Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

Okay, let me try this again: Medical research doesn't cause abortions.

Out of the survey you sent me, which woman indicated "advancing medical research" as a driving cause of seeking an abortion?

Medical research salvages something from an abortion that is going to happen anyways. You've never asserted what you think criminalizing abortion would look like and why it would be so successful after past failures in mass incarceration or why it would reduce the abortion rate and now you're advocating criminalization without imprisonment or soft advocacy?

Last point, saving tissue is saving lives.
Infant mortality in the 1900s in America was 165 in 1000 live births. In 2000, it was 7.

You specified outcomes and not how to get there. Is the way to promote "responsible sexual behavior" abstinence-only education that correlates with high unintentional pregnancies and higher STD rates? Is the way to embrace parenthood responsibilities cutting food aid programs for children? How are you going to increase adoption rates?

Everybody in the world agrees that there should be more prosperity for all, but how do you get there?

Your interest may be in saving lives: that's what gets doctors and scienticts who train for years in their field up every day of their life. What are you advocating with your interest and what you do with it and how it actually translates to impact matters much more than what you originally set out to do.

 

Giddy keeps referring to fetuses as babies, they are not. The real fact is, life or death makes no difference to them, none, zip, zilch , nada. They literally do not care. Saying they do is identifying for them, anthropomorphism.

It's really the mothers that matter here. I do think that abortion is psychologically hard if not devastating for them though I don't know. I would be a very difficult choice for them between aborting a potential offspring or raising one without the desire to. I thank Planned Parenthood for taking the responsibility for helping, both in prevention and after conception. I wouldn't want to impose on that decision once the societal needs of legality are met.

 

You go to school with kids for years and years, you get to know them. There are rumor mills... make that mill... ONE.

 

Was "normative" your word of the day recently?

One ought not take the law into one's own hands because that is vigilantism and we have a court system for that kind of thing. Is that wrong argumentation, too?

 

Not sure why you beat on this so much... look in this thread and see how often valuable medical research initiatives are used to justify and defend a liberal, on-demand abortion policy. Who are you kidding?

To satisfy you, let's restate: Desire for the use of fetal tissue for medical research galvanizes the stand for a liberal abortion policy.

As always, if you have the policy you will have the event. That's why speeding, tax evasion, and murder are not on a choice platform.

 

Would you say the same about a one minute old newborn?

You left adoption out of the mix.

 

A liberal abortion policy is correlated with low abortion rates.

No.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Even your examples highlight the nature of that. There is between $12 trillion to $20 trillion hidden in secret offshore economies: for all of the criminalization, the problem of tax evasion is entrenched in society.

More speeding laws/signs actually cause more accidents.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0625/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents

As for your last point, if you consider an abortion murder, then what is a miscarriage? Manslaughter?

While we're at this juncture, you've never ever offered a hint of any policy you'd embrace beyond suggesting that 1/3 of women in America deserve to be imprisioned--would you prefer a light slap on the wrist and a fine, or a forced adoption law instead of a set of policies that have been shown to decrease abortions, infant mortality and adverse maternal health outcomes?

 

Bull$hit. Women lose right to decide what happens in their own body. I'll give her that choice over your morals every single time.

 

The girls get an education rather than a lifelong commitment. People who simply aren't ready to bring a child into this world aren't forced to do so by the government.

The point SHOULD be all of us, pro-choice and pro-life, working together to make abortion as rare as possible. Instead, we fight over it, to our detriment.

 

Yeah, you know who else deserves a right? The baby.

Wake up.

 

1. There is no way that a liberal abortion policy is causal to lower abortion rates. You are dragging a bunch of stuff under that policy umbrella like sex education and contraception distribution which are good things because they PREVENT pregnancy. Easy access to abortion will in NO WAY reduce the likelihood or number of abortions.

2. YES-- don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not saying 100% follow through with abortion, but it is only common sense that we LEGALIZE abortion so that abortions can be PERFORMED. Really, do you not get that?

3. So are you also trying to assert that if we de-criminalize tax evasion that FEWER people will take advantage of those low, low tax rates and lessened scrutiny in those off-shore havens? Of course, you are NOT SAYING that because even MORE dollars would make their way out of our monetary system because it would be less risky and easier to do... just like abortion on demand.

