Author Topic: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation  (Read 92030 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #100 on: February 02, 2016, 01:54:52 PM »
I don't understand how relative scarcity is supposed to convince reasonable people to walk away from a moral cause.

If a right winger argued that we should forget Abu Ghraib because only a couple hundred of people were tortured there, I would not call it a reasonable argument. 

If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #101 on: February 02, 2016, 01:57:02 PM »
My data is dubious. I'm making certain assumptions.

The scarcity matters because the vast majority of abortions are done early but the pro-life side implies the reverse. It's hard to mobilize people over what are basically intentional and minor miscarriages. Pro-choice fight over late-term abortions because not having access to late term abortions is what gets people killed.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #102 on: February 02, 2016, 02:05:32 PM »
Quote
If a right winger argued that we should forget Abu Ghraib because only a couple hundred of people were tortured there, I would not call it a reasonable argument. 
I love the standard overreach.  Unless of course you are claiming that these things are comparable in some way other than they cause outrage.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #103 on: February 02, 2016, 02:06:29 PM »
Quote
I suspect that SciFi may be right that the key deception here was not in the video-makers but in Congress members and news reporters that presented video clips out of context and painted a false picture of a bloated profitable business of baby parts.
Not when the congress members cite the films as their proof. 
Quote
What about for some religious ceremony?  Some neopagan priestess of Ashtaroth wants to put her firstborn through the flame, and decides that until US law degenerates to allow killing of neonates, that fresh fetal tissue will do.
You are asking the wrong person.  I’m borderline hostile to religion as an institution in general.  That’s a better question for someone who is OK with harvesting for research or even your further personal organ donation / organic farming brand of human cloning.

I'm not OK with raising humans for harvesting!

OTOH, I'm quite OK with using embryonic stem cells from blastocysts, or even creating those blastocysts in vitro, in order to create replacement parts.  That's how they are used in nature.  We've found women with parts of various organs, even parts of their brain, with XY genes and different blood type from most of the body, with the genes showing that her body somehow used an embryonic stem cell to patch holes rather than to make a baby.  So when pro-lifers fight against embryonic stem cells being used that way, they fight against God and nature.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #104 on: February 02, 2016, 02:08:12 PM »
{leaving out the context where I was comparing Abu Ghraib not to abortion in general, but to narrow instances where nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons [e.g. because of the fetus' gender or color]}
Quote
If a right winger argued that we should forget Abu Ghraib because only a couple hundred of people were tortured there, I would not call it a reasonable argument. 
I love the standard overreach.  Unless of course you are claiming that these things are comparable in some way other than they cause outrage.

The obvious point of comparison, Al, is this:  Disrespect for human life and human dignity under color of the very authority meant to safeguard human life and dignity.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 02:10:56 PM by Pete at Home »

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #105 on: February 02, 2016, 02:16:01 PM »
And by comparing 9-month abortions to Abu Ghraib you are just pointing out that 9-month abortions occur regularly enough to justify the comparison, and that corruption in the ranks of the PP that supports 9-month abortions is comparable to corruption in the military ranks that encouraged and then hid what was going on in Abu Ghraib. Is it even possible for you to try to discuss a sensitive topic without going for one of your favorite sledgehammers that rarely hits the nail?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #106 on: February 02, 2016, 02:29:57 PM »
And by comparing 9-month abortions to Abu Ghraib you are just pointing out that 9-month abortions occur regularly enough to justify the comparison, and that corruption in the ranks of the PP that supports 9-month abortions is comparable to corruption in the military ranks that encouraged and then hid what was going on in Abu Ghraib.

Again you misrepresent me.  I never said anything against Planned Parenthood.  PP offer abortions within the law.  The problem is that Roe V. Wade (which allowed requirement medical necessity for late term abortions) was subverted by Stenberg v Cahart and other authority-rimming decisions, which turn medical necessity into a farce and a cipher.  A woman could say she wanted to abort a baby because of its race or gender, and that can be construed as medical necessity -- SHOULD be construed under the law, since the doctor represents the woman and not the baby.

Since we can't reverse bad SCOTUS case law, I think we should examine medical necessity, and make sure that we aren't funding organizations that offer elective late term abortion for the purposes of killing fetuses for purposes of race or sex selection.  Yes this would have a very very minor impact on Planned Parenthood.  But wouldn't that just be more funds available for better purposes within PP?


