DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on July 17, 2015, 05:50:54 PM
-
First the Leftist say a "fetus" is not a baby..."it's just tissue....blah blah",
but then Planned Parenthood wants to "save" certain body parts to
sell for use in another human.
Ummm it's not a human...but then you why do want to sell the body parts to another human to use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bYeLo0fASU
-
You need to look into what happens to blood people donate to the Red Cross and other charities. Most of it is sold at very high prices.
Let us suppose that fetal parts can save someone's life: what is most moral: to use them or not use them?
All women who have abortions do so voluntarily, just as all people who agree to donate body parts when they die do so voluntarily.
Medicine in the US is a FOR-PROFIT industry. How can you be a capitalist and be against this?
-
In America, it's illegal to donate money to a candidate without first reporting it to the government. Even then, if you give more than is permissible you might end up in jail. In this country, you can't add trans fats to your foods or smoke cigarettes in your own bar. Here, Little Sisters of the Poor can't tell the state they'd rather not buy condoms and bakers can't tell a couple they'd rather not participate in their wedding.
But it's completely legal to kill an unborn baby for convenience and then sell its parts for cash.
Let's forget the legality of the issue for a moment. And let's forget religion and politics, if that's possible. Let's forget the disconcerting economic incentives inherent in these types of transactions and ask: what kind of person nonchalantly describes "crushing" the life from another living being, a being that might have already been named and loved; a loss that might have a tremendous negative impact on a person or family or community, over a glass of wine and some giggles.
Well, an executive at euphemistic Planned Parenthood, that's who. We can tell ourselves that a life can simply be written off whenever we deem it inconvenient. We can celebrate the right to end life. But the depravity of Deborah Nucatola's conversation betrays where it all leads and also where it started.
If this was a video of some product researchers talking about the same process, but describing the vivisection of a monkey or a cat for organ harvesting instead, most Americans would be justly repulsed. Yet, because this is Planned Parenthood, an organization fulfilling its eugenicist founder's goal of population control, it will be treated as just another dispute in the culture wars, completely devoid of scientific and moral context.
Because this is Planned Parenthood, most of the media will frame this as a political tug of war rather than explore the politics and ethics of allowing Americans to terminate a life and then harvest organs. Some in the media will probably have a difficult time even comprehending why anyone would deem this much of a story at all. You'll recall how a number of politicians and reporters struggled to explain the distinction between a run-of-the-mill late-term abortionist and Kermit Gosnell. (Answer: one has a license.)
You're involved, too. You have no "choice." It is worth reiterating that taxpayers, in part, fund this abortion industry. The fungibility of dollars that flow into Planned Parenthood makes laws like the Hyde Amendment nothing more than a political canopy for Republicans to cower under. Until Planned Parenthood breaks off its abortion/wholesale baby-part business from its women's health operations, you're a big investor.
Delaying an abortion to sell parts at a higher price is illegal in theory, but really, like the Hyde Amendment, completely unenforceable in practice.
And women who donate pieces of their babies (and we still don't understand how this happens, by default or proactively), according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, they may ask for "reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue." It's probably not a huge moneymaker, but that?s beyond the point. Delaying an abortion to sell parts at a higher price is illegal in theory, but really, like the Hyde Amendment, completely unenforceable in practice.
Planned Parenthood argues that their peddling of human tissue (known to the rest of us as "body parts we need to survive") is ethical and useful. The not-for-profit was merely negotiating how it would be reimbursed for human tissue or, as the Associated Press would describe the bartering of aborted baby parts: a discussion about "the disposition of parts from aborted fetuses." This practice isn't new.
But killing unborn babies and selling their organs saves lives, says Planned Parenthood. (You only need to peruse the history of the twentieth century to find that line of reasoning disconcerting.) If Planned Parenthood really wanted to save lives, of course, it could start by attempting to convince or, at the very least inform "its would-be customers that they have real choices. What Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director for medical services, really tells us is that these aren't just clumps of cells devoid of moral significance or purpose?especially when they don't meet Dr. Deborah Nucatola's scalpel. "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that," she explains, "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." She is discussing organs of a baby, evidentially, more useful to her dead than alive.
How many Americans are okay with this practice? We should find out. Liberals never have a problem making expansive arguments on emotional grounds' the single woman without health care tells all we need to know about Obamacare; the lone shooter tells us all we need to know about guns laws, etc. There is simply no reason that Nucatola should not be on television ads everywhere, sipping her wine and intimately describing how abortionists squash the life out of unborn babies for money. How many Americans would accept this policy as normal?
To be honest, I'm sort of nervous to find out.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/15/by-any-standard-of-decency-planned-parenthood-is-evil/
-
Ummm it's not a human...but then you why do want to sell the body parts to another human to use?
-====================================
Doctors routinely use heart valves from pigs in heart surgery. Pigs and mammals, just like humans.
Being as abortions are legal, you will not stop them. So there are two things that can be done with human organs and parts.
(1) you can simply throw them away.
(2) you can use them to help sick people.
Why is the first alternative more immoral than the second?
I agree that profiting monetarily from this is crass capitalism, but all of medicine is crass capitalism.
The actual moral problem here is for-profit medicine, not using something to benefit a sick person rather than throwing it in the garbage.
-
Doctors routinely use heart valves from pigs in heart surgery. Pigs and mammals, just like humans.
Right....and they are from pigs.....they are pig organs.....they not human organs.
-
I note that you cannot find an answer to my questions.
This is what I expected.
-
I note that you cannot find an answer to my questions. This is what I expected.
Your questions are not relevant.
What is painfully relevant and obscene is that human body parts are being
harvested for sale purposes from what your side claim is not a human.
These are not pig parts...these are human organs...how can that be if it is not a human?
It is a disgrace!
-
Ummm it's not a human...but then you why do want to sell the body parts to another human to use?
-====================================
Doctors routinely use heart valves from pigs in heart surgery. Pigs and mammals, just like humans.
Being as abortions are legal, you will not stop them. So there are two things that can be done with human organs and parts.
(1) you can simply throw them away.
(2) you can use them to help sick people.
Why is the first alternative more immoral than the second?
I agree that profiting monetarily from this is crass capitalism, but all of medicine is crass capitalism.
The actual moral problem here is for-profit medicine, not using something to benefit a sick person rather than throwing it in the garbage.
If the harvest of the pig parts began with crushing the skull of the pig in a vise , this would be a felony in the state of Georgia.
-
I bet you can kill pigs any way you wish to in Georgia.
Again, since the abortion is going to happen anyway, would you favor just throwing out all the remains in the garbage?
It seems to me that this is not much different from organ donations lots of people agree to.
Just start with the fact that you are not permitted to prevent the abortion.
Medicine for profit is the worst part of this. Thousands of people donate blood thinking that it will be given for free to people in their own communities, but this is not the case. More often it is sold hundreds of miles away for hundreds of dollars a pint, at a great profit to some for-profit hospital.
-
I bet you can kill pigs any way you wish to in Georgia.
You would loose that bet.
The laws that protect animals from depraved cruelty have been improved and improved , this is mostly a good thing.
But abortionists are depraved , killing with chemical burn or physical trauma like crushing or pulling to pieces is an example of depravity being developed.
How can this not spread its effect?
Would you want a doctor to serve you who had spent his morning crushing living human skulls?
-
I do not think that abortionists practice on the public as a rule, but the answer is yes.
