If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Yeah. Mine was it takes more than accusations to change people's minds on abortion.
Somewhere in there, and I'm not sure who's fault this is, the accusation was framed as "PP broke the law". Since they didn't, I'm not surprised it didn't stick. If I can slightly modify your statement, an unfounded accusation isn't going to change minds, and I imagine we both agree that's as it should be.
What's curious to me is that AFAICT, the lead's been buried. What's damning about the videos is they show PP's policy stance, which is it's ethical to eliminate the chemical euthanasia beforehand so the fetal tissue is usable afterwards.
It's notable to me PP hasn't fielded a defense of this, nor has been pressured to. They've only been pressured on the issues they have pat defenses for. Is this illegal: no. Has this been edited: yes. Is Fiorina seemingly incapable of behaving like an adult: yes.
Seems the unedited versions are the real deal, and according to some video experts they weren't edited, except for the short versions but not taken out of context.
What's damning about the videos is they show PP's policy stance, which is it's ethical to eliminate the chemical euthanasia beforehand so the fetal tissue is usable afterwards.
It's notable to me PP hasn't fielded a defense of this, nor has been pressured to. They've only been pressured on the issues they have pat defenses for. Is this illegal: no. Has this been edited: yes. Is Fiorina seemingly incapable of behaving like an adult: yes.
Oh! Well the act of you needing to inform me creates your own answer: It a technical and nuanced detail that most people don't know about or understand.
Also, both sides have completely ignored it for far simpler and easier points.
Originally Posted by Chongo
What is it about those pictures or videos you can't stomach?
You make it sound like it's specific to abortion. You've never met someone who's squeamish before?
Oh! Well the act of you needing to inform me creates your own answer: It a technical and nuanced detail that most people don't know about or understand.
Also, both sides have completely ignored it for far simpler and easier points.
It's how the press is handling it which bothers me. I hold them to a higher standard then I hold the combatants.
Well, as I said earlier, their block grants are in shell game territory.
And as I said it earlier, it's all a shell game, which makes the point meaningless.
Not to mention if government funding were determined by whether it or not people find it morally objectionable, there's a lot of programs we'd have to cut.
It's how the press is handling it which bothers me. I hold them to a higher standard then I hold the combatants.
I just don't see how you dumb this down enough for a mass audience. I mean, I read your description, but I don't actually grasp it. You have to elaborate on a bunch of laws or regulations or something else. Right now the media isn't even doing it that well with the Clinton email scandal.
That's just too much work for something that, as it stands, is not much more than an accusation. We might see more once the investigation concludes.
If I take this to its conclusion, someone who goes to PP for a Pap smear is paying for abortions, correct?
Conclusion? That's just the tip of the iceberg. If you think the government funding PP is the same as funding abortion, of course paying for those services that the government is subsidizing would be no different.
I just don't see how you dumb this down enough for a mass audience. I mean, I read your description, but I don't actually grasp it. You have to elaborate on a bunch of laws or regulations or something else. Right now the media isn't even doing it that well with the Clinton email scandal.
That's just too much work for something that, as it stands, is not much more than an accusation. We might see more once the investigation concludes.
No laws, strictly ethics.
The standard is to do a lethal injection first, so you're not aborting a live fetus. A lethal injection will make the tissue unusable.
PP argues to its clients they shouldn't have the lethal injection performed so that the fetal tissue can be used.
Where this gets dicey is if the fetus has developed to the point it has discrete organs. The video purports to show the PP techs calling out parts as they find them.
Conclusion? That's just the tip of the iceberg. If you think the government funding PP is the same as funding abortion, of course paying for those services that the government is subsidizing would be no different.
In Missouri, the attorney general, Chris Koster, said members of the public and state lawmakers had asked his office to look into the allegations. But in a statement released on Monday, Mr. Koster said the investigation had found no evidence that a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, the only one in the state licensed to perform surgical abortions, acted unlawfully.
Why do you think abortionist fight ultrasound requirements?
Am I an abortionist, Chongo? Or am I merely some sap who has fallen for Big Abortions capitalist agenda?
Originally Posted by Chongo
Because when a woman sees that it's a baby and not a "clump of tissue," many opt not have an abortion, and the abortionist loses money.
