "Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human". We then put our moral/civil code atop to parse it.

"Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human" isn't really such a shocking thing at the end of the day. Even animals do it.

Now with abortion specifically, the case centers strictly on the host (mother). It's something you can't separate from it, because the fetus just can't live without it for long.

I always said I thought the SCOTUS reached a Solomonic solution in Roe vs Wade. But if at some point technology allows to safely transplant the fetus at any stage of pregnancy into another host, then there will be no reason for abortion.

[spurraider21]

It's not even that. When a cop shots down a criminal, we as a society, are effectively "Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human". We then put our moral/civil code atop to parse it.

"Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human" isn't really such a shocking thing at the end of the day. Even animals do it.

Now with abortion specifically, the case centers strictly on the host (mother). It's something you can't separate from it, because the fetus just can't live without it for long.

I always said I thought the SCOTUS reached a Solomonic solution in Roe vs Wade. But if at some point technology allows to safely transplant the fetus at any stage of pregnancy into another host, then there will be no reason for abortion.
Roe v Wade is largely irrelevant atm... Casey v Planned Parenthood controls

[ElNono]

Roe v Wade is largely irrelevant atm... Casey v Planned Parenthood controls

It actually isn't. Casey vs PP largely reaffirmed Roe, but added guidelines about laws that restrict abortion. In other words, Casey vs PP made no changes to the determinations of women's privacy vs state interest set on Roe, which is what I was alluding to.

[Clipper Nation]

Clipper Nation (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=28500)
Incest/rape and when giving birth threatens the life of the mother are the only cases in which a case for abortion could possibly be made, since one involves the woman being physically coerced into having a child and the other obviously is a medical issue. These cases also represent less than 1% of all abortions in this country.

[spurraider21]

It actually isn't. Casey vs PP largely reaffirmed Roe, but added guidelines about laws that restrict abortion. In other words, Casey vs PP made no changes to the determinations of women's privacy vs state interest set on Roe, which is what I was alluding to.
yeah but it did away with the trimester nonsense that i'm assuming is what you alluded to when you brought up the "solomonic solution"

[spurraider21]

Incest/rape and when giving birth threatens the life of the mother are the only cases in which a case for abortion could possibly be made, since one involves the woman being physically coerced into having a child and the other obviously is a medical issue. These cases also represent less than 1% of all abortions in this country.
but even in the case of rape... by your argument, the child has done nothing wrong

you are sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human being.

in the cases where the mother's life is threatened, you can argue its an act of "self defense" and not murder. but if its just an incest/rape thing and the mother's life isn't in danger, you have to stick to your innocent baby defense, imo... which is flawed

[ChumpDumper]

Are any of the resident libtards going to address any of ^ this ^ or just keep deflecting? Livers, spleens, spines, brains, eyes, ears, skin, all for sale. :cry But, but, the ad said it was only blood! :cryHave you figured out the difference between buying and selling yet?

If you have then we may proceed.

And yes, the ad was for blood samples. You cannot dispute this.

[ElNono]

FWIW, there's always an inherent risk to the mother when giving birth. An abortion is only more risky than birth starting only at the third trimester, which is exactly why the SCOTUS set the cutoff time the way it did.

[spurraider21]

FWIW, there's always an inherent risk to the mother when giving birth. An abortion is only more risky than birth starting only at the third trimester, which is exactly why the SCOTUS set the cutoff time the way it did.
brah, they did away with the "trimester" thing and just have a more flexible "viability" test since Planned Parenthood. that's what ive been referring to when i say Roe v Wade has been replaced. i guess you can call it "updated" instead of replaced

[Clipper Nation]

but even in the case of rape... by your argument, the child has done nothing wrong
This is true too, and it's a genuinely complicated issue for pro-life supporters. Let's be real, though, the vast majority of abortions are used as a "get out of personal responsibility free" card for women only (the father doesn't legally get a say in it).

[ElNono]

yeah but it did away with the trimester nonsense that i'm assuming is what you alluded to when you brought up the "solomonic solution"

I don't believe it did. It merely adjudicated what's an "undue burden" or not in state laws seeking to regulate abortions.

[spurraider21]

This is true too, and it's a genuinely complicated issue for pro-life supporters. Let's be real, though, the vast majority of abortions are used as a "get out of personal responsibility free" card for women only (the father doesn't legally get a say in it).
the reasoning behind them is irrelevant, imo (as long as we aren't dealing with a significant health/life risk). you either allow the behavior or you dont.

people are allowed to buy knives, even though some people might buy them with the purpose of stabbing others. the reasoning is irrelevant. its either gna be legal or its not.

[ElNono]

brah, they did away with the "trimester" thing and just have a more flexible "viability" test since Planned Parenthood. that's what ive been referring to when i say Roe v Wade has been replaced. i guess you can call it "updated" instead of replaced

Nevermind, I just read about it, you're correct. Roe actually set the "viability" standard. It was just set at the third trimester then, now 22 or 23 weeks. The issue remains the same though: Abortion during those weeks is less of a health risk than giving birth.

[spurraider21]

I don't believe it did. It merely adjudicated what's an "undue burden" or not in state laws seeking to regulate abortions.
from casey, tbh...

The Supreme Court, Justices O'Connor (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0209675601&originatingDoc=I72e7a2ac9c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)), Kennedy (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0243105201&originatingDoc=I72e7a2ac9c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default))and Souter (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=h&pubNum=176284&cite=0263202201&originatingDoc=I72e7a2ac9c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&refType=RQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)) held that: (1) the doctrine of stare decisis requires reaffirmance of Roe v. Wade'sessential holding recognizing a woman's right to choose an abortion before fetal viability; (2) the undue burden test, rather than the trimester framework, should be used in evaluating abortion restrictions before viability;

We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe

The trimester framework no doubt was erected to ensure that the woman's right to choose not become so subordinate to the State's interest in promoting fetal life that her choice exists in theory but not in fact. We do not agree, however, that the trimester approach is necessary to accomplish this objective. A framework of this rigidity was unnecessary and in its later interpretation sometimes contradicted the State's permissible exercise of its powers.

A logical reading of the central holding in Roe itself, and a necessary reconciliation of the liberty of the woman and the interest of the State in promoting prenatal life, require, in our view, that we abandon the trimester framework as a rigid prohibition on all previability regulation aimed at the protection of fetal life. The trimester framework suffers from these basic flaws: in its formulation it misconceives the nature of the pregnant woman's interest; and in practice it undervalues the State's interest in potential life, as recognized in Roe.

applying the trimester framework has led to the striking down of some abortion regulations which in no real sense deprived women of the ultimate decision. Those decisions went too far because the right recognized by Roe is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” **2820 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038 (https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1972127089&pubNum=0000708&originatingDoc=I72e7a2ac9c9a11d991d0cc6b54f12d4d&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_1038&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Default)#co_pp_sp_708_1038). Not all governmental intrusion is of necessity unwarranted; and that brings us to the other basic flaw in the trimester framework: even in Roe's terms, in practice it undervalues the State's interest in the potential life within the woman.

[ElNono]

^ thanks, see my followup post.

[spurraider21]

Nevermind, I just read about it, you're correct. Roe actually set the "viability" standard. It was just set at the third trimester then, now 22 or 23 weeks. The issue remains the same though: Abortion during those weeks is less of a health risk than giving birth.
yeah, the viability test will certainly echo the rationale behind the trimester test

[spurraider21]

^ thanks, see my followup post.
yeah, saw that right after i hit the submit button :lol

i just took con law this past spring semester, and my jeebotard school made sure we spent enough time talking about these cases

[ElNono]

yeah, saw that right after i hit the submit button :lol

i just took con law this past spring semester, and my jeebotard school made sure we spent enough time talking about these cases

I dug into it a few years ago. I have pretty good memory, but that slipped.