Again, you still do not answer the question: what should be done with fetal remains: throw them in the garbage or use them to perhaps save lives?
The real problem here is the medicine for profit system, and it permeates all of medicine.
-
what should be done with fetal remains:....
They should live in good homes.
Or they should live in second rate homes if that isn't possible.
If you were given a bar of soap made in an extermination camp, and its fat content was human , would its quality as soap really be the important question?
Would you like Fetal remains to be served on toast?
-
I oppose cannibalism, but using fetal parts to save lives is no different than typical organ donation.
You cannot prevent abortions. Therefore, there will be fetal organs.
I oppose these being sold for profit, because I oppose for-profit medicine. But I do not oppose their use.
The way blood is donated by well meaning people and then sold on a market that involved bidding wars is the worst offense by far of the profiteers for human recycling.
Yet not one of the turds that are making this fuss about the Evil Planned Parenthood have word one to say about profiteering.
-
......Yet not one of the turds that are making this fuss about the Evil Planned Parenthood have word one to say about profiteering.
True , I guess I was distracted by all the cruelty.
So why are you against cannibalism?
Dozens of nice healthy people are gonna get murdered every day anyway , that is a lot of protein.
-
Being as this is not going to stop abortions, there are only two choices:
(1) use fetal parts to cure the sick and perhaps to save lives.
(2) throw them out and do not cure the sick and save lives.
I fail to see what this has to do with cannibalism.
How is forcing a woman to give birth and care for a child for twenty years not cruelty?
Nature is cruel. Should we shoot eagles because they are cruel to field mice and bunny rabbits?
Are we cruel to eradicate guinea worms?
-
Being as this is not going to stop abortions,.................
Why not?
This seems like a good reason to reduce abortions, on top of many others.
-
It will not stop abortions because they have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade decision.
But you had to know that.
Again, the issue is whether to use the fetal parts to help living people or throw them away and not help said people.
It is not about ending abortions. That has been decided.
-
It is not about ending abortions. That has been decided.
There is more than one way.
If everyone knew more about Abortion , perhaps the people vulnerable
to the problem would work harder to avoid the need.
Also the Supreme court is wrong once and a while, and gets corrected .
What the Supreme Court thought it was doing when it decided against Dred Scott was fixing the problem, what it really did was compound the problem.
-
I came to the conclusion that some prolife folks has made abortion possible due to thier stance against safe sex which leads to abortion.
Thiers been data that places that promote abstinence only policies has a fairly high pregnancy rate but those organizations refuse correlation by stating those kids did not follow abstinence polcy. Never prouching the subject thier policy did not exactly help by informing about alternatives to avoid pregnancy
-
The parents and grandparents of the same fools who rant about abortion this generation were trying their best to prevent contraceptives from being sold in the previous generation. Some of the ratbag right are STILL trying to prevent contraceptives being available.
The teen pregnancy rate is down, but no one would know it listening to the moronic ratbag right.
Women have a right to their own bodies that trumps the right of fetuses.
The Supreme Court was entirely 100% right about abortions, and that is not going to change.
-
I read that those reality teen mom shows are the cause of the reduction of teen pregnancy.
-
This may be true. If so, that is a good thing.
Teenage girls should not get pregnant.
-
I read that those reality teen mom shows are the cause of the reduction of teen pregnancy.
Then knowing more about it , does help.
-
The main reasons why young women get pregnant, if it is deliberate is because they want to show that they are grown up and are independent, and because they are lonely.
I tend to think that many do not intentionally become pregnant they do not get a prescription for some birth control device because many see this as slutty behavior, and they do not want to feel slutty.
My students were high school graduates, and generally between the age of 18 and 24 when they had their first child. Every semester I had at least one that would show up in the first week or two of classes and vanish until final exam week, when they would appear in my office and ask what they needed to do to pass or get an incomplete grade. Unfortunately, I could neither pass them or give them an I. All of which I explained in the course syllabus.
-
Young women are already moderately reluctant to get pregnant.
Men need moderate behavior also, if young men were more aware and responsible the problem would shrink.
I don't know how to get there from here , but having more facts about abortion become notorious ought to help.
-
The number of abortions has declined with the number of unwanted pregnancies.
But a woman still has the right to control her own body.
As for fetal tissue, I see using it as no more immoral than transplanting organs and tissue from the deceased. Because it is essentially the same thing, biologically.
What is immoral is profiteering on people's ill health and medical needs, and blood banks are by far the worst offenders.
-
A woman should have a strong right to control her own body, what does this have to do with an abortion?
An abortion is not supposed to kill the woman, it kills the baby.
Killing people for their organs is indeed a lot like this, but the law frowns no killing adults for their organs , why do you suppose that is?
Murder victims have perfectly good organs , doctors should be killing people for their organs enough to keep shortages from happening.
And of course a doctor that does this work should get paid in proportion to the value of his victims organs.
-
The woman's right to not be a mother clearly trumps any rights of the fetus to be a person.
Profiteering on body parts is the real issue here.
This is not about abortions.
-
The woman's right to not be a mother clearly trumps any rights of the fetus to be a person.
I don't see this as "clearly ".
Living persons right to stay alive ought to be pretty strong.
-
In the case of an unborn fetus, not strong enough
-
In the case of an unborn fetus, not strong enough
So we are all doomed.
Respect for human life is more important than law.
-
We are not all doomed.
Most people are not doomed.
Only unwanted fetuses are doomed.
That is a small percentage.
And being awn unwanted child is really not all that great a deal, not for the child or the parent or society in general.
-
We are not all doomed.
Most people are not doomed.
Only unwanted fetuses are doomed.
That is a small percentage.
And being awn unwanted child is really not all that great a deal, not for the child or the parent or society in general.
So they are better off dead?
Tell me why this is different than singling out Jews?
It would not be hard to find the lists of differences and the real and imagined reasons that made Kristallnacht seem like a good idea.
http://www.history.com/topics/kristallnacht
Even if all the reasons were real and not imagined ,even if all of the differences were true the hardened heart of that nation turned out to be a bad idea.
-
Do not feed me a bunch of Holocaust crap. This is entirely different, and I am not buying your stupid comparison.
All I say is let the woman decide. If men could get pregnant this would not even be aw toipic of discussion. It is all about how women are not competent to decide their own lives for themselves.
-
Do not feed me a bunch of Holocaust crap. This is entirely different, and I am not buying your stupid comparison.
All I say is let the woman decide. If men could get pregnant this would not even be aw toipic of discussion. It is all about how women are not competent to decide their own lives for themselves.
This would be different if all Nazis were women?
What is BS to you?
If Men got pregnant we would give birth to persons , apparently Women don't do this.
I think about the same number of Jews volunteered for destruction as babies do for their destruction.
-
They are not babies, they are fetuses, and less conscious at this stage than rodents we routinely set glue traps for. If God does not like this, and God know everything, then he will cause only women who want babies to get pregnant. So you can blame God if you wish.
In any event, this is not my decision, it is the woman's decision entirely. Women also have to approve of tissue donations, and that is as it should be.
-
Euphemisms
Babies are fetuses.
Kill becomes abort.
Hearts become tissue.
And you can't see that this is a dehumanizing process , the standard dehumanizing that is done to the people you want to take land from , enslave , or otherwise make convenient by killing.