4. I doubt this "research." At any rate, you are comparing the rote, daily behavior of driving with an occasional moral crossroads of an unwanted pregnancy. Hard to think of two things less alike.

5. A miscarriage is an act of nature-- same as a lightning strike that kills you or a shark attack. Sometimes those things happen.

6. I'm not so arrogant as to profess to know the solution to a large and complex problem. I'm more dedicated to preventing the problem. Somebody's got to be willing to do that, but of course you criticize!

 

You totally overlook adoption... again.... in this dramatic life-sentence you like to attach to birthing a child. Making it sound like punishment... AGAIN.

I should also hasten to point out that BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT these girls are not free to hang out at Starbucks all day INSTEAD of going to school until after the turn 16-- that would be control of their bodies and their mnds. Where is your uproar over that?

 

I'd also correlate it with societies that empower women and mothers rather than shaming them. It's really hard to have the former if you want to stipulate laws that control their most intimate interactions with their own body. Easy access to abortion removes the stigma and shame associated with abortion and relegates it to data and medicine where it belongs.

Societies that adapt that view have lower abortion rates.

Do you not get that state sanctioning or punishment of certain activities doesn't mean that activity isn't going to be performed? It just won't be performed in a state-sanctioned medical facility. You have no points on this, and you haven't examined the pre Roe v Wade world and how that compares to Western Euroipe at all.

You think of "legalization" as the abberant policy. In reality, criminalization is the policy that made no sense, and continues to make no sense.

People use tax havens because of tax evasion laws lol. It's kinda all or nothing at that point--either your money is in the country or most of it isn't. To the extent that authorities have had some success getting that money back, it is through amnesty programs. It is entirely possible that removing the criminalization of tax evasion would lead to a net plus in tax revenue though that would be dependant on the data and studies of the exact implications, not heresay and conjucture.

The main point I was driving forward is that this sort of activity will proceed whether or not government sanctions it and your reasoning is flawed to think that if you have the policy ("tax evasion laws") you will always have the event ("reduced tax evasion").

Banging on my point again, your reasoning is flawed if you think that if you have the policy ("more traffic laws") you will always have the event ("reduced traffic accidents").

I haven't seen you propose any data for your views, when that changes, could you be so kind as to elaborate on your concerns with research methodology?

And on your last point ("hard to think of two things less alike"), I wasn't the one who brought it up.

Yes, and sometimes mothers through the consumption of medications and substances will have causal patterns that lead to miscarriages. Sometimes societal burdens will cause it--like having to still work when you're pregnant. If you want to compare abortion to murder, think through more of what you're saying.

This has already lead to certain states locking women up, the perfect next step to a society that values motherhood.

Though I suppose if traffic laws have nothing to do with abortion, murder doesn't either.

In the next post, you go on about your adoption stance. In previous posts you have implied, at various times, jailtime for women, better sex ed, and more contraceptives. Is this how you are going about "preventing the problem"--half-refusing to think about rational ways to do it when challenged, then coming up with ad hoc solutions as you go?

"somebody's got to be willing to do that"--high horse much? Those scienticts and doctors you so casually refer to as Mengeles have spent their entire lives to work on saving infants and mothers. You're not the only one with noble intentions--and they're doing something productive about theirs.

 

Fetus is not babby

 

So you would give her that choice the day before the child is born? Or has your simplistic logic again been blown to bits?

 

Northside Storm

I'd also correlate it with societies that empower women and mothers rather than shaming them. It's really hard to have the former if you want to stipulate laws that control their most intimate interactions with their own body. Easy access to abortion removes the stigma and shame associated with abortion and relegates it to data and medicine where it belongs.

Societies that adapt that view have lower abortion rates.

So you admit it is all about creating a perception which makes an abomination acceptable and normal.



Do you not get that state sanctioning or punishment of certain activities doesn't mean that activity isn't going to be performed? It just won't be performed in a state-sanctioned medical facility. You have no points on this, and you haven't examined the pre Roe v Wade world and how that compares to Western Euroipe at all.

You think of "legalization" as the abberant policy. In reality, criminalization is the policy that made no sense, and continues to make no sense.

