Planned Parenthood 2.0

[Super Bee]

Think Lamborghini likes all the free advertising?

 

[RockofStrength]

Realize that, even though they believed they were encloseted with people who understood the quid-pro-quo, there was even in these videos an attempt to couch everything in pleasant language to a degree. Even these candid videos fail to capture the sheer level of coldness in these people.

Hang them.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Think Lamborghini likes all the free advertising?

Lambo Exec 1: Sir, we're dominating social media today, trending everywhere!

Lambo Exec 2: Wow really? What for?

Lambo Exec 1: Uh... You don't want to know.

 

[Super Bee]

if this gets no attention even after an investigation - America's lost.

After reading many comments to the links posted on Drudge I believe we have already lost it.

 

[zippy23]

Here's what i believe is the sickest part. Not ONE of my liberal friends or acquaintances has condemned this. They all are towing the line of "its donating tissue for science." They spew the lies that it was an edited tape by right wing conspiracy nuts and say PP is great for women's health. This society has become so polarized that nothing, not even the murder and sale of human organs will cause a negative reaction by the left because they are so hardened in their religion(which is politics) that nothing anyone says will ever phase them, they will use facts that you provide as fuel for their hate for the right wing. It is utterly disgusting and i'm outraged that this is how its become. These people dont deserve the life their mother gave them, yet they repeat the b.s. they here from their media and carry on being horrible people. This is so sickening that i have limited myself to all social media, i dont watch the news, i need to limit myself on the political section here because the stuff that is going on is so sick and so evil yet its accepted by so many people. What sick country this has become.

 

[Dead Duck]

Well now I'm officially offended!




A Lamborghini? Really? That is so Un-American.

 

[Cygnus]

At least Dr. Frankenstein didn't kill people to harvest their body parts. He just recycled.

Is that why the monster was green?

 

[HoughMade]

Is that why the monster was green?

yes, and

YES!

 

[Dead Duck]

Is that why the monster was green?

yes, and

YES!

I always saw him as black & white.

 

[bonkers1919]

Here is how I confront a pro choice person.

Ask them if NASA found a single cell living on Mars would that mean there is life on Mars?

Now you have them cornered. Ask them why a single cell on earth is any different than on Mars.

Another way to play head games with a pro choice individual. Ask them if they believe in the Death Penalty. When they say no, ask why they won't kill a person but will kill a single cell that splits into 2 then 4 then 8.

I love when this subject comes up. You can see their heads exploding when confronted with the dichotomy.

 

[caverjamie]

I can see where the PP supporters are coming from here. If I thought abortion was ok (I don't), then why would I have a problem with using the remains for science, recovering my costs or maybe even supplementing my funding. You expect people to be outraged, but if someone thinks killing the baby is ok, you really expect them to get all broken up about the money issue? We're way past that in this world. Some borderline folks may be disgusted by the callousness and graphic nature of the videos however.

 

[gstanley102]

Here is how I confront a pro choice person.

Ask them if NASA found a single cell living on Mars would that mean there is life on Mars?

Now you have them cornered. Ask them why a single cell on earth is any different than on Mars.

Another way to play head games with a pro choice individual. Ask them if they believe in the Death Penalty. When they say no, ask why they won't kill a person but will kill a single cell that splits into 2 then 4 then 8.

I love when this subject comes up. You can see their heads exploding when confronted with the dichotomy.

When confronted by a "pro choicer" I ask, why do you hate babies?
Their ultimate goal is abortion on demand at any time. One of the cornerstones of the DMC.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

When confronted by a "pro choicer" I ask, why do you hate babies?
Their ultimate goal is abortion on demand at any time. One of the cornerstones of the DMC.

There's a scientific counter to absolutely every point they try to make. I've never seen a debate with them end without them repeating the tired "anti-women's rights" tripe and continuing to yell about what makes a "person"

It's a complete change of subject, because they'll find no victory against the actual issue.

 

[HoughMade]

There's a scientific counter to absolutely every point they try to make. I've never seen a debate with them end without them repeating the tired "anti-women's rights" tripe and continuing to yell about what makes a "person"

It's a complete change of subject, because they'll find no victory against the actual issue.

The philosophers among the pro-abortion ranks may debate life...as will the pro-abortion people who don't even know the legal basis for their claimed right, but legally, when a new life begins is irrelevant.

