Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[shader]

Far as I can tell, the only people on the planet defending PP are all in this thread

Only place you hear it being attacked is in the right wing nutjob corners of the world.

Not much defending needed.

I'm not right wing and I'm attacking it. BTW, there you go with your incredible argument skills again. If attacking it makes you a nutjob, then its easy to say that the only people attacking it are nutjobs! With this logic, it's hard to lose!

 

[shader]

Are some of you actually watching the entire video and supporting these losers having fun with dead baby parts? What is wrong with you?

 

[timschochet]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

 

[shader]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

You are right, it's probably a losing battle. I've rarely stayed in an abortion thread longer than 2 or 3 posts because I get fired up. Probably should have learned my lesson, but these videos are a bit much. Seeing doctors poke around in dead baby parts is tough to handle for me. I personally have no idea how anyone can possibly see that and tell themselves that it's not a person. That disconnect is the bridge that can't be overcome I suppose.

Personally, I don't see a lot of honesty coming from your side Tim. I see blind support of an organization. It's like you guys are digging your heels into the ground. What if all the videos end up coming out (I think there are 9 or more) and they show clear criminal wrongdoing? At what point will some of you admit that this organization needs to clean up it's act?

I have to constantly remind myself that somehow you guys have talked yourselves into thinking that these aren't really people, that they are just body parts or a fetus or something (I don't know what goes on when you make this decision). You have to understand that when we see doctors poking through baby parts, it's just as disgusting at 15-20 weeks as it is if they were 50 weeks. Just like you'd find it hard to support people that took newborn babies, killed them and dissected them, I find it hard to find common ground with people that are ok with this.

 

[shader]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

Quite ironic, considering the stance of many of these same people when it comes to gay marriage.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

Quite ironic, considering the stance of many of these same people when it comes to gay marriage.

Well I'm not sure if this is what you mean but personally following the gay marriage equal protection logic if someone is a person in one state with rights then presumably the same person would be recognized in another state with those rights. Additionally I think the comparison is closer to Dred Scott rather than Windsor because in Dred Scott the person in question is faced with losing all rights, including the recognition as a "person" as oppose to property and of course the concomitant right of life.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

 

[Quez]

Does anyone know where these baby body parts go once they are sold? Who is buying these things? Is there a big demand for infant transplants?

 

[shader]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

Quite ironic, considering the stance of many of these same people when it comes to gay marriage.

Well I'm not sure if this is what you mean but personally following the gay marriage equal protection logic if someone is a person in one state with rights then presumably the same person would be recognized in another state with those rights. Additionally I think the comparison is closer to Dredd Scott rather than Windsor because in Dredd Scott the person in question is faced with losing all rights, including the recognition as a "person" as oppose to property and of course the concomitant right of life.

I was referring to the simple fact that I've heard for years the "it's not a person it's a fetus" argument, and it's defended by saying "It's the law". Yet the "it's the law" argument wasn't used with gay marriage. Instead, they rallied to legalize gay marriage.

So on the one hand, you are using the law to defend something you believe in, and on the other you are against the law when it contradicts what you believe in.

It's just two-faced for many of these people. They need to take the law out of the equation, stop using "the gov't decided it's not a person yet" excuse and take responsibility for your beliefs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trying to figure out if the people involved in filing briefs in favor of recognizing chimps as persons are pro or anti abortion...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

Quite ironic, considering the stance of many of these same people when it comes to gay marriage.

Well I'm not sure if this is what you mean but personally following the gay marriage equal protection logic if someone is a person in one state with rights then presumably the same person would be recognized in another state with those rights. Additionally I think the comparison is closer to Dredd Scott rather than Windsor because in Dredd Scott the person in question is faced with losing all rights, including the recognition as a "person" as oppose to property and of course the concomitant right of life.

I was referring to the simple fact that I've heard for years the "it's not a person it's a fetus" argument, and it's defended by saying "It's the law". Yet the "it's the law" argument wasn't used with gay marriage. Instead, they rallied to legalize gay marriage.

So on the one hand, you are using the law to defend something you believe in, and on the other you are against the law when it contradicts what you believe in.

It's just two-faced for many of these people. They need to take the law out of the equation, stop using "the gov't decided it's not a person yet" excuse and take responsibility for your beliefs.