Killing babies is definitely the aberration. You guys keep labeling me as the raging criminalizer. I don't prefer that; remember I married one. You keep putting the onus on me, so why don't you propose solutions that will eliminate this horrible action taken against the most innocent among us; they can't even see it coming. Unless, of course, you think it is inconsequential that a young thing loses it's life due to a lifestyle choice.



People use tax havens because of tax evasion laws lol. It's kinda all or nothing at that point--either your money is in the country or most of it isn't. To the extent that authorities have had some success getting that money back, it is through amnesty programs. It is entirely possible that removing the criminalization of tax evasion would lead to a net plus in tax revenue though that would be dependant on the data and studies of the exact implications, not heresay and conjucture.

The main point I was driving forward is that this sort of activity will proceed whether or not government sanctions it and your reasoning is flawed to think that if you have the policy ("tax evasion laws") you will always have the event ("reduced tax evasion").

LOL? Tax evasion laws followed the use of tax havens. Amnesty might bring back the money because your hand is in the cookie jar. What's going to bring back that dead baby? Yeah, I thought so...


Banging on my point again, your reasoning is flawed if you think that if you have the policy ("more traffic laws") you will always have the event ("reduced traffic accidents").

I haven't seen you propose any data for your views, when that changes, could you be so kind as to elaborate on your concerns with research methodology?

And on your last point ("hard to think of two things less alike"), I wasn't the one who brought it up.

You're the one who tried to correlate them... thus my point about the disparity. The principle is solid. Important things are not just left up to choice.


Yes, and sometimes mothers through the consumption of medications and substances will have causal patterns that lead to miscarriages. Sometimes societal burdens will cause it--like having to still work when you're pregnant. If you want to compare abortion to murder, think through more of what you're saying.

This has already lead to certain states locking women up, the perfect next step to a society that values motherhood.

Everything is easy when you make it only about the mother. There's a baby, too.

Though I suppose if traffic laws have nothing to do with abortion, murder doesn't either.

Only in that to choose to flaunt traffic laws is a crime whereas a baby's right to life is not held in the same esteem as coming to a full stop at a stop sign.


In the next post, you go on about your adoption stance. In previous posts you have implied, at various times, jailtime for women, better sex ed, and more contraceptives. Is this how you are going about "preventing the problem"--half-refusing to think about rational ways to do it when challenged, then coming up with ad hoc solutions as you go?

I probably give more thought to it than you do to the consequences of taking that young life. As I've said it is a complex problem, one to which I don't have the temerity to claim a solution. How do you guys feel about all those dead babies that are littering the path to self-determination?

"somebody's got to be willing to do that"--high horse much? Those scienticts and doctors you so casually refer to as Mengeles have spent their entire lives to work on saving infants and mothers. You're not the only one with noble intentions--and they're doing something productive about theirs.

High horse? You guys keep telling me to do something else while i prefer to stick to this specific aspect. Someone has to do it or you guys would shovel over the main thing.. which is the young life sacrificed.

 

Oh get off it, as much as you'd like to believe your own rhetoric, I guarantee your daily actions don't hold life nearly as dear.

 

This is like a high school kid debating a college professor. One talking in a circle like a dog chasing a tail while the other keep progressing on the points.

 

I take it that you think I'm the high school kid or do you mean they guy who thinks that tax evasion began after tax evasion laws were written? I have slaughtered every one of his arguments, overturned them and washed them away with a hose.

You are overly impressed by the length of time and the volume of words he uses to try and make his points.

Example? I keep asking for a straightforward answer as to how a liberal abortion policy will reduce the number of abotions. No answer.... yet.

He is hiding behind, I think, broader sex education and birth control handed out like Halloween candy (both of which I favor) but crediting a liberal abortion policy with inroads in the reduction of abortions being performed. As they say, "that don't float."

I ask again and anyone can answer it... how does a liberal and open policy toward abortion contribute to the reduction of abortions which has been claimed? Anyone?

The only thing he "wins" on is the issue of medical research because that could be lost if indeed there is not enough naturally available fetal tissue through natural losses of pregnancies.

Do you guys always go for the shiny object? You are so in love with what you see as a progressive stance that you fail to see the horror trailing it.

 

This ad hominem attack is a bit vague. Can you sharpen it? BTW, I did kill two homeless people, a stray dog and a box of kittens last month which is pretty good considering I was out of town a couple of time. :grin: