Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 12)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, which parts of the videos do you think are "damning?" Or, for that matter, contain "facts?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
How about taking Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who said:

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
But, of course, he's only the Republican committee chairman, so what'd he know? [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now PP has said they will refuse compensation for their costs for tissue donations. Gohmert won't be fazed by that, as he recently claimed that PP exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions, and he threw in a connection to Benghazi while he was at it. How do you reason or argue with people like that? The answer is, well, he's a Republican.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
How about taking Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who said:

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
But, of course, he's only the Republican committee chairman, so what'd he know? [Wink]

Sorry, but:
quote:
Coalfire Systems, a highly accredited forensic analysis and cybersecurity company that does work for Fortune 500 companies, issued a report Monday which found that 10 full-footage videos the Center for Medical Progress recorded while undercover at Planned Parenthood facilities and related locations “are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing.”

“This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme,” the report states. “The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1’s camera and Investigator 2’s camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.” The report also confirms that “edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation.”

“The Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed. Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appears to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation.”


Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Question: what "very real crimes" are being alleged, here?

I would be very surprised if you could locate one.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Now PP has said they will refuse compensation for their costs for tissue donations. Gohmert won't be fazed by that, as he recently claimed that PP exists almost solely for the purpose of performing abortions, and he threw in a connection to Benghazi while he was at it. How do you reason or argue with people like that? The answer is, well, he's a Republican.

Also note that only Oregon And California locations were asking for expense reimbursements. And beyond that, only Washington locations were also even doing tissue donations, so every other state that used the videos as a pretext to launch investigations was doing so under false pretenses.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations and should now answer for what appears to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation."
Apparently, appearances are deceiving.

quote:
“Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes,” Chaffetz said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meeting. “Was there any wrongdoing? I didn’t find any.”
Who to believe? The one who said there appeared to be wrong-doing, or the one who said he looked into it and found none. Who to believe?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, Rafi, check this out:
quote:
The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The videos, recorded by two activists posing as representatives of a biotechnology firm procuring tissue for researchers and universities, continue to be released online about once a week. One of the activists, David Daleiden of California, told The New York Times last month that his “thousands of hours of videotape” was enough to release videos into the fall. That will coincide with Congress’s final budget debate, and the videos have stoked growing Republican threats of a government shutdown unless Planned Parenthood is stripped of about $500 million it gets annually, mostly to care for low-income Medicaid patients. By law, public funds cannot pay for abortions.

The analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood covers the first four videos and transcripts from the Center for Medical Progress, which were recorded in California, Colorado and Texas. Several have been released since with footage repeated from earlier videos, though the most recent ones focus not on Planned Parenthood but on a company, StemExpress, that procures fetal and human tissue globally for research.

The reviewers looked both at edited videos that are about eight minutes to 15 minutes long and at what Mr. Daleiden said were full-length recordings, some more than two hours long, that he released simultaneously.

A transcription service was hired to transcribe the videos, without being told that Planned Parenthood was the client, to compare with transcripts publicized by the anti-abortion group. That comparison, the analysis said, showed “substantive omissions” in the group’s version. Mr. Simpson was assisted in the analysis by several others, including a video forensics expert, Grant Fredericks, and a television producer, Scott Goldie.

According to the investigation, the reviewers could not determine “the extent to which C.M.P.’s undisclosed edits and cuts distort the meaning of the encounters the videos purport to document.”

But, it said, “the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries” unless C.M.P. provides investigators with its original material, and that material is independently authenticated as unaltered.

For example, Mr. Fredericks said recordings in Houston and Denver were each missing about 30 minutes of video, judging from time stamps and frame counters on the recordings.

The analysis also supported Planned Parenthood’s objection to two allegations that have elicited some of the most outrage from anti-abortion forces, disputing that Planned Parenthood staffers at one point say of fetal remains, “It’s a baby,” and in a second instance, “Another boy.”


Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Planned Parenthood shooting suspect told police: ‘No more baby parts
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, for years here I have called this sort of thing (lying and twisting facts (ed the manipulated video) to inspire hate and fear that is reasonably likely to inspire violence) as BLOOD LIBEL. Solicitation of terrorism. You with me, Kate?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know. But there are consequences. There should be accountability.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So shouldn't we be calling this a case of religious terrorism?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good luck proving direct causation then
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward, only if one is a fact-proof grave dancer.

Is there evidence that religion was a significant motivation?

BTW, "Islamist" or even Islamic terrorism does not necessarily impute I'll to the RELIGION of Islam, since Islam bills itself as something more, is broader than a mere religion. It is, IMHO, the nonreligious or extra religious aspects of Islam that cause most problems.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sure the motivation was 95% bat**** crazy.

