Author Topic: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation  (Read 92871 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #450 on: February 21, 2016, 11:56:56 AM »
"Which is where the right to control her reproduction comes from, because her reproduction is a function of her body."

But crushing a baby's head is not a function of her body.  There are Yogis who claim they can stop their hearts, but none that I know of who claim that they can use their autonomic muscles to vivisect viable third trimester fetus in the womb.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #451 on: February 22, 2016, 09:56:10 AM »
So after pages of confusion and apparent denial, we're left back where started.
MY position has been consistent, so lay off the snide false accusations.
Your position may have been consistent, but so was your obfuscation.  How many times did Fenring try and get you to explain the details?  A heck of a lot.  And you still wouldn't make it very clear because you only want to state the marketing side (that you are pro-woman) and not the practical specifics (that it's important that we retain a right to kill a fetus, irregardless of whether we could remove it safely alive).
Quote
It's not the man's body, thus not his call as to what it can or cannot be used for.
If your logic was restricted to control of the body, and not to control of reproduction this would follow, however, since you constructed this as an argument about two rights it doesn't provide for the man's equivalent right.
Quote
He can choose to walk away at any point, so already has the freedom to choose not to be a father without and need for medical facilitation. I've already made it clear that legal force should not be applied to him any more than is should be to her. (Once agreements that amount to a contract have been made, that changes, for sure, but that's out of context here)
Which is a position that I agree with, however, its not the current state of anyone's law.  In fact, the law is extremely certain that it prefers the opposite result, with an absolutely binding financial liability imposed at the moment of conception.

And even if we dropped the financial element, it does nothing to address the presumed moral/ethical dilemma that you have created by taking away the man's decision about reproduction at a time when there is no borne person, but just a "part" of a woman that she can choose to use to take away his right to control his own reproduction.
Quote
Quote
It's not unreasonable to weigh the rights of a viable fetus versus the inconvenience or even risk to a woman and decide that past the point of viability we'd require an attempt to save the life of a fetus absent a compelling risk of physical harm to the mother.
It's entirely unreasonable, because it means violating control of her body in favor of the state dictating its use for the purposes of others. It's a lazy way of addressing the concern that actively communicates that women are less entitled to rights then men are.
Actually, you just making unsupported assertions now.  It's completely reasonable, it may also be reasonable to hold the view you have depending on one's underlying assumptions.  But there is no argument on earth that would make it unreasonable to argue in favor of saving a viable fetus where it can be done without material risk to a mother (I get some might also hold to the zero risk standard, though again its not unreasonable to require a minimal level of risk here).  Of course, from your position, you'd also hold that we have to provide a termination style abortion, even if a live birth were demonstrably safer, and there's really not a good reason for that to be the case.

By the way, by glossing over the man's right to control his own reproduction on the same terms as a women, you've already established that you think women should have greater rights over reproduction than men (not equal rights).
Quote
If you are really concerned about late term abortion then address the primary causes of it.
No.  I'm not concerned about late term abortions.  I'm concerned that killing a viable fetus is unjustifiable if it can be removed at low risk to the woman carrying it.  I don't care why she wants it out, that's her decision not mine.
Quote
Ensure that sufficient funding for abortion is available so that women don't have to spend months coming up with enough to afford it, pushing them into the later term.
Out of curiosity, since you make this claim, what percentage of women desiring an abortion are turned away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers because of a lack of ability to pay?
Quote
Ensure that men and women have access to several months worth of fully paid family leave and create the expectation that both will take it in the event of a birth or other family emergencies so that there's no excuse for suppressing the pay and employment opportunities of women based on the expectation that they'll be forced to take time out for child care.
Which, while a good idea to support young families, will make little actual difference as no child is raised in "several months," they take years.  Women aren't lagging in pay because they give birth and are out for a few months, they lag in pay after they stay home for years getting kids from birth into school.
Quote
The list goes on. There are many, many things that can be done that have real effects on the frequency of need for late term abortion that justify themselves without regard to abortion and also involve protecting rights rather than using paternalistic restrictions at the very end of the game that actively infringe on the rights of women.
And since none of those things address the ethical issue they are all in the category of nice to have but irrelevant.  And it's odd to me that you think these are "paternalistic" restrictions.  At best these would be pro-human restrictions.  It's really not in any way anti-woman to say you have every right to control your own body, but you don't have the right to kill people.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #452 on: February 22, 2016, 11:29:54 AM »
"Which is where the right to control her reproduction comes from, because her reproduction is a function of her body."