Al: "Is it even possible for you to try to discuss a sensitive topic without going for one of your favorite sledgehammers that rarely hits the nail?"

That's one of your favorite complaints, Al, but I don't see how it applies.  I don't recall using Abu Ghraib as an analogy in any other discussion.  Please cite your justification for calling it one of my "favorite" comparisons. 
« Last Edit: February 02, 2016, 02:33:34 PM by Pete at Home »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #107 on: February 02, 2016, 02:33:51 PM »
Quote
I suspect that SciFi may be right that the key deception here was not in the video-makers but in Congress members and news reporters that presented video clips out of context and painted a false picture of a bloated profitable business of baby parts.

While I think the Congress members and news reporters are responsible for their own inability to get the facts right, the deception started with the video makers. 

Quote
CMP founder David Daleiden alleged that the videos provided evidence of a "criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reach[ing] to the very highest levels" of Planned Parenthood.

(From here)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #108 on: February 02, 2016, 02:42:12 PM »
I'm late to the party, and skimming the thread may have missed someone making this same point but I think it is worth sharing.

Quote
All reputable news media - including the AP- agree that journalists should inform their sources of their real identity and avoid deceit in their reporting. In The Society of Professional Journalists Codes of Ethics, it states “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”

...had a journalist been impersonating an FBI officer, he or she could be prosecuted and face up to three years in jail.

The Ethics of Undercover Journalism

The article does go into some nuances, like journalists posing as tourists to enter countries that have banned journalists.

A traditional and ethical approach is usually to find someone already in the system to become a source. Journalists exposing cigarette company deception didn't fake a resume and apply for a job at RJR, they found a whistleblower and convinced him to go on the record.

I'll avoid any legal discussion, as I don't have the time or the skill to delve into that murky realm.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #109 on: February 02, 2016, 02:46:00 PM »
Drake, that doesn't change the fact that misusing the laws to impose draconian penalties on whistleblowers has a chilling effect on free speech.  Which is precisely the direction that Texas was going with animal rights whistleblowers, and seems to have duped a mob of abortion fans into supporting their newest offensive against the first amendment.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #110 on: February 02, 2016, 02:57:03 PM »
Quote
I'm not OK with raising humans for harvesting!
When I said "your" I was referring to your hypothetical only, not making an accusation.  :P

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #111 on: February 02, 2016, 03:00:02 PM »
Drake, that doesn't change the fact that misusing the laws to impose draconian penalties on whistleblowers has a chilling effect on free speech.  Which is precisely the direction that Texas was going with animal rights whistleblowers, and seems to have duped a mob of abortion fans into supporting their newest offensive against the first amendment.

Why are we still equating whistleblowing with devising misconceptions about a company? When a company is doing something egregious and the whistle needs to be blown, it's usually something very blatant such as big tobacco covering up study data or animals being abused on a farm. A good current example is the use of slave labor in Nestle's supply chain. If the case is so ambiguous that even after going undercover it takes making stuff up to make the company look bad - that's not whistleblowing, it's corporate sabotage.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #112 on: February 02, 2016, 06:00:23 PM »
I don't want to mix cases, Pete, because I can't take the time to fully research the animal abuse case, and I'm not going to post a superficial take on it.

Whistleblowers as I understand them are not typically part of the plot, they know something is going on and report it. Infiltrating is not really whistleblowing, because you are falsifying your intentions and identity. Whistleblowing often occurs after someone attempts to correct action or resist the bad behavior within the organization, and usually at great personal risk since they can often lose their job, at least temporarily. Whistleblowers can usually cite memos and other communication warning an organization that they believe something illegal or unethical is happening. Occasionally they remain working at the company after reporting their concerns to proper authorities such as the FBI, IRS, SEC, etc, in order to help gathering evidence which is then handled by the agency with authority in a proper manner, not an excerpt sensationalized through social media and other outlets.

Now I know that popular media has extended this definition to include people who sneak into a place of business with the purpose of exposing their bad behavior, so if anyone feels the need, please substitute "Drakian Whistleblowers" above.