More conspiracy nonsense. Abortion isn't about women's rights, it's about money! Except for when it's about racial suppression and eugenics.
The point is that it's pretty scummy to try put someone through emotional distress for trying to do something legal. I might also add, one ultrasound law has even been found illegal.
According to [Michelle] Bachmann, a poll by Focus on the Family, a group opposed to abortion, found that when women who were undecided about whether to end a pregnancy were shown an ultrasound of the fetus, 78% did not have the abortion.
That's quite the bullet-proof source you have there.
Why do you think abortionist fight ultrasound requirements?
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Am I an abortionist, Chongo? Or am I merely some sap who has fallen for Big Abortions capitalist agenda?
Perhaps they make you squeamish.
Because when a woman sees that it's a baby and not a "clump of tissue," many opt not have an abortion, and the abortionist loses money.
More conspiracy nonsense. Abortion isn't about women's rights, it's about money! Except for when it's about racial suppression and eugenics.
Could be all three, racist eugenicists making cash while ridding the world of what Sanger called "human weeds"
The point is that it's pretty scummy to try put someone through emotional distress for trying to do something legal. I might also add, one ultrasound law has even been found illegal.
Why would it be emotionally distressing to view an ultrasound of a "clump of tissue? "
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Some people using politics to violate the religious rights of others.
But hey, violating the individual rights of a few 'crazy hill billie' individuals is a small and acceptable price to pay for the 'greater good' of cheap and easy abortions for anyone. Bye bye individualism.
Sure is a lot of pushback for what is supposedly a small number of procedures that are at issue. What's really at play here?
My distraction detector is buzzing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This guy is not half as clever as he thinks he is.
Firstly Bill isn't stating that he believes all fertilised ova are human beings with rights, he is taking that as a common anti-choice position (which it is) and using science to explain why it shouldn't be. Because many many fertilised ova never attach in the first place, quite naturally and no-one feels the need to cry or conduct funerals for them.
I would be remiss if I didn't address this chap bringing up historical infant mortality rates which have improved immensely thanks entirely to science and not God who we clearly should infer isn't that bothered about children dying before age 5 (or indeed before age 100 or more) when we look at the evidence.
As for why no one likes abortion, well that's because society is still in the process of overcoming the stigma that is being maintained by anti-choicers that anyone having an abortion is a murderer and might be labelled such by her family members, friends or colleagues.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Some people using politics to violate the religious rights of others.
But hey, violating the individual rights of a few 'crazy hill billie' individuals is a small and acceptable price to pay for the 'greater good' of cheap and easy abortions for anyone. Bye bye individualism.
You don't pay taxes so that you can infringe on the rights of others. You pay taxes so the government can protect the rights and freedoms of everyone. This is why you often hear soldiers say "I don't like what you say but I'll die defending your right to say it."
How about a compromise, start taxing the churches and use that money to fund PP?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
You don't pay taxes so that you can infringe on the rights of others. You pay taxes so the government can protect the rights and freedoms of everyone. This is why you often hear soldiers say "I don't like what you say but I'll die defending your right to say it."
How about a compromise, start taxing the churches and use that money to fund PP?
How about taxing reservation casinos and cigarette sale. There is more money there.
Those who want to fund Planned Parenthood can do so by writing them a check each week. Better still, thay can go to HR and have money dedcuted from their check. If their company has a United Way campaign, they can designate their donation go to PP. Freescale has a "giving campaign" and we can go to the HR webpage and designate where to send money. Go here and fimd your favoriye merchant and you can select PP. eScrip - make a difference for your school or nonprofit. I desiganted my Parish school.
Some people using politics to violate the religious rights of others.
How are their rights being violated?
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
But hey, violating the individual rights of a few 'crazy hill billie' individuals is a small and acceptable price to pay for the 'greater good' of cheap and easy abortions for anyone. Bye bye individualism.
For the second time, abortions are not being funded by government money.
Which is equivalent to saying you think all monies PP receives, regardless of context, are paying for abortions, correct?
No, the opposite.
Edit: The clarify, what I'm saying is if you look at it in terms of indirectly funding abortion, the rabbit hole is endless and a rational consumer researching where their money goes would become paralyzed because it all filters down into companies or people who engage in objectionable practices.