But crushing a baby's head is not a function of her body.  There are Yogis who claim they can stop their hearts, but none that I know of who claim that they can use their autonomic muscles to vivisect viable third trimester fetus in the womb.
And? That's not relevant to anything I said. She has the right to control her body, that includes the right to choose not to reproduce.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #453 on: February 22, 2016, 11:31:46 AM »
Hurray!  You used the word relevant correctly!

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #454 on: February 22, 2016, 01:03:08 PM »
Your position may have been consistent, but so was your obfuscation.  How many times did Fenring try and get you to explain the details?  A heck of a lot.
And I replied a heck of a lot. No obfuscation, just your made up accusations here to try to take the argument ad hominem instead of sticking to the actual principles.  Stop with the sleaze already.

Quote
Which is a position that I agree with, however, its not the current state of anyone's law.  In fact, the law is extremely certain that it prefers the opposite result, with an absolutely binding financial liability imposed at the moment of conception.
And the law is wrong on that account and should be changed. When we're talking in the abstract ideal case, then the current state of law is irrelevant except as examples of what should be changed.

Quote
And even if we dropped the financial element, it does nothing to address the presumed moral/ethical dilemma that you have created by taking away the man's decision about reproduction at a time when there is no borne person, but just a "part" of a woman that she can choose to use to take away his right to control his own reproduction.
She cannot and should not have the right to take sperm from him without his permission. She should have no more legal control over his body than she should have over her's. That's perfectly equal. NEither can force the other to use their body's internal organs or fluids for something against their will.

Quote
It's not unreasonable to weigh the rights of a viable fetus versus the inconvenience or even risk to a woman and decide that past the point of viability we'd require an attempt to save the life of a fetus absent a compelling risk of physical harm to the mother.
You can, but in doing so you automatically declare that women need to sacrifice bodily autonomy to the public contro; it's impossible to do without saying that women are not entitled to autonomy as a right.

Quote
But there is no argument on earth that would make it unreasonable to argue in favor of saving a viable fetus where it can be done without material risk to a mother (I get some might also hold to the zero risk standard, though again its not unreasonable to require a minimal level of risk here).
From any position that seeks to consider the woman as a fully equal person it's impossible to reconcile, because it's impossible to force her to have a live birth without violating her choice of how to use her body.

Quote
  Of course, from your position, you'd also hold that we have to provide a termination style abortion, even if a live birth were demonstrably safer, and there's really not a good reason for that to be the case.
Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

Quote
By the way, by glossing over the man's right to control his own reproduction on the same terms as a women, you've already established that you think women should have greater rights over reproduction than men (not equal rights).
He can control his own on the same terms- in fact the law already comes down on his side and says we cannot force him to contribute sperm to inseminate anyone. You're confusing biological difference with equal rights.

Quote
I'm not concerned about late term abortions.  I'm concerned that killing a viable fetus is unjustifiable if it can be removed at low risk to the woman carrying it.  I don't care why she wants it out, that's her decision not mine.
It's perfectly justifiable if the woman chooses to not give birth that is, in and of itself, a justification. That you find it distasteful or disagree with the justification should not entitle you to dictate to others what they can or cannot do in regards to the use of their body for reproduction.

Quote
Out of curiosity, since you make this claim, what percentage of women desiring an abortion are turned away from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers because of a lack of ability to pay?
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2013/08/16/index.html
Looks like about 60% are delayed or unable to outright access care because of the costs involved.

Quote
he authors studied women seeking abortion care from “last stop” providers around the U.S., defined as facilities that offer abortion services at the latest gestational age limits among any facility within 150 miles. Women turned away from these providers because they presented too late were asked to list the barriers that prevented them from seeking care earlier in the pregnancy. Nearly six in 10 reported that travel and procedure costs prevented them from seeking an abortion earlier, while about half delayed seeking care because they did not immediately recognize that they were pregnant. Women also cited insurance problems, not knowing where to get care and not knowing how to get to a provider as barriers to accessing abortion services. About one-quarter (28%) of women denied an abortion were eventually able to obtain one from a different provider, while the remaining three-quarters continued their pregnancy.

Quote
Which, while a good idea to support young families, will make little actual difference as no child is raised in "several months," they take years.  Women aren't lagging in pay because they give birth and are out for a few months, they lag in pay after they stay home for years getting kids from birth into school.
Which wouldn't be necessary with equal access to paid leave and free public child care so that either parent could choose to work or not as needed instead of forcing one to stay home, particularly in light of the prejudices that pressure women to be the parent that takes the hit- punishing women socially who do not choose to stay home and men socially that do.