Of course these are not people to those wanting to kill them for fun and profit. It isn't even hard to make up a name for them that separates them from "real" people.
Humans have done this to each other a lot, over our history.
-
I can see that a woman has a right to her own damned body and anything it does or produces.
That is what I can see.
After that, the woman decides and I have no say.
I am unimpressed that you call it a dehumanizing process.
I think when you tell a woman through the government that she has no right to decide what to do with her own body, you have taken over her body in the name of the state, and THAT is dehumanizing. It is making a woman''s body the property of the state.
I do not much care what they taught you in church or wherever.
Rich women can easily go where they wish to have an abortion and there is not one damned thing you can do about it. So you are punishing her first for being a woman and second for being too poor.
-
Does a woman have a right to use her body to kill your body?
The right of the state to draft your body has limits , only for good reason should you ever be forced to do anything, the limits should be so strict that this sort of force is rare for everyone.
But the state does have the right to demand your service ,at great risk to your body, to fight to protect the state and society.
Even the right to live is not absolute, in the right circumstance the state can demand that you die.
Unless you are a child that is pretty young, then your life can be taken from you pretty casually.
I wouldn't mind reasonable increases in the right of women to self determination, when science grows to provide it giving women absolute control over whether to conceive or not might be a good idea.
But if the idea of crushing a child to death with pliers doesn't upset you , you have suffered the debasement that was warned you would.
-
I am not a fetus, therefore there are no women that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted fetus. Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Fetuses are on their own. Tough shit, fetuses. I am not the one to defend you from your mommas.
If you want to prevent this, you have to do it with something other than the law and the cops.
-
I am not a fetus, therefore there are no women that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted fetus. Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Fetuses are on their own. Tough shit, fetuses. I am not the one to defend you from your mommas.
If you want to prevent this, you have to do it with something other than the law and the cops.
Mmmmmmm...
I am not a Jew, therefore there are no Fascists that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted Jews. Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Jews are on their own. Tough shit, Jews. I am not the one to defend you from your Fascists.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I am not a Black, therefore there are no Klansmen that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted Black . Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Blacks are on their own. Tough shit, blacks. I am not the one to defend you from your Klansmen.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Yes this works fine I could use any substitution , this is not new in any way at all, it is just another way to state that "real " people are like me and the rest are separate enough to kill off or exploit.
The pathetic difference here is that we every single one of us has been a "fetus" yet we can still dehumanize them, while we are aware at the same time that the humanity of a human fetus is as total as our own.
-
Again, all I can say is "tough shit" to the fetuses.
A frog lays over a thousand eggs and 95% of the tadpoles get eaten before they make it to frog. Neither of the parent frogs do one thing to save them. Cats often eat their own newborn kittens.
That is God's way.
Compared to "God's way" we do far, far better.
Premature babies that are wanted are spared no expense to help them.
A child could be born to a 12 years old mother in Zimbabwe a hundred miles from a doctor or to some rich hedge fund manager's wife in Manhattan.
It's the luck of the draw. Survival of the fittest. That was God's plan, obviously.
I say again, let the woman decide. It is her life. And by any measure she is the fittest.
-
I am not a fetus, therefore there are no women that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted fetus. Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Fetuses are on their own. Tough shit, fetuses. I am not the one to defend you from your mommas.
If you want to prevent this, you have to do it with something other than the law and the cops.
Mmmmmmm...
I am not a Jew, therefore there are no Fascists that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted Jews. Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Jews are on their own. Tough shit, Jews. I am not the one to defend you from your Fascists.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I am not a Black, therefore there are no Klansmen that have any right to kill me.
Sorry, I cannot get worried about any unwanted Black . Not my concern, not my call, none of my business, never has been, never will be.
I have always thought this way and I see no reason to change my mind.
Blacks are on their own. Tough shit, blacks. I am not the one to defend you from your Klansmen.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Yes this works fine I could use any substitution , this is not new in any way at all, it is just another way to state that "real " people are like me and the rest are separate enough to kill off or exploit.
The pathetic difference here is that we every single one of us has been a "fetus" yet we can still dehumanize them, while we are aware at the same time that the humanity of a human fetus is as total as our own.
Brilliant summation, Plane....Bingo squared!! 8)
-
Again, all I can say is "tough shit" to the fetuses.
A frog lays over a thousand eggs and 95% of ......
That is the way of the frog.
The way of the Elephant is very different , and the way of the Wolf is different again.
The way of the Human, what is that?
Have we a natural behavior?
Is there really no reason for one human being to hold the lives of other human beings valuable?
Heinlein was a very Darwinist author, probably more so than Darwin himself.
He said that no parent that killed her or his own progeny was fit , no matter how fit they might be in any other respect.
-
Well, all I am saying it that the pregnant woman has the right to disappoint you, the government, and the ghost of Robert Heinlein.
I am neither supporting abortion nor opposing it. I am simply favoring letting an adult make her own damn choices.
You want to call me immoral because of that, fine with me.
It is not as though anyone will ever let me vote on the issue, anyway.
-
.....................
It is not as though anyone will ever let me vote on the issue, anyway.
I think this really should happen.
Referendum is not more likely to produce an end to controversy than any other means , but at least the majority can have its way.
-
I do not think that a majority of people should have the right to decide what liberties will be denied a citizen.
Just as I did not favor the "defense of marriage" act.
-
A tiny minority has decided that in no case is a "fetus" a person whose rights should be respected .
It is Dred Scott all over again.
-
Sure seems that way
-
When fetuses get the vote, perhaps this will change.
I do not see this happening.
A majority of the American people favor abortions under some conditions, by the way.
But I don't see putting this to a vote as being the right way to go.
-
When fetuses get the vote, perhaps this will change.
I do not see this happening.
A majority of the American people favor abortions under some conditions, by the way.
But I don't see putting this to a vote as being the right way to go.
Why not?
Is it the right thing to submit questions like this to a randomly chosen group of nine judges?
-
I don't think the judges are "randomly selected", though some were poorly selected.
Again, this does not require any judges, it does not require a plebiscite, either.
Just the recognition that everyone, EVEN WOMEN , own their own bodies and that not government, nor masses of people, nor laws, should deny them this.
If you DID have a plebiscite, I would say let only the women decide, since this is only about women.
-
........... since this is only about women.
AND the children.
-
THERE ARE NO FUCKING CHILDREN! They are not children, they are fetuses until they are born!
Jeez!
You clowns do not think women have the same rights as men. But they do.
-
Actually, that's not accurate either. We clowns believe that the unborn children have the same rights as both men & women
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz072915dAPR20150729015229.jpg)
-
There is not such thing as an unborn child.
That is why we use birthdays, not conception days as a point of reference for ourselves.
If men got pregnant, there would be NO WAY this would even be an issue.
-
There is not such thing as an unborn child.
That's exactly what he or she is. I defy you to go up to ANY pregnant woman and tell her she's not carrying a child.
And if man got pregnant, they wouldn't be man.....they'd be a woman
-
Not necessarily. Male seahorses actually give birth.
But depriving a woman of her right is simply misogyny.
(That means "woman hatred"), by the way.
-
We're talking humans professor.
And depriving an unborn child their right to live is simply murder
That means murder, by the way
-
THERE ARE NO FUCKING CHILDREN! They are not children, they are fetuses until they are born!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
These things regularly become human beings , and an instant before they do there is nothing there?