Ah right, the law of the land trumps all intrinsic rights after all. Well now it does, not last year.

 

[timschochet]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

That may be part of the problem. I don't like Roe- I think it's inconsistent for the very reason you name. Either a woman has a right to make that decision or she doesn't. Once we start restricting the right, we (the state or society) are playing the role of doctor, which is not a role I want to play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Roe, because the result has been to make abortion legal and safe. But it doesn't seem like a good law to me.

 

[Sand]

Has anybody mentioned Hitler yet?

Lessee, Malthus, Sanger, Hillary.... yeah Hitler would be next. Whatcha got?

I mentioned Irma Grese. Please add her to the list. TIA.

 

[timschochet]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

You are right, it's probably a losing battle. I've rarely stayed in an abortion thread longer than 2 or 3 posts because I get fired up. Probably should have learned my lesson, but these videos are a bit much. Seeing doctors poke around in dead baby parts is tough to handle for me. I personally have no idea how anyone can possibly see that and tell themselves that it's not a person. That disconnect is the bridge that can't be overcome I suppose.

Personally, I don't see a lot of honesty coming from your side Tim. I see blind support of an organization. It's like you guys are digging your heels into the ground. What if all the videos end up coming out (I think there are 9 or more) and they show clear criminal wrongdoing? At what point will some of you admit that this organization needs to clean up it's act?

I have to constantly remind myself that somehow you guys have talked yourselves into thinking that these aren't really people, that they are just body parts or a fetus or something (I don't know what goes on when you make this decision). You have to understand that when we see doctors poking through baby parts, it's just as disgusting at 15-20 weeks as it is if they were 50 weeks. Just like you'd find it hard to support people that took newborn babies, killed them and dissected them, I find it hard to find common ground with people that are ok with this.

Regarding the bolded, the answer is yes. If it turns out that Planned Parenthood is committing criminal wrongdoing, then yes they need to clean up their act.

But when I listen to the rhetoric of most of those attacking PP, I get the sense that the motivation of the other side is not to get PP to clean up their act, but to eliminate PP altogether (or at least all government funding for PP.) I am opposed to that, for reasons I previously stated. And yeah, such talk makes me defensive because I believe that even if all of the charges are true, PP still performs a positive service for women that outweighs the negative.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

That may be part of the problem. I don't like Roe- I think it's inconsistent for the very reason you name. Either a woman has a right to make that decision or she doesn't. Once we start restricting the right, we (the state or society) are playing the role of doctor, which is not a role I want to play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Roe, because the result has been to make abortion legal and safe. But it doesn't seem like a good law to me.

Just reading this thread, I think you're the only prochoicer who says this, typically it resorts to a syllogism of it's not a person because it's not a person because it's not a person because the law says so. Henry at the same time seemed to insist that a boy is not a he is not a person but rather an it, seeking the clinical interpretation for what is always a personal designation ("boy"). Ok I see his point (pick your rhetorical poison) but what you seem to be doing here is different. As a dogmatic absolutist you will find the question of why there is no common ground a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[timschochet]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

That may be part of the problem. I don't like Roe- I think it's inconsistent for the very reason you name. Either a woman has a right to make that decision or she doesn't. Once we start restricting the right, we (the state or society) are playing the role of doctor, which is not a role I want to play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Roe, because the result has been to make abortion legal and safe. But it doesn't seem like a good law to me.

Just reading this thread, I think you're the only prochoicer who says this, typically it resorts to a syllogism of it's not a person because it's not a person because it's not a person because the law says so. Henry at the same time seemed to insist that a boy is not a he is not a person but rather an it, seeking the clerical interpretation for what is always a personal designation ("boy"). Ok I see his point (pick your rhetorical poison) but what you seem to be doing here is different. As a dogmatic absolutist you will find the question of why there is no common ground a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't mean to be dogmatic. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself.

But if a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, how can we quantify that based on the trimester? It doesn't make sense to me. Now you know me well enough Saints to know that I am never going to rely on such a pointless argument as "well, it's the law." Like the dad who says "because I say so" (and I try not to ever say that to my kids) it's an excuse, not an argument.