There is one point in time when a new, genetically distinct entity comes into being- that is conception. From then on, all changes are simply the natural growth and progression of that genetically distinct entity. Objectively- a new life begins at conception. Every other argued point of development ignores the genetics and is arbitrary.

This new life (which, of course, is a new human life because what else could it be?) is completely dependent upon the mother for 9 months. No two ways about it. However, after birth, that new life is no less dependent, it is just that the more than one person has the ability to fulfill its needs. I fail to find a moral difference between a caretaker killing a dependent human life when there is one caretaker, vs. a caretaker killing it when there could be more than one caretaker.

Legally, abortion was found to be a right based upon the idea that the rights of the mother (a term loosely used in this context) outweigh any right of the new human life, at least until the third trimester- and what could be more arbitrary than that. Personhood, humanity...pfft, irrelevant. Regardless of what this new human life is, for it's first 6 months of life, it can be killed by its caretaker. In some places, the last three months aren't ant safer.

More important than the genetic truth of when a new human life is created, more important than the fact that females are aborted at least as often as males and more often when abortion is used for sex selection (and it is) is the idea that a woman who chose to partake in activities which have a fair to middlin' chance of causing pregnancy should be absolved from the consequences of that choice. This is needed, they say, for equality purposes, because men have no consequences. The child support offices of your local county's legal system may demonstrate otherwise. But, they say, it's not always a choice. Pregnancies can result from rape, incest or some other form of duress. While I wonder why an innocent new human life should pay for the crimes of others, I'll tell you what- how about we outlaw all abortions except those resulting from rape, incest, or physically endangering the life of the mother- I'll sign on to support that bill right now and I'll go to war against the "no exceptions" crowd to make it happen.......from the other side? Crickets.

There is no logical consistency, no morality other than self from the pro-abortion side. "I won't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body." Really? When a woman grabs a knife and goes after her own 6 month old dependent child, what about then? Will you tell her she can't use her body to kill her child? Let's be consistent.

 

[jamil]

I can see where the PP supporters are coming from here. If I thought abortion was ok (I don't), then why would I have a problem with using the remains for science, recovering my costs or maybe even supplementing my funding. You expect people to be outraged, but if someone thinks killing the baby is ok, you really expect them to get all broken up about the money issue? We're way past that in this world. Some borderline folks may be disgusted by the callousness and graphic nature of the videos however.

The split seems to be along religious lines, though I'm probably a fairly rare non-religious person that opposes abortion. To me it is a moral issue. Morals are subjective. But something that isn't subjective about morals are the consequences of moral choices. I think a world of humans who respect human life as an issue of morality is a better world that regards human life as only valuable when that life is outside the womb. That kind of morality can excuse increasingly destructive behavior.

If it's okay to market human parts for profit, it should be okay for people to purposely conceive and abort their unborn children for the purpose of profit. How much further is required to reach a depravity that is harmful to humanity as a whole?


Hough, your posts are rarely this long. Usually you're very concise. So when you write this much, I'm guessing you have a lot to say.

The philosophers among the pro-abortion ranks may debate life...as will the pro-abortion people who don't even know the legal basis for their claimed right, but legally, when a new life begins is irrelevant.

There is one point in time when a new, genetically distinct entity comes into being- that is conception. From then on, all changes are simply the natural growth and progression of that genetically distinct entity. Objectively- a new life begins at conception. Every other argued point of development ignores the genetics and is arbitrary.

This new life (which, of course, is a new human life because what else could it be?) is completely dependent upon the mother for 9 months. No two ways about it. However, after birth, that new life is no less dependent, it is just that the more than one person has the ability to fulfill its needs. I fail to find a moral difference between a caretaker killing a dependent human life when there is one caretaker, vs. a caretaker killing it when there could be more than one caretaker.

Legally, abortion was found to be a right based upon the idea that the rights of the mother (a term loosely used in this context) outweigh any right of the new human life, at least until the third trimester- and what could be more arbitrary than that. Personhood, humanity...pfft, irrelevant. Regardless of what this new human life is, for it's first 6 months of life, it can be killed by its caretaker. In some places, the last three months aren't ant safer.