[ElNono]

As I was saying earlier, unless you can untie the mother's privacy interest, you can't untangle that. Eventually, I think technology might deal with it, but we're not there yet.

[spurraider21]

I dug into it a few years ago. I have pretty good memory, but that slipped.
was pretty hilarious when there were literally waves of "boooo" in the classroom the first time the prof mentioned Roe v Wade :lol

[ElNono]

was pretty hilarious when there were literally waves of "boooo" in the classroom the first time the prof mentioned Roe v Wade :lol

I bet reactions vary wildly from state to state :lol

[Blake]

if he's describing a typical abortion as senseless murder, it could be argued that this scenario would be self defense

Yup it could. But then it could be argued that the fetus then really doesn't have rights i.e. isn't really a full human citizen.

[ElNono]

Yup it could. But then it could be argued that the fetus then really doesn't have rights i.e. isn't really a full human citizen.

That was effectively a sticking point made by Justice Blackmun on Roe: The Constitution doesn't protect the unborn. It's one of the reasons why the US Code includes added protections specifically for the unborn on top of those that applies to every other individual.

[spurraider21]

I bet reactions vary wildly from state to state :lol
CA is pretty lib, but pepperdine is big on the jesus

[spurraider21]

Yup it could. But then it could be argued that the fetus then really doesn't have rights i.e. isn't really a full human citizen.
indeed. that's the crux of the abortion argument/debate

[ElNono]

CA is pretty lib, but pepperdine is big on the jesus

amen

[ddjeffries]

WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!! (unless that woman is a defenseless baby)

[boutons_deux]

Repugs FABRICATING outrage!

All Distraction, All The Time. (and more fun than governing, which Repugs can't do)

Congress to probe Planned Parenthood use of aborted fetus tissue

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-plannedparenthood-video-idUSKCN0PP2XD20150715?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews

Benghazi! :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

How do you make a dead baby float?

Two scoops dead baby, 12 oz. Root beer.

[spurraider21]

WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!! (unless that woman is a defenseless baby)
i love catchphrases too

[Blake]

How do you make a dead baby float?

Two scoops dead baby, 12 oz. Root beer.

Planned Parenthood price: $4.99

[Oh, Gee!!]

Planned Parenthood price: $4.99

Hey Flo, what's the Dead Baby Float du jour?

[pgardn]

At the end of the day, your attitude enables losers.

If that's they type of sorry ass you are, then I pity you.

Society should not have to be burdened with other peoples irresponsibility. Society should have a say in such matters that affect us all. We all have differing opinions on what's best.

At least I don't condone the murder of innocent like you do.

Do you have any morals?

Your morals are worthless if you don't adhere to them. I already told you I hate abortion, but I'm not going to tell a woman through the government she MUST have that child if I am not willing to take the responsibility of taking care of the child.

You speak from a position of irresponsibility just like the woman who got knocked up in the first place (if it was really that simple). I won't say shit to her unless I am willing to step up. You, the conservative, will hide behind the government forcing women to do something while maintaining a safe distance from the problem. That's chickenshit.

And you know it.

[ddjeffries]

Thing is, secular society has no clear moral code. Morality in secular society is based on the masses of individual opinions.

[ElNono]

Thing is, secular society has no clear moral code. Morality in secular society is based on the masses of individual opinions.

what's wrong with that?

[HI-FI]

Why is it that the left just loves to preach all about the evils of capitalism (see: Sanders, Bernie) until dead baby parts are for sale? Then they're suddenly free-market capitalists who are all about economic and personal liberty.
http://i.imgur.com/MfZKwLf.jpg

[Jacob1983]

So baby killing clinics can sell dead baby body parts and it's okay even though it's illegal but a baker must bake a gay couple a wedding cake?

Sad

[boutons_deux]

So baby killing clinics can sell dead baby body parts and it's okay even though it's illegal but a baker must bake a gay couple a wedding cake?

Sad

read my link above.

The baby-parts selling is total bullshit, totally debunked, but typically you fall for Your People's lies every time. Selling fetus parts is not done, and it's not legal.

Keep repeating the lie, 10Ms of rightwingnuts will be suckered into believing it, if they don't already.

[boutons_deux]

http://i.imgur.com/MfZKwLf.jpg

dead baby parts aren't for sale, but you rightwingnut assholes are impervious to truth, and porous to lies.

[hater]

:lol clipperabortion :lol

[Spurminator]

So baby killing clinics can sell dead baby body parts and it's okay even though it's illegal

No, they can't.


but a baker must bake a gay couple a wedding cake?

This is an odd comparison, what do those things have to do with each other?


Sad

So is your obsession with the gays.

[Blake]

So baby killing clinics can sell dead baby body parts and it's okay even though it's illegal

Lol Jacob

[Quetzal-X]

holy fuck- that gif!

lol

[DisAsTerBot]

jacob is about 30 if 1983 is his birthyear.......think about that for a while


Sad

[boutons_deux]

This undercover, trashy, dishonest sting of PP will be used by Repugs in Congress and everywhere to slander PP, to try to destroy PP, pandering to their anti-(poor)-woman, misogynist base. This will go on for months.

Benghazi!

[CosmicCowboy]

Dude is so enraged he can't tell the difference between buying and selling.

By definition, isn't this a financial transaction between two consenting parties?

I'm not outraged, just pointing out your usual chumpishness.

[ChumpDumper]

By definition, isn't this a financial transaction between two consenting parties?

I'm not outraged, just pointing out your usual chumpishness.But one party buys and the other party sells.

And neither PP nor its patients are selling dead baby parts.

If PP is selling anything, it's the maternal blood samples Clipper Nation was so terrified to disclose.

[unleashbaynes]

Wild cobra is the dumbest piece of trash I've ever encountered.

[Spurminator]

I mean, forced sterilization? I know Godwin's Law is a no-no, but that is literally something the Nazis did.

[boutons_deux]

I mean, forced sterilization? I know Godwin's Law is a no-no, but that is literally something the Nazis did.

America sterilized 1000s of women for many decades, up to the 1970s.

[Spurminator]

The headline is a little melodramatic for my taste, but the rest of it is fair.


What the Planned Parenthood hoax really proves: Right-wing extremists have no qualms about destroying peoples’ lives

They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. That’s certainly the case with a new and highly deceptive anti-choice propaganda video that claims to show a Planned Parenthood official caught on a hidden camera while allegedly discussing how the women’s health clinics are involved with the harvesting and selling of aborted fetus organs via a sordid underground black market.

In the video, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, is seen eating salad and drinking a glass of red wine as she discusses what the selectively edited video would lead us to believe is the process of acquiring intact organs from aborted fetuses and then selling them to buyers. Nucatola describes the most desirable organs, as well as the admittedly disturbing manner by which the fetuses are aborted in a way that doesn’t damage the organs that are to be harvested. She also appears to discuss the prices that buyers pay for a particular fetal organ.

As we’ve seen with similar “gotcha!” videos, this one completely misrepresents what Nucatola was discussing, and numerous sites have almost too-easily debunked just about every claim. (Full debunkery here (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44832_The_Huge_Right_Wing_Anti-Choice_Fake_Outrage_of_the_Day), here (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/14/attack-on-planned-parenthood-3-deceptive-edits/204419), here (http://wonkette.com/591066/why-is-planned-parenthood-selling-your-babby-for-scrap-oh-right-its-not) and here (http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/).) It turns out, Nucatola wasn’t discussing the illegal black market sale of fetal organs, but instead the perfectly legal donation of the organs to biomedical research laboratories that use the organs to help save lives. The price range of the organs described by Nucatola is, in reality, the reimbursed expenses accrued in the delivery of the specimens. (Which makes sense: $30 to $100 is hilariously below the going rate for human organs.) Furthermore, the video was produced by an anti-choice pop-up outfit called the Center for Medical Progress, which not only claimed that this one video required three years of research, but which also has ties to known video fraudster James O’Keefe.