That being said, of course I find inconsistencies in my own beliefs that I have never been able to solve. For instance, I think it's reasonable for society to have a law that says that a pregnant woman cannot use crack cocaine, as that is harmful to the (potential) baby. But that sort of law, of course, creates a contradiction in my idea that a woman should have the right to an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, because I have accepted at least in principle the idea that the state can force some restrictions on the pregnant woman. I have discussed this issue with several other pro-choice people and they have offered me ways in which I am supposed to be able to reconcile the two ideas, but they have never been acceptable to me. So it's something I continue to struggle with.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

I think part of the problem is when people buy into the labels that the political consultants asign, pro choice or pro life, obviously those are not 100% or all encompassing. Most prochoicers point to Roe as the beginning and end of all conversation and yet Roe allows for recognition and protection of life at viability and points out that conceptually it could even go to quickening. So start there, find common ground.

That may be part of the problem. I don't like Roe- I think it's inconsistent for the very reason you name. Either a woman has a right to make that decision or she doesn't. Once we start restricting the right, we (the state or society) are playing the role of doctor, which is not a role I want to play.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have Roe, because the result has been to make abortion legal and safe. But it doesn't seem like a good law to me.

Just reading this thread, I think you're the only prochoicer who says this, typically it resorts to a syllogism of it's not a person because it's not a person because it's not a person because the law says so. Henry at the same time seemed to insist that a boy is not a he is not a person but rather an it, seeking the clerical interpretation for what is always a personal designation ("boy"). Ok I see his point (pick your rhetorical poison) but what you seem to be doing here is different. As a dogmatic absolutist you will find the question of why there is no common ground a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't mean to be dogmatic. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself.

But if a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, how can we quantify that based on the trimester? It doesn't make sense to me. Now you know me well enough Saints to know that I am never going to rely on such a pointless argument as "well, it's the law." Like the dad who says "because I say so" (and I try not to ever say that to my kids) it's an excuse, not an argument.

That being said, of course I find inconsistencies in my own beliefs that I have never been able to solve. For instance, I think it's reasonable for society to have a law that says that a pregnant woman cannot use crack cocaine, as that is harmful to the (potential) baby. But that sort of law, of course, creates a contradiction in my idea that a woman should have the right to an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, because I have accepted at least in principle the idea that the state can force some restrictions on the pregnant woman. I have discussed this issue with several other pro-choice people and they have offered me ways in which I am supposed to be able to reconcile the two ideas, but they have never been acceptable to me. So it's something I continue to struggle with.

First of all let's agree that disagreements on this issue, like a few others, are never resolved online. No one ever has a eureka moment in discussions like these.

In my view though the conundrum arises when you divorce the idea of right from how you define life. This extends to all humans but with regard to the beginning of life it's sort of cosmological, when did the universe start? Well you have start moving back in time minute by minute until you hit the big bang.

I have to cut out for tonight, but good luck, defining life and the rights tethered to it are an age old problem. If you take the endeavor seriously then it's a worthwhile pursuit.

I leave you with this quote from Maimonides, and I'm guessing you know who that is without checking:

"The eternal providence has appointed me to watch over the life and health of Thy creatures. May the love for my art actuate me at all time; may neither avarice nor miserliness, nor thirst for glory or for a great reputation engage my mind; for the enemies of truth and philanthropy could easily deceive me and make me forgetful of my lofty aim of doing good to Thy children.

May I never see in the patient anything but a fellow creature in pain.

Grant me the strength, time and opportunity always to correct what I have acquired, always to extend its domain; for knowledge is immense and the spirit of man can extend indefinitely to enrich itself daily with new requirements. Today he can discover his errors of yesterday and tomorrow he can obtain a new light on what he thinks himself sure of today.

Oh, God, Thou has appointed me to watch over the life and death of Thy creatures; here am I ready for my vocation and now I turn unto my calling."

As you know that's not a Christian thing or even a religious one, Maimonides was bigger than that. Bon chance, mon frere.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think Timmy's views are not shared by most pro-choice people. Please don't believe that he speaks for all of us.

 

[timschochet]

But in that quote, the patient could just as easily be the pregnant woman.

 

[timschochet]

I think Timmy's views are not shared by most pro-choice people. Please don't believe that he speaks for all of us.

Please refer to my signature. Of course I don't speak for you.

 

[tommyboy]

one of the continuing problems i see in this thread is that if you don't like Planned Parenthoods actions here, you are automatically labelled pro life, or anti abortion.

I'm neither. I'm for legal abortion, even if I find it appalling as a father of 4.

there are shades of grey here, this isn't a simple issue so stop assuming people are automatically gonna fit in that box.

i find PP abhorrent in their actions, and I don't think my tax dollars should support them. They will survive without it.

 

[Henry Ford]

...Cecile Richards is president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

...While predictably these videos do not show anything illegal on Planned Parenthood’s part, medical and scientific conversations can be upsetting to hear, and I immediately apologized for the tone that was used, which did not reflect the compassion that people have come to know and expect from Planned Parenthood.

There, was that so difficult?

It does seem consistent with at least one interpretation we've been using in the discussion.

 

[Henry Ford]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

You are right, it's probably a losing battle. I've rarely stayed in an abortion thread longer than 2 or 3 posts because I get fired up. Probably should have learned my lesson, but these videos are a bit much. Seeing doctors poke around in dead baby parts is tough to handle for me. I personally have no idea how anyone can possibly see that and tell themselves that it's not a person. That disconnect is the bridge that can't be overcome I suppose.

Personally, I don't see a lot of honesty coming from your side Tim. I see blind support of an organization. It's like you guys are digging your heels into the ground. What if all the videos end up coming out (I think there are 9 or more) and they show clear criminal wrongdoing? At what point will some of you admit that this organization needs to clean up it's act?

I have to constantly remind myself that somehow you guys have talked yourselves into thinking that these aren't really people, that they are just body parts or a fetus or something (I don't know what goes on when you make this decision). You have to understand that when we see doctors poking through baby parts, it's just as disgusting at 15-20 weeks as it is if they were 50 weeks. Just like you'd find it hard to support people that took newborn babies, killed them and dissected them, I find it hard to find common ground with people that are ok with this.

When medical students are poking through cadavers, do you make the same argument? I don't. And while I certainly wish there were a solemn pall of respect every time an autopsy is performed, there isn't. It's kind of like this video.

 

[Henry Ford]

Which is not to say - if I'm coming off this way - that I think the way these medical "professionals" handled things was a great way of dealing with it. Or that I don't have a problem with joking around in this room. I tried to make this point above, but maybe I wasn't clear enough - the language and "professionalism" being exhibited here isn't good. But it doesn't shock me or make me think this organization is filled with vampires or anything.

I'd be upset seeing it in person, and I'm upset seeing it on video, but I can see where it comes from, and it doesn't make the people horrifying monsters in my eyes. It just makes them people with a ###ty job who are acting like anyone else with a ####ty job.

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry Ford, I'd hire you to be my lawyer every day of the week and twice on Saturday.

Thanks, good buddy. I don't do criminal work and I don't do family law. Anything else, shoot me a pm.

 

[culdeus]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

 

[General Malaise]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

 

[rockaction]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

That came out July 21st. The reason it's getting no traction is likely because it's Annenberg. It's awful tough to be left-wing darlings, write hit pieces on conservative media (including the Wall Street Journal) and have anybody take you seriously as a non-partisan outfit.

It's like that Charles Ramsey-led organization Maurile linked to that day about right-wing violence. Was it LARFF? OR LAFF? Or something like that. Anybody can dress up the naked truth, it's the dupes buying it. Funny, matuski, you showed up in that thread and declared some sort of weird and cosmic victory, too.

Wonder if you're...making the same mistake over and over and over.

 

[Sand]

I don't mean to be dogmatic. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself.


But if a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, how can we quantify that based on the trimester? It doesn't make sense to me.

When do you define life? At conception? At 21 weeks when we know babies can survive outside the womb? The second he/she exits the birth canal?

If the last one do you believe it to be ok to abort a 9 month old fetus? 8 months? 7 months? Where do you draw the line?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I don't mean to be dogmatic. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself.


But if a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, how can we quantify that based on the trimester? It doesn't make sense to me.

When do you define life? At conception? At 21 weeks when we know babies can survive outside the womb? The second he/she exits the birth canal?

If the last one do you believe it to be ok to abort a 9 month old fetus? 8 months? 7 months? Where do you draw the line?

All living cells are always "life".

 

[Sand]

I don't mean to be dogmatic. Obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself.