Personally I don't like any subterfuge. If something is really that widespread, I think you can interview a worker who got canned and "out" these reports. The reason people infiltrate is to capture (and often edit) video for shock value, not to expose what is actually happening. Responsible journalistic questions would include things like "How often did you see the bad behaviour while you were there?" or "How many employees regularly engaged in such bad behavior?". All of which would be put into context, as opposed to finding the most egregious violation and representing it as an accepted and encouraged behavior by higher levels of an organization's management.

You could probably go into several dozens of locations of a chain restaurant, and film an employee not washing their hands - then post it implying that the chain is filthy. That can't come close to being called investigative reporting. And if you joined the restaurant to film someone picking up food that fell on the floor and serving it, that's also not undercover journalism or whistleblowing.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #113 on: February 02, 2016, 06:42:30 PM »
Quote
I don't want to mix cases, Pete, because I can't take the time to fully research the animal abuse case

It's not a case; it's a controversial Texas LAW.  And this case has been picked to pave the way for it.  Because those Texas Republicans are ultimately more about maintaining the personhood of big corporations than asserting the personhood of fetuses.

Whatever you call it, this ex post facto reinterpretative prosecution will have a chilling effect on first Amendment rights.  At least that's what SCOTUS would have said if O'Connor was still there, and if Kennedy wasn't falling sideways


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #114 on: February 02, 2016, 07:05:06 PM »
Quote
...seems to have duped a mob of abortion fans into supporting their newest offensive against the first amendment.

Wow!  Now the Grand Jury is "a mob of abortion fans?"  And I suppose the DA who was in charge, who is on record as being anti-abortion, is also a dupe?  Or is she the duper? ::)

Where do you get this stuff?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #115 on: February 02, 2016, 07:16:42 PM »
"You could probably go into several dozens of locations of a chain restaurant, and film an employee not washing their hands - then post it implying that the chain is filthy."

I'm more interested in a clerk exposing judicial corruption, or someone going into a private prison to expose the way they abuse solitary confinement. 

I'm not saying that going into a meat packing plant with intention to expose mistreatment of animals should be legal.  Simply saying that treating it as "terrorism," or writing or reinterpreting laws with the totalitarian assumption that people are dumb masses that should not be confused with the facts, does far more damage to society than a simple case of fraud.

Quote
Now the Grand Jury is "a mob of abortion fans?"

No.  It's everyone on this forum and off that's supporting this gross misapplication of the law.  It's all the lefty federal judges that will wink at this 14th amendment violation, without realizing that they've let the monster in the door for other abuses.  You simply are not paying attention to the broader implications of such prosecution.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #116 on: February 02, 2016, 07:56:50 PM »
The controversial LAW in Texas, states that you can be fired for most whistleblowing - a cursory examination says that's not new.  The Whistleblower Act in Texas says you have to move quickly, you must attempt to resolve your problem internally, and some other stuff. This isn't a "chilling effect" to me - it makes sense. If your employer or a fellow employee is doing something illegal you can and should report it immediately, internally or externally. You're not an undercover cop, who builds a case and watches infraction after infraction causing harm to people, animals, or property.

"According to the Court only a report to “someone the employee ‘in good faith believes’ can ‘regulate under or enforce’ the law allegedly violated or ‘investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law’” will suffice as a report under the statute."

So, by all means, go undercover if you feel you must. Then when you see a violation, go ahead and document it. Go to the DA or the police and report it. If the DA won't do anything about it, take that same information to the press.

And if you choose to go undercover, don't misrepresent yourself with falsified credentials. Don't misrepresent your findings. And don't play amateur "gotcha" reporter. I've already outlined how a true journalist would approach this, as opposed to a crazed fanatic who spent 8 years building a shell company, falsified government ids, sent unnumbered emails and surreptitiously recorded 65 conversations, hoping that he might just get one piece of ambiguity that he can manipulate into a smear campaign.

His whole problem wasn't even about the idea of selling fetal tissue. His issue is "all abortion should be stopped", so he should just go ahead and own that argument and use his first amendment rights to say that.

With regard to the fake identification:

Quote
Texas law prohibits the use of a governmental record “with knowledge of its falsity” or any “false alteration” of a governmental record. It clarifies that it is a misdemeanor “unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony” and “a felony of the second degree.”