Yet as rapidly as the video was resoundingly debunked as a fraud, it wasn’t fast enough to catch up with the zealous haste of the lies.

As soon as the video hit The Daily Caller and The Drudge Report, it was pretty much game over for the already beleaguered Planned Parenthood. Social media immediately erupted with garment rending and all varieties of unhinged screeching over what too many gullible viewers perceived as the ultimate smoking gun indictment of the organization. Anyone pointing out the obviously deceptive editing and the false claims made by the video were attacked as ghouls, Nazis and baby-killers.

The intensity of the outrage closely matched the degree of the flimflam. Anti-choice activists wanted desperately to believe the video was an accurate representation of what Planned Parenthood is up to behind the scenes, so they overlooked the obvious scare-edits and manipulative soundtrack. Clinically speaking, the video is cleverly produced, even though it’s really easy to make abortion sound creepy. That said, it flagrantly exploits the worst and most ignorant aspects of social media: the utter lack of critical viewing, the impulse to rapidly retweet clickbait without reading, and especially the internet’s torch-and-pitchfork mob justice.

On the Tuesday edition of my podcast (http://www.bobcesca.com/), I predicted that in addition to the radical far-right mob, the video would also be accepted at face value by A-list Republicans and especially the congressional GOP. And why not? It’s happened before. Congress buried ACORN based on a provably fake video. Planned Parenthood has been relentlessly de-funded due to previously fraudulent videos. Indeed, members of the most powerful governing body in the world spoke on-the-record from the floor of both the House and Senate and permanently attached their names to more than one egregiously fake smear video. Legislation was passed and livelihoods were ruined because congressional Republicans were repeatedly duped by James O’Keefe and his acolytes.

Sadly, my prediction came true on Wednesday when Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced (http://www.mediaite.com/online/house-committee-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-organ-harvesting-video/) they’d hold hearings on the video.

“This video is abhorrent and rips at the heart. The committee will get to the bottom of this appalling situation,” the press release quotes Republican lawmakers Fred Upton, Marsha Blackburn, Tim Murphy, and Joe Pitts as saying.


Again, taxpayer money will be wasted on an investigation into Planned Parenthood based on a video that was debunked within 24 hours of dropping. Even anti-choice Americans ought to be outraged by this total waste of resources. But they won’t be because now the “respected” members of an elite governing body of 535 powerful Americans have announced that this mendacious video is, in fact, “abhorrent” and “appalling.” So, now, the video is endowed with the legitimacy of a congressional committee.
Meanwhile, several GOP presidential hopefuls have condemned (http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/14/gop-candidates-react-to-undercover-video-of-planned-parenthood/) Planned Parenthood for the (misleading) content of the video.

“The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life,” said former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

“Today’s video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts is shocking and gruesome,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. [...]

“This latest news is tragic and outrageous,” said businesswoman Carly Fiorina. “This isn’t about ‘choice.’ It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment.”

We seriously have to question whether any of these Republicans have given their bank account information to Nigerian princes with dubious Hotmail email accounts. I hate to be a Debbie Downer, Republicans, but guess what? Professional wrestling is fake and the Easter bunny isn’t real. Sorry.

Arguably the worst aspect of this scam video, beyond the harm it will do to reproductive rights and Planned Parenthood, is the reality that Dr. Nucatela’s life is all but ruined for the foreseeable future. At this moment, anti-choice extremists are likely fanning out around the internet, collecting damaging information about her; finding out her home address and contact information; discovering whether she has children and where they go to school; planning rallies outside her house; or worse. Based on wrongful charges, she now represents Enemy Number One for googly-eyed radicals, fueled by visions of aborted fetuses and the false impression of Planned Parenthood as the Walmart of black market fetus organs.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/16/what_the_planned_parenthood_hoax_really_proves_rig ht_wing_extremists_have_no_qualms_about_destroying _peoples_lives/

[boutons_deux]

anti-women wingnuts WILL "destroy" Nucatela's life, some dickless asshole may shoot her. It's happened several times before.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://i.imgur.com/hIBqXSa.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zNUsDdd.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bpgWxSa.jpg

OK, I'm confused.

Question 1: Is this "reimbursement for expenses" price list true or not?

Question 2: Did or did not planned parenthood get "reimbursed for expenses" to "donate" organs for research?

Question 3: Chump claims it was just "fluids" True or False?

[ChumpDumper]

OK, I'm confused.

Question 1: Is this "reimbursement for expenses" price list true or not?No.


Question 2: Did or did not planned parenthood get "reimbursed for expenses" to "donate" organs for research?Yes, your snarky quotes notwithstanding.


Question 3: Chump claims it was just "fluids" True or False?Your snarky quote here isn't even accurate. The advertisement was for maternal blood samples, which I stated explicitly and you could actually quote without snark.


The advertisement is linked in its entirety on page two of this thread. Feel free to read it and tell us what you conclude it was talking about.

[boutons_deux]

Shocker! Republicans were only pretending to be shocked by 'shocking' Planned Parenthood video (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/16/1402859/-Rep-Tim-Murphy-on-Planned-Parenthood-video-discrepancies-This-interview-didn-t-happen)


House Republicans professed to be shocked (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402341/-Republican-candidates-jump-on-the-defund-Planned-Parenthood-bandwagon), thoroughly shocked (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402514/-Republicans-outraged-by-organ-and-tissue-donation-if-Planned-Parenthood-is-involved) by the heavily edited footage released by a sketchy anti-abortion group intended to suggest Planned Parenthood was "selling" fetal organs.

(They're not, but they will donate tissue to medical researchers with a woman's permission and if the researchers reimburse them for the very minor expenses involved—a perfectly standard and commonplace medical practice.)

Now, however, it turns out that the anti-abortion group or their intermediaries had given the tape to at least two House Republicans two weeks ago—and those Republicans didn't find it fit to mention that they have apparently been orchestrating their conspicuous public outrage with the video's producers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/16/1402859/-Rep-Tim-Murphy-on-Planned-Parenthood-video-discrepancies-This-interview-didn-t-happen?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Repugs LYING again, and you rightwingnuts fall for it EVERY TIME! :lol

[SnakeBoy]

What if the woman's life is in danger at week 11, even if the baby is fine

What conditions of a viable pregnancy threaten a woman's life at 11 weeks that cannot be medically treated, what is the rate of occurrence of these conditions? Be specific.

[Blake]

What conditions of a viable pregnancy threaten a woman's life at 11 weeks that cannot be medically treated,

"..... They learned that their unborn daughter had 69 chromosomes instead of the normal 46, an abnormality that also resulted in Dandy Walker Syndrome. The fetus also had a diaphragmatic hernia and severely stunted growth, weighing 8oz when she should have weighed just over a pound.These major health issues also meant there were risks for the mother. The fetus was so small that it could have died in the womb without the woman knowing, which could have resulted in an infection. The mother was also at a higher risk for preeclampsia, a blood pressure-related pregnancy complication*that can be fatal. She also noted that her placenta could have ruptured, leaving her to 'bleed out in my bathtub faster than anyone could help me'....."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3054079/Woman-shares-details-agonizing-decision-abort-baby-23-weeks-revealed-life-threatening-defect.html


what is the rate of occurrence of these conditions? Be specific.

