Planned Parenthood Director caught on tape selling aborted baby parts

They don't need to... They have their SIMPs posting for them.

 

texxx, you're not a scientict or doctor but you should know by now that viability hasn't changed significantly in decades--but if it were to it'd be due to scientific research not shame-based politics.

And for god's sake, the whole "inserting fetal parts into baby tissue", please inform yourself about what fetal tissue transfer actually means.

 

The better question to ask is how could you sleep at night with all the "blood" on your hands and the conviction of criminalizing doctors and women? Everybody can sleep well knowing what the alternative is: ineffective criminalization that won't decrease abortions but will increase suffering across the board.

 

Tax havens and tax evasion are different concepts. You can have the latter without the former. One does imply a systematized way to escape ALL taxes thanks to certain regulations, a way that has been entrenched in the developed world ironically.

Let me tackle your point head-on here so as to avoid any of your confusion about how a liberal abortion policy can cause lower abortion rates.

There are three causal mechanisms to how Switzerland lowered the abortion rate that can be isolated.

Note that in 2002, abortions were completely legalized de jure and de facto, and now all legal abortions are covered under the mandatory health care scheme. That has only decreased the abortion rate.

1) The avalibility of the morning-after pill without prescription

2) Having a medical system that accepts and embraces legal abortion and which actually delegates gynocologists instead of GPs to reproductive desicions

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fertility-matters_the-secret-of-switzerland-s-low-abortion-rate/33585760

3) The strong socialeconomic status of women and motherhood which means better welfare policies for families.

So instead of this:

Republicans Vote To Cut Food Aid To Women, Children

you have this:

Swiss consider welfare overhaul with guaranteed income

So do you, now that you've amply said you support sex education and handing out contraceptives like "candy" accept the need for stronger welfare initiatives/higher tax rates in America , the need for a healthcare system that treats abortions as a medical procedure so that gynocologists instead of doctors willing to risk their practice and lives can talk with women about the choices they have, and the need to have morning-after pills available without prescription (or is that another form of murder to you again?)

Do you accept that even if you hold these views half-mockingly that your typical pro-life consitituency in the Republican Party has tried to make sure ALL of the three above don't come to pass?

If you want to do something about this, and put your money where your mouth is, I suggest a donation to Planned Parenthood. Or, hey, http://www.marchofdimes.org/. The same organization plenty of "pro-life" groups have boycotted because well,

Talk is cheap. What are you going to do about yours?

 

I want you to focus very hard on my three arguments above and my call to action so you stop running around in circles.

With that said, I want to emphasize that this part of your argument is so non-sensical it makes me worry as to your reasoning bending completely due to emotionality.

1) You were the one who first brought up this point so stop asking how speeding correlates with your own argument:

Your argument was

You have never contested why you think the research on road signs causing more road accidents was "false" based on methodology, leading me to assume you have simply shielded yourself from inconsistent evidence for no reason.

You've never contested how Portugal decreased drug abuse rates by half by legalizing all drugs. Both examples run completely counter to this (at least plausible-sounding example) "if you have legalization" -> "you'll have the event" logic. I have more examples of why this statement is completely false that don't even need you to understand the distinction between tax evasion and tax havens.

But now you've traded this false statement for a principle that actually makes you a dangerously irrational thinker. "Important things are not just left up to choice."

what, like the political representation of a nation (democracy), the selection of scientific papers (peer review), and the modern economic system (capitalism/markets)?

First, you fail to understand that criminalization doesn't close choices it merely adds sadistic punishment to one--a sadistic punishment that hasn't been shown to work. It in no way closes the door to abortions.

More importantly, if you come out of this discussion with the notion that "important things are not just left up to choice" as a general principle to avoid your weak argumentation, I actually worry for how you'll square away that piece of reasoning with your implied belief system.

Of course, if you're an anti-science, theocratic, state-controlled economy thinker, maybe my misgivings are misplaced.