But, I think it's mainly religion that convinces people that abortion is equivalent to infanticide.

I don't think it was an act of "religious terrorism", but I do think that those who insist on calling fetuses "babies" should cede that part of abortion's semantic battlefield.

(This is not really an effort to discern or defend whatever point WS was making.)

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the characterization of fetuses as babies does not go back to the origin of any particular religion, SF. It coincides with growing understanding and visualization of fetal development. As pictures became available, sympathy grew.

What you CAN credit Christianity for is the law and sentiment against infanticide in the first place. Where Christians first spread, infanticide, not abortion, invariably became illegal.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sci-Do, given that abortion rights in America are founded on the presumption that a fetus is not a "person", I think it's unreasonable for you to expect pro lifers to cede the only battle where they have a clear advantage. Not to mention being technically accurate. Under today's technology a fetus is essentially an unborn baby.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that abortion rights in American are founded on the presumption that woman are people. People who have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I'm pretty sure the scientific nomenclature of "fetus" is applied before it's viable outside the womb, even with modern tech. The viability argument strikes me as the best justification for "unborn baby." Though I'm not sure it'd be accurate at the earliest potential date for viability outside the mother. But I'm going to stop before I drown in semantics.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I believe that abortion rights in American are founded on the presumption that woman are people. People who have a right to sovereignty over their own bodies.

Why should this fact preclude also asserting that unborn humans are people too? The fact of conflicting rights doesn't mean the rights of one party must be assumed to not exist. It would be sufficient for a pro-abortion position to argue that a woman's right to control her own body is paramount, without additionally having to insist that unborn humans are not people (i.e. are not babies) and have no rights.

But of course admitting the possibility of this interpretation naturally opens the door to people agreeing with the basic facts but disagreeing about whose rights matter more. And that's the real issue. It's not whether or not a woman has the right to control what happens to her body. It's whether this right overrides the alleged rights of the unborn human.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, so we hold pro lifers to strict scientific usage, despite centuries of "unborn baby" being used in contexts not relating to abortion?

You never looked at your pregnant wife and said something about the "baby" growing inside her?

Really, Sci-fi?

Can I force Pyr to stop using unscientific usages of the word "race"?

I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.

[ November 30, 2015, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I submit no one deserves to be subject to the extremes of my inner proscriptivist.

Doesn't "dehumanization by class" pre-suppose the fetus is a person or a non-technical definition of human?

[ November 30, 2015, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are mis-attributing a bit I think, Pete.

quote:
I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate. I think that is a harmful and false equivalency. Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
what I mean by that is that you will get more mileage for abortion rights by focusing on a woman's autonomy over her own body, rather than dehumanizing the fetus. dehumanization by class in order to justify homicide has a very bad history with the human race.

I also agree that this is a better approach and ultimately the best reason that abortion should be legal. However, it doesn't align to most people's positions. Some people take the position that a blastocyst is a baby and not subject to that autonomy. Others take the position that this autonomy should be limited in late term pregnancy with few exceptions. So, practically speaking, nobody think this is THE issue.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
You are mis-attributing a bit I think, Pete.

quote:
I respectfully submit that intellectual dishonesty and doublethink is not a reliable way of securing our fundamental constitutional rights.
No argument with this concept, but it goes both ways. Describing every abortion as the killing of an unborn baby is an attempt to equate the removal of a clump of cells in the very early stages of pregnancy with destroying a full term neonate.
Well said and agreed. You have seen me ridicule those who call the morning after pill a form of abortion and I support RU 486 sale.

A fetus has the same brainwave pattern as a seven year old child. An embryo does not.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH, what is your word "person",in this context other than a positivist construct to justify dividing living thinking human beings into persons and unpersona?. The word baby, and the description of a fetus as an "unborn child" long predate the mincing and artificial distinction of "personhood."

Do your question about presumptions is ads backwards. Based on presumptions that walk in the tradition of Dredd Scott. The undersigned of unborn babies (by which I mean viable fetuses) is ultimately an argument that can only win at gunpoint.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think NH said "viable outside the womb". I don't see where he talked about brainwaves.

But I actually learned something today, about 8 weeks is when the term fetus is applied, once a rudimentary nervous system forms.

According to CDC, 62% of abortions were performed prior to the 8 week mark, and were therefore embryos?

Language is funny, and so is usage. Unborn baby is obviously provocative in terms of debate about abortion, but fitting with most non-abortion usage. If someone miscarries, we usually say "She lost the baby" and you'd probably get your head knocked off if you said "Sorry about your fetus/embryo" - regardless of the trimester.