I don't find rate of occurrence to be relevant to my question. One fetal murder is enough to pose my question to wild cobra

[SnakeBoy]

"..... They learned that their unborn daughter had 69 chromosomes instead of the normal 46, an abnormality that also resulted in Dandy Walker Syndrome. The fetus also had a diaphragmatic hernia and severely stunted growth, weighing 8oz when she should have weighed just over a pound.These major health issues also meant there were risks for the mother. The fetus was so small that it could have died in the womb without the woman knowing, which could have resulted in an infection. The mother was also at a higher risk for preeclampsia, a blood pressure-related pregnancy complication*that can be fatal. She also noted that her placenta could have ruptured, leaving her to 'bleed out in my bathtub faster than anyone could help me'....."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3054079/Woman-shares-details-agonizing-decision-abort-baby-23-weeks-revealed-life-threatening-defect.html


Dandy Walker Syndrome doesn't threaten the mothers life. What else you got?

[SnakeBoy]

I don't find rate of occurrence to be relevant to my question. One fetal murder is enough to pose my question to wild cobra

Fair enough. Still in order for your question to be valid you need to come up with a situation in which the life of the mother is threatened at 11 weeks by a condition which cannot be treated.

Your example doesn't fit the bill. The hypothetical situations in your article are the baby dying in the womb (not a viable pregnancy) and preeclampsia (doesn't occur at 11 weeks).

[Blake]

Dandy Walker Syndrome doesn't threaten the mothers life. What else you got?

You didn't read the whole article I guess, but that's fine....your troll job is blatantly bad tbh.

[Blake]

Fair enough. Still in order for your question to be valid you need to come up with a situation in which the life of the mother is threatened at 11 weeks by a condition which cannot be treated.

Your example doesn't fit the bill. The hypothetical situations in your article are the baby dying in the womb (not a viable pregnancy) and preeclampsia (doesn't occur at 11 weeks).

whatever it was, it was life threatening enough to abort at 23 weeks.....which means an even more developed fetus than at 11

[SnakeBoy]

whatever it was, it was life threatening enough to abort at 23 weeks.....which means an even more developed fetus than at 11

It wasn't life threatening to the mother dumbass.

It's ok for you to say you don't know of any scenario in which your question would be valid if you are unable to google the correct answer.

[Blake]

It wasn't life threatening to the mother dumbass.

It's ok for you to say you don't know of any scenario in which your question would be valid if you are unable to google the correct answer.


Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

You're either being disingenuous or very stupid.

I'll take either one for the lol.

[SnakeBoy]

You're either being disingenuous or very stupid.

I'll take either one for the lol.

lol calling me stupid


Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and "my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute," she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. "I fought it," she says. "But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...walsh/1644839/


I'm asking you about 11 weeks into a pregnancy. That was YOUR hypothetical situation so give us a scenario in which it is possible.

[Blake]

The moral implication of that being 11 weeks or past, since the further along the baby is, the more murderous it seems.

yes, you're stupid, dumbfuck.

Lol.

[SnakeBoy]

lol can't answer the question tries to move the goalpost

[ddjeffries]

what's wrong with that?

I guess what I am saying is secular society's morality will suffer a slippery slope.

[ElNono]

I guess what I am saying is secular society's morality will suffer a slippery slope.

I think what you're trying to say is that a secular society civil code won't align/will depart from a religious moral code. Makes sense.

If you're a religious person from the denomination whose moral code is being applied, I can see when you could have a sense of a "loss", but if you're a secular person or a religious person from a different denomination than the status-quo moral code, then that's probably good news.

[ddjeffries]

I think what you're trying to say is that a secular society civil code won't align/will depart from a religious moral code. Makes sense.

If you're a religious person from the denomination whose moral code is being applied, I can see when you could have a sense of a "loss", but if you're a secular person or a religious person from a different denomination than the status-quo moral code, then that's probably good news.

No not a sense of loss. A sense of completely understanding that without a basis of morality, society won't function. Without a moral code, every "nono" (get it? sorry) is up for question.

[Wild Cobra]

Commie Cobra always delivers, tbh... Free Market believer wants tariffs at the border, champion of Freedom wants to institute tied tubes. Don't even think about vasectomy, it's really the whore women that have this "problem".

Not true.

I had a vasectomy 15 years ago or so.

[ElNono]

No not a sense of loss. A sense of completely understanding that without a basis of morality, society won't function. Without a moral code, every "nono" (get it? sorry) is up for question.

Nonsense. The US is the longest and oldest democracy in the world, and it was founded specifically as a secular government, with implicit separation of church and state, and the freedom of every person to have a moral code or no code at all, just as long as they all abide by the societal code of laws. Heck, implicitly legislating a religious moral code is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

On the other hand, it's not hard at all to find fucked up societies run by religious moral codes... unless stoning women is your thing, tbh...

Plus, constant questioning and revisiting is a good thing, it means you're keeping up with the times. We invent new things, make new discoveries all the time... why wouldn't we want to adopt that knowledge?

Now, I think it's great that religion works for some people. It's undeniable that, historically speaking, it has been a great tool for societal control and influence. But it's definitely not the only tool, or the only way.

[ElNono]

Not true.

I had a vasectomy 15 years ago or so.

too much information

[spurraider21]

Not true.

I had a vasectomy 15 years ago or so.
you talk about mandating women who abort to get their tubes tied... but haven't mentioned a mandate to give the father of an aborted child a vasectomy

[pgardn]

too much information

You gotta feel just a tiny bit relieved.

[ElNono]

You gotta feel just a tiny bit relieved.

:lol

[Infinite_limit]

I was part of an abortion at the age of 20. Best decision of my life though it all but ended my relationship (we dated for 5 yrs but never recovered from that).

I'll always be bias on the issue because my life and every child I have from this moment, was altered by that decision. A decision I have never regretted and am fortunate to have been able to make.

[LnGrrrR]

^ waaaaayyyy too easy

[Wild Cobra]

you talk about mandating women who abort to get their tubes tied... but haven't mentioned a mandate to give the father of an aborted child a vasectomy
I have advocated requiring a vasectomy for men not able to support the children they father. There would be exceptions though. But if a man nocks up a woman and unable to support a child when this happens, make him have a vasectomy so he cannot create such a burden on society again. Tubes tied for both parents if they must rely on government assistance, and were that way when the conception occurred.

[Wild Cobra]

you talk about mandating women who abort to get their tubes tied... but haven't mentioned a mandate to give the father of an aborted child a vasectomy

Besides, men don't get a choice when it comes to abortion.

[Wild Cobra]

You gotta feel just a tiny bit relieved.

LOL...

My little Cobras are in their 30's.

[boutons_deux]

Besides, men don't get a choice when it comes to abortion.

My guess is the vast majority, esp the unmarried ones, totally disappear when the baby arrives and needs financial support. Male gain, female risk.

[Blake]

lol can't answer the question tries to move the goalpost

2/10 troll effort.

Still waiting for wild cobra to answer my question. Which was directed towards wild cobra to begin with.

[spurraider21]

I have advocated requiring a vasectomy for men not able to support the children they father. There would be exceptions though. But if a man nocks up a woman and unable to support a child when this happens, make him have a vasectomy so he cannot create such a burden on society again. Tubes tied for both parents if they must rely on government assistance, and were that way when the conception occurred.


Besides, men don't get a choice when it comes to abortion.
the problem is, the vasectomy/tube tying does nothing to help the problem thats already at hand...

[SnakeBoy]

2/10 troll effort.


I had you wasting time trying to google an answer, unsuccessfully I might add. Deserves at least a 5 or 6 imo.

[Blake]

I had you wasting time trying to google an answer, unsuccessfully I might add. Deserves at least a 5 or 6 imo.

all it takes to get victory on a messageboard is declare it so why short change yourself? Give yourself 11/10 and a trophy.

[ddjeffries]

Nonsense. The US is the longest and oldest democracy in the world, and it was founded specifically as a secular government, with implicit separation of church and state, and the freedom of every person to have a moral code or no code at all, just as long as they all abide by the societal code of laws. Heck, implicitly legislating a religious moral code is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

On the other hand, it's not hard at all to find fucked up societies run by religious moral codes... unless stoning women is your thing, tbh...