This is far worse than counter-intuitive it is counter -alltheevidencethereis.
-
It is not an extraordinary claim. Anyone can tell the difference, even you.
Women have the right to their own bodies. The government does not.
-
Women have the right to their own bodies.
And unborn Children have a right to theirs.
You know what's ironic......you have this big organized movement calling on "Black lives matter". I wonder when they're going to march on Planned Parenthood, with the amount of black lives that were aborted, compared to all other races here in America. Apparently those lives didn't matter
-
Unborn children do not exist and what you call unborn children has no rights at all.
Most abortions take place in the first 10 weeks or so and what is aborted, and is about the size of four Milk Duds™.
Whatever the case, the remains of the fetus belong to the woman, and if she chooses to donate them to Planned Parenthood, that is her right.
There are only two things anyone can do with fetal tissue, throw it in the garbage or use it to save someone's life.
This is a bogus argument and will lose the women's vote for the Republican'ts. Half the voters are women, and most women thing they have a right to their own bodies.
-
I've seen countless images of unborn children. They have a beating heart. They can feel pain. They absolutely exist
Period
Like Plane said, it's like Dredd Scott, all over again, where the life is demeaned, and made to be less than what they are, because a certain vocal minority wants it to be that way, in order to supposedly disavow any moral connection.
-
Ask me if I give a flying fuck for your demented opinion.
-
....said the pot to the kettle
-
Well...well....lookie there. Should we be surprised? I think not (http://freebeacon.com/politics/planned-parenthood-received-millions-of-dollars-after-lobbying-state-department-parterning-with-clinton-foundation/)
-
It is not an extraordinary claim. Anyone can tell the difference, even you.
Women have the right to their own bodies. The government does not.
When a thing has human features, human DNA, human dreams and human organs, saying it is not human requires some explanation.
At some point what walks and quacks like a duck is a duck.
If it is so easy to dehumanize the "thing" that is entirely human, we should all worry about the humanity we all loose thereby.
It becomes all the more easy to murder and be murdered, the more we require technicalities be excuses .
-
It is not an extraordinary claim. Anyone can tell the difference, even you.
If it is so easy to dehumanize the "thing" that is entirely human, we should all worry about the humanity we all loose thereby.
It becomes all the more easy to murder and be murdered, the more we require technicalities be excuses .
BINGO!
-
Total nonsense.
This is simply hatred of women and denying them the right to their own bodies.
-
Total nonsense.
This is simply hatred of women and denying them the right to their own bodies.
Sorry.
I have to reject this non-answer.
I don't think that you hate children and glory in their multitudes of death.
I think that you are too committed to your cause to bear its being examined.
-
I do not see why it is not entirely clear why a woman or anyone does not have the right to their own body.
Men have been making laws to prevent women from owning property, choosing their own careers, deciding whom to marry for centuries, and this is just one more example.
-
Total nonsense.
This is simply hatred of women and denying them the right to their own bodies.
I'm sure many a slave owner in the south, thought the same way regarding their perceived "property"
-
I do not see why it is not entirely clear why a woman or anyone does not have the right to their own body.
Men have been making laws to prevent women from owning property, choosing their own careers, deciding whom to marry for centuries, and this is just one more example.
I do not see why it is not entirely clear why a baby or anyone does not have the right to their own body.
I haven't ever heard of an abortion being done to a volunteer.
-
They are not babies. They are fetuses.
And here is how many rights they have
ZERO, ZILCH, BUPKISS or whatever rights their future mothers, who have absolute control over them, choose to give them.
-
And blacks weren't weren't persons either. Nor did they have rights
Dredd Scott, all over again. Are you wearing your Plantation's hat, at least?
-
If you think a 24 week old blastocyst is a human, you are simply delusional.
Which you are.
-
If you think a 24 week old blastocyst is a human, you are simply delusional.
Which you are.
How about a "fetus" whose head must be crushed in order to harvest her liver intact?
This is a human head , with human features on the outside and a human brain on the inside.
Planned Parenthood does not care , this makes them seem very hard hearted.
-
Any moral issue is the responsibility of the woman in question, because the fetus is part of HER body. Not yours, not the government's, HERS.
The time has past for governments and men to judge women as property.
You can blather about this forever, but I am entirely convinced that I and 100% right and you are 100% wrong, wrong wrong.
-
And any moral issue is the responsibility of the Plantation owner in question, because the slave is part of HIS property, not the Government
Yea, that fits as well
-
Yeah, sure.
Pregnant women are just like de Massa, and fetuses are just like the slaves.
GO back to analogy school, sirs, you crapped out on this one.
Jeez!
-
Precisely.....today's unborn children are yesterday's slaves. In particular how the left MUST portray these children as mere "fetuses", in order to justify their amorality
-
Fetuses are IN NO WAY like slaves. They are not unpaid laborers. Unpaid labor is the basis of slavery. That is the entire purpose of slavery.
Your neurons seem to have gone South.
-
Not talking about their function....we're talking about how they were classified....as less than human, as property of the plantation owner, or in this case, the woman who would rather kill it than put it to work, since he/she is too small for any labor
-
Fetuses are BY DEFINITION less than human, just as caterpillars are less than butterflies, and tadpoles are less than frogs.
Whatever the fuck they are, let the woman decide for herself, nor some smartass dip in San Diego who thinks he has been named the Moral Authority of the Universe. Fetuses do not belong to you, you have nothing to do with them, they have never lived in your body.
And they are unrelated to slaves.
-
And slaves, BY DEFINITION, back in the days of slave trade, were also less than human
And no, a fetus doesn't go into some cocoon and then come out a human. They're conceived as a human, grow as a human, and are born as a human. Apparently not only did you skip Civics, & U.S. History, you apparently skipped biology as well
Your plantation hat appears to be getting tighter
-
You can entertain any supidass fantasy that you wish, sirs.
When the little men in white coats come to take you away, remember what I told you: you are batshit crazy and seriously obsessed.
-
Biology isn't fantasy, I'm afraid. And your say so doesn't make any thing factually so. Sorry to burst those bubbles
-
Any moral issue is the responsibility of the woman in question, because the fetus is part of HER body. Not yours, not the government's, HERS.
The time has past for governments and men to judge women as property.
You can blather about this forever, but I am entirely convinced that I and 100% right and you are 100% wrong, wrong wrong.
You have skipped the step in which by logic or evidence you demonstrate that a fetus is in no way human .
.....and that is my favorite part.
-
you know this is true!
(http://s12.postimg.org/rogk32dgt/Chuck.jpg)
-
Did you notice that the ratbag right FAILED to pass their useless bill yesterday?
Dogs generally do not get abortions. I don't think there is a canine pro-choice movement. Planned Parenthood does not deal with dogs, foxes, wolves or coyotes . This is a very stupid remark, and not even original.
The only reason they are flailing about over this is that depriving women of their rights does not cost anything. It is like their last War on Gay marriage, which they lost rather spectacularly.
Again, women who go anywhere for abortions have the option of donating fetal tissue or not donating it.
When they do so, lives are saved.
Would you prefer they just throw it away? Because that is the only alternative. This is an idiotic issue and the Republican'ts can only milk ot for so long, because logic is against them.
-
News flash....it DID pass, as a majority voted for it ::) What it didn't pass was the pending Democrat filibuster
-
Again, women who go anywhere for abortions have the option of donating fetal tissue or not donating it.