Thus, by charging them with a second-degree felony, the Houston grand jury determined that Daleiden and Merritt operated with the intent “to defraud or harm” Planned Parenthood.

I think it is entirely appropriate for a grand jury to return such an indictment. Whether acting as a journalist or not, that's more appropriately a task for a trial jury, I would think. Naturally, this all leads into the ongoing debate about "what is a journalist?", which I won't recap here. Nor will I bother to recap the nasty tactic of indicting high to encourage plea bargains.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #117 on: February 03, 2016, 10:20:53 AM »
Quote
And if you choose to go undercover, don't misrepresent yourself with falsified credentials. Don't misrepresent your findings. And don't play amateur "gotcha" reporter. I've already outlined how a true journalist would approach this, as opposed to a crazed fanatic who spent 8 years building a shell company, falsified government ids, sent unnumbered emails and surreptitiously recorded 65 conversations, hoping that he might just get one piece of ambiguity that he can manipulate into a smear campaign.

Since you've ignored my examples of when fake IDs and private illegal action could bring down existing wrongs (routine abuse in the prison and corruption in the judiciary), and continue to cling to the obtuse assumption that just because this particular group may have manipulated and smeared, that all groups that use illegal techniques must have such motives, there's no sense in my trying to argue with you.  If you change your mind and get the impulse to engage what I said, send me a note.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #118 on: February 03, 2016, 01:00:02 PM »
How will this apply going forward to the animal rights activist muckraking journalists who go undercover by applying for jobs under false pretenses and even fake identities to get the evidence of animal cruelty want to expose?

In those cases, it's the responsibility of the company in question to vet the people they're dealing with. They're not licensed professionals, so caveat emptor applies.

On the other hand, a fundamental point of public licensing is to have a common, trusted standard by which professionals in certain fields are vetted by a trusted process and  can confirm that they meet a certain standard of competence, ethics, and behavior within the public trust. Allowing people to forge those credentials undermines the system of trust that gives them value, particularly when that fraud is used in service of perpetuating a larger fraud.

If such forgery isn't taken seriously, it would mean that medical professionals and the public would have to be suspicious of each other despite the credentially process taht's supposed to facilitate trust, and it should be up to the judicial process to evaluate whether there are mitigating circumstances rather than letting arbitrary claims of journalism undermine the trust that the system depends on.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #119 on: February 03, 2016, 01:17:10 PM »
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, it's not, because, ultimately, it's none of your business, since it's not your body that's being used as an incubation tank. IF you want to take on the culture or the religious practices on a social level, more power to you, but as soon as you start dictating to someone else what their body can or cannot be used for, you deny them a right to personal integrity that we even extend to corpses.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #120 on: February 03, 2016, 01:26:46 PM »
Quote
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, I suspect the number is lower. If only because gender can be determined earlier than nine months and the difficulty in finding a doctor that would do the abortion.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #121 on: February 03, 2016, 01:30:37 PM »
Quote
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, I suspect the number is lower. If only because gender can be determined earlier than nine months and the difficulty in finding a doctor that would do the abortion.

Determined, yes.  Determined accurately?  I wake it you'be never gone to a doctor with the mother of your child.  Two of my three sons had their ultrasounds read as female to the third trimester.  Do the math.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #122 on: February 03, 2016, 01:31:14 PM »
but as soon as you start dictating to someone else what their body can or cannot be used for, you deny them a right to personal integrity that we even extend to corpses.

Although I think you're right broadly, this particular argument is a bad one as it implies that anything at all a person does with their own body is no one else's business, which is patently incorrect. Suicide is, for example illegal. I think it would be ruled illegal to deliberately carry a fetus in order to extract it for ritual sacrifice. I'm also pretty sure it would be illegal to use one's body to produce narcotics, were this possible. The one thing we're agreed upon that must be legal is a woman NOT BEING FORCED to carry a fetus to term.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #123 on: February 03, 2016, 01:34:09 PM »
Quote
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, I suspect the number is lower. If only because gender can be determined earlier than nine months and the difficulty in finding a doctor that would do the abortion.