Plus, constant questioning and revisiting is a good thing, it means you're keeping up with the times. We invent new things, make new discoveries all the time... why wouldn't we want to adopt that knowledge?

Now, I think it's great that religion works for some people. It's undeniable that, historically speaking, it has been a great tool for societal control and influence. But it's definitely not the only tool, or the only way.

Nonsense to secular society on a slippery slope? It's clearly visible. And no, the laws of this country are heavily influenced by religion. Heavily. America was founded on freedom of religion, but to say the law of the land isn't tied to Christianity is ludicrous. But as our country ages and separation of Church and state become the norm, secular society will continue to lose its bearings on morality since there is no moral code. Examples, homosexuality was once taboo, now legal (even Obama campaigned against it in 2011, public opinion changed massively in 5 years). More of the same will continue for other things that are considered taboo currently. Transgenderism, transracialism (didn't know this was a thing until recently), polygamy are next.

[boutons_deux]

"the laws of this country are heavily influenced by religion"

bullshit, unless you have hard evidence.

(Christian) religion isn't the only, nor best, source of morals, ethics codified into law.

Christian supremacists' fundamental bullshit is that their religion, Their mythical Guy, represent the only true religion.

[ElNono]

Nonsense to secular society on a slippery slope? It's clearly visible. And no, the laws of this country are heavily influenced by religion. Heavily. America was founded on freedom of religion, but to say the law of the land isn't tied to Christianity is ludicrous. But as our country ages and separation of Church and state become the norm, secular society will continue to lose its bearings on morality since there is no moral code. Examples, homosexuality was once taboo, now legal (even Obama campaigned against it in 2011, public opinion changed massively in 5 years). More of the same will continue for other things that are considered taboo currently. Transgenderism, transracialism (didn't know this was a thing until recently), polygamy are next.

I guess we just disagree. There's plenty of examples where laws go directly against the Christian moral code (capital punishment has basically existed since this country was founded, abortion has been legal for half a century now, etc) and society has made it just fine. It could also be argued that what time has done is force the Church to evolve it's views and moral code on different topics due to losing credibility and general apathy (even historically speaking, there's plenty of this with the crusades, etc).

In practice, a big part of the religious moral code is to deter (ie: if you kill, you go to hell, etc), and that's exactly what laws do, but without inserting the wrath of a deity in it. There's actually much more tangible consequences, like spending the next 20 years with Igor in the can. Now, it's true that for people that fear a god (in religions that have such concept), you have basically double the deter factor.

Overall, I think people has much more fear of change and lack of ability to adapt than tangible effects on society. I mean, it's not like homosexuality being taboo made teh gays go away. That's just a fallacy.

[mingus]

I think if a woman has an abortion that doesn't stem from rape or incest her name should go in a public database on the Internet, like a pedophile. I thought think this and many other crimes (eg not paying child support) should be readily available to the public. Why are sexual deviants the only ones this happens too. I should be able to look up every crime or felony a person has committed on the Internet.

[mingus]

I also think think anyone who has more than one abortion should involuntarily have their tubes tide. These abortions have to be caused by irresponsibility.

Also, rape a women?

Cut the guys dick off and donate to someone who needs it.

[Wild Cobra]

the problem is, the vasectomy/tube tying does nothing to help the problem thats already at hand...

No. It just prevents future problems of the same.

What would you do to fix "the problem at hand?"

[spurraider21]

No. It just prevents future problems of the same.

What would you do to fix "the problem at hand?"
allow abortions

[Wild Cobra]

Cut the guys dick off and donate to someone who needs it.

Considering our smaller head often dictates our actions, wouldn't you just be creating a new rappist?

[Wild Cobra]

allow abortions
You are morally disgusting.

Do you also eat the fetuses?

[spurraider21]

You are morally disgusting.
by YOUR personal moral standards? maybe.


Do you also eat the fetuses?
not usually, no.

[ChumpDumper]

not usually, no.:lol

Better to sell them to others to eat at a fat profit.

[ddjeffries]

I guess we just disagree. There's plenty of examples where laws go directly against the Christian moral code (capital punishment has basically existed since this country was founded, abortion has been legal for half a century now, etc) and society has made it just fine. It could also be argued that what time has done is force the Church to evolve it's views and moral code on different topics due to losing credibility and general apathy (even historically speaking, there's plenty of this with the crusades, etc).

In practice, a big part of the religious moral code is to deter (ie: if you kill, you go to hell, etc), and that's exactly what laws do, but without inserting the wrath of a deity in it. There's actually much more tangible consequences, like spending the next 20 years with Igor in the can. Now, it's true that for people that fear a god (in religions that have such concept), you have basically double the deter factor.

Overall, I think people has much more fear of change and lack of ability to adapt than tangible effects on society. I mean, it's not like homosexuality being taboo made teh gays go away. That's just a fallacy.

That's exactly my point, slowly laws stray farther away from a Biblical moral code; hence; me claiming a slippery slope. I am not saying only follow a Biblical moral code, I am just saying that is what most our countries laws were founded upon. At least in Christianity, laws are not meant to deter. You can kill and go to heaven. But you must repent and be born again as Bible would say.

Either way, good talking with you.

[ElNono]

That's exactly my point, slowly laws stray farther away from a Biblical moral code; hence; me claiming a slippery slope. I am not saying only follow a Biblical moral code, I am just saying that is what most our countries laws were founded upon. At least in Christianity, laws are not meant to deter. You can kill and go to heaven. But you must repent and be born again as Bible would say.

...the part left unsaid there would be "if you don't, you're going to hell", and would be the place you need to fear to go. Otherwise, there's no incentive to repent and follow the code.

I suppose if you enjoy living under a Biblical moral code then that's probably enjoyable, and good for you. If you don't, it probably sucks. For atheists probably sucks even more, as it's the only and short life they figure to have.

Plus if you don't believe in reincarnation, you only have to care about it for as long as you figure to live. That's not too long, and odds are very good that society will function just fine at least until then. :lol


Either way, good talking with you.

:toast

[Blake]

I think if a woman has an abortion that doesn't stem from rape or incest her name should go in a public database on the Internet, like a pedophile. I thought think this and many other crimes (eg not paying child support) should be readily available to the public. Why are sexual deviants the only ones this happens too. I should be able to look up every crime or felony a person has committed on the Internet.

Rofl so you're frightened of women that had abortions

[Blake]

That's exactly my point, slowly laws stray farther away from a Biblical moral code; hence; me claiming a slippery slope. I am not saying only follow a Biblical moral code, I am just saying that is what most our countries laws were founded upon. At least in Christianity, laws are not meant to deter. You can kill and go to heaven. But you must repent and be born again as Bible would say.

Either way, good talking with you.

Lol biblical moral code

Have you read the Old Testament?

[ddjeffries]

Lol biblical moral code

Have you read the Old Testament?

i think youre confusing the old covenant (old Jewish law) and the new covenant under Christ (new testament)

[mingus]

Lol biblical moral code

Have you read the Old Testament?

I've read the Spark Notes.

[mingus]

Rofl so you're frightened of women that had abortions

Frightened isn't the right word.

Sickened or disgusted are more appropriate words. Maybe weary, but not frightened.

Is it politically incorrect to be disgusted by an abortion?

[Blake]

Frightened isn't the right word.

Sickened or disgusted are more appropriate words. Maybe weary, but not frightened.

Is it politically incorrect to be disgusted by an abortion?

I think it's a bully move to put a scarlet letter on a scared girl that didn't know what to do but get an abortion.

And comparing that girl to convicted pedophiles is pretty ridiculous

[Blake]

i think youre confusing the old covenant (old Jewish law) and the new covenant under Christ (new testament)

I think you're confused if you think the Bible allows Christians to ignore OT law.