When they do so, lives are saved. Would you prefer they just throw it away? Because that is the only alternative. This is an idiotic issue and the Republican'ts can only milk ot for so long, because logic is against them.
That insane logic would be like saying in Germany in 1943...."well just think of all the medical experiments we can do on the Jews and Gypsies before we kill them that will help "save lives"....after-all we are going to gas the Jews....so would you just prefer to "throw it away" or use these Jews so "lives are saved". :o ::) :o
-
(http://s13.postimg.org/7osidh3s7/Protected.jpg)
-
Another moronic argument.
Many animals actually EAT THEIR BABIES.
You ought to pass a law against that. You are powerless to end abortions, anyway. Women who have the money can go where they wish and abort at will. You are just torturing poor women, you ought to be able to see that.
Justice is not about a bunch of angry old Bible-thumping farts telling women how somehow the government has the right to force them to give birth.
Justice is about women, who have the SAME RIGHTS as Bible-thumping old farts, to decide how they want to live their lives.
The IGNORANCE of you Bible thumpers is amazing.
And, by the way, what do you think that Planned Parenthood or any abortionists should do with fetal tissue?
There are only TWO (2) coices: throw it wawy or use to to save lives in transplants and research.
This vote is an exercise in idiocy. Obama will veto this idiotic bill, and everyone knows this. It is just a stupid game so that a variety of dolts running for the GOP nomination can attract the votes of the religiously obsessed. Nothing will come of it, it is like voting to end Obamacare 50 times.
It is what can only be called "Legislative masturbation". The only difference it that seems to be more addictive.
-
There are only TWO (2) coices: throw it wawy or use to to save lives in transplants and research.
Yes the Germans should have maybe killed the Jews in a way that could have
facilitated using and/or selling the body parts like Planned Parenthood is doing!
-
No, they could not have done this.
Transplant technology did not exist.
The fact is that (1) abortions are LEGAL and therefore they are GOING TO HAPPEN.
(2) Women VOLUNTEER to have abortions. Planned Parenthood does not kidnap them and abort anyone against her will
(3) the woman who has the abortion has the absolute right to decide what to do with the parts, tissues or whatever.
(4) she may choose to donate it to save others or she may refuse to do this.
None of this is up to you. Nor should it be.
This has ZERO to do with Nazis. Give it a rest.
-
Then, by that rationalization, she can donate her dog's leg....or lungs...or kidneys, to some body bank where that might be able to save another dog.....right? Just seeking clarity amongst this ocean of amorality
-
None of this is up to you. Nor should it be. This has ZERO to do with Nazis.
This is even worse than the Nazis!
More innocent babies have been murdered at Planned Parenthood than Jews gassed by the Nazis.
Standing up for innocents is up to me.
You can't say "it isn't a human" and at the same time harvest human body parts from the un-born baby.
This is a disgrace and exposes what sham Planned Parenthood really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg
-
Apparently we now know why PP has tried so hard to keep further videos from surfacing. The latest appears to demonstrate their desire to have whole bodies, not just parts, to use & sell
-
SIRS....this latest horrible sad video proves three Planned Parenthood Lies
Lie #1: They don't alter the process
It?s been said time and time again that Planned Parenthood never alters their process to procure fetal tissue. They emphasize this because it's against the law to alter an abortion procedure in the interest of the baby body parts aftermarket. But 18 seconds into the video there's this: "If we alter our process and we're able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, it's all just a matter of line items." (18 seconds into the video)
Also: "We've had studies in which the company, or in the case of the investigator, has a Farrell Planned Parenthood Deviation specific need for a certain portion of the products of conception, and we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that." (1:45 into the video)
And this: "Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they're collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens." (4:23 into the video)
Lie #2: They aren't making money from fetal tissue
Yes, they are. When Melissa Farrell referred to fetuses as "a matter of line items," she is talking about money, discussing how to charge to get the most out of each baby. Here are some other examples from this fifth video.
"My department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here." Farrell Planned Parenthood Line Items (7:08 into the video)
"If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this, it's all just a matter of line items." (7:58 into the video)
Lie #3: It's not a baby
While, in the last video, the doctor admitted that these are in fact babies, there are still those who would argue against it. In the final portion of the video, we have a sobering reminder that these are, in fact, babies. Even the use of the word "cadaver" implies that they know these were living human beings, although they are not treated with even a modicum of human dignity. When the video-grapher asks to see examples of the babies aborted that day, clinic workers laugh and tell him, "We had a really long day and they're all mixed up together in a bag."
She then goes on to pull a 20-week twin out of the freezer. A regular freezer, just like the one you probably have in your kitchen.
They put the baby through a pasta Planned Parenthood Baby Freezerstrainer, also just like the one you probably have in your kitchen. They look through baby parts in a pyrex baking dish, again, like the one you probably have in your kitchen. However, this dish contains tiny human body parts. It contains a human liver, thymus, kidneys and eyes. This dish contains perfectly formed arms and legs, fished out with tweezers to determine how much they can get for them.
It is hard to imagine what the pro-abortion movement will come up with next to defend the barbaric practices of Planned Parenthood. Their defenses have been destroyed. We can clearly see what is happening; we can hear it in the words of Planned Parenthood's own employees. The Center for Medical Progress, the group behind these undercover videos, says there are more videos to come. One can hardly comprehend how much worse it can get.
[e-mail]
-
I am ALL FOR any woman having an abortion at ANY TIME SHE CHOOSES.
Why? Because it is HER LIFE and HER BODY and she gets to decide, not some brainwashed religious nut who does not even know her.
Fetuses are not babies in my book.
You can spew this medieval idiocy until the cows come home, it affects not not one whit.
-
I am ALL FOR any woman having an abortion at ANY TIME SHE CHOOSES.
Why? Because it is HER LIFE and HER BODY and she gets to decide
Oh really?
if she is miss independent...her life, her body, blah blah blah
why does she as soon as the rug-rat/tricycle motor/curtain climber is born run and file for child support?
"oh wait a minute....I want the man to pay for 18 years"
but i thought it was "her life"?....yeah sure
why does the man not have any rights in the decision if he is gonna have to pay for 18 years?
-
Get real. If the guy wants a child, then he finds a woman who also wants to have a child. If they agree then it makes sense, but this is almost never the case.
It certainly is not the case in the case of rape.
Otherwise, he gets no say in the matter. Why should he?
All men and all women pretty much know where babies come from. Men can be 1000% confident that they will not be the ones getting pregnant.
-
Fetuses are not babies in my book.
Which was repeated back a century+ ago...by Southern Plantation owners...."Blacks are property, and less a person, in my book"
-
(2) Women VOLUNTEER to have abortions. Planned Parenthood does not kidnap them and abort anyone against her will
No one has ever given permission to be aborted.
Killing these children is very simply wrong to do.
Are these women harmed when the choose to kill their children ?
Obviously the aborted suffer from being crushed , cut or scalded to death, but have you ever considered the consequence that the women who choose to kill their child suffer?
Jane Roe thought long and hard about it.
In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[11] (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
...McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, was published in 1998. She explained her change on the stance of abortion with the following comments:
I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.[4]
Shortly thereafter, McCorvey released a statement that affirmed her entrance into the Roman Catholic Church, and she has been confirmed into the church as a full member.