[ November 30, 2015, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: The Drake ]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
10-11 weeks, I think
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Note that the mainstream of the pro-life side already concedes limitations on abortion later in the pregnancy when the comparison to an infant is more viable.
That is obviously not true.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No matter what semantic games are played with this, the end result of abortion is ending a human life. The whole point of an abortion is to make sure a human is gone. .
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No.

Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.

Spilling a drop of blood onto a stove top likewise terminates human life. But not A human life.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction. If it makes it impossible for a developing life to continue, that's incidental (in many cases, especially late term situations, the life is no longer developing anyway, and part of the point of the abortion is to remove the dead body before it becomes necrotic)

Rafi's comment confuses the point of the procedure with the method which must be used to accomplish that goal. The method is not the point; the goals, health and bodily autonomy, are what make up the point.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction"

Please be more articulate. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I hope you meant the point of abortion RIGHTS. rather than the point of abortion.

Most abortion is spontaneous and has no "point."

Many non clinical abortions are carried out forcefully without the mother's consent and often without consideration for her life or health. Beating a woman into abortion, an old pimp trick, is alive and well across the world and if you think you don't know a woman this has happened to, you probably just aren't the listening type. Wives, daughters, girlfriends and Chinese citizens are forced or bulliedinto clinical abortion or beaten into miscarriage for which the scientific name is abortion. Mrs Ceacescu forced her son's girlfriend to abort because Mrs Ceacescu felt she was not ready to be a grandmother. Winnie Mandela had a 16 year old beaten into miscarriage because her 14 year old **** toy was the reputed father.

I understand that th PC thing to do is paint a rosy picture but one can make a strong defense for a woman's fundamental constitutional rights without being a dullard or liar.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, I don't recall anyone calling Godfather II a pro life screed, and yet there the story's sympathetic heroine gets an abortion specifically in order to shock and horrify her husband into granting her a divorce. Not the "point" you described, and not far fetched either.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most abortion is spontaneous and has no "point."
And is not relevant to the context of the current conversation.

quote:
Many non clinical abortions are carried out forcefully without the mother's consent and often without consideration for her life or health.
And is not relevant to the context of the current conversation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
THe point of abortion is to end a pregnancy and give a woman basic control of her body and reproduction. If it makes it impossible for a developing life to continue, that's incidental (in many cases, especially late term situations, the life is no longer developing anyway, and part of the point of the abortion is to remove the dead body before it becomes necrotic)

Rafi's comment confuses the point of the procedure with the method which must be used to accomplish that goal. The method is not the point; the goals, health and bodily autonomy, are what make up the point.

The doublethink here is so entrenched that this position is logically unassailable. I will note that as someone who is pro-choice this position is wholly offensive to me on several grounds.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" not relevant to the context of the current conversation."

Or wasn't, until you started blathering about "the whole point of ABORTION"

The point is not that "every time a fetus dies, a woman gets her rights."

Abortion has no more of a point than venereal disease. The issue of this thread is a woman's sovereignty over her body. When you frame the issue on abortion generally and say crap that is obviously false, you hand the victory to pro lifers who can dismiss you as "pro abortion.". Since after all you just said that abortion itself had a good point.

Think about how you frame things. Women's fundamental constitutional rights are at stake here. I used to think abortion rights were secure in America, but I never expected lefty smugness to create this sort of horiffic carelessness. It's as if you wanted to lose the battle.

[ November 30, 2015, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
No.

Termination of a Blastocyst terminates human life but does not terminate A human life.

Spilling a drop of blood onto a stove top likewise terminates human life. But not A human life.

Ridiculous.

If you don't have a abortion, a person lives. Get one, someone does not live. The end result of abortion is that a person does not exist. Play semantic games all you want but the result will always be the same.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or wasn't, until you started blathering about "the whole point of ABORTION"
That was Rafi, not me. I replied to him in the context of the abortion services that provides as part of their overall mission to serve reproductive health needs, since that's what we're talking about here, not any of the derailments you introduced.

quote:
The point is not that "every time a fetus dies, a woman gets her rights."
Indeed. That fits what I actually said very well when I pointed out that abortion doesn't even always involved fetal death, just a controlled end to pregnancy without a live birth.

And even taking the incorrect first portion of what you said for granted, the second should be "exercises her rights" not "gets".

quote:
Abortion has no more of a point than venereal disease.
No, a clinical abortion as provided by PP or a similar provider has a point- that point is to terminate a pregnancy; to allow a woman full choice in deciding how to manage her body and her health. Fetal death is a common and unavoidable consequence of it. But it is not the point or goal of providers offering the service.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1