Inconvenient truth tbh

[mingus]

I think it's a bully move to put a scarlet letter on a scared girl that didn't know what to do but get an abortion.

And comparing that girl to convicted pedophiles is pretty ridiculous

I don't think being scared of it justifies trying to erase an irresponsible decision by aborting/killing. I don't believe in giving anyone an easy out. Own up or shut up. Then again, I'm not a liberal so I wouldn't understand.

My comparison is valid. I believe a fetus is a human life. You don't. Therefore YOU don't see the comparison as sensible.

[boutons_deux]

How The Video Attacking Planned Parenthood Was Deceptively Editedhttp://www.alternet.org/gender/how-video-attacking-planned-parenthood-was-deceptively-edited?akid=13315.187590.7gQCl3&rd=1&src=newsletter1039628&t=7

[Blake]

I believe a fetus is a human life. You don't.


I think if a woman has an abortion that doesn't stem from rape or incest her name should go in a public database on the Internet, like a pedophile.

So you're saying if she's raped that you're ok with her killing an innocent bystander.

Well that's sensible.

[mingus]

I think if the woman is raped it overrides that fact. It's not difficult for me to reconcile my belief that a fetus is human and that if it is a result rape the mother can make a choice in that instance and make an exception on whether to abort/kill it. It's not that the life is any less important or less of a life. It's a sad situation but I would be a able to sympathize with the mother making that choice. I cannot sympathize otherwise.

[boutons_deux]

abortion is unavoidable, legal or not legal, it's gonna happen

and if you Bible humpers could force all women, any age, to have unwanted babies, what's your solution for raising them?

[Spurminator]

I think if the woman is raped it overrides that fact. It's not difficult for me to reconcile my belief that a fetus is human and that if it is a result rape the mother can make a choice in that instance and make an exception on whether to abort/kill it. It's not that the life is any less important or less of a life. It's a sad situation but I would be a able to sympathize with the mother making that choice. I cannot sympathize otherwise.

So then basically, a woman has sovereignty over her own body only if she doesn't get pregnant through consensual sex (which is legal).

If she does get pregnant through consensual sex, she is legally a carrier of a state-protected occupant and has no choice on whether her womb should remain occupied for 40 weeks or not. However, if the sex was non-consensual, she gets to keep the right to dictate what inhabits her body.

[Blake]

I think if the woman is raped it overrides that fact. It's not difficult for me to reconcile my belief that a fetus is human and that if it is a result rape the mother can make a choice in that instance and make an exception on whether to abort/kill it. It's not that the life is any less important or less of a life. It's a sad situation but I would be a able to sympathize with the mother making that choice. I cannot sympathize otherwise.

Neh, the value you're putting on the fetus after rape is zero. Or you're ok with an innocent human getting murdered with no punishment for the murderer.

You're trying to have it both ways but it doesn't work like that, no matter how sympathetic a conservative you think you are.

[Blake]

So then basically, a woman has sovereignty over her own body only if she doesn't get pregnant through consensual sex (which is legal).

If she does get pregnant through consensual sex, she is legally a carrier of a state-protected occupant and has no choice on whether her womb should remain occupied for 40 weeks or not. However, if the sex was non-consensual, she gets to keep the right to dictate what inhabits her body.

Lol sensible stuff

[boutons_deux]

Tony Perkins: Planned Parenthood Opposes 20-Week Abortion Bans Because The 'Parts' Are 'More Valuable'

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-planned-parenthood-opposes-20-week-abortion-bans-because-parts-are-more-valuabl

[boutons_deux]

Ted Cruz calls for prosecution of Planned Parenthood leaders (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403912/-Ted-Cruz-calls-for-prosecution-of-Planned-Parenthood-nbsp-leaders)

He's ratcheted up his rhetoric on the bogus video (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403121/-Republicans-to-use-heavily-edited-video-as-an-excuse-to-limit-women-s-rights) showing a medical director for the organization ultimately explaining how they comply with federal law regarding fetal tissue donation. Never mind all that investigation that all the other Republicans are demanding, Cruz saysprosecute them (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/248432-cruz-planned-parenthood-should-be-prosecuted).


"Every American should watch that video and say, ‘Are those my values?’ ” the 2016 presidential candidate said at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa."On tape, it appears a Planned Parenthood official is admitting to multiple felonies," he continued. "The U.S. Department of Justice, if it was not simply a partisan arm of the DNC, should open an investigation and prosecute Planned Parenthood. Congress should hold hearings and we should cut off funds."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/20/1403912/-Ted-Cruz-calls-for-prosecution-of-Planned-Parenthood-nbsp-leaders?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Repugs create a LIE, a fantasy, then act as if it's real. See my "Repug history" thread.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs to use heavily edited video as an excuse to limit women's rights (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403121/-Republicans-to-use-heavily-edited-video-as-an-excuse-to-limit-women-s-rights)

Congressional Republicans plan to build a new campaign to limit women's abortion rights (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/republicans-planned-parenthood-abortion-push-120263.html?hp=t1_r)around a heavily edited video that, in the final analysis, shows that Planned Parenthood follows federal law regarding fetal tissue donation. It makes sense.

They like to try to avoid talking about it, since doing so can lead to "legitimate rape"-style comments, but any law that says anything involving abortion is legal is one that Republicans oppose. So a video showing a Planned Parenthood staffer talking in uncomfortably blunt terms about following the law is all the opening they really needed:


Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his two top deputies — McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) — called for investigations almost immediately after the controversial video was made public, including whether it profits off fetal body parts. And within 24 hours, at least two powerful committees had announced probes on the issue.McCarthy is already talking about defunding the organization through the appropriations process. And in the Senate, GOP leaders who have been eyeing a vote on legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks of gestation say this will give them momentum to clear the bill later this session.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403121/-Republicans-to-use-heavily-edited-video-as-an-excuse-to-limit-women-s-rights

[mingus]

So then basically, a woman has sovereignty over her own body only if she doesn't get pregnant through consensual sex (which is legal).

If she does get pregnant through consensual sex, she is legally a carrier of a state-protected occupant and has no choice on whether her womb should remain occupied for 40 weeks or not. However, if the sex was non-consensual, she gets to keep the right to dictate what inhabits her body.

That's correct.

[mingus]

Neh, the value you're putting on the fetus after rape is zero. Or you're ok with an innocent human getting murdered with no punishment for the murderer.

You're trying to have it both ways but it doesn't work like that, no matter how sympathetic a conservative you think you are.

Im not putting zero value on the fetus in that instance. It's just that I think in that instance a women's choice is paramount to the fetus. I think the possible psychological effects of carrying/having a child borne out of rape makes not having that option a danger to mother.

[mingus]

It's a tough decision anytime you have to skill an innocent life. But in some instances I believe it's for the greater good. Doesn't have to mean I value those killed any less as humans.

[boutons_deux]

It's a tough decision anytime you have to skill an innocent life. But in some instances I believe it's for the greater good. Doesn't have to mean I value those killed any less as humans.

so far you, a zygote is a human?

[TeyshaBlue]

by YOUR personal moral standards? maybe.


not usually, no.


You are morally disgusting.

Do you also eat the fetuses?

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7340/9732024065_2914343e8b_b.jpg

[boutons_deux]

AZ Gov Bans 'Sale' Of Fetal Tissue After Planned Parenthood Sting Video

Planned Parenthood, while acknowledging its affiliates do participate in tissue donation programs, has denied the allegations that fetal tissue is being sold for profit, which is already against the law.

"The footage released by The Center for Medical Progress regarding the alleged sale and trafficking of aborted fetal tissue and body parts by Planned Parenthood is horrifying and has no place in a civilized society," Ducey said in a statement Monday.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-planned-parenthood-investigation?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

Repugs are fucking nutz, but it looks like they're going to take this dirty tricks sting and make it another ACORN. Will the Dems be fooled again?