In February 2005, McCorvey petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 decision with McCorvey v. Hill, arguing that she had standing to do so as one of the original litigants and that the case should be heard once again in light of what she claimed was evidence that the procedure harms women, but the petition was denied because the matter was moot.
On January 22, 2008, McCorvey endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. McCorvey stated, "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
-
The decision whether it ia right or wrong is the prospective mother's. Fetuses get no vote, because they are not people. They certainly are not voting age, either.
I do not care who wrote a book to sell to fools and obsessed womanhaters.
None of your arguments impress me.
Women have the right to choose. That simple.
-
The decision whether it ia right or wrong is the prospective mother's. Fetuses get no vote, because they are not people. They certainly are not voting age, either.
I do not care who wrote a book to sell to fools and obsessed womanhaters.
None of your arguments impress me.
Women have the right to choose. That simple.
They are not people strictly because you say so.
It makes the same sense as if to say that Norwegians are not people .
Or pick any difference you want , beyond this difference there is no person .
It is Dredd Scott all over again.
There was a minority opinion dissenting in the Dredd Scott decision, the dissenting justices felt that the inhumanity of black people was insufficiently proven.
Which I feel applies the same to these children.
Women having a much stronger right to choose would not bother me , if the choice did not include legal killing.
You don't care who wrote that book because you didn't read anything there, that is Jane Roe who had decades to consider her mistake .
-
The decision whether it ia right or wrong is the prospective mother's. Fetuses get no vote, because they are not people.
None of your arguments impress me.
Women have the right to choose. That simple.
They are not people strictly because you say so.
It is Dredd Scott all over again.
There was a minority opinion dissenting in the Dredd Scott decision, the dissenting justices felt that the inhumanity of black people was insufficiently proven.
Which I feel applies the same to these children.
Women having a much stronger right to choose would not bother me , if the choice did not include legal killing.
You don't care who wrote that book because you didn't read anything there, that is Jane Roe who had decades to consider her mistake .
BINGO!!
-
There is no Bingo, sirs. Not even a B.
-
Lol.....because you say so? Ahhh, the greater you protest how spot on someone else was, the more spot on it must have been
-
I did not read the whole thing but am pretty sure its the same old arguement but like to put this out there.
Maybe we have waay too much shame about giving birth to a child for abortions to stop. Notice very little talk about the motivation about this.
We finally cut single mom incidence due to tv shows that show realistic problem of having child that young.
Making abortions a problem didn't seem to work so maybe address the motivation that leads to it. It seems whats done now isn't working and very old.
-
..............
Making abortions a problem didn't seem to work so maybe address the motivation that leads to it. It seems whats done now isn't working and very old.
Yes , and this is where the fathers can also be influenced so that they do not individually put lots of pressure on women to have sex before either or both are ready to deal with a successful pregnancy.
It isn't complicated to decide that you don't want to have, or cause, a pregnancy that must be ended by crushing your child's skull.
-
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Dred Scott, and everything to do with personal freedom.
-
Dred Scott had everything to do with personal freedom as well, Especially in how callous the amoral minority is in trying to demonize & dehumanize the slave/child
-
You prefer to demonize pregnant women, and punish them with unwanted children as well. That is far worse.
They are poor women, many of them Black. This is even counterproductive, as if they are born and grow up they will, when they are not going postal on your beloved cops, vote for Democrats. Only one in a thousand will become a future Rick Scott.
-
Who the hell said they had to keep an unwanted child?? You use protection or you put the child up for adoption, if you don't want a child. :o
-
Birth control could be improved , perhaps even subsidized .
Better than killing children.
Using Abortion as if it were mere birth control is much like using war as population control.
War has a cost to sting even those who do not go to war , in that the general ambient respect for life is reduced.
Abortion is like that, we all get hard hearted .
-
If we subsidized birth control, there would be fewer abortions.
Imagine what Rush Limbaugh would say about that.
Two important companies, Hobby Lobby, Inc. and Chik-Fil-A, Inc. are both opposed to birth control.
The Constitution protects the religious beliefs of such entities, they say.
-
Why are we concerned about the Rush Limbaugh opinion?
I looked this up, he makes a good case for his POV, but if a subsidy made a difference in the form of many fewer abortion killings , there must be a level at which it is worthwhile.
If not with tax gifts to women , then with tax credits to pharmaceutical manufacturers who produce high quality and low cost contraceptives, extra credits for new and improved contraceptives that mitigate side effects.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/callers_on_the_cost_of_contraception
http://www.dennyburk.com/chick-fil-a-contraceptives-and-religious-liberty/
-
http://www.dennyburk.com/ross-douthat-shreds-the-totems-of-sexual-liberation-must-read-nytimes-douthatnyt/
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?_r=1
The claim they’re all making, in different ways, is that even though Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of abortions every year (while lobbying constantly against any restriction on the practice), to oppose channeling public dollars to its family planning operations is to be objectively pro-abortion, because those operations objectively prevent many more abortions still.
It is not the pro-life movement that’s forced Planned Parenthood to unite actual family planning and mass feticide under one institutional umbrella. It is not the Catholic Church or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the Southern Baptist Convention or the Republican Party that have bundled pap smears and pregnancy tests and HPV vaccines with the kind of grisly business being conducted on those videos. This is Planned Parenthood’s choice; it is liberalism’s choice; it is the respectable center-left of Dana Milbank and Ruth Marcus and Will Saletan that’s telling pro-life and pro-choice Americans alike that contraceptive access and fetal dismemberment are just a package deal, that if you want to fund an institution that makes contraception widely available then you just have to live with those “it’s another boy!” fetal corpses in said institution’s freezer, that’s just the price of women’s health care and contraceptive access, and who are you to complain about paying it, since after all the abortion arm of Planned Parenthood is actually pretty profitable and doesn’t need your tax dollars?
-
Limbaugh calls unmarried women who take birth control pills "prostitutes".
He does not seem to have a name for unmarried men who purchase condoms and Viagra, though.
-
Limbaugh calls unmarried women who take birth control pills "prostitutes".
he may have called unmarried women (Fraud Sandra Fluke) that demand taxpayers pay for their sexual escapades prostitutes.
-
Said the plantation owner to the black.....I mean unborn child
-
Limbaugh knew nothing about Sandra Fluke's sex life, nor is he any sort of expert on any woman's need for hormone therapy. He was just being a stupid, rude bully.
A doctor might prescribe birth control pills for many reason other than contraception, and recreational sex is a vital part of human behavior.
Limbaugh thrives on controversy and ignorant diatribes. I don't think he has been anything other than a force for evil ever since he started his diatribes.
-
Limbaugh knew nothing about Sandra Fluke's sex life, .........
I thought everyone knew everything about Sandra Flukes sex life.
She is not shy.
-
Every person on this planet has a right to have whatever the Hell sex life they want. And women have the right to birth control pills no matter what they might use them for. People who overeat have the right to cholesterol medication, diabetics have the right to insulin, smokers have the right to nicotine patches.
-
Sorry.....wrong again. There is no such right to BC pills. ::)
-
Every person on this planet has a right to have whatever the Hell sex life they want.
I believe that if you thought about it for a few minutes you could find some limits on other peoples sex lives that you would consider good law.
There is still a lot of support for having less rape , incest , bestiality, and a few others, we just aren't ready eh? .
I think the opposition to polyandry and polygamy is fading .