 

I didn't "automatically jump" to anything. You inferred incorrectly.

Of course, but as you are probably aware, drawing the line at conception will be a non-starter.

Because we began considering women's rights. There is a non-zero probability that it could change back, but that chance is so low that it shouldn't be seen as a realistic option.

For me, it will be perfectly OK to make abortion illegal when medical science can harvest the embryo or fetus and then bring it to term outside the woman. Until then, women have (and deserve to have) the choice of whether their uterus will be used to do so.

Making abortion illegal is unreasonable. The "pro-life stance" is not. You're welcome to believe what you like, you're just not welcome to force your morals or beliefs on other people.

 

Outlier was the one who posted the 6 week heartbeat point. Luckily, his opinion is an outlier.

 

Of course. As technology changes and improves, a great many things that weren't possible a century or a decade ago are commonplace today. In a hundred years, a great many things will be possible that aren't with our current technology. There is no good argument for policy remaining static in changing circumstances. That's the beauty of our Constitution, it was designed to evolve with the times.

The next time you post a logical point on this topic will be your first. You're still limited to two sentence posts devoid of any reasoning whatsoever.

Try again, rookie.

 

A "haven" is a relative term. People often choose to move to Texas or Florida because there is no state income tax. I've never heard it postulated that having no state income tax was a growth strategy by the state. There is an inclination to move to a place that is less punitive be it taxes or weather.

None of what you detailed in your explanation about a liberal abortion policy is , in fact, about abortion: morning after pills, delegation of duties, and greater welfare. You are just opening up a big umbrella and assigning credit where you want it assigned.

Morning after pills in fact supplant abortion often and are virtually identical although seemingly less violent. Having greater welfare is only going to create more irresponsibility and lack of accountability which logically results in more of the undesirable behavior. It doesn't really matter who performs the abortion. The result is the same.

All you do is create pretty little justifications for your position while still overlooking the root violence of it.

 

Damn man, you didn't mention it; instead you commiserate about the life sentence that a pregnancy carried to full term meant for the mother It ain't so.

The battle goes on...

 

One wacko study generates one wacko theory. I don't know about where you live but all of our traffic signs are still up and "running!" You've thrown all your weight behind one outlier study that shakily proves a point you want to make?

Unlike you, I'm not trying to write a treatise to back my point. Unlike you I'm not trying to distort a message by taking it out of context.

Football time. Outta here.

 

You haven't, up to this point, produced any data beyond one survey.

Which makes me think you'll never go to the effort of enacting or fighting for changes with your thinking.

It's totally fine then: enjoy the football game

 

I didn't even mention a "life sentence," stop trying to put words into my mouth and discuss what I ACTUALLY said, not what you imagined I said.

 

To wrap up:

No, Florida is not a tax haven. A tax haven isn't just lower tax rates, it's a set of regulations and laws that make money opaque by default.

You're proving my point that pro-life constituencies are themselves an umbrella of policies that increase abortion rates.

You wanted exact causal mechanisms. And now you've proven to yourself that you're against policies that work to reduce the abortion rate. There's really nothing more to add here. You're blinded by ideology and driven away from outcomes that work: nothing I can do can change that.

If morning after pills are "virtually identical" to abortion, then you may as well forbid masturbation and say that you are against "giving out contraceptives like candy". The morning after pill is a contraceptive that prevents fertilization. If you're against preventing fertilization you are against contraceptives because assumably anything that prevents fertilization is also an abortion (???).

Countries with stronger social-economic backing of women and who put their money where their mouth is have lower abortion rates, I just gave you an exact example. You can choose to ignore this as long as you want. You'd do anything for "babies" except pay more tax.

It actually does matter who counsels women on reproductive choices: nobody in a system where abortions are illegal or a gynecologist in a legalized system. That is according to, you know, an actual doctor.

What root violence? The root violence of having more abortions and more people in jail for no reason?