But if a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, how can we quantify that based on the trimester? It doesn't make sense to me.

When do you define life? At conception? At 21 weeks when we know babies can survive outside the womb? The second he/she exits the birth canal?

If the last one do you believe it to be ok to abort a 9 month old fetus? 8 months? 7 months? Where do you draw the line?

All living cells are always "life".

When do you define a human, i.e. protected by law, life begins?

I figured it was obvious but there's always one jackass hung up on semantics...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I figure once something is kicking and moving you ought not up and kill it. Anyone have any counter examples? An attacking puma maybe?

 

[shader]

It seems almost impossible to discuss this subject without insulting or demonizing the other side. I hate it. I know that most of you here who are pro-life are well meaning, and simply want to save lives. Most of us who are pro-choice want to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions.

Is there no way that we can discuss this issue, reasonably, with respect for each other?

You are right, it's probably a losing battle. I've rarely stayed in an abortion thread longer than 2 or 3 posts because I get fired up. Probably should have learned my lesson, but these videos are a bit much. Seeing doctors poke around in dead baby parts is tough to handle for me. I personally have no idea how anyone can possibly see that and tell themselves that it's not a person. That disconnect is the bridge that can't be overcome I suppose.

Personally, I don't see a lot of honesty coming from your side Tim. I see blind support of an organization. It's like you guys are digging your heels into the ground. What if all the videos end up coming out (I think there are 9 or more) and they show clear criminal wrongdoing? At what point will some of you admit that this organization needs to clean up it's act?

I have to constantly remind myself that somehow you guys have talked yourselves into thinking that these aren't really people, that they are just body parts or a fetus or something (I don't know what goes on when you make this decision). You have to understand that when we see doctors poking through baby parts, it's just as disgusting at 15-20 weeks as it is if they were 50 weeks. Just like you'd find it hard to support people that took newborn babies, killed them and dissected them, I find it hard to find common ground with people that are ok with this.

When medical students are poking through cadavers, do you make the same argument? I don't. And while I certainly wish there were a solemn pall of respect every time an autopsy is performed, there isn't. It's kind of like this video.

There's a difference in examining a dead cadaver, and examining something you just put to death. Surely you see that.

 

[shader]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

It's fascinating to watch otherwise rational people lose their mind and support people who destroy babies for a living.

 

[shader]

I figure once something is kicking and moving you ought not up and kill it. Anyone have any counter examples? An attacking puma maybe?

It's not kicking. It's a mass of cells moving around mindlessly for no reason. Pay no attention to the legs or toes, those are just potential legs and toes, not actual ones.

 

[shader]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

The latest video is hard to debunk. I'm sure someone will try. But it doesn't take much editing to make awful people look awful.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

It's fascinating to watch otherwise rational people lose their mind and support people who destroy babies for a living.

This is where you backtrack from your video evidence you thought was solid ground to argue from.

Unfortunately for you, your stance on abortion is a proven loser as well. Good luck with that... until the next concocted controversy!!

 

[urbanhack]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

It's fascinating to watch otherwise rational people lose their mind and support people who destroy babies for a living.

so dramatic for a Friday night.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

The latest ---*EDITED* to make them appear awful-- video is hard to debunk. I'm sure someone will try. But it doesn't take much editing to make awful people look awful.

Fixed.

 

[matuski]

And now we wait for the next birther, benghazi, planned parenthood, robert ayers, obamaphone, etc.

Concocted controversies from the right are always a hoot.

 

[tommyboy]

You morons are still defending PP? Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

 

[General Tso]

You morons are still defending PP? Bwahahahahahaaaaaaaaa

Holy #### ain't that the truth. I'm a dyed in the wool pro-choicer and this thing is so repulsive it makes me want the whole organization shut down. It's shocking seeing people actually defending this ####.

 

[shader]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

It's fascinating to watch otherwise rational people lose their mind and support people who destroy babies for a living.

This is where you backtrack from your video evidence you thought was solid ground to argue from.

Unfortunately for you, your stance on abortion is a proven loser as well. Good luck with that... until the next concocted controversy!!

the video is pretty self explanatory. Did they edit parts to make things look worse? Sure. The right is full of hypocrisy.

If it came out that the video was 100% actors, it still wouldn't change the fact that I think people who professionally abort babies should be ashamed of their lives in general.