-
How is sandra flukes a fraud? And how does anyone know about her sexlife. I recall rush was the only one who provided data on n it and he recanted. Did something new happen afterwards
-
I have heard absolutely NOTHING about her sex life. only Limbaugh's imaginary assessment of it.
Sex is a basic part of being human. A woman capable of having children DOES have EXACTLY the same right to any form of birth control she wants just as a diabetic has a right to insulin or a smoker to nicotine patches or other things to quit smoking. Sirs thinks he has the right to deprive women of their right to make their own s=decisions, but sirs is one sick puppy. I think he must have overdosed on catechism.
-
Sorry, no woman has any right to BC pills. She can do anything with anyone, but that doesn't include any right to ANY pills
-
So says sirs, the ruler of worlds, the Solon of Truth and Purveyor of rancid Holy Mother Church crap to the multitudes.
It would appear that sirs has the right to a prefrontal lobotomomy. sirs is to this forum what Plankton is to the denizens of Bikini Bottom.
-
So says the fact there's no such right located in the Constitution. Sirs has nothing to do with that
-
But the sandra fluke situation was about depriving a woman medication due to the drug primary use is considered unacceptable and is denied being used to treat cancer.
Viagra has been considered not to be covered insurance should be denied because if it's primary use. I have a fatale heart condition and potentially viagra can be helpful to me and its not unreasonable to think it would be better than other meds.
Im talking why at least a provision for alternative use fir these controversial meds to be covered by insurance. My cost is over $600 a month without insurance .
In case you dont know viagra intended use to blodd pressure control but fell short of desired result but the noted side effects has made it profitable for a different use. Depite it fail it is recommended by doctors for blood pressure control.
-
BC pills are a prescription medicine, a pharmacist has no right to give it to you unless you have convinced a physician to write you a scrip.
This is not how basic human rights work.
You have a right to travel freely within this country , asking no permissions of anyone , until this right is taken by due process. It would be strange to require a scrip to take a day trip to the beach, unless you had lost this right via some court order.
And no one should claim that they were denied the right to travel freely , if the reason they are not traveling is that the government hasn't bought them a tank of gas.
-
You are babbling and make no sense.
Women's medicine is no different than men's medicine.
-
None of those were denied its the coverage that was the issue and due tol financial situation some people may not be able to get medication.
Im not addressing right but access to medication for people with serious health issues.
-
Many of those who oppose a woman's right to an abortion also oppose birth control of any type.
The Catholic Church opposes the concept that sex should be exclusively recreational: unless God's purpose of reproduction is included, sex is a sin, a mortal sin called lust.
sirs hates the idea of taxes contributing to something that might be pleasurable to women. He thinks that nothing subsidized should be fun.
-
I see abortion as smoke screen against birth control that push the issue to extreme . Note the topic goes to late term mostly. I'm starting to think maybe these extreme are making the right to choose crowd more accepting to abortions .it looks like it
-
The goal of at least some of the anti-choice people is to cause women to delay getting abortions so long that they can no longer get one legally.
They have eliminated half the abortion clinics with useless regulations in Texas already.
They are going after Planned Parenthood because they do not want women to plan their parenthood: they prefer leaving it up to chance, (ie God).
It would be interesting to learn how many of these fanatics have heard these words" "We didn't want to have you, but somehow you were had."
-
You are babbling and make no sense
Women's medicine is no different than men's medicine.
Irrelevant. ..... there is no right to BC pills any more than there is to aspirin or a kidney transplant
-
Women's medicine is no different than men's medicine.
Ah , you just want to let JEBush off the hook for his remark.
“If you took dollar for dollar, though, I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/08/04/jeb-bush-calls-for-defunding-of-planned-parenthood-then-quickly-clarifies-his-remarks-to-evangelicals/
-
I did not hear Jeb say anything about Planned parenthood.
The more I hear the ratbag right rant about this, the more I feel compelled to make a donation to Planned parenthood.
This whole thing is just a stupid flap.
It is certainly better that fetal organs, tissue or whatever are used for medical purposes than it is to throw it away.
The serious profiteering with regard to donations is done by blood banks. People in rural areas donate lots of blood that they thing will be used fpor people like them, when, in fact it is sold for hundreds per pint in large cities.
-
Why are you talking about the profit that Planned Parenthood is making?
Who cares?
-
Deflection 101.....when losing a debate, change the subject
-
sirs is the consistent LOSER here.
He likes to beat up on women. He thinks they are too stupid to make their own decisions, and for some reason need him to make it for them.
-
Such ignorance, especially as it relates to what sirs thinks & advocates. Here's a hint....a woman can do any damn thing she wants and with whom she wants. But there is no right to BC pills, and when a 3rd party innocent life is involved DOES have a right to life. Period. Good luck trying to twist that into some perverted notion of sirs demanding what women must do. ::)
-
Why does the law suddenly get involved and forbid women from killing their babies after the birth event.
It is when they are fourteen or seventeen that they really need the killin.
-
(http://www.katharinegiovanni.com/wp-content/uploads/cbs-news.png)
Even CBS News calls it a "baby"!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3d-printed-ultrasound-lets-blind-mom-see-unborn-baby/
-
Yeah, like I give a shit.
A woman has the right to decide, period.
CBS does not have the right to make a woman give birth and neither do you.
-
THE WAY AROUND JUDGES' BAN ON BABY-PARTS VIDEOS
Congress can bypass suppression of evidence
Two judges have suppressed, for now, what could be evidence of criminal activity because of the "privacy" concerns of abortion-business interests, but a legal analyst says their work to conceal information all could be undone by Congress.
The issue is the series of videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, which sent undercover representatives to interview Planned Parenthood executives and others connected with the abortion industry.
Their target was to find out about the industry's trade in the body parts of unborn infants. Five videos already made public have revealed Planned Parenthood executives callously talking about what they would get one infamously stated "I want a Lamborghini", for allowing a company to collect and sell body parts.
But two interests, the commercial StemExpress which operates in the industry and the National Abortion Federation which represents abortion businesses, both went to court to ask that any videos including their own statements be suppressed.
Two judges agreed, and hearings are set later this month to continue arguments over the issue.
But in a commentary published by the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal, legal experts say that may not make any difference.
Hans von Spakovsky, an authority on a wide range of issues including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform, and Elizabeth Slattery, who writes about the rule of law, the role of courts, civil rights and equal protection, both are in the foundation?s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
They write:
"[An] action that one or both of these congressional committees [investigating Planned Parenthood] should consider taking is immediately to request or subpoena all of the remaining videos from CMP that have not yet been released."
"The actions of StemExpress and NAF, who are allies of Planned Parenthood, reveal the tactics that these abortion providers and organ buyers intend to use to prevent or delay the release of these videos: seeking out sympathetic judges who will prevent the further release of videos that severely damage the image of the abortion industry and reveal in gory detail their inner workings."
Read the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel, in "Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time."
The commentary continued, "No federal or state judge has the authority to prevent a congressional committee from holding a hearing at which witnesses, like representatives of CMP, testify about their experiences or where the committee presents evidence it has obtained such as the undercover videos, which could also be posted on the committee's website.
"Such action by Congress may be the only way to ensure that litigation tactics do not prevent the public from seeing the rest of the evidence of Planned Parenthood?s possible violations of federal law, and its hideous practices and procedures."