Enjoy your Sunday

 

The heart of the matter is not in the data. The data only evidences the recklessness and irresponsibility that you want everyone else to pay for "but" the persons responsible.

It's kind of like that thing that once you tell a lie, you have to pile up a bunch of lies to make the initial one pass muster. If people "took care of their own business" we wouldn't need this complex maze of responses from the rest of us.

To address the traffic signal debate: I made a point that we make all kind of rules to limit behavior. Don't believe me? Go to the nearest lawyers office and ask him/her to stack up the law books. Only in that simple way are abortion and traffic signals alike but then just about everything is alike in that way so there's really nothing to see there.

Then you come up with this minor study which suggests that having not traffic signs/laws/rules at all works just as fine. Mildly interesting I suppose but it hasn't changed the direction of what we do about managing traffic.

As I recall, you tried to use that as an analog for liberal abortion policies... which I challenged because the rote following of driving patterns for minutes or hours of every day is not at all like the ethical decision that one faces with a pregnancy... a few times in a lifetime... for just some. One is learned behavior while the other is a monumental decision. That is how they are not alike and that is how you tried to twist my meaning.

I just checked: we still have traffic signs all up and down the road. I'm going to check the highway later.

 

Post 709 Kimo Sabe:

 

Just because something is here in the present doesn't mean it works well or it can't be improved. You looking out at the fact that there are traffic signs now doesn't mean anything.

This sums up my viewpoint on government regulation quite accurately FWIW.

http://beyondtransparency.org/chapters/part-5/open-data-and-algorithmic-regulation/

If you actually read through it, you'll understand exactly why I think current traffic laws are inefficient, and exactly why I think abortion criminalization would be too (not to mention unduly cruel).

Lastly, I didn't use your traffic comparison as an analog of liberal abortion policies. You misunderstood me. I used it to tell you that an increase in government regulations doesn't always lead to an increase in favorable outcomes directly countering your point ("if you have the policy, you always have the event"--policy = criminalizing abortions -> event = less abortions or the inverse, policy = laissez-faire on abortions -> event = more abortions.). I've countered that point from both sides now, and you haven't responded to either.

This gets to my larger point which is just because you have a certain ideology and just because you think it feels right--it doesn't mean your ideology translates into favorable outcomes at all.

You can spend your entire life bemoaning "irresponsibility" and you won't change a single thing. If it makes you feel good to do so, go right ahead. If you want to make even the smallest iota of impact, consider changing your thinking.

 

Yes I did. You set forth a law which allows abortions, regardless of how liberal or stringent the law is, you are going to have abortions. All these pro-Choice apologists pretend that having a Choice doesn't necessarily mean an abortion... maybe in any one case, but overall we've had over fifty million.

Banning abortions will not stop them entirely but it is the ethical choice to make... just like parenting a child you create or lovingly giving it to eater parents who want to adopt is an ethical choice to make. There is no other ethical choice for a civilized people.

If we let kids 12 and up buy cigarettes, would the number of people under 21 smoking cigarets go up or down? Legalizing behavior can do nothing but increase the behavior.

 

That highly depends on what 'behavior' you are referring to.

The only thing making abortions illegal will accomplish is increase the number of back alley abortions. It's that simple. Abortion rates for countries where it is illegal is the same as countries where it isn't. Banning a procedure for those who are considering the procedure won't sway them to stop because of what is at stake for them. You need to be able to step in the shoes of someone who sees abortion as their only option. Just think of what is going through the mind of a 16 year old pregnant girl who wants an abortion. The legality of it is not going to stop them. It's no where similar to breaking traffic laws. Not going ten over the speed limit is not going to alter the rest of my life, hence I am not compelled to break the law and go ten over. The stakes are 20 fold for a pregnant teenager who wants to abort. Legality isn't going to dissuade them.

 

What about correcting her perception so that she sees that she has other "choices" besides abortion? Staining our national character with the blood of aborted babies is no accomplishment.