[mingus]

so far you, a zygote is a human?

I think when there's a heartbeat it's then human. So if it's barely a zygote then no I don't believe it is. That's why I hate it when people jump to claim my belief its rooted in religion, because it's not. If it was the case it would be human right after fertilization but I don't hold that view. After heartbeat I view what you view as an abortion as a killing not an abortion. I believe in morning after pill and I believe in abortion to the extent that it's not performed after heartbeat.

[Pelicans78]

no, it doesn't.

women get abortions because they don't want a baby, not because they are getting paid for baby parts.

If they don't want to have a baby, they should do a better job of not getting pregnant.

[spurraider21]

I think when there's a heartbeat it's then human. So if it's barely a zygote then no I don't believe it is. That's why I hate it when people jump to claim my belief its rooted in religion, because it's not. If it was the case it would be human right after fertilization but I don't hold that view. After heartbeat I view what you view as an abortion as a killing not an abortion. I believe in morning after pill and I believe in abortion to the extent that it's not performed after heartbeat.
the issue is its still arbitrary. why heartbeat and not brainwave, for instance?

[boutons_deux]

If they don't want to have a baby, they should do a better job of not getting pregnant.

and the man has no role?

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/UP-piechart-1-rev2.png

[Pelicans78]

and the man has no role?

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/UP-piechart-1-rev2.png


:lol

You really asked that? A woman can be on birth control or make the dude wear a rubber if she doesn't want to get pregnant. Don't act like an idiot just to help your point of view. Less time-consuming and expensive to use contraception than get an abortion.

[dbestpro]

I support women's rights. I think unborn female babies have as much right to live as male babies.

[mingus]

the issue is its still arbitrary. why heartbeat and not brainwave, for instance?

Of course it's arbitrary. That doesn't make me wrong. It's just what I belief

[spurraider21]

Of course it's arbitrary. That doesn't make me wrong. It's just what I belief
of course it doesn't make you wrong. it just makes it hard to enact it into law

[z0sa]

Abortion as birth control disgusts me... until my family needs it. /life

[Blake]

Im not putting zero value on the fetus in that instance. It's just that I think in that instance a women's choice is paramount to the fetus. I think the possible psychological effects of carrying/having a child borne out of rape makes not having that option a danger to mother.

There are plenty of psychological effects in any number of unwanted pregnancy scenarios.

And what if a woman cries rape but can't prove it? You still are going to demand a scarlet letter on her.

[Blake]

It's a tough decision anytime you have to skill an innocent life. But in some instances I believe it's for the greater good. Doesn't have to mean I value those killed any less as humans.

Actually that's exactly what that means.

Or you're justifying the death penalty on an innocent human that broke no law.

There's no way to have both.

[boutons_deux]

Abortion as birth control disgusts me... until my family needs it. /life

abortion is not used as birth control. Contraception is birth control. Repugs and Bible humpers want to block both abortion and contraception. Blocking contraception for poor women will INCREASE abortions.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

[mingus]

There are plenty of psychological effects in any number of unwanted pregnancy scenarios.

And what if a woman cries rape but can't prove it? You still are going to demand a scarlet letter on her.

I think the psychological effects between the two are apples and oranges. It's not a matter I know a whole lot about, but that is my assumption. I'm not sure there is a therapy that truly help a woman carrying a rapists fetus. It would seem to me put an extreme amount of pyschological stress on a woman to the extent that her mental and physical well-being would be a huge concern/question mark. I think OTOH a woman carrying child out of irresponsibility has better therapy for her being that the stress isn't as extreme. I'm not pretending I'm a doctor so I don't know. But that's what I think is the case.

Like me someone else said I think abortion is fine before heartbeat. I'm not a hardliners, I want to find middle ground and compromise on issue. When you try and find compromise it doesn't alwsys make perfect logical sense. In some way that the nature of compromise.

[mingus]

of course it doesn't make you wrong. it just makes it hard to enact it into law

Every thing we belief starts with an arbitrary assumption. Scientific accuracy/proof isn't needed to enact anything into law.

[boutons_deux]

Every thing we belief starts with an arbitrary assumption. Scientific accuracy/proof isn't needed to enact anything into law.

but "anything" has nothing but legal legitimacy if contradicted by science, evidence, rationality. Such "anythings" are possible even probable since BigCorp/Bible humper/Repugs have created a fantasy world of magical bullshit.

[ducks]

abortion is not used as birth control. Contraception is birth control. Repugs and Bible humpers want to block both abortion and contraception. Blocking contraception for poor women will INCREASE abortions.

did the poor women think that spreading their pussies and getting fucked might cause a child to be born
oh what you think the govement should bail out their stupid thinking because it was the republican fault they did not train the women what causes child birth

[mingus]

Actually that's exactly what that means.

Or you're justifying the death penalty on an innocent human that broke no law.

There's no way to have both.

In the case of women carrying rapist child, I think in this case I believe it becomes a situation where, even though fetus is innocent of anything, it is destroying the woman and there is no choice but to abort for her mental and possible physical sanity. I don't ascribe zero value to fetus, it's just a rare and unfortunate situation where a innocent bystander can be subject to death. Of course putting women's right in this situation as paramount to human/fetus kind of fucks with the logic but I think it's a decent compromise.

[spurraider21]

abortion is not used as birth control.
:lol good god you're delusional

[mingus]

Anyway I'm done here. It was good discussion I realize there's shit that doesn't make sense in my argument but I'm a person of compromise especially on this issue where there is a big emotional component to it.

[Blake]

I think the psychological effects between the two are apples and oranges. It's not a matter I know a whole lot about, but that is my assumption. I'm not sure there is a therapy that truly help a woman carrying a rapists fetus. It would seem to me put an extreme amount of pyschological stress on a woman to the extent that her mental and physical well-being would be a huge concern/question mark. I think OTOH a woman carrying child out of irresponsibility has better therapy for her being that the stress isn't as extreme. I'm not pretending I'm a doctor so I don't know. But that's what I think is the case.

Like me someone else said I think abortion is fine before heartbeat. I'm not a hardliners, I want to find middle ground and compromise on issue. When you try and find compromise it doesn't alwsys make perfect logical sense. In some way that the nature of compromise.

I can tell you're talking out of your ass, but all that is irrelevant any way.

There's no way you can reasonably argue that good mental health for one person justifies murder of another innocent human. That's laughably insane logic, tbh.

[mingus]

I don't think its that insane. If a hijackers goes hijacks an airplane we send jets to shoot it down. Innocent people die. If it's for the greater good, then killing innocent being is on the table. In instance of abortion the same thing might apply as far as it being for the greater good.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think its that insane. If a hijackers goes hijacks an airplane we send jets to shoot it down. Innocent people die. If it's for the greater good, then killing innocent being is on the table. In instance of abortion the same thing might apply as far as it being for the greater good.

The shooting down of the plane is to prevent others from scheming the same thing.

Since we allow abortion, it continues without remorse. If we made it at least morally reprehensible, and had something like a scarlet "A", then maybe people would be less likely to put themselves in need of such services.

[HI-FI]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw
This seems to be getting worse and worse. Least the shills on here are about to rack up a lot of overtime.

[boutons_deux]

This seems to be getting worse and worse. Least the shills on here are about to rack up a lot of overtime.

a complete and total hoax, clips taken out of context, etc, etc. Anti-choicers trying to take PP down with the same shit the took ACORN down.

[DarrinS]

This seems to be getting worse and worse. Least the shills on here are about to rack up a lot of overtime.


a complete and total hoax, clips taken out of context, etc, etc. Anti-choicers trying to take PP down with the same shit the took ACORN down.


:lmao As if boots needs any more overtime :lmao

[boutons_deux]

the tricksters need to show invoices, receipts, etc for the baby parts purchases.