Quote
And since none of those things address the ethical issue they are all in the category of nice to have but irrelevant.
They're relevant because they're proper uses of law. The law should not address the ethical issues here, but rather leave people free to make their own choices eve other feel that it's the wrong choice because it's impossible to assert jurisdiction without actively violating the right of the woman in question to bodily autonomy and effectively force her to serve as a breeding tank for the state once her choice in the matter is negated.

Quote
And it's odd to me that you think these are "paternalistic" restrictions.
They seek to actively dictate the behavior of others and remove personal choice from the equation in favor of enforcing on particular moral opinion where individuals should be free to be wrong in the eyes of others and handle disagreements through respectful social discourse, not legal dictat.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #455 on: February 22, 2016, 01:53:49 PM »
Quote
Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

If the child is healthy and viable and third term, she's already "had" it. 

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #456 on: February 22, 2016, 02:52:10 PM »
Quote
Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

If the child is healthy and viable and third term, she's already "had" it.
Not if it's still in her body. Having it involves it successfully exiting her body alive. You're quibbling on semantics here in a way that would change the meaning of what I said instead of addressing what I said.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #457 on: February 22, 2016, 05:09:01 PM »
Quote
Yes there is- the decision to not have a live child is justification unto itself.

If the child is healthy and viable and third term, she's already "had" it.
Not if it's still in her body.

You're quibbling on semantics and justifying homicide on a technicality.  Word games don't change the moral equation if the baby is heathy and viable, and if there's no medical threat or significant procedural inconvenience to bringing it out alive versus vivisecting it and taking it out in pieces.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #458 on: February 23, 2016, 12:33:10 PM »
You're quibbling on semantics and justifying homicide on a technicality.
No, I'm pointing to my meaning. You're the one trying to change the meaning of what I said by redefining the words that I used to suit your needs. It's not a productive game to play.Address my meaning, state your meaning; keep it honest.

I'm also not justifying anything. I could think that any given instance is completely unjustified. It doesn't matter- it's not my decision to make and I have no business forcing others to justify themselves to me, even if I disagree with their motives.

Quote
  Word games don't change the moral equation if the baby is healthy and viable, and if there's no medical threat or significant procedural inconvenience to bringing it out alive versus vivisecting it and taking it out in pieces.
Sure. I've explicitly said that the moral calculus is not relevant to my position. That's a personal matter, and people should be free to be wrong in the opinion of others. The law should have no jurisdiction over the choice, because there is no way to assert jurisdiction without a completely unacceptable violation of personal autonomy and self determination.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #459 on: February 23, 2016, 12:54:12 PM »
Quote
    Word games don't change the moral equation if the baby is healthy and viable, and if there's no medical threat or significant procedural inconvenience to bringing it out alive versus vivisecting it and taking it out in pieces.

Sure. I've explicitly said that the moral calculus is not relevant to my position. That's a personal matter,

No, that's the first time that you've stated that explicitly or clearly.  If you'd been that clear earlier, most of us would probably have saved the time and not argued with you.  The rest of us are arguing based on some mix of secular morality (the kind that says rape and murder are wrong without resort to holy writ), biology, and law.  Since you now make clear that your position is based on nothing other than your personal opinion, then nothing we say can possibly relate to you.  So why are we even talking to you?  We don't see your personal opinion as a divine oracle, and nothing we say, nor facts, law nor morality are "relevant" to your personal opinion.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #460 on: February 23, 2016, 01:01:26 PM »
I still find it interesting... 

Learning the logic people employ and their personal priorities or morality they use to reach a position is the main reason to take part in these discussions in my opinion.  It's not like most people who come to these discussions expect to change the other side's position.  Knowing how someone came to the conclusion at least has a chance of breaking out of the Us vs. Them mindset that makes the other side unreasonable obstacles to the way things should be.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #461 on: February 23, 2016, 02:07:20 PM »
I like understanding the basis of others' opinion, but if their opinion is the sole basis of their opinion, there's just nothing there for me to understand.  "because I said so" is even less interesting than it is useful.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #462 on: February 23, 2016, 02:30:51 PM »
I'm just not sure what makes the axioms Pyrtolin is working from axiomatic - what elevates them over other considerations, and what moral reasoning makes them immune to further moral calculus.

But then, if we had someone here representing the most hardline pro-life position, we'd run up against the same kind of wall. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #463 on: February 23, 2016, 02:53:15 PM »

But then, if we had someone here representing the most hardline pro-life position, we'd run up against the same kind of wall.