At early stages, a pregnancy can only be detected by internal ultrasound. Forcing internal ultrasounds on women is rape. Making it a stipulation of a legal procedure just boggles the mind.
Edit: The clarify, what I'm saying is if you look at it in terms of indirectly funding abortion, the rabbit hole is endless and a rational consumer researching where their money goes would become paralyzed because it all filters down into companies or people who engage in objectionable practices.
Thank you for the clarification.
Let me present an analogy (which I'll admit, only covers the block grants, so it's half an analogy).
We have a lottery in Illinois. It's justified by the claim all profits fund education.
Here's how it works.
The lottery makes $X. That money is put into the school budget. Then, $X is taken out of the school budget and is put into the state's general fund.
This trips my jive detectors, and it appears to me this is exactly what PP is doing.
Is it okay for me to be pissed at the state for this? If I'm pissed off at the state, shouldn't I be pissed off at PP, too?
\Then, $X is taken out of the school budget and is put into the state's general fund.
I'm not sure I grasp this properly, so you might want to throw in an example with hypothetical numbers. Based on my understanding though, as long as the school budget exceeds lottery income, its technically fine.
I'm not sure I grasp this properly, so you might want to throw in an example with hypothetical numbers. Based on my understanding though, as long as the school budget exceeds lottery income, its technically fine.
Example school budget, $1,000.
Example lottery profit, $100.
$100 is transferred into school budget, school budget becomes $1,100.
$100 is transferred out of school budget into general state budget. Final school budget $1,000.
To me, this is pulling a fast one. Maybe it's technically okay, but is utterly violating the spirit of the claim the lottery funds are being spent on education.
Example school budget, $1,000.
Example lottery profit, $100.
$100 is transferred into school budget, school budget becomes $1,100.
$100 is transferred out of school budget into general state budget. Final school budget $1,000.
To me, this is pulling a fast one. Maybe it's technically okay, but is utterly violating the spirit of the claim the lottery funds are being spent on education.
I imagine all this is done before a final budget is approved. If this is done after the fund are allocated, I'd think that's illegal.
I agree its violating the spirit of the claim, but the problem I see is they're using the lottery to shirk their budgetary responsibilities to education.
Semi-related side question: Does PP operate the abortion arm at a loss? Because that's the only way I see an opening for criticism.
Why does the state have a right to force women to undergo ultrasounds?
Do you believe making access to Planned Parenthood's non-abprtive services harder to get will improve or worsen the abortion rate?
The state has the right to regulate medical pocedures.
Who said anything about reducing access to non abortion services? PP is the one who claims abortion is "only 3% of what we do" I suggested they could focus on providing the "97% of the vital services they provide to to women" and leave the abortions to hosptals.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
At early stages, a pregnancy can only be detected by internal ultrasound. Forcing internal ultrasounds on women is rape. Making it a stipulation of a legal procedure just boggles the mind.
I imagine all this is done before a final budget is approved. If this is done after the fund are allocated, I'd think that's illegal.
I agree its violating the spirit of the claim, but the problem I see is they're using the lottery to shirk their budgetary responsibilities to education.
Semi-related side question: Does PP operate the abortion arm at a loss? Because that's the only way I see an opening for criticism.
My back of the napkin calculations are it's a wash. Abortion income looks to cover about a quarter of their operating expenses.
The rub with the block grants isn't limited to them being an abortion provider. Overall, PP operates at a significant profit, or in NPO terms, operates with excess income.
How significant? It's more excess income than what they get in block grants.
I think she's saying ultrasound detection needs to be internal.
If you require an ultrasound for an abortion at, say, 10 weeks, the ultrasound needs to be internal.
Correct, since the point of the punitive ultrasound is to get a picture of your little blob of joy/anguish, and as far as I know, peeing on a stick technology has not advanced to the point of delivering quality images.
How significant? It's more excess income than what they get in block grants.
If that's the case then they don't need the grants, there are other programs that would benefit more from them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I think she's saying ultrasound detection needs to be internal.
If you require an ultrasound for an abortion at, say, 10 weeks, the ultrasound needs to be internal.
They already know they are pregnant when they go in for an abortion, yes? Using andi"s definition, the patient is raped with the ultrasound wand in order to perform your decribed 10 week abortion.