More important than the genetic truth of when a new human life is created, more important than the fact that females are aborted at least as often as males and more often when abortion is used for sex selection (and it is) is the idea that a woman who chose to partake in activities which have a fair to middlin' chance of causing pregnancy should be absolved from the consequences of that choice. This is needed, they say, for equality purposes, because men have no consequences. The child support offices of your local county's legal system may demonstrate otherwise. But, they say, it's not always a choice. Pregnancies can result from rape, incest or some other form of duress. While I wonder why an innocent new human life should pay for the crimes of others, I'll tell you what- how about we outlaw all abortions except those resulting from rape, incest, or physically endangering the life of the mother- I'll sign on to support that bill right now and I'll go to war against the "no exceptions" crowd to make it happen.......from the other side? Crickets.

There is no logical consistency, no morality other than self from the pro-abortion side. "I won't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body." Really? When a woman grabs a knife and goes after her own 6 month old dependent child, what about then? Will you tell her she can't use her body to kill her child? Let's be consistent.

Some I agree with. Other parts not as much.

I think the area is greyer than you present it. I agree that objectively, a new life begins at conception. But the contention over abortion is about when that new life's rights supersede the mother's. I don't think the answer to that is nearly as objective as you'd like it to be. As I said before, it's largely a matter of belief about the origin of all life. If religion dictates your belief, you might think that conception is the point where natural rights are morally conferred. I'm not religious, and to me that realm is grey enough that I'm not willing to support outlawing all abortions. But certainly when a human brain is capable of thought and feeling, that to me is a more objective line to draw. And certainly I do not support trafficking human parts.

 

[PaulF]

What about consent?

Doesn't a person have a right to say to another person: "I don't want you inside my body anymore"? I believe we do.

Pregnancy changes a woman's body permanently. Motherhood changes a woman's life permanently. What if she has weighed the potential costs and benefits and she does not want to experience these changes? For me, a person who will never have to choose whether or not to have an abortion, that is ample reason to keep legal abortion on the table.

Once a baby has been born it no longer requires the consent of its mother to survive. For me this changes a great many things about the situation.

 

[Mr. Habib]

As my high school Government teacher was fond of saying" your right to through a punch ends at the tip of my nose." The right of the "mother" to not bare and raise a child ends the moment that right endangers the right of the child to live.

 

[HoughMade]

To be certain, there are different thoughts about this. I appreciate the time and thought you have put into this issue. Here are a few more thoughts of mine.

...I think the area is greyer than you present it. I agree that objectively, a new life begins at conception. But the contention over abortion is about when that new life's rights supersede the mother's.

Supersede? Only if the baby is trying to kill the mother. "Putting a woman through" pregnancy and birth (because women may then give away the baby if they like) is not, in any way, equivalent to killing the child. To be clear- abortion allows the mothers rights to kill the baby. Not allowing abortion allows a baby to inconvenience the mother and maybe cause embarrassment for a few months if she wishes to end the relationship after birth, she may. There is no equivalence. These are two humans and one's right to be rid of discomfort and inconvenience do not justify killing.

I don't think the answer to that is nearly as objective as you'd like it to be. As I said before, it's largely a matter of belief about the origin of all life. If religion dictates your belief, you might think that conception is the point where natural rights are morally conferred.

I don't know why religion is a necessary discussion in the abortion debate. A good secular humanist should be in favor of not killing humans. The atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, I know all value human life. Every one of them. The logical (not supernaturally revealed, but logical) end to valuing human life is that every human life is worth protecting. What is magical about the moment of birth that the full force of the law will now protect a life that all science agrees was present months before? Balancing the value of one human life versus another? Sounds like a dangerous road. I wonder what human lives will be deemed of less value next. No religion- humanism.

I'm not religious, and to me that realm is grey enough that I'm not willing to support outlawing all abortions.

Different people can have different beliefs and I love that about about our society. My issues is simply that one belief system ends lives for convenience.

But certainly when a human brain is capable of thought and feeling, that to me is a more objective line to draw.

This is by no means an objective standard that can be applied legally. This varies with each individual and is subject to change as science advances. What is a thought? What is "feeling". Does reflex to stimuli count? If not, why not?

And certainly I do not support trafficking human parts.

And we certainly agree on this.

 

[HoughMade]

What about consent?

Doesn't a person have a right to say to another person: "I don't want you inside my body anymore"? I believe we do...

...and exercising this right earlier would avoid somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% of abortions.

 

[Woobie]

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to HoughMade again.