That being said, I think the video shows a lot of negative things about the organization, and supposedly 4-5 more are in the pipe, we will see. Kind of irrelevant as we know this goes on.

And I suppose you thinking that my opinion on abortion being a "proven loser" is because of what, the Supreme Court? Ok big deal. I don't care what this county enforces as laws. If it wants to allow abortions up to 9 months it doesn't affect me. It's still murder in my eyes. But if you need a Friday night victory, drink a cold one on Roe vs Wade. You're a winner!

 

[shader]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

The latest ---*EDITED* to make them appear awful-- video is hard to debunk. I'm sure someone will try. But it doesn't take much editing to make awful people look awful.

Fixed.

Oh they are acting in an awful way with or without right wing edits.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I figure once something is kicking and moving you ought not up and kill it. Anyone have any counter examples? An attacking puma maybe?

It's not kicking. It's a mass of cells moving around mindlessly for no reason. Pay no attention to the legs or toes, those are just potential legs and toes, not actual ones.

Aren't we all? We're all just chemical floating in the universe. I asked BST previously about the distinction between a "fetus" (latin, "growth") and an elderly person hooked up to and totally dependent on a machine for viability. I don't think I ever got an answer except the sophistic syllogism that well a person is granted a rights at person therefore they're a person.

 

[matuski]

watched a few of the videos, give them a big meh. whatever. Haters gonna hate. Just seems like part of the cost of doing business imo.

Did we link the FactCheck.org article yet? Seems like the videos were edited to make the PP look like monsters.

And suddenly the thread dies....

The Right falls on its face yet again. It is fascinating to watch this mass of people make the same mistakes over and over and over.

It's fascinating to watch otherwise rational people lose their mind and support people who destroy babies for a living.

This is where you backtrack from your video evidence you thought was solid ground to argue from.

Unfortunately for you, your stance on abortion is a proven loser as well. Good luck with that... until the next concocted controversy!!

the video is pretty self explanatory. Did they edit parts to make things look worse? Sure. The right is full of hypocrisy.

If it came out that the video was 100% actors, it still wouldn't change the fact that I think people who professionally abort babies should be ashamed of their lives in general.

That being said, I think the video shows a lot of negative things about the organization, and supposedly 4-5 more are in the pipe, we will see. Kind of irrelevant as we know this goes on.

And I suppose you thinking that my opinion on abortion being a "proven loser" is because of what, the Supreme Court? Ok big deal. I don't care what this county enforces as laws. If it wants to allow abortions up to 9 months it doesn't affect me. It's still murder in my eyes. But if you need a Friday night victory, drink a cold one on Roe vs Wade. You're a winner!

I'm trying to follow your argument here.. I admit I'm lost.

Aside from not being able to make heads from tales, I definitely thought the "So What About the Supreme Court of the United States" logic was a winner.

 

[matuski]

That being said, I think the video shows a lot of negative things about the organization, and supposedly 4-5 more are in the pipe, we will see. Kind of irrelevant as we know this goes on.

Like what exactly?

 

[shader]

I figure once something is kicking and moving you ought not up and kill it. Anyone have any counter examples? An attacking puma maybe?

It's not kicking. It's a mass of cells moving around mindlessly for no reason. Pay no attention to the legs or toes, those are just potential legs and toes, not actual ones.

Aren't we all? We're all just chemical floating in the universe. I asked BST previously about the distinction between a "fetus" (latin, "growth") and an elderly person hooked up to and totally dependent on a machine for viability. I don't think I ever got an answer except the sophistic syllogism that well a person is granted a rights at person therefore they're a person.

Viability has always been an argument that holds no logical weight to me.I just left the hospital earlier this evening. My wife's cousin had a newborn that is a few weeks early. You can't call that little baby viable. The only thing it can do on its on is breathe. If you leave a newborn on its own, it will die. We all know this. No difference in viability at 4 months after conception and 9.5 months. They need care or they will die. The only difference is what amount of care is needed.

The amount of care that is needed changes from the moment everyone's life begins, at conception, until they die. It's a scientific cycle. It has a definite begin, and a definite end. Only those that willingly refuse to see the truth of this subject try and act as if those first 4-5 months somehow don't mean anything.