Determined, yes.  Determined accurately?  I wake it you'be never gone to a doctor with the mother of your child.  Two of my three sons had their ultrasounds read as female to the third trimester.  Do the math.
I'm reasonably sure my nephews (one still a WIP) were identified earlier than that. Granted my sample size is rather small.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #124 on: February 03, 2016, 01:35:05 PM »
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, it's not, because, ultimately, it's none of your business, since it's not your body that's being used as an incubation tank. IF you want to take on the culture or the religious practices on a social level, more power to you, but as soon as you start dictating to someone else what their body can or cannot be used for, you deny them a right to personal integrity that we even extend to corpses.


If you had made the effort to actually READ and the honesty to acknowledge what I advocate, you would not pretend that I require anyone to "incubate."  Pull your head out if you want to engage me.  I am not your republican conservative straw man.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #125 on: February 03, 2016, 01:41:20 PM »
Quote
If three dozen nine month healthy fetuses are getting aborted every for cultural or religious reasons rather than medical necessity, then it's reasonable to discuss closing a legal loophole.  And I think we both know the number is higher than that.
No, I suspect the number is lower. If only because gender can be determined earlier than nine months and the difficulty in finding a doctor that would do the abortion.

Determined, yes.  Determined accurately?  I wake it you'be never gone to a doctor with the mother of your child.  Two of my three sons had their ultrasounds read as female to the third trimester.  Do the math.
I'm reasonably sure my nephews (one still a WIP) were identified earlier than that. Granted my sample size is rather small.




Remember gender identification isn't the purpose of the scan.  I would bet that chance of error in 2ND term for this elective and unpaid side service of gender id is less accurate in free and low cost clinics.  I would bet that such clinics service a disproportionate proportion of immigrants from shirty backgrounds that have a propensity to abort based on gender.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #126 on: February 03, 2016, 01:46:12 PM »
but as soon as you start dictating to someone else what their body can or cannot be used for, you deny them a right to personal integrity that we even extend to corpses.

Although I think you're right broadly, this particular argument is a bad one as it implies that anything at all a person does with their own body is no one else's business, which is patently incorrect. Suicide is, for example illegal. I think it would be ruled illegal to deliberately carry a fetus in order to extract it for ritual sacrifice. I'm also pretty sure it would be illegal to use one's body to produce narcotics, were this possible. The one thing we're agreed upon that must be legal is a woman NOT BEING FORCED to carry a fetus to term.

And not being forced to undergo any particular manner of extraction determined by anyone beyond the medical professional that she is coordinating with to conduct the procedure.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #127 on: February 03, 2016, 01:48:42 PM »
The mothers portrayed the scans as looking for gender.

Even if it's identified late, how do they find a doc to do it? It sounds late enough to be more than a routine procedure.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #128 on: February 03, 2016, 01:51:25 PM »
I agree with Fenring:

"The one thing we're agreed upon that must be legal is a woman NOT BEING FORCED to carry a fetus to term."

But that doesn't mean that the mother has the right to put a hit on the kid, or dead the doctor extract junior through her nose.  Row v wade says she has a right to abort for medical necessity, and I support that.  I also support her right to induce for non medical purposes.  My position is not yours, Pyr, but please stop spouting this falsehood that I require anyone to "incubate."

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #129 on: February 03, 2016, 01:52:21 PM »
If you had made the effort to actually READ and the honesty to acknowledge what I advocate, you would not pretend that I require anyone to "incubate."  Pull your head out if you want to engage me.  I am not your republican conservative straw man.
You miss the point by arguing the example. Unless you're acknowledging that you have no business intruding on the decision in any way, then you're inserting yourself into a decisions that should only be between the woman and her doctor. Forcing her to undergo a more dangerous live extraction is equally violative of her right to autonomy if that's not the procedure that she chooses, and suggests that she has indeed been forced to serve as an incubator until the child has been removed.