[RandomGuy]

Comparing donating blood/plasma from an actual consenting adult, to murdering a defenseless human life and then selling off it's organs??? You just won the dumbass award of the year:toast

My blood cannot survive outside of my body without intervention. Fetuses can't survive at all.

The analogy is not apt, but not in the way you seem to think it is.

[RandomGuy]

Has the video been discredited? I haven't watched.

Well, haven't finished reading, but my bullshit/trumped up outrage detector is going off. This smells like the kind of creative editing propaganda that zealots of all sorts like to indulge in.

[RandomGuy]

The undercover video was filmed in July 2014 by the Center for Medical Progress, an advocacy group that reports on medical ethics. They dispatched two actors posing as representatives of a human biologics company to a business lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services.

The video shows (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU) Nucatola describing in graphic detail how abortionists are able to harvest organs from aborted babies based on the parts that are needed.

“Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs,” she told the undercover buyers. “Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. That’s easy. I don’t know what they’re doing with it, I guess if they want muscle.”

To which one of the fake buyer’s replied, “Yeah - a dime a dozen.”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola said. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

She went on to describe how they are able to acquire other organs without “crushing” them.

“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.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/14/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts/

Interesting that you seem to have edited out a very important part of the URL.

h ttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/15/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts. html

[boutons_deux]

The Extreme And Violent Background Of The Group Consulting On The Anti-Planned Parenthood Videos
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/07/21/20150721post-rhrcgraphic.jpg


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/21/the-extreme-and-violent-background-of-the-group/204519

[spurraider21]

a complete and total hoax, clips taken out of context, etc, etc. Anti-choicers trying to take PP down with the same shit the took ACORN down.
What a shitty, lazy, generic denial

[Blake]

I don't think its that insane. If a hijackers goes hijacks an airplane we send jets to shoot it down. Innocent people die. If it's for the greater good, then killing innocent being is on the table. In instance of abortion the same thing might apply as far as it being for the greater good.

Yeah, in that hijacking analogy, you're talking about doing math to save the most lives. Lose 100 to save 1000 is understandable.

In the other case of potential mental problems due to rape, you're killing 1 to save 0.

[boutons_deux]

What a shitty, lazy, generic denial

wonderfully accurate, lots of people have ripped this shit to pieces. "Do Your Own Research" -- WC

[mingus]

Yeah, in that hijacking analogy, you're talking about doing math to save the most lives. Lose 100 to save 1000 is understandable.

In the other case of potential mental problems due to rape, you're killing 1 to save 0.

It'd be killing one to save one. It's not exactly utilitarian but because the fetus is the unfortunate and innocent antagonist it is the threat. The woman would be saved. Not from necessarily from death (although suicide is probably high among these women) but from pyschological illness, potentially and I think probably. I think allowing her to carry, and give birth and continue to live in such a state is a net negative. It doesn't neccesarily come down to numbers, but the potential a person to live happily. Having laws in place that keep that from happening would be bad idea.

[Blake]

It'd be killing one to save one. It's not exactly utilitarian but because the fetus is the unfortunate and innocent antagonist it is the threat. The woman would be saved. Not from necessarily from death (although suicide is probably high among these women) but from pyschological illness, potentially and I think probably. I think allowing her to carry, and give birth and continue to live in such a state is a net negative. It doesn't neccesarily come down to numbers, but the potential a person to live happily. Having laws in place that keep that from happening would be bad idea.

Let's say your speculation is accurate, are you also calling for the death penalty for the rapist?

To be fair to be the murdered baby and all..

[RandomGuy]

The shooting down of the plane is to prevent others from scheming the same thing.

Since we allow abortion, it continues without remorse. If we made it at least morally reprehensible, and had something like a scarlet "A", then maybe people would be less likely to put themselves in need of such services.

because that is so fool proof where it is actually done. :rolleyes

[mingus]

Let's say your speculation is accurate, are you also calling for the death penalty for the rapist?

To be fair to be the murdered baby and all..

My take on what I think of abortion doesn't relate to what repercussion he would get. What would happen to him is entirely different discussion of its own and consists of different factors from that of the ethics of abortion.

[Th'Pusher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw
I like the way the buyer bids up the price 100% from $50 to $100. I need to get me some enact tissue these prices. :lol

[RandomGuy]

did the poor women think that spreading their pussies and getting fucked might cause a child to be born
oh what you think the govement should bail out their stupid thinking because it was the republican fault they did not train the women what causes child birth

If you like, I can show you the actually scientific studies done on the favored Republican policy, i.e. "abstinence only" and how that leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy.

I am not really ready to punish children for the mistakes of their parents. I fail to see how starving a toddler to death proves anything except that vy65 is an evil fucking human being.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting that you seem to have edited out a very important part of the URL.

h ttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/15/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts. html

So anyway, lets start using some critical thinking and get to actual facts. Shocking thing to try, I know, but lets start sorting the fucktarded opinion from fact.

First, watch the video in its entirety. Then read the statements that provide actual contexts to the remarks.

Both sides have an ax to grind, so it will be best to take claims and counter-claims with some fair skepticism, although in my general experience the pro-lifers have a decided tendency to lie through their teeth, as zealots often do.

[vy65]

I fail to see how starving a toddler to death proves anything except that vy65 is an evil fucking human being.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aOFHXfbgQuA/Ucq2FubJ0cI/AAAAAAAAXNA/a0ce7vubU6c/s1600/livingrentfreeinhead.png

[Spurminator]

Interesting that you seem to have edited out a very important part of the URL.

h ttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/15/shock-video-planned-parenthood-sells-dead-baby-body-parts. html

Actually it must have gotten moved, because that used to be the correct link. Guess even Fox knows it's a sham.

[Spurminator]

Since we allow abortion, it continues without remorse. If we made it at least morally reprehensible, and had something like a scarlet "A", then maybe people would be less likely to put themselves in need of such services.

You don't think you can do enough job of making it morally reprehensible on reason alone? You have to actively punish or humiliate people who do it? That's just lazy.

[RandomGuy]

Actually it must have gotten moved, because that used to be the correct link. Guess even Fox knows it's a sham.

Yeah, I would allow for that to be what probably happened. Fox's way of walking it back a bit.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

I see a lot of edits. It would be better, were you to post the entire thing, unedited. is that available?

[RandomGuy]

That's pretty much politics in general; finding reasons to stand for or against something and letting it be an excuse for anger, outrage, and unhappiness.

Well put.

[DarrinS]

I see a lot of edits. It would be better, were you to post the entire thing, unedited. is that available?


What context would make that situation right?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf

The law cited by the pro-lifers posting it on youtube, makes an allowance for medical research.

Profiting is illegal, but covering costs at a reasonable level is fine.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2

"(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue."

From what I have seen, the discussion centered around what should be considered "reasonable", so as to stay within bounds of the law. The selective edits were also very obvious.

The pro-life center took only the parts that supported their case out, and left out the rather long segments where the PP people are talking about making sure that everything remain within ethical and legal guidelines.

Not overly surprising.

Left out:


Some anti-choice groups got the names of the board of directors for
those companies [that do medical waste disposal], and started coming to their houses, making them feel
uncomfortable, stop picking up tissue. At the houses of the directors, of a waste
management company basically, that just handles biological waste. And, I think
that’s what’s started the conversations with affiliates because they’re like: “What
am I supposed to do with this tissue?”

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and again, affiliates don’t - affiliates are not looking to make money by
doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their
bottom line. If anything, you can make it even better to their bottom line by giving
TRANSCRIPT BY THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS
Page 23 of 60
them services in kind instead of money. I think a lot of them will take you up on
that. That would definitely get people. Say, “I’ll give it to you for the same
price, AND I’ll do that.”

[DarrinS]

RG has made a very compelling legal and economic case for selling dead baby parts.