Agreed.  It's happened here before when I debated some pro lifer, that pro-ssm Catholic dude?  Forgot his name.  Completely hung up on a blastocyst being human because it could get turned into a human.  He got really pissy at the "every sperm is sacred" ditty.  But there's nothing relevant, really that makes an unimplanted blastocyst more "alive" or more "potentially a human being" than a sperm or an egg.  Genetics are just a detail, a scaffolding.  Makes as much sense to base human rights on haploid vs diploid DNA as on whether someone's been vaginally born or taken caesarean.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #464 on: February 23, 2016, 03:02:47 PM »
Interesting you mention that.  Recently, the Kentucky (or Tennessee) legislature entertained a bill that would require a man to have a signed letter from his wife and endure two doctor's visits explaining how viagra affects a man's ejaculatory machinery in order to get a prescription for it.  Not too long ago a bill was introduced in Oklahoma (or Arkansas, can never tell them apart, either) outlawing "spent seed" by men.   I believe that latter was offered by a woman legislator as a facetious and sarcastic counter to highlight how state legislatures like to manage women's sexual behaviors, but who knows...

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Grand jury returns criminal indictments in Planned Parenthood investigation
« Reply #465 on: February 23, 2016, 03:11:53 PM »
Interesting you mention that.  Recently, the Kentucky (or Tennessee) legislature entertained a bill that would require a man to have a signed letter from his wife and endure two doctor's visits explaining how viagra affects a man's ejaculatory machinery in order to get a prescription for it.  Not too long ago a bill was introduced in Oklahoma (or Arkansas, can never tell them apart, either) outlawing "spent seed" by men.   I believe that latter was offered by a woman legislator as a facetious and sarcastic counter to highlight how state legislatures like to manage women's sexual behaviors, but who knows...

If that's what it was, then the argument failed, since there wasn't any male uproar on the infringement on our rights.  Males are used to having their sexual expression micromanaged by society.  It only becomes outrageous when it's done to a woman.  Centuries of religious condemnation against male masturbation, much of it still taught in Christian churches, with nary a word against female masturbation.  There were feminist groups completely outraged when sexual harassment rules were enforced to protect male employees. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
http://graphics.latimes.com/planned-parenthood-videos/

Quote
The videos and court records show that Daleiden and his associates — posing as representatives of a fetal tissue brokerage — tried to loosen the tongues of abortion providers with alcohol.

In conversations, they tried to plant phrases such as “fully intact baby” and to elicit statements suggesting that fetuses were alive when their tissue and organs were harvested for use in medical research.

A comparison of raw footage and the videos he released shows that Daleiden edited out material that conflicted with his premise that Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics profit from the sale of fetal tissue for research purposes.

Daleiden, asked for comment, said: “I think our methods are really credible.” His lawyers have said Daleiden employed common tools of investigative reporting...

On Feb. 5, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco issued an injunction requested by the NAF to keep more than 500 hours of Daleiden’s unreleased footage under seal.

Orrick said the videos Daleiden has made public so far “have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions… of criminal misconduct.”

Daleiden’s “fraud” was so extensive and his videos so misleading that his still-unpublished recordings of private conversations do not warrant 1st Amendment protection as free speech, the judge said. In his order, Orrick used the words “fraud” or “fraudulently” 13 times in referring to Daleiden’s methods.

Daleiden and his associates are appealing the injunction in a bid to unseal the tapes. Meanwhile, the case is headed to trial, with the NAF seeking unspecified damages for fraud, trespassing, invasion of privacy, racketeering and other alleged offenses...

Daleiden billed an edited version of O’Donnell’s interviews as the “harrowing story of harvesting an intact brain from a late-term male fetus whose heart was still beating.”

Outtakes show he edited out her statement that the fetus was dead before the brain tissue was removed — but included her saying that the heart was briefly restarted by being tapped.

Daleiden had her describe the case repeatedly. It was then that she said: “I don’t want to tell that story again. Please don’t make me again, David.”

Daleiden replied: “That was very powerful. I think that’s going to change the world...”

In another case, Deborah VanDerhei, national director of the Consortium of Abortion Providers, was recorded saying that the organization advises clinics to think twice before accepting reimbursement for the cost of making fetal tissue donations possible.

In Daleiden’s edited video, she says: “We’re trying to figure this out as an industry about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.”

Deleted is her preceding comment that clinics should facilitate tissue donation without financial reimbursement as part of their public health mission. She said: “If remuneration can be taken off the table at all, that would be great. Can we just provide this as sort of a mission-based piece?”