We cannot force a dead body to donate organs to save a live. We cannot force a person to give a blood transfusion to preserve/save a life. On that basis we have no business forcing a woman to give birth, even by c-section even to preserve/save a life.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #130 on: February 03, 2016, 01:54:36 PM »

anywhere that does the procedure where the physician is willing to call it "medical necessity." That's the problem with Pyr's unchecked authority worship. That's why he keeps lashing out at me.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #131 on: February 03, 2016, 01:55:36 PM »
  My position is not yours, Pyr, but please stop spouting this falsehood that I require anyone to "incubate."
Then stop insisting that she must put herself at risk to have it removed alive simply because her autonomy matters less that the desire of others to have the child removed alive. If he will is not being respected in that regard, then her entire pregnancy up to that point amounts to de facto forced incubation on behalf of those that overrode her will to force her to deliver.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #132 on: February 03, 2016, 01:58:28 PM »
If you had made the effort to actually READ and the honesty to acknowledge what I advocate, you would not pretend that I require anyone to "incubate."  Pull your head out if you want to engage me.  I am not your republican conservative straw man.
You miss the point by arguing the example.

If I am the one that misses the point, why do you anyways find it necessary to misrepresent in your opening?

SCOTUS said medical necessity in Row v Wade. If you want to repeal Row v Wade, then line up with all the anti choice group. :P

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #133 on: February 03, 2016, 01:59:00 PM »

anywhere that does the procedure where the physician is willing to call it "medical necessity." That's the problem with Pyr's unchecked authority worship. That's why he keeps lashing out at me.

I will absolutely cop to worship the authority of people to make choices regarding the use of their own body, if that's how you want to spin it. But your accusation here seems to suggest taht I'm advocating letting the doctor dictate to the woman what she wants, rather than doing his best to her her understand her options and choose the best out of them.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #134 on: February 03, 2016, 02:00:57 PM »
If you had made the effort to actually READ and the honesty to acknowledge what I advocate, you would not pretend that I require anyone to "incubate."  Pull your head out if you want to engage me.  I am not your republican conservative straw man.
You miss the point by arguing the example.

If I am the one that misses the point, why do you anyways find it necessary to misrepresent in your opening?

SCOTUS said medical necessity in Row v Wade. If you want to repeal Row v Wade, then line up with all the anti choice group. :P
What is or is not medical necessity is between exactly two people- the woman and her doctor. No one else has any business weighing in on the matter.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #135 on: February 03, 2016, 02:05:39 PM »
  My position is not yours, Pyr, but please stop spouting this falsehood that I require anyone to "incubate."
Then stop insisting that she must put herself at risk to have it removed alive simply because her autonomy matters less that the desire of others to have the child remov

Check this out:

Pyr misrepresents my position.

I correct his misattribution.

Pyr insists that it was OK for him to lie about my position, because he finds my actual position reprehensible.

Isn't that the exact tactic and MO of the video makers we were discussing on this thread?  "We don't like what you are doing so it's OK for us to lie about you to make others see you like the monsters we see you as?"

Well I think it's enough to expose liars as falsifying pyros.  I don't need to twist some law and send Pyr away for 20 years.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #136 on: February 03, 2016, 02:09:16 PM »
Pyr misrepresents my position.

Wait, so your not claiming that she should be prevented from having an abortion if the determination of medical necessity between her and her doctor doesn't live up to your standards? OR are you suggesting that there's some other magical alternative at that point aside from wither carrying to term or some form of medically facilitated live birth?

Since you're not actually articulating a position in your replies, it's hard to say that I'm misrepresenting it by replying based on the only existing alternatives.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #137 on: February 03, 2016, 02:14:15 PM »
If you had made the effort to actually READ and the honesty to acknowledge what I advocate, you would not pretend that I require anyone to "incubate."  Pull your head out if you want to engage me.  I am not your republican conservative straw man.
You miss the point by arguing the example.

If I am the one that misses the point, why do you anyways find it necessary to misrepresent in your opening?

SCOTUS said medical necessity in Row v Wade. If you want to repeal Row v Wade, then line up with all the anti choice group. :P
What is or is not medical necessity is between exactly two people- the woman and her doctor. No one else has any business weighing in on the matter.

You see, Noble hunter?  Pyr (please correct me if I'm wrong, Pyr) says that "Medical necessity" is something to be worked out between the woman and her doctor. Medical ethics cannot "intercede.". Under Pyr's rule it's no one's business if a 9 month fetus is killed in mid delivery because of its skin color or sex.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #138 on: February 03, 2016, 02:14:58 PM »
At risk of having yet another person misrepresent Pete, I think what he's getting at is that if a fetus is viable, and you CAN induce, the option to terminate the fetus should be "off the table" as it were unless you can show/prove(?) that the termination is medically required because the woman is at physical risk.