They also point out that Judge William Orrick, one of the judges granting the abortion industry protection, "along with his wife was a major campaign finance bundler for and contributor to Obama, raising at least $200,000 for Obama's campaign and contributing over $30,000 to committees supporting Obama."
The other judge granting abortionists protection was Joanne B. O'Donnell, in the California state-court system, who ruled in the StemExpress request.
"StemExpress's desire to avoid further ridicule, criticism or scandal for its nefarious involvement in the gruesome harvesting and sale of aborted babies? body parts does not outweigh the public's interest in seeing these videos any more than it would if this were a CBS 60 Minutes' undercover sting," the commentary said.
"The same can be said of NAF, particularly given the information already available. And these restraining orders may violate the stern prohibition against prior restraint of free speech outlined by U.S. Supreme Court precedent," it said.
Although it hasn't reached the level of subpoena yet, Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, already has requested of CMP "all video footage in CMP's possession relating to the provision, acquisition, preparation, transportation and sale of fetal tissue, by PPFA, Planned Parenthood affiliates and associated clinics, intermediary businesses, end-users, as well as any other individuals, entities and organizations involved in these processes."
The Family Research Council noted, "Congress may be going away, but the Planned Parenthood issue isn't. When the Senate breaks for August recess this Friday, the political pressure cooker will only get hotter back home when members hear from unhappy voters firsthand. Even moderate Republicans like Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, seemed to acknowledge that Congress had a lot more work to do to protect the integrity of taxpayer dollars, and human beings."
The Senate this week had a majority voting to defund Planned Parenthood, but failed to reach the 60-vote procedural hurdle. That isn't the end, Cornyn has said.
"That vote", Cornyn insisted, "isn't the end of it. This will be the beginning." Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who has a long track record of fighting the abortion industry's corruption, agreed. "This almost certainly becomes part of any final decision about how to move forward on funding. There will be a larger discussion on this," FRC reported.
"When even MSNBC is calling for taxpayer alternatives to Cecile Richards's [Planned Parenthood] group, you know the organization is in trouble. MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough got visibly frustrated when Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., claimed that defunding Planned Parenthood would increase the abortion rate," the report said.
He said, "I think there are a lot of people who believe in a woman's right to choose who wouldn't support federal funding for Planned Parenthood. They aren?t the only people that can hand out birth control."
FRC also pointed out Sen. Harry Reid's audacious claim that 39 million women get health care from Planned Parenthood, even though the organization says it saw only 2.7 million in 2013.
"The abortion industry and its supporters may traffic in a lot of things, but the truth is not one of them," FRC said.
When CMP released its fifth video, WND reported another Planned Parenthood executive was caught discussing the prices for the bodies of unborn babies, noting that "it's all just a matter of line items" for "intact fetal cadavers" or dissections from them.
Under federal law, it's illegal to buy or sell body parts of the unborn.
It was Melissa Farrell, of the Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast, one of the biggest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the country, who said, "If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It's all just a matter of line items."
Troy Newman, of the abortion-fighting Operation Rescue and who is on the board for CMP, said, "The admission that Planned Parenthood abortionists manipulate procedures in order to better harvest organs or even intact late-term fetal cadavers for human experimentation purposes conjures images of H.G. Wells' Dr. Moreau. It is all clearly illegal."
"Are ethical standards adhered to during these private experiments? Given Planned Parenthood?s propensity for unethical, above-the-law arrogance, it is doubtful."
[e-mail]
-
Again the only alternative to doing something beneficial with fetal body parts, tissue or whatever you want to call it is to do nothing with it and throw it away.
Perhaps they could give it to the anti-abortion fanatics for a proper burial.
But even so, nothing beneficial would result. No lives would be saved, no research would be done.
So this is what can only be called an argument from ignorance.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=absW29h8KGA
-
Again the only alternative to doing something beneficial with fetal body parts, tissue or whatever you want to call it is to do nothing with it and throw it away.
Perhaps they could give it to the anti-abortion fanatics for a proper burial.
But even so, nothing beneficial would result. No lives would be saved, no research would be done.
So this is what can only be called an argument from ignorance.
There is another alternative that is available .
And if you are interested in saving human lives , the alternative of saving the lives of these children would save about one per.
It may be speculated that eventually some lives may be saved by research using these tiny cadavers.
But why do these speculated saved lives need saving so badly that we consider these presently alive people disposable?
-
YOU consider them that way. YOU should have no say, because they are not inhabiting YOUR body. Anything inside anyone is their property, not yours, not the bloody governments.
Again, no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. All abortions are voluntary.
All donations of fetal parts are also voluntary.
This is a stupid bit of misogynous propaganda.
Women should be in total control of their own bodies.
-
YOU consider them that way. YOU should have no say, because they are not inhabiting YOUR body. Anything inside anyone is their property, not yours, not the bloody governments.
Funny how plantation owners in the south sought the same thing, of their slaves, since it was their property & not the bloody government's
-
I am the only one with this opinion?
I think it a well founded opinion.
Is it necessarily just an opinion?
Is there no objective measure of man?
-
It is a stupid opinion. You are probably not the only person to have this opinion, as stupidity is rampant among right wingers.
dead fetuses are not slaves, get fucking serious.
The Momma giveth, and the Momma hath the right to taketh away.
-
dead fetuses are not slaves, get fucking serious.
Dead unborn children are Dead slaves
Unborn Children are Slaves
The Momma giveth, and the Momma hath the right to taketh away.
So sayeth the Plantation owner
-
I own no plantations, you hapless jerk.
I once owned 33 acres of horse pasture I inherited, but I sold it.
-
I don't think that abortion proponents hate babies.
I think they have done a doublethink such that some babies are not babies.
-
People who want babies should have them. People who don't should not.
Nature's system is defective, and people who want babies sometimes do not have them and vice versa. Even with BC pills and other devices, women get pregnant when they do not want to have a baby.
I do not hate babies, but I am against people who do not want them being forced to have them.
-
Are you against unwanted adults being killed?
-
No, I simply believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with any fetus that takes up residence within her. If it is a moral issue, it is a moral issue for her and not me or you or the government.
-
Killing a person is a moral issue , only for the killer.
-
Just leave it to the woman to decide. Who gave you the right?
No one I can see.
And a FETUS is a FETUS that is why we do not call them a person.
-
This is the same reason that Gobbles would not call a Jew a person.
No difference is too small to be a distinction between a person and a nonperson.
-
The Nazis did indeed refer to Jews as very crafty, very scheming, dangerous persons.
-
Not the sort of person that you would live and let live with.
I am thinking in particular of the time that Goebbels answered a question about the humanity of Jews with a comment about lice.
AS far as he was concerned they didn't deserve the right to live.
They did Gypsy people about the same , and the mentally handicapped .
If you weren't wanted, you were disposable, just to make the room.
-
I own no plantations, you hapless jerk.
I once owned 33 acres of horse pasture I inherited, but I sold it.
It was rhetorical, Professor literal ::)
-
Your metaphors suck.
You weren't on the Debating Team in high school, were you?
It shows.
-
Even won an award. Stick that in your near flawless record of being wrong
-
Then you have forgotten every bloody thing you learned, because as a debater you suck.
-
lol....so opines Professor 99% Wrong. Yea, I should be learning the art of deflection at every turn, and when too intellectually lazy to defend the indefensible, resort to namecalling. Naaaa, I'll let you corner the market on that form of "debating"