It's a very narrow criticism as I think most of us see it, so we are prone to misunderstand and extrapolate beyond that.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #139 on: February 03, 2016, 02:20:49 PM »
Pyr misrepresents my position.

Wait, so your not claiming that she should be prevented from having an abortion if the determination of medical necessity between her and her doctor doesn't live up to your standards? OR are you suggesting that there's some other magical alternative at that point aside from wither carrying to term or some form of medically facilitated live birth?

Since you're not actually articulating a position in your replies, it's hard to say that I'm misrepresenting it by replying based on the only existing alternatives.

Bull crap. I advocated a law that a fetus' gender or skin color, or the mother's religious duties, shall in NO circumstances be taken account as part of the "medical necessity" that justifies a late term abortion. 

You responded first by falsely claiming that I wanted to force women to be incubators.  Then you justified your false accusation by saying that I brought it on by putting any limitation on a woman's unchecked right to reinvent the meaning of "medical necessity" with her doctor.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #140 on: February 03, 2016, 02:22:48 PM »
DW, better not continue to articulate your conviction that there isn't any medical necessity for fetal human sacrifice, or you will be on Pyr's slander hit list too.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #141 on: February 03, 2016, 02:33:51 PM »
Just to be clear, I think your concern applies to so amazingly few instances Pete, that I'd risk granting power to the elder gods through human sacrifice... just this once.

If any work needs to be done to stop this, it should be in trying to revoke the medical license after the fact of the doctor who comes up with B.S. reasons it was "medically necessary".

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #142 on: February 03, 2016, 02:40:08 PM »

Bull crap. I advocated a law that a fetus' gender or skin color, or the mother's religious duties, shall in NO circumstances be taken account as part of the "medical necessity" that justifies a late term abortion. 
In other words, you feel it's your place to dictate to women what they can or cannot do with their bodies based on your opinions of what is or is not valid justification. If you object to those justifications, you're free to oppose them on a social level, to the degree that they're more than pure fantasy for any relevant cases in the first place. IT is amusing that you put forth those red herrings now, when in the past you've tended to advance things that are representative of justifications used, but show that you're effectively putting your opinion over medical judgements.

Quote
You responded first by falsely claiming that I wanted to force women to be incubators.
And you just confirmed it. Based on those criteria above, they cannot make their own choice, but must instead have incubated a baby on your terms.

Quote
Then you justified your false accusation by saying that I brought it on by putting any limitation on a woman's unchecked right to reinvent the meaning of "medical necessity" with her doctor.
Rather on your attempt to insert yourself into the discussion and slander a entire profession as being incapable of maintaining ethical standards without your active interference.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #143 on: February 03, 2016, 02:42:40 PM »
At risk of having yet another person misrepresent Pete, I think what he's getting at is that if a fetus is viable, and you CAN induce, the option to terminate the fetus should be "off the table" as it were unless you can show/prove(?) that the termination is medically required because the woman is at physical risk.
Sure, which is unacceptable, because as soon as you force an induction or c-section, you've asserted that the woman in question has fewer rights to autonomy than a corpse. That her rights as an individual are less important than her service and an incubator for the child that has been given priority over her decisions.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #144 on: February 03, 2016, 02:57:00 PM »
Quote
Sure, which is unacceptable, because as soon as you force an induction or c-section, you've asserted that the woman in question has fewer rights to autonomy than a corpse.
I do so assert. 

And more so, when the technology evolves so that we can bring a fetus to viability even earlier in the pregnancy I would be all for banning termination then.

I believe a woman ALWAYS has the right to end a pregnancy (refuse to be an incubator).  I do not however believe a woman has the RIGHT to terminate a fetus.  If the fetus dies in the process of ending the pregnancy, so be it. 

The only caveat to that stance, for me, is if terminating the fetus results in a significant reduction in life threatening complications.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #145 on: February 03, 2016, 03:33:07 PM »
At risk of having yet another person misrepresent Pete, I think what he's getting at is that if a fetus is viable, and you CAN induce, the option to terminate the fetus should be "off the table" as it were unless you can show/prove(?) that the termination is medically required because the woman is at physical risk.

It's a very narrow criticism as I think most of us see it, so we are prone to misunderstand and extrapolate beyond that.

Pretty much. My immediate concern is even more narrow than you describe,

anywhere that does the procedure where the physician is willing to call it "medical necessity." That's the problem with Pyr's unchecked authority worship. That's why he keeps lashing out at me.

I will absolutely cop to worship the authority of people to make choices regarding the use of their own body, if that's how you want to spin it.

No. Your claimed determination to let people do what they want is not authority worship.  The problem is your sealing doing whatever you want as "medical necessity." The authority worship comes up when you attack me with false accusations and then justify yourself because I had the effrontery to challenge that killing a fetus because of her sex or race should not be called "medical necessity." Have the guts to stand up for what you believe it rather than wrapping it up in pseudo scientific chicanery.  Do you know who uses terms like "medical necessity" to justify killing a fetus because of its skin color? Is that the company you want to keep?

"But your accusation here seems to suggest taht I'm advocating letting the doctor dictate to the woman what she wants"

Not at all. The patient's job is to say what she wants and feels. The doctor's job, subject to medical knowledge, science, and ethics, is to xetermine what is "medically necessary."

See how Pyr conflates "what women want" with "medically necessary", and resists the idea that medical necessity is based on fact and science?   

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #146 on: February 03, 2016, 03:42:27 PM »
Pyr continues his incubator straw man.  If a woman has the right to demand that the fetus be taken out at any time, that's not forced incubation.

"In other words, you feel it's your place to dictate to women what they can or cannot do with their bodies based on your opinions of what is or is not valid"

That's not my position. That's existing law.  Many states will apply criminal penalties to a woman who attempts a do it herself abortion, especially in the third trimester.  And many states bar doctors from.excusing someone from getting vaccinated due to "medical necessity.". The state determines what is medical necessity for all sorts of procedures.

Look at Pyr all in a tizzy because I deny that human sacrifice, racism, or sexism create valid medical necessity for abortion. 

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #147 on: February 03, 2016, 04:03:14 PM »
Pyr continues his incubator straw man.  If a woman has the right to demand that the fetus be taken out at any time, that's not forced incubation.
It is if you are telling her that it must be removed in a way that puts the life of the child at a higher priority than her right to chose which procedure to use.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #148 on: February 03, 2016, 04:08:09 PM »
Quote
Look at Pyr all in a tizzy because I deny that human sacrifice, racism, or sexism create valid medical necessity for abortion.
Just to be clear, do you have a problem with current law for the reasons listed above?  If so, is it just a minor irritation that the drafting was not up to your professional level of loophole closing?  Are any of those situations a legitimate concern to you Pete?

Hmm, hold on doc.  This is my last opportunity to legally end this child's life and not go to prison.  Let's kill it!  You're cool with that right?  My satanic coven will be thrilled!

It's crowning... Wait, the baby doesn't match the race of my husband?  Oh crap!  Umm, terminate it, quick.  No I will NOT push.

You told me it was a girl on the first ultrasound!  Nope, I'm NOT having another boy, kill it doc.

Those are your concerns?  Not only that the above might happen but they can get a doctor, (I suspect one of the few) willing to do late term abortions, to go along with it?  You don't really see them as concerning enough that we need to have doctors risk a woman's life for fear of being sued or losing their license for terminating a pregnancy without good enough cause do you?

You don't seem to be arguing that the "medical reasons" that risk the woman is a non starter, but rather that it is open for abuse.  Right?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #149 on: February 03, 2016, 04:08:54 PM »

Not at all. The patient's job is to say what she wants and feels. The doctor's job, subject to medical knowledge, science, and ethics, is to xetermine what is "medically necessary."
And yet you say that we should "close loopholes" in that process instead of actually letting the doctors make that determination. And, in fact have gone so far, in the past, as to suggest that you know better then they do on many calls, before you revised to your completely speculative list here that seem to have no bearing on what would pass muster for any form of existing ethical review never mind actually be advanced in any situation beyond one where women have already been forced to turn to underground or self applied procedures because of legal restrictions.